This is a very controversial topic of course. Your view of this matter would only drive you to look for things that will support your views. For an example you use sources like Bart Ehrman, who of course is one of the most leading ATHEIST that is responsible for misleading many. Many people has testified that they were misled by Ehrman and that now they came back to Christianity. Second, there are many different manuscripts which certain scholars used. There were 5000 copies of the Bible that survived the persecution and all these copies were identical in everything except in spelling. God said that he would preserve his word (Psalm 12:6-7), so why would it not be preserved? There was a group of people in Egypt, sort of like the Jehovah Witnesses today, called the "Alexandrian's" WHO DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE DEITY OF CHRIST (Alexandrians 240 AD). They made their own bible version, making about 6000 changes - Origen (184-254 AD), WHO IS THE PRIMARY PROPONENT. Some of the copies of their bibles survived. In 350 AD several copies were made and three of those still survive: (1) Vaticanus (2) Alexandrus (3) Sciaticus. But these three scrolls DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER, NOR DO THEY AGREE WITH THE BIBLE.THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. THE MONKS TRANSLATED THESE THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS INTO LATIN AND IT BECAME KNOWN AS THE "LATIN VULGATE", MEANING THE COMMON LANGUAGE. THE CATHOLICS THEN CAME IN 1582 AND TRANSLATED THE LATIN VULGATE INTO ENGLISH WITH THE "DOUAY CONFRATERNITY" OR "DOUAY RHEIMS" VERSION OF THE BIBLE. IT WAS A GOOD TRANSLATION OUT OF A REALLY BAD BOOK. THEN TWO GUYS NAME WESCOTT AND HORT CAME ALONG WHO WERE GREEK SCHOLARS, BUT IS NOT KNOWN IF THEY WERE CHRISTIANS OR NOT. THEY TOOK THESE "THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS" (WHICH DIDN'T AGREE WITH EACH OTHER) AND THEIR THINKING WAS, SINCE IT'S OLDER, IT MUST BE BETTER. SO WHAT THEY DID WAS SYNTHESIZED THESE THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS INTO "ONE NEW GREEK MANUSCRIPT" AND SOLD IT TO THE WORLD IN "1875", TELLING EVERYONE THAT THESE ARE THE OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPT AVAILABLE NOW FOR YOU TO TRANSLATE. OUT OF THE MANUSCRIPT THAT WESCOTT AND HORT COMPILED OUT OF THE THREE ANCIENT ONES, PEOPLE TOOK THEIR WESCOTT AND HORT VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND STARTED MAKING THEIR OWN TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH. FIRST ONE IN 1881 AS THE (1) REVISED STANDARD (2) AMERICAN STANDARD (3) THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION (4) JEHOVAH WITNESSES BIBLE IN 1950. AGAIN THIS WAS A GOOD TRANSLATION, BUT OUT OF A "BAD BOOK". THEN CAME (5) NIV (6) GOOD NEWS AMPLIFIED (7) LIVING BIBLE. WHAT THESE GOOD CHRISTIANS DIDN'T KNOW, WAS THAT THEY WERE TRANSLATING INTO ENGLISH OUT OF THE WRONG BOOK (MANUSCRIPT). SO, REALLY THERE ARE ONLY TWO BIBLES IN ENGLISH IN THE WORLD: (1) TRANSLATION FROM THE "MAJORITY TEXT" )KING JAMES VERSION), WHICH HAS NOW 64,000 MANUSCRIPTS (2) THEN THERE ARE A WHOLE FAMILY OF BIBLES ALL TRANSLATED FROM THE WESTCOTT AND HORT. THEIR ARE LITERALLY 200 VERSES MISSING FROM THE NIV VERSION. OLDER DOES NOT MEAN BETTER. THE ISAIAH SCROLL FOUND IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLL IS MUCH OLDER THAN ANY OF THESE OTHER MANUSCRIPTS. THERE ARE 64,000 MANUSCRIPTS TO SUPPORT THE BIBLE AND THE ALEXANDRIAN ONLY HAS THREE MANUSCRIPT AND "46" FRAGMENTS. I WILL END THERE FOR NOW, BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, THAT JUST BECAUSE THINGS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU, DOES NOT MEAN ITS WRONG. YOU ARE OPPOSING BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AS A MUSLIM AND YOUR HEART IS FILLED WITH THOSE TEACHINGS, SO HOW ELSE ARE WE TO EXPECT, EXCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF. ALWAYS REMEMBER, TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE MY FRIEND, NOT RELATIVE, SO REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEF, YOU CANNOT ALTER THE TRUTH. GRAVITY IS ABSOLUTE, SO IF SAY THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY AND YOU DECIDE TO TEST YOUR BELIEF BY JUMPING OUT OF AN AIRPLANE WITHOUT A PARACHUTE, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO YOU? YOU WILL KILL YOURSELF, RIGHT? THAT PROVES TO YOU THAT YOUR BELIEF DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH WHICH IS OBJECTIVE AND ABSOLUTE. THANK YOU MY FRIEND. AND GOD BLESS YOU, IN JESUS' NAME.
