Codex Sinaiticus: A journey in Biblical discovery.
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 14 июл 2024
- "These are not just historical texts, these are living texts." In this fascinating documentary Father Justin, chief librarian at St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, shares the history of one of our most important Bibles - and shows how it makes a difference for trust and faith today. Hosts Tor Tjeransen and Victor Hulbert share the experience of an ancient world and modern discoveries that provide answers to questions on the trust and reliability of Scripture.
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.
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.
So great they are embracing tech to preserve and share.
Thank you very much, very, very fascinating praise God!
Very cool of them to share their library. I hope they have or in the process of getting images uploaded onto the internet.
Thanks
God for connecting to us
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.
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
This was a beautiful documentary. It was very gentle.
Brilliant!
Thank you 🎉 interesting documentary
the word of God is amazing..
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.
Very nicely done. Enjoyed this.
Wow thank you!!
Es bueno saber la historia de los manuscritos preservados. Gloria a Dios Jesús ✝️🙌🏽
Muchas gracias por tu comentario!
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!
amazing
Maybe I've misheard but there is absolutely no mention of a/the 'Resurrection', the corner stone of 'Paulianity'....
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?
great video. Is this available with the Norwegian still intact?
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.
That scroll rightly belongs back in the monastery but I guess for safe keeping the museum is the better place for it.
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...
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 🙏🏽
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...
Nice. With that and all the quotations from the early Church Fathers; can piece together the New Testament
Has anyone pieced together a copy of the early bible using all four of the unical codices?
🙏🏻
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.
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.
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
Tor from Norway... never guessed 😅
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)
Yahovah
A muy pocos les interesa la historia.
Pero a ti si! Y eso es lo que vale, gracias por compartir con nosotros
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 change, no crucifixion, but no change
❤️🔥❤️🔥❤️🔥
If the christians lifted the status of the codex that means it was already used by others before.
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: ruclips.net/p/PLHlTyU7ArSTJnFaJiGMVwrG0Fcio5Ep7C
What about the added verses at the end of MARK???? You misspoke. How can you be trusted?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !!!
Hehehe 😁 We came from Britain to see if we could steal some more old manuscript 's. Hehehe!!!! 😊
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 😂
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.
εις χιρα
King James / Textus Receptus only.
Do your homework.
Powerful scripts were left out ...
Ich glaub Vater Gandalf hat nen neuen Hut..
As always
Christianity proven and tested
No corruption of revelation!
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.
{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!
Sinai in Saudi Arabia
Based on what evidence?
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.
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.
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.
Lol why are you lying you pagan 😂😂😂 you can read the books online it doesn't say anything you mentioned
In parable 5, the author mentions a Son of God, as a virtuous man filled with a holy "pre-existent spirit" and adopted as the Son.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
That is NOT Mt.Sinai/Horub..
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
The catholic stole the book like they always have
Lol
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
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..
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?
WHAT A CROCK...
The Quran is true, it states that Jesus (peace be upon him) was not crucified but was rather saved by Allah (God), truth hurts
The Roman Emperor Tacitus and the Jewish historian, Josephus (both of whom were NOT Christians) wrote historical accounts of Jesus' crucifixion hundreds of years before the Quaran was published. Their credible historical writings corroborate the reality of Jesus' crucifixion. The Apostle Paul states in the New Testament of the Bible that to some the cross is foolishness, but to us (Christians) it is the power unto salvation.
So Allah lied. God cannot lie. So ya Allah is not God. Truth hurts. Ave Christus Rex. Allah failed his promise 😂😂😆😆
Sinaticus is a fake. Use textus receptus..
Wikipedia:
"Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament, including the Apocrypha along with the deuterocanonical books, and the Greek New Testament, with both the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas included."
How is this collection of human writing any different from every other man made book?
It is made by Christians for Christians.
Mt Sinai is not in Egypt and if yall were true bible researchers yall would know that the true Mt Sinai is across the red sea like the Bible says in Saudi or Iraq
Its fake
The text to predict the coming of prophet Muhammed written centuries before the coming of Muhammed !
So your starting point should be (When this really was written!)
Tip: dont believe the deceiving liars who try to hide the words for hundreds of years by force by horror by killing by burning
(Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment.)
Quran, Albaqara 174
It's a fake.
