Amazing documentary sir.... I'm a 24years old girl from India... I thank God for your life for bringing to the world more and more detailed information about our Messiah.. Praise be toh the Kind of kings ❤👑
You have much knowledgeable books in india. Feel shame to accept slavery from foreign country people. Here is what your holy book says, regarding father and daughter relation. Gen 19:31-33): And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The eldest daughter names her son Moab (מואב), which means “from my father.” explicitly pointing to the union as an incestuous one. The younger names her son Ben-Ammi בן עמי, which means “son of my clan,” a more veiled reference to the situation
Sorry..but I found lies on them. Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get....
@@itsme.4285 I'm only comparing to islam as an example. I'm not saying that you are muslim. The quran states explicitly that not a single thing can be changed in it. This is NOT a problem with the Bible. Not one scholar, including muslim scholars, claim that the Bible has the same claim. The message is 100% unchanged. If you want to go by textual criticism then this also is not a problem as you will have the Centurion, later in Mark, saying "Certainly this was God's Son." and other examples that show - 'The Son of God' There is absolutely NO confusion on this. If a new doctrine was introduced then that is a problem. Are you Atheist, muslim, hindi? Just curious. Nice to meet and may the Peace of Jesus Christ be upon you my friend.
Against the notion that Sinaiticus was one of the 50 copies prepared by Eusebius: (1) Sinaiticus has the (in)famous Alexandrian reading in Mt. 27:49; Eusebius' Canons do not. (2) Sinaiticus doesn't have Mark 15:28 but it appears in the Eusebian Canons. (3) The text of the opening chapters of John in Sinaiticus are of the "Western" text-type, implying that the main Gospels-exemplar was damaged and a second exemplar was resorted to an this point (i.e., these chapters). It is unlikely that a damaged exemplar would be the basis for an imperially commissioned project of 50 copies. (4) Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas but these books were regarded by Eusebius as disputed, or /notha/. It is very doubtful that Eusebius would include them in codices that were meant specifically for churches to use. (5) The Eusebian Canon-section-numbers that appear in Codex Sinaiticus are so messed up that it is nigh-inconceivable how they could have been added, in the form in which they were added (during production), if Eusebius himself were involved. Also, as J. Rendel Harris said, Tischendorf's story about Sinaiticus being in danger of being burned by the monks of St. Catherine's is very very likely a complete myth. Also, the website doesn't quite have the complete text of the main scribe of Sinaiticus; the last page of John can only be seen with ultraviolet light. T.C. Skeat made just such an ultraviolet-light-enhanced photograph, so his essays can be consulted for that little detail.
Wow, that was very detailed and I applaud you for being ever so slight about your approach but let me expound in a rougher manner. Tischendorf was a Catholic paid employee. There's many letters of his between people where he says he's a Mary worshipper which is antithetical to the bible as we know it. He was great friends with Wescott and Hort who are the ones who would eventually butcher the modern bibles. Interestingly enough this document was mostly discovered in 1844 which is a very interesting year in which so many pro God movements started but just as many anti God movements were started but thats not anything definitive. The fact is this and Vaticanus are nearly identical which they are also nearly identical to the Vulgate and that's all Roman Catholic and not to be trusted. The beauty of the textus receptus is it was written or interpreted by a Catholic priest from Basel Germany but the kind of Catholic like Luther not the other kind. The Vatican thought he was just using the Vulgate to write this new translation but he barely used the vulgate and instead used 1000s of byzantine texts that were hidden in the Hague Sophia during the Ottoman Turks reign and Rome was never able to get their hands on them or even know they existed. Rome is trying to remove the end section of Mark because of the resurrection. They want to take away Jesus' sacrifice on the cross... plus Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 combined proved Jesus crucifixion on Wednesday and resurrection on Saturday night and they want to keep that hidden forever. It's a shame 99% of people use the new translation and have no clue.
Sianiticus is also missing Mark 16; 9-20, Acts 8; 37 and many other verses. Please watch David Daniels from Chick Publications in Rancho Cucamunga CA. he gives excellent support for the truth of Sianiticus.
Yes you do not burn Vellum, that was a total lie by Tischendorf. The binding tells you it is a much later work, but the writer being a live when this was going on proves it is from the very early 1840's Tischendorf's stories do not hold up to research and we know he stole other items of worth as well.
This wasn't God's work, this was the work of the anti power. You should really do a deep study on this codex and the codex vaticanus that by some miracle are both nearly identical in many many ways. It's not a miracle actually, it's most likely because they were written by the same Jesuit sometime around 1450 give or take a few years.
Sorry..but I found lies on them. Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get...
It said the women got scared and didn't tell the others. Strange ,that's the main thing. Go tell the others and they didn't. Hmm. I to am with you on this.
The problem with those early manuscripts is that we know little about them. As several of these videos have detailed and similar to archeology world there is too much money and fame involved. The dead sea scrolls are an example of pure text as they were not under any influence as no one knew about them. These Codex have been edited, so how can they be determined as reliable? God has perfectly preserved His gospel for us, read it, believe it.
Lots of problems with Sinaiticus: the end of Mark is missing 12 verses, the color has been changed, but most suspicious i that scribe 'A" skipped from 1st Chronicles 19:17 to Ezra 9:9. this skip of 24 chapters is in the middle of a column in the middle of a line. o no fragment here. The point is if there is this big of a mistake here can you really trust its authenticity?
Educating the public enhances humanity in many different branches of life, wisdom, and knowledge for future generation. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. May God Bless You All with health, work, love, harmony, peace among one another, and deep wisdom to understand your work of study, so you can keep educating the public with the virtues God wants humanity to live by. Eda F. and family
n u will find that there is difference between modern Bible n that Codex.. Example: Mark 1:1 in the modern Bible tells: " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus tells: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no : son of God in the Codex Sinaiticus for Mark 1:1...
@@itsme.4285 he did say there will be variations but still same meaning. Both versions still talks about Jesus even though “the Son of God” was added on doesn’t take away the fact that they’re talking about Jesus.
In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Bing search
It is quite remarkable that you are able to know who used Sinaiticus during the nearly one thousand seven hundred years of its existence, and also whether or not they were "true believers". Have you read Sinaiticus? Do you have enough knowledge of Greek to know how to read it and understand it? I have read the whole of the New Testament and large sections of the Old Testament of Sinaiticus and your comment that it is "so full of errors, alterations and deletions" is totally misleading. As it was copied (by three copyists), each page was checked by another copyist and errors were corrected. I found the same text and the same message as in a modern print of the Greek New Testament, such as NA28/UBS5. You speak of "these two codices". Which is the other one to which you refer? Have you read it, too?
@@koinegreekbible We don't know the provenance of that text, so we have no idea of the faith of its creators. If it had been used in the Divine liturgy for 1400 years, it would have worn out. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Indeed, it clearly was not used throughout 1400 years; it seems to have been largely ignored by the monks in St Helen's monastery, and that has protected those pages that were not removed by them to be used for other purposes, including to bind the spine of newer volumes. For them it was just very old and not very pretty, as it didn't have any of the gold lettering and ornate illustrations that became popular in subsequent centuries. It is however an extremely early text and our earliest copy - by hundreds of years! - of the complete New Testament. It is therefore an extremely important witness to the earliest text. Thank you for sharing blessings.
Is there any record, or copy of the edict from Constantine demanding these 50 copies? It would likely be in Latin, but from other historical events, most of his rule was not as a Christian ... and I have heard that he did not create the Catholic or unified church, until later in his rule, to bring about a 'state' religion for the empire. It would make a great lead in to present the evidence of the edict.
Where can we find the text online to read ? I can’t seem to find it. And where is the original version of this video without a voice over. Just doing in depth research on the subject.
It shows that if we have evidence someone added something after the fact, it is noted for transparency. We have enough copies that show a common meaning that if someone did change a text, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Therefore, we have overwhelming evidence that the current Word is accurate.
It wasn’t added to later editions lmao please do research before asking a question based on a false proposition. The earliest manuscripts had the verse you’re talking about and some didn’t.
I love the way people agree with their own ideas and implications about others, then themselves without asking nor of the questions can't be asked, then not imply ar all
The last several minutes make the assertion that there are no significant changes in the Sinaiticus and what we have in our Bibles today. The speaker ignores the fact that the Sinaiticus does not have the last 12 verses of the book of Mark that our Bibles today have.
there is corruption like John, 9:35, and John 9:38 change and omitted it says Son of Man, not son of God. And 9:38 not part of the text you are going to find it in the footnote
Yes, to say that no story has been added is misleading. There are several stories that appear only in later texts, proving that significant alterations as well as small, insignifical spelling mistakes have been made over time. Also Codex Sinaiticus contains books in New Testament that today's Bibles don't have.
I first heard of these scriptures from Billy Carson & the Sinai Bible doesn't have a crucifixion. Looking into further myself I've found claim that the man that found these scriptures wrote them himself... has this book been verified as being as old as claimed ?
No, watch a documentary called the great bible hoax of 1881. The claim is a man name Simonedes wrote this as elaborate gifts for a Russian Czar but were most likely for the Vatican. These are basically copies of the Codex Vaticanus which is a copy of the Vulgate. The catholic church wants to be the Christ on earth so they want to take away Jesus' resurrection. It's obviously a fraud. The claim was the monks were using the book to light fires but somehow he still saved it. It's obviously a lie. Adullam films covers this very well. I wouldn't say everything he says is gospel but he's very reliable.