@@sclsaktrc3311 nope that’s not it. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the original reading is aligned with the Islamic views. We have to look at the evidence. I can turn around and say that you prefer the reading ‘Son of God’ because it also aligns with your views. Therefore, you are also not being objective. Thus, we have to weigh the evidence and decide.
@@sclsaktrc3311 you have to study how scribes copies the gospels then you will know why it is less likely that they have the OT in front of them. These copyist were copying the gospels not the OT. The reading ‘SoG’ was introduced by copyist not gospel writers.
Your ability to read does not necessarily mean that you can interpret the scriptures. Have you tried to look at the prophecies regarding the Messiah…you are engaging from an ignorant perspective- however you can declare that the Quran is the Muslims allahs word. Yet there is nothing that can be verified by anyone - all you Muslims do I do say -muhammed said…
Perhaps if you look at Islam not from a hateful standpoint, you will realise that you have allowed your emotions affect you in being objective. You will then realised that there are tons of evidence why the Qur’an is the Word of God. Firstly, the Qur’an claims to be so. and none has successfully debunked this claim. This is we look from a theological point of view. From a historical manuscript point of view, it is the best textual tradition if we look at all (not just the Abrahamic religion) when it comes to families of texts. And it is early and sound and coherent. Also, my ability to read the ancient languages allows me to be in a better position to interpret the scriptures. Your comment on this shows your blatant ignorance in the study of hermeneutics. I advise you check out my video on interpretation of scriptures. i wish the best for you, which is why i even bother to respond to you
I recommend reading Dr. James Snapp book that answers these matters
This is a very controversial topic of course. Your view of this matter would only drive you to look for things that will support your views. For an example you use sources like Bart Ehrman, who of course is one of the most leading ATHEIST that is responsible for misleading many. Many people has testified that they were misled by Ehrman and that now they came back to Christianity.
Second, there are many different manuscripts which certain scholars used. There were 5000 copies of the Bible that survived the persecution and all these copies were identical in everything except in spelling. God said that he would preserve his word (Psalm 12:6-7), so why would it not be preserved? There was a group of people in Egypt, sort of like the Jehovah Witnesses today, called the "Alexandrian's" WHO DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE DEITY OF CHRIST (Alexandrians 240 AD). They made their own bible version, making about 6000 changes - Origen (184-254 AD), WHO IS THE PRIMARY PROPONENT.
Some of the copies of their bibles survived. In 350 AD several copies were made and three of those still survive: (1) Vaticanus (2) Alexandrus (3) Sciaticus. But these three scrolls DO NOT AGREE WITH EACH OTHER, NOR DO THEY AGREE WITH THE BIBLE.THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT. THE MONKS TRANSLATED THESE THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS INTO LATIN AND IT BECAME KNOWN AS THE "LATIN VULGATE", MEANING THE COMMON LANGUAGE. THE CATHOLICS THEN CAME IN 1582 AND TRANSLATED THE LATIN VULGATE INTO ENGLISH WITH THE "DOUAY CONFRATERNITY" OR "DOUAY RHEIMS" VERSION OF THE BIBLE. IT WAS A GOOD TRANSLATION OUT OF A REALLY BAD BOOK. THEN TWO GUYS NAME WESCOTT AND HORT CAME ALONG WHO WERE GREEK SCHOLARS, BUT IS NOT KNOWN IF THEY WERE CHRISTIANS OR NOT. THEY TOOK THESE "THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS" (WHICH DIDN'T AGREE WITH EACH OTHER) AND THEIR THINKING WAS, SINCE IT'S OLDER, IT MUST BE BETTER. SO WHAT THEY DID WAS SYNTHESIZED THESE THREE ANCIENT SCROLLS INTO "ONE NEW GREEK MANUSCRIPT" AND SOLD IT TO THE WORLD IN "1875", TELLING EVERYONE THAT THESE ARE THE OLDEST AND BEST MANUSCRIPT AVAILABLE NOW FOR YOU TO TRANSLATE. OUT OF THE MANUSCRIPT THAT WESCOTT AND HORT COMPILED OUT OF THE THREE ANCIENT ONES, PEOPLE TOOK THEIR WESCOTT AND HORT VERSION OF THE MANUSCRIPT AND STARTED MAKING THEIR OWN TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH. FIRST ONE IN 1881 AS THE (1) REVISED STANDARD (2) AMERICAN STANDARD (3) THE REVISED STANDARD VERSION (4) JEHOVAH WITNESSES BIBLE IN 1950.