It is very easy to make such a claim - but much better to do the research and listen to the experts in their field. Your comment does not really help - especially when this is well authenticated and has seriously helped our understanding and reliability of scripture.
Cmon atleast present your supporting statement, dont make fun of yoyrself
@@TEDAdventist look guys, when you create narratives that avoid telling the messy truth about history it opens the doors to these kinds of wild conspiracy claims. We can’t expect honesty and nuance from people when we systematically spread misinformation and squash historical nuance as apologists regularly do about the Bible… If you say “these documents are 100% trustworthy” when there are obvious historical complications, then people will be more likely to view the whole thing with skepticism when they see that you are not being… hmm… 100% trustworthy. It’s almost as if someone has been teaching people to think in absolute or black and white terms, when reality is far more complicated. Wherever could people get that kind of thinking I wonder? Do better.
Dan wallace says no its not and because of something to do with the material it was made of it would of cost millions to fake.
@@TEDAdventist You should consider the EVIDENCE provided by Dr. David Daniels, proving the Codex Sinaiticus was written in the 1800s, and is NOT ancient. Tischendorf LIED a lot about his experience. And how can you burn parchment which is animal skin? The so-called EXPERTS in this documentary are not credible. The fact is, modern Bibles are NOT trustworthy - they have had THOUSANDS of words removed, changed, or added to affect 356 Christian doctrines, and have added Catholic and Occultic phrases. Adventists (and I am one) should trust the KING JAMES over any modern Bible.
It's funny because, this isn't Mt Sinai 😂😂😂
Something smells like actors
Amazing how they never mentioned Constantine Simonides and how they came into possession of the Sinaiticus.
This manuscript was being written in 1840 Athos by Constantine Simonides and he even had a witness testify to that fact named Kallinikos Hieromonachos. Why not tell everyone how Tischendorf had a meeting with Pope Gregory the 16th one year prior to going to St Catherine's monastery? Strange that a Protestant would get such an audience with the Pope and his Cardinals. Oh yeah, he had a reference letters.
Why would monks be burning 4th century manuscripts? Makes no sense. There are only two options, either monks were burning 4th century manuscripts or parts of those manuscripts were burnt intentionally because those pages proved Constantine Simonides did write them. There's no getting out of the fact that some of those manuscripts are burned, the real question is who did it and why? Thanks to this corrupt manuscript and the Vaticanus which was clearly written by a 15th century scribe we have Jehovah's witnesses.
The truth is the Catholic Church couldn't burn Bibles faster than they were printing them out so they chose a different tactic and that was to confuse everyone which is why we have hundreds of different Bible translations rather than just the KJV which came from the Textus receptus which literally means "Received Text".
Galatians 1:9
King James Version
9 As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
The trash can manuscript attacking the divinity of Jesus
Monastery, used as a place of meditation 🧘♀️? Where did you learn meditation from? From Buddha? Is there any verses in your holy book about the importance of meditation? JESUS IS A JEW ✡, HE NEVER KNEW CHRISTIANITY. Stop fooling Us from centuries.
Read psalm 4: 4. It does say meditate.
all this & we STILL have men worshipping PERISHABLE bread out of ovens as flesh that is SIN instead of worshipping "GOD Of Spirit Who Must Be Worshipped In Spirit & Truth" - John 4:24 is simply IGNORED by Catholics??? as they worship flesh w/lies ? when Jesus IS Imperishable Living Bread Out Of Heaven. may we repent of the lies that worship satan/sin in flesh instead of worship Jesus God Of SPIRIT Amen
Goes to show you humans have been making science fiction for ages. This old man has apparently wasted his life and needs to find a razor.
Mount SINE-E-I?
This documentary is a load of lies. Codex Siinaiticus is very different from today's bible. In fact, in the gospel of Luke in the Codex, it says the road to salvation is atonement for sin, not belief in Jesus, which is what today's bible reads.. It was changed, today's bible is a lie.
We don't have the original manuscripts or the copies of copies of copies. We have corrupted scriptures.
At least you admit that you believe in a religion without any proof or scriptures 😂
@@abdullah-jeremywingl6883 I don't believe in religion. I believe in truth.
Constantine the great was NOT A REAL CHRISTIAN!!! YOU GUYS KNOW THAT VERY WELL!!