Also they try to remove Mark 15 and the rest of the book. This does 2 things, it removes the resurrection and Mark 16:1 plus Luke 23:56 prove the day of the week of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Matthew 12:40 is the length of how long Jesus was to be in the tomb. Luke 19:31 explains the day after his crucifixion wasn't a regular Sabbath it was a feast day Sabbath which in conjunction with Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 shows Jesus was crucified on Wednesday near sunset and Rose Saturday near sunset which debunks all of church traditions
Silly . The Apostolic Tradition is what is true, passed on from the Christ through the Apostles down to those who learned at gheir feet, figuratively, like Polycarp and Ignatius. Jesus rose late Sat night which is Sunday. Sunday starts on what we call Sat night by Jewish custom. Thus the midnight resurection liturgy of the oldest Christian church. At the stroke of midnight Christ has risen! Is sung out with great joy. From the earliest times unbroken until now. Mark is the oldest gospel and my educated guess is that his is the story leading to the Resurrection. All the Christians knew what came next. Or else why be Christian? Internal audience to tell what led up to the glorious Easter/ Pascha. No one called it Easter at the time. The others were a bit later adding in other details and for both the education of the new church members but also looking outward as it grew into new lands and people. As John says near the end of his beautiful Gospel that there would be needed many volumes to tell all that Jesus said and did.
As stated in another reply, I don't know who Billy Carson is, but if he says that the Sinai Bible doesn't have a crucifixion, he can't have read it. I have. The same accounts are in it as in any accurate modern translation. This could not have been written by Tischendorf and not a single informed scholar or academic historian accepts such nonsense claims, which go against totally overwhelming and relatively recent evidence (1840s to the present day). It has been verified by the British Museum and subsequently by the British Library as being as old as claimed - from the fourth century (approximately 340-350 AD/CE).
This is a very interesting documentary, however in emphasizing the role of the codex in proving the consistency of the modern Bible it fails to note a glaring problem. The codex includes two books that were highly regarded by 3rd century Christians but are not in the modern Bible - the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Hardly a resounding endorsement of canonical consistency!
@@Moweezy My overall point is that the Bible canon is simply an exercise of selective editing over many centuries of many texts to establish an "orthodox Christian doctine" out of many very different narratives - especially on the divinity of Jesus. Even today there is no single agreed canon between Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox etc. There is no obvious hand of the divine in all this - just men each with their own agendas.
@@waywed Your point is false, because the Bible teaches that in the Body of Christ is no separation which contradicts that Religions/Denominations should be practiced. The Bible scriptures without Textus Receptus are actually those where certain things or verses are being left out ordered by the Vatican. But those with Textus Recepticus that indicates in the verses which proves Jesus divinity and that you only can be saved through him are the original scriptures without leaving anything out. Codex Vaticanus is catholic and doesn’t belong to the original scriptures.
@@Moweezy Your words "the Bible teaches" just underlines my point about the NT canon being selected over some 300 years to reflect one narrative (essentially the Pauline Gospel and Nicean creed) to the exclusion of all other 'heresies' (eg very early Christians such as the Ebionites who saw Jesus as only human, Paul as a false apostle, and continuation of the Mosaic law). In other words what is, or is not, the inspired word of God depends on which set of Christian texts and writings a person decides to believe in.
@@waywed It’s not on what to decide the NT summarizes the OT. Everything in the New ist already in the Old. Some people don’t understand OT and do false teaching and Paul actually made it right. You got a lot to learn because you cannot define it new when it’s already proved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everyone who wrote heresies were not taken, because you can easily differ truth from lies even with the OT.
9:05 Codex Sinaiticus is one of the oldest complete Bibles. With high accuracy and quality. Dated to 375-425 AD instead of our Mesoretic Text which is 925-1050 AD which also has high accuracy but just dated sooner
It is clear that the original ending of Mark 16 was lost at a very early stage. The argument that the last two words of verse 8 (efobounto gar, “for they were afraid”, in English) marked the original ending fails to convince, with the lack of joy and a positive ending. The question is whether vv 9-20 as we now have them are the original ending, which was rediscovered. Sinaiticus (c. 320-340 AD)does not have vv 9-20. Vaticanus (c. 340-360 AD) does not have them either, but leaves a blank column, the only blank column in the NT of Vaticanus, although there are some blank columns in Vaticanus OT, at the end of some books. It looks as though the copyist writing Vaticanus knew that the original ending of Mark was missing in the copy from which (s)he was working, and hoped that a copy would be found that had the missing words would be found, but that didn’t happen at a time when they were still focussing on ending the copy of Vaticanus. Alexandrinus (c. 420 AD) is the oldest copy of nearly the whole NT that has Mk 16:9-20. There may be older copies of Mark’s gospel that do have vv 9-20 or another ending. Nicholas P Lunn has written a book, “The Original Ending of Mark”, in which he argues that vv 9-20 are the original ending. I have bought the book, but not yet had time to read it. It would be worth investigating.
As someone who is very novice to biblical text and how many previous bibles there are and the timelines. I have a sincere humble question I’m hoping to get some light shed on. There is a man named Billy Carson , I recently watched one of his videos where he breaks down the concept of Jesus and where his image comes from amongst other things. He mentions the Sinai bible preceding the KJV by at least a thousands years and he also says that in this bible, Yeshua was not sacrificed. He says other things but that was the part that stuck with me simply cuz he had receipts to back up his claims and he seemed very well read, researched and overall knowledgeable. Can someone who has more of understanding and knowledge please shed light on this ? Thank you 🙏🏽
I have never heard of Billy Carson but I have read the whole of the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus and significant portions of the Old Testament, and I can assure you that it gives the same account of the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus as do other manuscripts, including his sacrifice on the cross.
He’s a horrible man and is spreading lies. You can find info under him today under Good Fight Ministry. They will direct you to more information about him, he has a extensive criminal record too. We have all we need in Holy Bible.
The Sinaiticus is not the oldest Bible and has never been tested. First it was written between 1839-1842 and was brought to ST, Catherines to be prove read, as it was a work in progress, the writer of the Sinaiticus when to a Greek school in today's Turkey to check other copies of one manuscript in their library. This work was the idea of the writers Grand Uncle, who wanted to give it to the Carz as a gift from the Greek church. While in Turkey pages of the Sinaiticus were stolen by a very dark character, who lied from the start. You do not burn Vellum it is cleaned and reused. The binding alone tells you the Sinaiticus was a at least from the 1400 range, which was not used before the 1100's.
Who Darkened the part of Sinaiticus that Tisendorf didn’t take on his first trip? Check out the colour difference between Jeremiah 1 and the rest of Jeremiah…
No-one darkened it. It isn't darker. The pages that were photographed in Leipzig were deliberately given a different exposure to make the photographs easier to read. This is a conspiracy theory that is based on a misunderstanding and contradicted by the evidence.
This is a conspiracy theory that goes totally against undisputed evidence. I regret that you have mis-spelled the name of the Greek convicted felon who is referred to in this totally untenable theory, and you have added "two other guys", whoever they supposedly were, who are not mentioned by the conspiracy theorists whose crazy ideas I have read.
Why would God have 4 versions of the gospels if they were inspired by God? Why would they be contradictory or so different. Why would the Gospel authors not identify themselves (the authorship was guessed much later)?
From the first days the authors were known and there were never any disputes about their names. The authorship was never "guessed", neither "much later" nor even at the time. The gospels are not contradictory. Have you read them, properly, each one from beginning to end? Please do not repeat silly false claims that go against the evidence that anyone can check.
The fact is Von Tishendorf, who claimed to find the manuscript in a Catholic monastry had a sorted past and a questionable relationship with the Roman Catholic Church prior to the discovery of Textus Sinaticus, despite his claims to being protestant. The manuscript in fact is not ancient at all, and not from the 4th century as claimed by Von Tishendorf, but was written in the early 1800's by a Greek national and calligrapher named Constitine Simonidies who recognized it as his own work and that of his uncle. Both were recognized for their expertise in the use of the ancient Greek language and calligraphy. It production was intended as a gift to the Czar of Russia. For further details see 3 hour documentary 'Bridges to Babylon' produced by Christian Pinto. The manuscript is part of a conspiracy, along with the manuscript Textus Vaticanus, also know as Codex B, to try and undermine the Textus Receptus which is the sum of Greek texts which found their way west after the fall of Constantinople and the Greek Bysintine empire.
It was never a "Catholic monastry" (your spelling) and still isn't. Have you read a biography of Tischendorf? I have not seen the documentary to which you refer, but I have read both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (and many other ancient Biblical manuscripts). Do not be deceived by conspiracy theorists who ignore or hide the evidence that proves their crazy claims to be false.
Sorry..but I found lies on them. Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get...