AGAIN THIS WAS A GOOD TRANSLATION, BUT OUT OF A "BAD BOOK". THEN CAME (5) NIV (6) GOOD NEWS AMPLIFIED (7) LIVING BIBLE.
WHAT THESE GOOD CHRISTIANS DIDN'T KNOW, WAS THAT THEY WERE TRANSLATING INTO ENGLISH OUT OF THE WRONG BOOK (MANUSCRIPT).
SO, REALLY THERE ARE ONLY TWO BIBLES IN ENGLISH IN THE WORLD: (1) TRANSLATION FROM THE "MAJORITY TEXT" )KING JAMES VERSION), WHICH HAS NOW 64,000 MANUSCRIPTS (2) THEN THERE ARE A WHOLE FAMILY OF BIBLES ALL TRANSLATED FROM THE WESTCOTT AND HORT.
THEIR ARE LITERALLY 200 VERSES MISSING FROM THE NIV VERSION. OLDER DOES NOT MEAN BETTER. THE ISAIAH SCROLL FOUND IN THE DEAD SEA SCROLL IS MUCH OLDER THAN ANY OF THESE OTHER MANUSCRIPTS. THERE ARE 64,000 MANUSCRIPTS TO SUPPORT THE BIBLE AND THE ALEXANDRIAN ONLY HAS THREE MANUSCRIPT AND "46" FRAGMENTS.
I WILL END THERE FOR NOW, BUT YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND, THAT JUST BECAUSE THINGS DON'T MAKE SENSE TO YOU, DOES NOT MEAN ITS WRONG. YOU ARE OPPOSING BECAUSE YOU HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AS A MUSLIM AND YOUR HEART IS FILLED WITH THOSE TEACHINGS, SO HOW ELSE ARE WE TO EXPECT, EXCEPT YOUR ARGUMENT TO SUPPORT YOUR BELIEF. ALWAYS REMEMBER, TRUTH IS ABSOLUTE MY FRIEND, NOT RELATIVE, SO REGARDLESS OF YOUR BELIEF, YOU CANNOT ALTER THE TRUTH. GRAVITY IS ABSOLUTE, SO IF SAY THAT YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN GRAVITY AND YOU DECIDE TO TEST YOUR BELIEF BY JUMPING OUT OF AN AIRPLANE WITHOUT A PARACHUTE, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN TO YOU? YOU WILL KILL YOURSELF, RIGHT? THAT PROVES TO YOU THAT YOUR BELIEF DOES NOT CHANGE THE TRUTH WHICH IS OBJECTIVE AND ABSOLUTE.
THANK YOU MY FRIEND. AND GOD BLESS YOU, IN JESUS' NAME.
Can you read your Quran. Have you actually studied your Quran?
Whether I studied or read the Qur’an does not have anything to do with this video’s content.
@@sclsaktrc3311 nope that’s not it. Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the original reading is aligned with the Islamic views. We have to look at the evidence.
I can turn around and say that you prefer the reading ‘Son of God’ because it also aligns with your views. Therefore, you are also not being objective.
Thus, we have to weigh the evidence and decide.
@@sclsaktrc3311 you have to study how scribes copies the gospels then you will know why it is less likely that they have the OT in front of them. These copyist were copying the gospels not the OT. The reading ‘SoG’ was introduced by copyist not gospel writers.
Your ability to read does not necessarily mean that you can interpret the scriptures. Have you tried to look at the prophecies regarding the Messiah…you are engaging from an ignorant perspective- however you can declare that the Quran is the Muslims allahs word. Yet there is nothing that can be verified by anyone - all you Muslims do I do say -muhammed said…
Perhaps if you look at Islam not from a hateful standpoint, you will realise that you have allowed your emotions affect you in being objective. You will then realised that there are tons of evidence why the Qur’an is the Word of God. Firstly, the Qur’an claims to be so. and none has successfully debunked this claim. This is we look from a theological point of view. From a historical manuscript point of view, it is the best textual tradition if we look at all (not just the Abrahamic religion) when it comes to families of texts. And it is early and sound and coherent.
Also, my ability to read the ancient languages allows me to be in a better position to interpret the scriptures. Your comment on this shows your blatant ignorance in the study of hermeneutics. I advise you check out my video on interpretation of scriptures. i wish the best for you, which is why i even bother to respond to you