Once monks over hundreds of years needed a new copy due to heavy use and resultant damage, they copied it. Wheteher they burned it or scraped off the ink and wrote new things over it depends on local needs. This happened in the West also. There was also a custom taken from Jewish synagog tradition to have a sealed room except for a high window. This was used to discard old books that were useless as a church reade 28:17 r/ sermon research. Too holy to throw in the garbage they were toosed in. Tischendorf was allowed to rummage in there using a ladder and grabbed handfuls to take away. The Sinaticus is not a palimsist and the materials were unavailable in the 1800's. The silly tale about a forgery is usefull only as fertilizer.
Can you trust the text of the codex Sinaiticus? Absolutely NOT! It cuts "son of God" out of Mark 1:1. It doesn't call Jesus God's son until after Jesus get's baptized in Mark 1:11.
Thank you for this! I would enjoy a lot more content on textual criticism and Biblical history. I appreciate that they deal with some popular criticisms of Biblical reliability, but I was disappointed that they only seemed to mention the most trivial issues. No serious student of the Bible or history would believe that all four gospels were written after the Council of Nicaea, for example. Instead, I think most thoughtful NT critics would push the questions back much closer to the Historical Jesus. Questions such as "were the gospels written by eyewitnesses," and "are oral traditions trustworthy" are where the real action is at. Better to skip ahead 300 years and find a pretty document that doesn't challenge any of our beliefs. :) It bothers me when scholarship is used as a tool to convince laypeople of something, and yet only a tiny, carefully controlled narrative is presented. There is no mention of nearly universally accepted textual features, like Marcan Priority, if there's a chance they might make folks doubt. I mean, at the end he says that "this isn't a fraud, no additions have been made!" Maybe... from the third century onward, but there are plenty of frauds and additions in the text of the NT that are nearly universally accepted by even conservative evangelical scholarship, and they would all occur in the very messy period BEFORE Codex Sinaiticus would have been written. We can see it happening in the textual fragments we do have from the first and second centuries. The earliest texts we have are the most varied. The textual tradition went from more chaotic to more stable over time. Father Justin says that the documents we have from the third century are "identical on a macro level." This phrase does a LOT of heavy lifting for him. By saying this, he is able to paper over any difference he doesn't see as significant. But the subjectivity of this approach should be clear. From a certain point of view, my neighbor and I are "identical on a macro level," and yet, we are very different! One example of an addition that has nearly universal support from scholars would be the "pericope adulterae" found in some modern Bibles in John 7-8. It's the story of the woman caught in adultery, but it was NOT in the original text of John. None of the earliest texts contain this story, and in later texts it is sometimes there, sometimes not, and sometimes moved to different locations... even to the Gospel of Luke! Someone added that story to John, probably 100 years or more after it was written. And on the subject of "frauds," surely Father Justin is aware that the majority of scholars believe the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim, Titus) were NOT written by Paul, but by a later Christian attempting to present himself as Paul. If that's not a fraud, I don't know what is. These are extremely common perspectives in the field, they are not fringe. At some point, the folks in the pew are going to need to deal with the Bible as it actually is, not as they imagine it to be. Correction: I had assumed that since Father Justin made such a strong claim about there being no additions to the text since the Codex Sinaiticus, that it contained the pericope adulterae... but it doesn't! With this in mind, the claim that "no additions have been made" to the Codex Sinaiticus, let alone the NT, seems quite misleading, or outright false.
The biblical history will come in the Moments from Sinai that are being released on a weekly basis through September and October. We appreciate your comments on textual criticism but that was not specifically the point of the programme - and their is a limit to what you can share in a single half hour. Please also note that there is no claim that the Gospels were written after the council of Nicea - only that 50 copies were specifically commissioned and that Sinaiticus was possibly one of them.
every body just accepts, oh they wanted to burn your books, as a matter of fact, never delve into why they wanted to burn them, why would they be dangerous to the power structure? were they so weak that a few words on come scrolls trigger them so badly?
KJV only.... Watch Chris Pinto's series on WHY!!! 1. A Lamp in the Dark 2. Bridge to Babylon 3. Tares Among the Wheat #3 details how Constantine Simonides forged Codex Sinaiticus and Tischendorf 'FOUND" the manuscript in a pile of Fire Tinder after a Papal Visit !!! Simonides admitted it !!!
Honestly, until I can learn how to carbon date. And then learn the languages that all confirmed ancient texts are in. Then, after dismissing the lies out there, confirm who has.motive and why. Then and only then, using logic and reason, will determine what is actually true...our creator, who created all the beauty on earth and its life, must be given the respect of truth..
The monastery is a place of PRAYER not merely meditation. What and where is 'sy uh ny' its called 'Sy Ny' Its like the difference between nuclear and 'nuk yoo ler'. Great video otherwise.
I used to believe this “oldest and best” nonsense until I found out Irenaeus, One of the earliest church fathers (second century) quoted a verse that doesn’t exist in the “oldest and best” Codex Sinaiticus. Acts 8:37. Against Heresies book 3 chapter 12 section 8. It does exist in the TR.
Peter never had a gospel because he was illiterate like all the apostles. They did not speak Greek. That’s why all gospels were written later by Greek speaking apologists. The gospel writers all spoke high end Greek. Paul wrote the first letters before the gospels and never mentions Jesus burial and empty tomb. Don’t you think it would have been something to talk about by the guy who authored a third of the NT? The gospels were written decades later based on oral tradition and that’s why they contradict each other on specific events. The church fathers also banned certain gospel versions as heretical that didn’t suit the theology at the time such as Gospel of Thomas. The NT stories were hand picked to tell a specific story to convert mostly a gentile audience after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and after James the brother of Jesus who Paul met was executed.
Your claims totally lack historical foundation and go against uncontested facts. It is not worth correcting you, because you don't want facts - but they are all out there and easy to find.
* Mark’s Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. If they told no one, how do we know this? * The ‘Long Ending’ (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark’s Gospel long afterwards and was therefore entirely unknown to the author of Mark. No matter how similar it is the the ending of Luke’s Gospel, it can not be relied on as true. * Because Mark provided no guidance to the other gospel authors, they had to guess what probably happened next. Matthew has Jesus meet the disciples at a mountain in Galilee and tell them to go to all nations to preach the gospel. Luke has the disciples stay in Jerusalem, where Jesus met them at a meal in an upper room, after which he leads them out on the road to Bethany, where he is taken up bodily to heaven on the evening of his resurrection. The story in John’s Gospel is an elaboration of that in Luke and specifically has Jesus meet the disciples three times: twice in the upper room and once by the Sea of Galilee.
* The two accounts of the virgin birth, in Matthew and Luke, are too different for either one to be true. In Matthew’s Gospel, an angel tells Joseph in a dream, but in Luke’s Gospel, an angel actually appears to Mary and tells her about what will happen. In one gospel, Joseph does not know about Mary’s encounter and, in the other, Mary does not know about Joseph’s dream. * The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke are too different for either one to be true. Matthew’s Gospel contains an improbable account of a star leading the wise men to the very house where Jesus lay, an otherwise unattested ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ and a flight to Egypt that transparently creates parallels between Jesus and Moses. Luke’s Gospel contains an improbable account of a census, known to have taken place ten years after the death of King Herod, causing Joseph to take his heavily pregnant wife on the arduous and dangerous journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and unfalsifiable stories of Simeon and Anna recognising Jesus as the future Messiah. * The story of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus is based too much on the Old Testament to be true. The story of his execution soon afterwards at a party in Galilee is certainly untrue, as the wedding of Herod Antipas and Herodias did not take place until 34 CE, and John was executed in 35 or early 36 CE at a remote fortress called Macherus, to the east of the Dead Sea. * In Mark 1:13, the story of Jesus going into the wilderness, where he is ministered by angels is an allusion to Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-7) who was ministered by an angel and in the wilderness forty days. There is no actual suggestion that Jesus fasted for this time, but those familiar with the story of Elijah are likely to have assumed he did do so, and this would be made explicit in Matthew and Luke. This brings into play another allusion, to Moses when (Exodus 34:28) he fasted for 40 days while he wrote the words of the Ten Commandments on tablets. In Matthew and Luke, the temptations by Satan are elaborations on Mark’s account and were apparently copied from the hypothetical ‘Q’ document.
@@ChrisPattas How you can possibly know, nearly 2,000 years later, what "the other gospel authors ... had to guess" is a mystery. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim. After Christ's resurrection he did indeed meet the disciples and other followers in Jerusalem on various occasions, but in the nearly 50 days between his resurrection and his ascension, they also travelled to their home region of Galilee, where he also appeared to them. 1 Corinthians 15 briefly reports numerous other meetings between Jesus and a large number of people, in once instance "over 500 people at once." (1 Cor 15:6) Such multiple appearances are no surprise and indeed provide further independent evidence of his resurrection. Of course he met different people in different places. These are not "contradictions".
Sinaiticus is not old. It was made by Simonides who was a contemporary of Tirchendorf. When Tirchendorf brought the Sinaiticus to the public from the garbage bin of the monastery, Simonides recognized his own work and invited Tirchendorf for a debate and Tirchendorf did not agree. Simonides said it was made by him and that he would answer before God on the day of judgment if he was lying about it being his own work. It is not an old manuscript.
The Codex Sinaiticus was NOT found in the "garbage bin." Tischendorf said he found the first few leaves stored in a BASKET. He suggested they would be burned, but vellum is an animal skin that does not burn; it smolders so would NOT have been used for kindling.The complete text was wrapped in a red cloth stored in one of the monk's cells, and he gave it to Tischendorf to study at the monastery.
@@CharityGal harityGal, this information that you have given is accurate. Various claims made by "Justatreecutter" go against the known facts that are undisputed by any of those familiar with the manuscripts and the documents published throughout the years of Tischendorf's research, both by him and by other academics and in the German and British press of the time.
@@koinegreekbible Thank you. I have studied this wild story by Tischendorf carefully and am writing a book about the corruption in modern Bibles source based on Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is curious that new scientific testing of Sinaiticus was DENIED the very day experts were scheduled to determine how old it actually is. Those who benefit from claiming it is fourth century A.D. want to continue the scheme, though Simonides wrote it in about 1839/40. God bless!
The Sinaiticus; phony book full of corrupt verses and missing text! The foundation of all the latest so-called Bible translations! It changes the doctrine of Christ and perverts the word of God! Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
2 complete books were dropped from codex of sinaiticus: "The Shepherd of Hermas", a heavily allegorical work full of visions and parables and "The Epistle of Barnabas" which contains text about the Jews as the killers of Christ, denial of christ devinity, denial of Trinity and a prophecy about coming prophet named Muhammed (these books found 200 years before the coming of prophet Muhammed) Yes, these are the facts they hide from you for all these centuries.
Problem with your proposal is that it's more likely than not the Sinaiticus was written in the 19th century, along with the Codex Vaticanus . It is true that both the other works were included with the Sinaiticus and since they were an integral part of the manuscript, and were admittedly written in the 19th century, it tends to follow logically that so were the Sinaiticus manuscripts .
And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or children)." Glory to Him! They [those whom they call children of Allah i.e. the angels, 'Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.], are but honoured slaves. Quran:Alanbia 26
Sir, Islam and true Christianity are not compatible as they contradict each other. God’s true name is not “Allah”, and all of His prophets are Israelites, not Arabs.
@@alexisbonilla5942 Allah similar to "Eli" in Aramaic language which means God. The first sin that was committed by Satan before he descended to earth was pride. This is the sin that led Satan to his eternal destiny, because he thought he is better than human This is a sin that God is not taking lightly, and the greatest trait that prevent wrongdoers from knowing the truth. (Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (see V. 2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud) Quran 5:82
@@alexisbonilla5942 according to your logic "God" is a made up name, since it was'nt mentioned in original language Hebrew and Aramaic languages. :) Take it easy man, Allah loves the humbles
@@Hopamptube “God” is a generic term, not a specific name. It is used to describe the highest power in the Spiritual, Military and Economic aspects - there is no one greater. Man’s duty is to find out who He really is and how He wants to be addressed. That’s why there is so much confusion in the world - everyone wants to believe in their own opinion as truth.
I was really enjoying this until the Norwegian commentator started lying toward the end about the stability of the New Testament texts over the centuries. Absolutely shameful.
{Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.}Quran, Alaraf :157
the first christians did not have John mark Luke and paul and what not. they had what the bible itself refers to. it says Jesu was preaching the gospel himself. he didn't have what is known as the nt. these people wre hunted down and killed though.
This is all wrong. Simonedes wrote Siniaticus for his uncle Benedict. Simonedes was a prodigy. Side note, St Catherine's isnt even the real Mt Sinai. Scripture says its "in Arabia". However, this video is definitely in line with the changes the catholic organization has continued to make to history.
Jesus answered: 'The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: 'Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso shall bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.' Book of Barnabas 97:9-10
@@Jin-dc7gl good u move to another vector, so what is the basis for classification, how were other books classified? For example any authentication methodology ?
This is probably not Mt. Sinai/Horeb. There is a much better candidate for the actual mountain that Moses asended in Saudi Arabia, but obviously opinion on this is divided.
That’s not the oldest. The translation in the film was pushed by one of the early church apostates, his name was Origen. He was from Alexandria around 100 ad.. The texts from Egypt were altered by Oregon and men like him. The pure texts are complete with the chapters after Mark 8 and have archeological proof with artifacts as an early as 50 ad. So this video is disingenuous.
@@koinegreekbible The facts are correct in a relative time range but can appreciate the requirement to be very specific and should have been. (Origen 185ad one of first known teachers with apostate writings), The fragment from 50ad is a recent find and will find the reference. The next academic accepted New Testament fragment the Book of John dated at 125ad, both are from the Textus Receptus which comprise over 98% of Ancient New Testament material found in the correct geographic areas. The Alexandrian Text referenced in the video is full of inaccuracies and missing whole passages of scripture. The Alexandrian Text is traced to Egypt and found with mystic, agnostic, and other apostate writings. But appreciate the requirement to be more exact with info with links in the future. But the video is still wrong and misleading.
I don't see how an ancient manuscript could just be e hidden for so many years in a monstery. It just makes no sense. Nobody went through any of these ancient codexes until then?
I suggest that you read D.C.Parker's "Codex Sinaiticus", published by the British Library and others. It will help you to understand how this happened.
There is so much deception involved in this video. The place is NOT Mt. Sinai or Horeb. There is NO archeological evidence to prove it is Mt. Sinai. The Codex Sinaiticus is a counterfeit copy of the scriptures.
There is no consistency between what was written in the Codex Sinaiticus n the modern Bible. Example: Mark 1:1 in the modern Bible tells: " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God." Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus tells: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. There is no : son of God in the Codex Sinaiticus for Mark 1:1..
Amazing documentary sir.... I'm a 24years old girl from India... I thank God for your life for bringing to the world more and more detailed information about our Messiah.. Praise be toh the Kind of kings ❤👑
God Bless YOU! May the Peace of Jesus Christ be upon you.
You have much knowledgeable books in india. Feel shame to accept slavery from foreign country people. Here is what your holy book says, regarding father and daughter relation.
Gen 19:31-33):
And the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the world. Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night; and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she rose.
On the next day, the firstborn said to the younger, “Look, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, so that we may preserve offspring through our father.” So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger rose, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she rose. Thus both the daughters of Lot became pregnant by their father. The eldest daughter names her son Moab (מואב), which means “from my father.” explicitly pointing to the union as an incestuous one. The younger names her son Ben-Ammi בן עמי, which means “son of my clan,” a more veiled reference to the situation
Sorry..but I found lies on them.
Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get....
@@sriramkumar9577 You do realize that this was descriptive and NOT prescriptive.
@@itsme.4285 I'm only comparing to islam as an example. I'm not saying that you are muslim. The quran states explicitly that not a single thing can be changed in it. This is NOT a problem with the Bible. Not one scholar, including muslim scholars, claim that the Bible has the same claim.
The message is 100% unchanged. If you want to go by textual criticism then this also is not a problem as you will have the Centurion, later in Mark, saying "Certainly this was God's Son." and other examples that show - 'The Son of God'
There is absolutely NO confusion on this. If a new doctrine was introduced then that is a problem.
Are you Atheist, muslim, hindi? Just curious.
Nice to meet and may the Peace of Jesus Christ be upon you my friend.
Against the notion that Sinaiticus was one of the 50 copies prepared by Eusebius:
(1) Sinaiticus has the (in)famous Alexandrian reading in Mt. 27:49; Eusebius' Canons do not.
(2) Sinaiticus doesn't have Mark 15:28 but it appears in the Eusebian Canons.
(3) The text of the opening chapters of John in Sinaiticus are of the "Western" text-type, implying that the main Gospels-exemplar was damaged and a second exemplar was resorted to an this point (i.e., these chapters). It is unlikely that a damaged exemplar would be the basis for an imperially commissioned project of 50 copies.
(4) Sinaiticus contains Barnabas and Hermas but these books were regarded by Eusebius as disputed, or /notha/. It is very doubtful that Eusebius would include them in codices that were meant specifically for churches to use.
(5) The Eusebian Canon-section-numbers that appear in Codex Sinaiticus are so messed up that it is nigh-inconceivable how they could have been added, in the form in which they were added (during production), if Eusebius himself were involved.
Also, as J. Rendel Harris said, Tischendorf's story about Sinaiticus being in danger of being burned by the monks of St. Catherine's is very very likely a complete myth.
Also, the website doesn't quite have the complete text of the main scribe of Sinaiticus; the last page of John can only be seen with ultraviolet light. T.C. Skeat made just such an ultraviolet-light-enhanced photograph, so his essays can be consulted for that little detail.
When even the most elect will believe the lie.
Wow, that was very detailed and I applaud you for being ever so slight about your approach but let me expound in a rougher manner. Tischendorf was a Catholic paid employee. There's many letters of his between people where he says he's a Mary worshipper which is antithetical to the bible as we know it. He was great friends with Wescott and Hort who are the ones who would eventually butcher the modern bibles. Interestingly enough this document was mostly discovered in 1844 which is a very interesting year in which so many pro God movements started but just as many anti God movements were started but thats not anything definitive. The fact is this and Vaticanus are nearly identical which they are also nearly identical to the Vulgate and that's all Roman Catholic and not to be trusted. The beauty of the textus receptus is it was written or interpreted by a Catholic priest from Basel Germany but the kind of Catholic like Luther not the other kind. The Vatican thought he was just using the Vulgate to write this new translation but he barely used the vulgate and instead used 1000s of byzantine texts that were hidden in the Hague Sophia during the Ottoman Turks reign and Rome was never able to get their hands on them or even know they existed. Rome is trying to remove the end section of Mark because of the resurrection. They want to take away Jesus' sacrifice on the cross... plus Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 combined proved Jesus crucifixion on Wednesday and resurrection on Saturday night and they want to keep that hidden forever. It's a shame 99% of people use the new translation and have no clue.
Sianiticus is also missing Mark 16; 9-20, Acts 8; 37 and many other verses. Please watch David Daniels from Chick Publications in Rancho Cucamunga CA. he gives excellent support for the truth of Sianiticus.
There are several sources that say that Sinaiticus is a forgery. Bill Cooper, The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus has eleven chapters and footnotes.
Yes you do not burn Vellum, that was a total lie by Tischendorf. The binding tells you it is a much later work, but the writer being a live when this was going on proves it is from the very early 1840's Tischendorf's stories do not hold up to research and we know he stole other items of worth as well.
Maybe I've misheard but there is absolutely no mention of a/the 'Resurrection', the corner stone of 'Paulianity'....
Very cool of them to share their library. I hope they have or in the process of getting images uploaded onto the internet.
So great they are embracing tech to preserve and share.
This was a beautiful documentary. It was very gentle.
Thank you very much, very, very fascinating praise God!
Well done. Thanks to God who preserved His Word for us.
This wasn't God's work, this was the work of the anti power. You should really do a deep study on this codex and the codex vaticanus that by some miracle are both nearly identical in many many ways. It's not a miracle actually, it's most likely because they were written by the same Jesuit sometime around 1450 give or take a few years.
how funny
Sorry..but I found lies on them.
Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get...
It said the women got scared and didn't tell the others. Strange ,that's the main thing. Go tell the others and they didn't. Hmm. I to am with you on this.
The problem with those early manuscripts is that we know little about them. As several of these videos have detailed and similar to archeology world there is too much money and fame involved. The dead sea scrolls are an example of pure text as they were not under any influence as no one knew about them. These Codex have been edited, so how can they be determined as reliable? God has perfectly preserved His gospel for us, read it, believe it.
Lots of problems with Sinaiticus: the end of Mark is missing 12 verses, the color has been changed, but most suspicious i that scribe 'A" skipped from 1st Chronicles 19:17 to Ezra 9:9. this skip of 24 chapters is in the middle of a column in the middle of a line. o no fragment here. The point is if there is this big of a mistake here can you really trust its authenticity?
Educating the public enhances humanity in many different branches of life, wisdom, and knowledge for future generation. Thank you for sharing your knowledge with us. May God Bless You All with health, work, love, harmony, peace among one another, and deep wisdom to understand your work of study, so you can keep educating the public with the virtues God wants humanity to live by. Eda F. and family
Thank you 🎉 interesting documentary
Thanks
God for connecting to us
What is the website where we can check the digital version of the Codex Sinaticus
It's on the Internet. You're welcome.
n u will find that there is difference between modern Bible n that Codex..
Example:
Mark 1:1 in the modern Bible tells: " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus tells: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is no : son of God in the Codex Sinaiticus for Mark 1:1...
@@itsme.4285 he did say there will be variations but still same meaning. Both versions still talks about Jesus even though “the Son of God” was added on doesn’t take away the fact that they’re talking about Jesus.
Thank you for sharing this video. i humbly appreciate it. Pbwy.
Has anyone pieced together a copy of the early bible using all four of the unical codices?
In short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Bing search
Amen.
It is quite remarkable that you are able to know who used Sinaiticus during the nearly one thousand seven hundred years of its existence, and also whether or not they were "true believers". Have you read Sinaiticus? Do you have enough knowledge of Greek to know how to read it and understand it? I have read the whole of the New Testament and large sections of the Old Testament of Sinaiticus and your comment that it is "so full of errors, alterations and deletions" is totally misleading. As it was copied (by three copyists), each page was checked by another copyist and errors were corrected. I found the same text and the same message as in a modern print of the Greek New Testament, such as NA28/UBS5.
You speak of "these two codices". Which is the other one to which you refer? Have you read it, too?
@@koinegreekbible We don't know the provenance of that text, so we have no idea of the faith of its creators. If it had been used in the Divine liturgy for 1400 years, it would have worn out. Blessings.
@@jamessheffield4173 Indeed, it clearly was not used throughout 1400 years; it seems to have been largely ignored by the monks in St Helen's monastery, and that has protected those pages that were not removed by them to be used for other purposes, including to bind the spine of newer volumes. For them it was just very old and not very pretty, as it didn't have any of the gold lettering and ornate illustrations that became popular in subsequent centuries. It is however an extremely early text and our earliest copy - by hundreds of years! - of the complete New Testament. It is therefore an extremely important witness to the earliest text. Thank you for sharing blessings.
St Catherine's Monastery, not St Helen's. My apologies for the typo.
Is there any record, or copy of the edict from Constantine demanding these 50 copies?
It would likely be in Latin, but from other historical events, most of his rule was not as a Christian ... and I have heard that he did not create the Catholic or unified church, until later in his rule, to bring about a 'state' religion for the empire.
It would make a great lead in to present the evidence of the edict.
Brilliant!
where can i find the photographs that they upload online ?
It's a wonderful journey
Where can we find the text online to read ?
I can’t seem to find it. And where is the original version of this video without a voice over. Just doing in depth research on the subject.
the word of God is amazing..
great video. Is this available with the Norwegian still intact?
How about the ending of Mark being added to in later editions. Doesn’t that show that later editors tried to change the gospels?
Yes thats true. Not only Mark, but many other scriptures have been changed or rejected due to indications for the prophethood coming to the arabs
It shows that if we have evidence someone added something after the fact, it is noted for transparency. We have enough copies that show a common meaning that if someone did change a text, it would stick out like a sore thumb. Therefore, we have overwhelming evidence that the current Word is accurate.
It wasn’t added to later editions lmao please do research before asking a question based on a false proposition. The earliest manuscripts had the verse you’re talking about and some didn’t.
@@emirhankurt2148false, these are Muslim lies.
The earliest version of Mark that we have did NOT have the verses 16:9-20. Most scholars agree it was added later after Matthew & Luke was written.
Hello Michael I posted a reply to you yesterday, but can't find it under your posting, so I'll try again here.
Very nicely done. Enjoyed this.
I love the way people agree with their own ideas and implications about others, then themselves without asking nor of the questions can't be asked, then not imply ar all
The last several minutes make the assertion that there are no significant changes in the Sinaiticus and what we have in our Bibles today. The speaker ignores the fact that the Sinaiticus does not have the last 12 verses of the book of Mark that our Bibles today have.
there is corruption like John, 9:35, and John 9:38 change and omitted it says Son of Man, not son of God. And 9:38 not part of the text you are going to find it in the footnote
and the adultery story woman it’s not about that manuscript
Yes, to say that no story has been added is misleading. There are several stories that appear only in later texts, proving that significant alterations as well as small, insignifical spelling mistakes have been made over time. Also Codex Sinaiticus contains books in New Testament that today's Bibles don't have.
Yhey find deferent location inside jur if im not mistaking wrettin scripture
I have been fascinated with this manuscript since the early 1980s and still find every new video, or book, or writing something I cannot overlook!
I first heard of these scriptures from Billy Carson & the Sinai Bible doesn't have a crucifixion. Looking into further myself I've found claim that the man that found these scriptures wrote them himself... has this book been verified as being as old as claimed ?
No, watch a documentary called the great bible hoax of 1881. The claim is a man name Simonedes wrote this as elaborate gifts for a Russian Czar but were most likely for the Vatican. These are basically copies of the Codex Vaticanus which is a copy of the Vulgate. The catholic church wants to be the Christ on earth so they want to take away Jesus' resurrection. It's obviously a fraud. The claim was the monks were using the book to light fires but somehow he still saved it. It's obviously a lie. Adullam films covers this very well. I wouldn't say everything he says is gospel but he's very reliable.
Also they try to remove Mark 15 and the rest of the book. This does 2 things, it removes the resurrection and Mark 16:1 plus Luke 23:56 prove the day of the week of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Matthew 12:40 is the length of how long Jesus was to be in the tomb. Luke 19:31 explains the day after his crucifixion wasn't a regular Sabbath it was a feast day Sabbath which in conjunction with Mark 16:1 and Luke 23:56 shows Jesus was crucified on Wednesday near sunset and Rose Saturday near sunset which debunks all of church traditions
Silly . The Apostolic Tradition is what is true, passed on from the Christ through the Apostles down to those who learned at gheir feet, figuratively, like Polycarp and Ignatius. Jesus rose late Sat night which is Sunday. Sunday starts on what we call Sat night by Jewish custom. Thus the midnight resurection liturgy of the oldest Christian church. At the stroke of midnight Christ has risen! Is sung out with great joy. From the earliest times unbroken until now. Mark is the oldest gospel and my educated guess is that his is the story leading to the Resurrection. All the Christians knew what came next. Or else why be Christian? Internal audience to tell what led up to the glorious Easter/ Pascha. No one called it Easter at the time. The others were a bit later adding in other details and for both the education of the new church members but also looking outward as it grew into new lands and people. As John says near the end of his beautiful Gospel that there would be needed many volumes to tell all that Jesus said and did.
He rested on the Sabbath and rose Sunday ( Saturday after sunset)
As stated in another reply, I don't know who Billy Carson is, but if he says that the Sinai Bible doesn't have a crucifixion, he can't have read it. I have. The same accounts are in it as in any accurate modern translation. This could not have been written by Tischendorf and not a single informed scholar or academic historian accepts such nonsense claims, which go against totally overwhelming and relatively recent evidence (1840s to the present day). It has been verified by the British Museum and subsequently by the British Library as being as old as claimed - from the fourth century (approximately 340-350 AD/CE).
This is a very interesting documentary, however in emphasizing the role of the codex in proving the consistency of the modern Bible it fails to note a glaring problem. The codex includes two books that were highly regarded by 3rd century Christians but are not in the modern Bible - the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Hardly a resounding endorsement of canonical consistency!
Barnabas literally said that Jesus didn't die on the cross why add something, that is even historically incorrect?
@@Moweezy My overall point is that the Bible canon is simply an exercise of selective editing over many centuries of many texts to establish an "orthodox Christian doctine" out of many very different narratives - especially on the divinity of Jesus. Even today there is no single agreed canon between Catholics, Protestants and Eastern Orthodox etc. There is no obvious hand of the divine in all this - just men each with their own agendas.
@@waywed Your point is false, because the Bible teaches that in the Body of Christ is no separation which contradicts that Religions/Denominations should be practiced. The Bible scriptures without Textus Receptus are actually those where certain things or verses are being left out ordered by the Vatican. But those with Textus Recepticus that indicates in the verses which proves Jesus divinity and that you only can be saved through him are the original scriptures without leaving anything out. Codex Vaticanus is catholic and doesn’t belong to the original scriptures.
@@Moweezy Your words "the Bible teaches" just underlines my point about the NT canon being selected over some 300 years to reflect one narrative (essentially the Pauline Gospel and Nicean creed) to the exclusion of all other 'heresies' (eg very early Christians such as the Ebionites who saw Jesus as only human, Paul as a false apostle, and continuation of the Mosaic law). In other words what is, or is not, the inspired word of God depends on which set of Christian texts and writings a person decides to believe in.
@@waywed It’s not on what to decide the NT summarizes the OT. Everything in the New ist already in the Old. Some people don’t understand OT and do false teaching and Paul actually made it right. You got a lot to learn because you cannot define it new when it’s already proved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Everyone who wrote heresies were not taken, because you can easily differ truth from lies even with the OT.
Not the oldest, nor the best
9:05 Codex Sinaiticus is one of the oldest complete Bibles. With high accuracy and quality. Dated to 375-425 AD instead of our Mesoretic Text which is 925-1050 AD which also has high accuracy but just dated sooner
That scroll rightly belongs back in the monastery but I guess for safe keeping the museum is the better place for it.
Es bueno saber la historia de los manuscritos preservados. Gloria a Dios Jesús ✝️🙌🏽
Muchas gracias por tu comentario!
It is clear that the original ending of Mark 16 was lost at a very early stage. The argument that the last two words of verse 8 (efobounto gar, “for they were afraid”, in English) marked the original ending fails to convince, with the lack of joy and a positive ending.
The question is whether vv 9-20 as we now have them are the original ending, which was rediscovered.
Sinaiticus (c. 320-340 AD)does not have vv 9-20.
Vaticanus (c. 340-360 AD) does not have them either, but leaves a blank column, the only blank column in the NT of Vaticanus, although there are some blank columns in Vaticanus OT, at the end of some books.
It looks as though the copyist writing Vaticanus knew that the original ending of Mark was missing in the copy from which (s)he was working, and hoped that a copy would be found that had the missing words would be found, but that didn’t happen at a time when they were still focussing on ending the copy of Vaticanus.
Alexandrinus (c. 420 AD) is the oldest copy of nearly the whole NT that has Mk 16:9-20.
There may be older copies of Mark’s gospel that do have vv 9-20 or another ending.
Nicholas P Lunn has written a book, “The Original Ending of Mark”, in which he argues that vv 9-20 are the original ending. I have bought the book, but not yet had time to read it. It would be worth investigating.
Wow thank you!!
Sometimes we HAVE to look in the Horse's Mouth❤
(THIS IS AS CLOSE TO A "SOURCE" AS WE GET I GUESS)
*WELL DONE*
As someone who is very novice to biblical text and how many previous bibles there are and the timelines. I have a sincere humble question I’m hoping to get some light shed on.
There is a man named Billy Carson , I recently watched one of his videos where he breaks down the concept of Jesus and where his image comes from amongst other things. He mentions the Sinai bible preceding the KJV by at least a thousands years and he also says that in this bible, Yeshua was not sacrificed. He says other things but that was the part that stuck with me simply cuz he had receipts to back up his claims and he seemed very well read, researched and overall knowledgeable. Can someone who has more of understanding and knowledge please shed light on this ? Thank you 🙏🏽
I have never heard of Billy Carson but I have read the whole of the New Testament in Codex Sinaiticus and significant portions of the Old Testament, and I can assure you that it gives the same account of the birth, life, ministry, death and resurrection of Jesus as do other manuscripts, including his sacrifice on the cross.
He’s a horrible man and is spreading lies. You can find info under him today under Good Fight Ministry. They will direct you to more information about him, he has a extensive criminal record too.
We have all we need in Holy Bible.
time to go back and see how billy is doing these days . He just got exposed as a phony recently by Wes Huff .
The Sinaiticus is not the oldest Bible and has never been tested. First it was written between 1839-1842 and was brought to ST, Catherines to be prove read, as it was a work in progress, the writer of the Sinaiticus when to a Greek school in today's Turkey to check other copies of one manuscript in their library. This work was the idea of the writers Grand Uncle, who wanted to give it to the Carz as a gift from the Greek church. While in Turkey pages of the Sinaiticus were stolen by a very dark character, who lied from the start. You do not burn Vellum it is cleaned and reused. The binding alone tells you the Sinaiticus was a at least from the 1400 range, which was not used before the 1100's.
King James / Textus Receptus only.
Do your homework.
Who Darkened the part of Sinaiticus that Tisendorf didn’t take on his first trip? Check out the colour difference between Jeremiah 1 and the rest of Jeremiah…
Thank you for your comment!
No-one darkened it. It isn't darker. The pages that were photographed in Leipzig were deliberately given a different exposure to make the photographs easier to read. This is a conspiracy theory that is based on a misunderstanding and contradicted by the evidence.
Is this the world's most overdue library book?
Could be!
The late fees must be insane
Yep I guess Brits assumed they had a right to get hold of it and keep it. But I guess it’s pretty safe where it is.
Nice. With that and all the quotations from the early Church Fathers; can piece together the New Testament
What about the added verses at the end of MARK???? You misspoke. How can you be trusted?
The Sinatic text was written in 1840 by Constantine Simonites and two other guys.
Facts
The two other guys were Abdullah the Butcher and The Sheik.
This is a conspiracy theory that goes totally against undisputed evidence. I regret that you have mis-spelled the name of the Greek convicted felon who is referred to in this totally untenable theory, and you have added "two other guys", whoever they supposedly were, who are not mentioned by the conspiracy theorists whose crazy ideas I have read.
This has been thoroughly disproven and is false. It was dated back to the 4th century.
Why would God have 4 versions of the gospels if they were inspired by God? Why would they be contradictory or so different. Why would the Gospel authors not identify themselves (the authorship was guessed much later)?
Inspired by God doesn’t mean written by God, it’s 4 different accounts from different people lmao you’re asking ridiculous questions 😂
From the first days the authors were known and there were never any disputes about their names. The authorship was never "guessed", neither "much later" nor even at the time. The gospels are not contradictory. Have you read them, properly, each one from beginning to end? Please do not repeat silly false claims that go against the evidence that anyone can check.
The book, Person of Interest, by J Warner Wallace, a cold case forensic investigator will enlighten you and you will appreciate reading it.
The fact is Von Tishendorf, who claimed to find the manuscript in a Catholic monastry had a sorted past and a questionable relationship with the Roman Catholic Church prior to the discovery of Textus Sinaticus, despite his claims to being protestant. The manuscript in fact is not ancient at all, and not from the 4th century as claimed by Von Tishendorf, but was written in the early 1800's by a Greek national and calligrapher named Constitine Simonidies who recognized it as his own work and that of his uncle. Both were recognized for their expertise in the use of the ancient Greek language and calligraphy. It production was intended as a gift to the Czar of Russia. For further details see 3 hour documentary 'Bridges to Babylon' produced by Christian Pinto. The manuscript is part of a conspiracy, along with the manuscript Textus Vaticanus, also know as Codex B, to try and undermine the Textus Receptus which is the sum of Greek texts which found their way west after the fall of Constantinople and the Greek Bysintine empire.
Praise the Lord for the truth. Codex S and Codex V are complete forgeries.
It was never a "Catholic monastry" (your spelling) and still isn't. Have you read a biography of Tischendorf? I have not seen the documentary to which you refer, but I have read both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus (and many other ancient Biblical manuscripts). Do not be deceived by conspiracy theorists who ignore or hide the evidence that proves their crazy claims to be false.
@@1Corinthians15.1-4 Have you read them?
@@koinegreekbible They are complete forgeries. You can't even read them because of the overwhelming redactions in them. They are fake scriptures.
Peace in all languages
German spain arabic Hindu and
Thanks for this Dokumentation
Thanks god
Sorry..but I found lies on them.
Mark 1:1 of modern Gospel says: The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God...but Codex Sinaiticus in the same verse only says: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
I understand....this Codex is in Christianity channel so they show u in what purpose they want to get...
Once monks over hundreds of years needed a new copy due to heavy use and resultant damage, they copied it. Wheteher they burned it or scraped off the ink and wrote new things over it depends on local needs. This happened in the West also. There was also a custom taken from Jewish synagog tradition to have a sealed room except for a high window. This was used to discard old books that were useless as a church reade 28:17 r/ sermon research. Too holy to throw in the garbage they were toosed in. Tischendorf was allowed to rummage in there using a ladder and grabbed handfuls to take away. The Sinaticus is not a palimsist and the materials were unavailable in the 1800's. The silly tale about a forgery is usefull only as fertilizer.
amazing
If the christians lifted the status of the codex that means it was already used by others before.
Tor from Norway... never guessed 😅
Can you trust the text of the codex Sinaiticus? Absolutely NOT! It cuts "son of God" out of Mark 1:1. It doesn't call Jesus God's son until after Jesus get's baptized in Mark 1:11.
Tischendorf said he took some of it from a trashcan that would be a definite lie.
A muy pocos les interesa la historia.
Pero a ti si! Y eso es lo que vale, gracias por compartir con nosotros
Thank you for this! I would enjoy a lot more content on textual criticism and Biblical history. I appreciate that they deal with some popular criticisms of Biblical reliability, but I was disappointed that they only seemed to mention the most trivial issues. No serious student of the Bible or history would believe that all four gospels were written after the Council of Nicaea, for example. Instead, I think most thoughtful NT critics would push the questions back much closer to the Historical Jesus. Questions such as "were the gospels written by eyewitnesses," and "are oral traditions trustworthy" are where the real action is at. Better to skip ahead 300 years and find a pretty document that doesn't challenge any of our beliefs. :)
It bothers me when scholarship is used as a tool to convince laypeople of something, and yet only a tiny, carefully controlled narrative is presented. There is no mention of nearly universally accepted textual features, like Marcan Priority, if there's a chance they might make folks doubt. I mean, at the end he says that "this isn't a fraud, no additions have been made!" Maybe... from the third century onward, but there are plenty of frauds and additions in the text of the NT that are nearly universally accepted by even conservative evangelical scholarship, and they would all occur in the very messy period BEFORE Codex Sinaiticus would have been written. We can see it happening in the textual fragments we do have from the first and second centuries. The earliest texts we have are the most varied. The textual tradition went from more chaotic to more stable over time.
Father Justin says that the documents we have from the third century are "identical on a macro level." This phrase does a LOT of heavy lifting for him. By saying this, he is able to paper over any difference he doesn't see as significant. But the subjectivity of this approach should be clear. From a certain point of view, my neighbor and I are "identical on a macro level," and yet, we are very different!
One example of an addition that has nearly universal support from scholars would be the "pericope adulterae" found in some modern Bibles in John 7-8. It's the story of the woman caught in adultery, but it was NOT in the original text of John. None of the earliest texts contain this story, and in later texts it is sometimes there, sometimes not, and sometimes moved to different locations... even to the Gospel of Luke! Someone added that story to John, probably 100 years or more after it was written.
And on the subject of "frauds," surely Father Justin is aware that the majority of scholars believe the Pastoral Epistles (1 and 2 Tim, Titus) were NOT written by Paul, but by a later Christian attempting to present himself as Paul. If that's not a fraud, I don't know what is. These are extremely common perspectives in the field, they are not fringe. At some point, the folks in the pew are going to need to deal with the Bible as it actually is, not as they imagine it to be.
Correction: I had assumed that since Father Justin made such a strong claim about there being no additions to the text since the Codex Sinaiticus, that it contained the pericope adulterae... but it doesn't! With this in mind, the claim that "no additions have been made" to the Codex Sinaiticus, let alone the NT, seems quite misleading, or outright false.
The biblical history will come in the Moments from Sinai that are being released on a weekly basis through September and October. We appreciate your comments on textual criticism but that was not specifically the point of the programme - and their is a limit to what you can share in a single half hour. Please also note that there is no claim that the Gospels were written after the council of Nicea - only that 50 copies were specifically commissioned and that Sinaiticus was possibly one of them.
Not sure who you are but you appear to have zero discernment and to be a clear unbeliever.
The play list for that series is available here: th-cam.com/play/PLHlTyU7ArSTJnFaJiGMVwrG0Fcio5Ep7C.html
every body just accepts, oh they wanted to burn your books, as a matter of fact,
never delve into why they wanted to burn them,
why would they be dangerous to the power structure?
were they so weak that a few words on come scrolls trigger them so badly?
KJV only....
Watch Chris Pinto's series on WHY!!!
1. A Lamp in the Dark
2. Bridge to Babylon
3. Tares Among the Wheat
#3 details how Constantine Simonides forged Codex Sinaiticus and Tischendorf 'FOUND" the manuscript in a pile of Fire Tinder after a Papal Visit !!! Simonides admitted it !!!
no change, no crucifixion, but no change
Honestly, until I can learn how to carbon date. And then learn the languages that all confirmed ancient texts are in. Then, after dismissing the lies out there, confirm who has.motive and why. Then and only then, using logic and reason, will determine what is actually true...our creator, who created all the beauty on earth and its life, must be given the respect of truth..
The monastery is a place of PRAYER not merely meditation.
What and where is 'sy uh ny' its called 'Sy Ny'
Its like the difference between nuclear and 'nuk yoo ler'.
Great video otherwise.
Yahovah
They trilated deferent lounge
I used to believe this “oldest and best” nonsense until I found out Irenaeus, One of the earliest church fathers (second century) quoted a verse that doesn’t exist in the “oldest and best” Codex Sinaiticus. Acts 8:37. Against Heresies book 3 chapter 12 section 8. It does exist in the TR.
Peter never had a gospel because he was illiterate like all the apostles. They did not speak Greek. That’s why all gospels were written later by Greek speaking apologists. The gospel writers all spoke high end Greek.
Paul wrote the first letters before the gospels and never mentions Jesus burial and empty tomb. Don’t you think it would have been something to talk about by the guy who authored a third of the NT?
The gospels were written decades later based on oral tradition and that’s why they contradict each other on specific events.
The church fathers also banned certain gospel versions as heretical that didn’t suit the theology at the time such as Gospel of Thomas.
The NT stories were hand picked to tell a specific story to convert mostly a gentile audience after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD and after James the brother of Jesus who Paul met was executed.
Your claims totally lack historical foundation and go against uncontested facts. It is not worth correcting you, because you don't want facts - but they are all out there and easy to find.
* Mark’s Gospel originally ended at verse 16:8 with the young man telling the women that Jesus was risen and they fled in terror, telling no one. If they told no one, how do we know this?
* The ‘Long Ending’ (verses 16:9-20) was added to Mark’s Gospel long afterwards and was therefore entirely unknown to the author of Mark. No matter how similar it is the the ending of Luke’s Gospel, it can not be relied on as true.
* Because Mark provided no guidance to the other gospel authors, they had to guess what probably happened next. Matthew has Jesus meet the disciples at a mountain in Galilee and tell them to go to all nations to preach the gospel. Luke has the disciples stay in Jerusalem, where Jesus met them at a meal in an upper room, after which he leads them out on the road to Bethany, where he is taken up bodily to heaven on the evening of his resurrection. The story in John’s Gospel is an elaboration of that in Luke and specifically has Jesus meet the disciples three times: twice in the upper room and once by the Sea of Galilee.
* The two accounts of the virgin birth, in Matthew and Luke, are too different for either one to be true. In Matthew’s Gospel, an angel tells Joseph in a dream, but in Luke’s Gospel, an angel actually appears to Mary and tells her about what will happen. In one gospel, Joseph does not know about Mary’s encounter and, in the other, Mary does not know about Joseph’s dream.
* The nativity accounts in Matthew and Luke are too different for either one to be true. Matthew’s Gospel contains an improbable account of a star leading the wise men to the very house where Jesus lay, an otherwise unattested ‘Slaughter of the Innocents’ and a flight to Egypt that transparently creates parallels between Jesus and Moses. Luke’s Gospel contains an improbable account of a census, known to have taken place ten years after the death of King Herod, causing Joseph to take his heavily pregnant wife on the arduous and dangerous journey to Bethlehem, where Jesus was born, and unfalsifiable stories of Simeon and Anna recognising Jesus as the future Messiah.
* The story of John the Baptist preparing the way for Jesus is based too much on the Old Testament to be true. The story of his execution soon afterwards at a party in Galilee is certainly untrue, as the wedding of Herod Antipas and Herodias did not take place until 34 CE, and John was executed in 35 or early 36 CE at a remote fortress called Macherus, to the east of the Dead Sea.
* In Mark 1:13, the story of Jesus going into the wilderness, where he is ministered by angels is an allusion to Elijah (1 Kings 19:5-7) who was ministered by an angel and in the wilderness forty days. There is no actual suggestion that Jesus fasted for this time, but those familiar with the story of Elijah are likely to have assumed he did do so, and this would be made explicit in Matthew and Luke. This brings into play another allusion, to Moses when (Exodus 34:28) he fasted for 40 days while he wrote the words of the Ten Commandments on tablets. In Matthew and Luke, the temptations by Satan are elaborations on Mark’s account and were apparently copied from the hypothetical ‘Q’ document.
@@ChrisPattas How you can possibly know, nearly 2,000 years later, what "the other gospel authors ... had to guess" is a mystery. This is yet another unsubstantiated claim. After Christ's resurrection he did indeed meet the disciples and other followers in Jerusalem on various occasions, but in the nearly 50 days between his resurrection and his ascension, they also travelled to their home region of Galilee, where he also appeared to them. 1 Corinthians 15 briefly reports numerous other meetings between Jesus and a large number of people, in once instance "over 500 people at once." (1 Cor 15:6) Such multiple appearances are no surprise and indeed provide further independent evidence of his resurrection. Of course he met different people in different places. These are not "contradictions".
@@ChrisPattas Well, you are definitely an expert in "unfalsifiable stories"!
Research Orthodox Christianity ☦️🪔
God bless you
It was found in the trash and considered a flawed document.
Sinaiticus is not old. It was made by Simonides who was a contemporary of Tirchendorf. When Tirchendorf brought the Sinaiticus to the public from the garbage bin of the monastery, Simonides recognized his own work and invited Tirchendorf for a debate and Tirchendorf did not agree.
Simonides said it was made by him and that he would answer before God on the day of judgment if he was lying about it being his own work. It is not an old manuscript.
The Codex Sinaiticus was NOT found in the "garbage bin." Tischendorf said he found the first few leaves stored in a BASKET. He suggested they would be burned, but vellum is an animal skin that does not burn; it smolders so would NOT have been used for kindling.The complete text was wrapped in a red cloth stored in one of the monk's cells, and he gave it to Tischendorf to study at the monastery.
@@CharityGal harityGal, this information that you have given is accurate. Various claims made by "Justatreecutter" go against the known facts that are undisputed by any of those familiar with the manuscripts and the documents published throughout the years of Tischendorf's research, both by him and by other academics and in the German and British press of the time.
@@koinegreekbible Thank you. I have studied this wild story by Tischendorf carefully and am writing a book about the corruption in modern Bibles source based on Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is curious that new scientific testing of Sinaiticus was DENIED the very day experts were scheduled to determine how old it actually is. Those who benefit from claiming it is fourth century A.D. want to continue the scheme, though Simonides wrote it in about 1839/40. God bless!
The Sinaiticus; phony book full of corrupt verses and missing text! The foundation of all the latest so-called Bible translations! It changes the doctrine of Christ and perverts the word of God!
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
2 complete books were dropped from codex of sinaiticus: "The Shepherd of Hermas", a heavily allegorical work full of visions and parables and "The Epistle of Barnabas"
which contains text about the Jews as the killers of Christ, denial of christ devinity, denial of Trinity and a prophecy about coming prophet named Muhammed (these books found 200 years before the coming of prophet Muhammed)
Yes, these are the facts they hide from you for all these centuries.
Problem with your proposal is that it's more likely than not the Sinaiticus was written in the 19th century, along with the Codex Vaticanus . It is true that both the other works were included with the Sinaiticus and since they were an integral part of the manuscript, and were admittedly written in the 19th century, it tends to follow logically that so were the Sinaiticus manuscripts .
"Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?"
🙏🏻
And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or children)." Glory to Him! They [those whom they call children of Allah i.e. the angels, 'Iesa (Jesus) son of Maryam (Mary), 'Uzair (Ezra), etc.], are but honoured slaves.
Quran:Alanbia 26
Sir, Islam and true Christianity are not compatible as they contradict each other. God’s true name is not “Allah”, and all of His prophets are Israelites, not Arabs.
@@alexisbonilla5942 Allah similar to "Eli" in Aramaic language which means God.
The first sin that was committed by Satan before he descended to earth was pride. This is the sin that led Satan to his eternal destiny, because he thought he is better than human
This is a sin that God is not taking lightly, and the greatest trait that prevent wrongdoers from knowing the truth.
(Verily, you will find the strongest among men in enmity to the believers (Muslims) the Jews and those who are Al-Mushrikun (see V. 2:105), and you will find the nearest in love to the believers (Muslims) those who say: "We are Christians." That is because amongst them are priests and monks, and they are not proud) Quran 5:82
@@Hopamptube never has God asked to be referred to as ”Allah” in his Scriptures. He is very specific and we can’t just make up names as we want.
@@alexisbonilla5942 according to your logic "God" is a made up name, since it was'nt mentioned in original language Hebrew and Aramaic languages.
:)
Take it easy man, Allah loves the humbles
@@Hopamptube “God” is a generic term, not a specific name. It is used to describe the highest power in the Spiritual, Military and Economic aspects - there is no one greater. Man’s duty is to find out who He really is and how He wants to be addressed. That’s why there is so much confusion in the world - everyone wants to believe in their own opinion as truth.
Powerful scripts were left out ...
I was really enjoying this until the Norwegian commentator started lying toward the end about the stability of the New Testament texts over the centuries. Absolutely shameful.
Historical scripture
Mañun scripture
Scroll. Scripture
Pa prus leader scripture
{Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.}Quran, Alaraf :157
Ehab? Thar she blows!
Monastery it's catholic there is no connection from SDA point of view because Ellen white and company started the adventism.
This monastery is actually
orthodox Christian not Roman Catholic
Being from the 300s doesnmean it's not false. And it's not from the 300s, that's why they wont carbon date and it's still flexible and doesn't crack.
Hehehe 😁 We came from Britain to see if we could steal some more old manuscript 's. Hehehe!!!! 😊
see "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?"
the first christians did not have John mark Luke and paul and what not. they had what the bible itself refers to. it says Jesu was preaching the gospel himself. he didn't have what is known as the nt. these people wre hunted down and killed though.
This is all wrong.
Simonedes wrote Siniaticus for his uncle Benedict.
Simonedes was a prodigy.
Side note, St Catherine's isnt even the real Mt Sinai.
Scripture says its "in Arabia".
However, this video is definitely in line with the changes the catholic organization has continued to make to history.
We must return to Bibles based on the textus receptus and not the critical text.
❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
εις χιρα
That is NOT Mt.Sinai/Horub..
Sinai in Saudi Arabia
Based on what evidence?
As always
Christianity proven and tested
No corruption of revelation!
Jesus answered: 'The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: 'Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso shall bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.'
Book of Barnabas 97:9-10
The book of Barnabas is rejected by Christians who consider it a forgery.
@@Jin-dc7gl good u move to another vector, so what is the basis for classification, how were other books classified? For example any authentication methodology ?
Ich glaub Vater Gandalf hat nen neuen Hut..
This is probably not Mt. Sinai/Horeb. There is a much better candidate for the actual mountain that Moses asended in Saudi Arabia, but obviously opinion on this is divided.
That’s not the oldest. The translation in the film was pushed by one of the early church apostates, his name was Origen. He was from Alexandria around 100 ad.. The texts from Egypt were altered by Oregon and men like him. The pure texts are complete with the chapters after Mark 8 and have archeological proof with artifacts as an early as 50 ad. So this video is disingenuous.
I'm afraid you have got your facts all muddled up at every point.
@@koinegreekbible The facts are correct in a relative time range but can appreciate the requirement to be very specific and should have been. (Origen 185ad one of first known teachers with apostate writings), The fragment from 50ad is a recent find and will find the reference. The next academic accepted New Testament fragment the Book of John dated at 125ad, both are from the Textus Receptus which comprise over 98% of Ancient New Testament material found in the correct geographic areas. The Alexandrian Text referenced in the video is full of inaccuracies and missing whole passages of scripture. The Alexandrian Text is traced to Egypt and found with mystic, agnostic, and other apostate writings. But appreciate the requirement to be more exact with info with links in the future. But the video is still wrong and misleading.
Written scripture
I don't see how an ancient manuscript could just be e hidden for so many years in a monstery. It just makes no sense. Nobody went through any of these ancient codexes until then?
I suggest that you read D.C.Parker's "Codex Sinaiticus", published by the British Library and others. It will help you to understand how this happened.
Codex sinaiticus doesn't have John 3 :16...
... I just checked and unless I did something wrong in the online Codex, it appears you are mistaken
Oh yes it does!
Sinaticus is a fake. Use textus receptus..
There is so much deception involved in this video. The place is NOT Mt. Sinai or Horeb. There is NO archeological evidence to prove it is Mt. Sinai. The Codex Sinaiticus is a counterfeit copy of the scriptures.
Stone scripture
There is no consistency between what was written in the Codex Sinaiticus n the modern Bible.
Example:
Mark 1:1 in the modern Bible tells: " The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God."
Mark 1:1 in Codex Sinaiticus tells: The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
There is no : son of God in the Codex Sinaiticus for Mark 1:1..