[Music] our New Testament textual variants like Mormonism welcome to another episode in our series on is Christianity the Mormonism of Judaism in which we are examining the claims of the Jewish rabbis who teach that Christianity has distorted the text of the New Testament in much the same way that we Christians believe that Mormonism has distorted the texts and doctrines of Christianity. In this video we are going to be talking about textual variants what are textual variants textual variants are changes and differences that we see between the handwritten manuscript copies that we have of both the old and the New Testament Jewish rabbis and skeptics today claim that the New Testament has been altered over the centuries through the textual variants that we find in the manuscript copies of the New Testament.
Today we will be examining their claims in light of the evidence. To begin this video, I’m going to start with the opening statements that dr. James white gave in a debate on the New Testament reliability in this debate dr. James white who is a New Testament scholar was countering the claims of an Ex-mormon who had converted to Christianity and then then converted to Judaism rejecting Christianity when he found the textual variants in the New Testament and was convinced by the Jewish rabbis that those variants indicated that the New Testament had been corrupted in much the same way that the Mormon scriptures had been corrupted and changed over the years in their Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants texts of Scripture today.
We will be examining their claims of the Jewish rabbis who teach that Christianity has distorted the text of the New Testament in much the same way that Mormonism distorts the text of their scripture books and we will be examining those claims in light of the research and the evidence that dr. James white provides in this debate and what New Testament scholars and Old Testament scholars say about these textual variants have the scriptures been preserved or have they been distorted through differences in the manuscript copies that we find that is the question being discussed today and we will also be contrasting those textual variants we find in the New Testament with the textual changes that Joseph Smith made to the text of the Book of Mormon and doctrine covenant scriptures of Mormonism. Are they the same or is there a difference between those that indicates that Christianity has not distorted the New Testament although Mormonism has let’s look at the evidence.
Basically what my task this evening is is to introduce you to basic textual critisism 101 so you can understand that when it comes to the text of the New Testament what we have is the most broadly attested document of antiquity that means we have the most number of manuscripts in the original language approximately five thousand eight hundred fragments of the New Testament in Koine Greek we have the most number in translation whether that’s the old Latin Syriac bow Herricks a headache it’s that Coptic whatever it else might be and we also have the purist line of transmission with the earliest attestation in fact if you’ve seen my debate with dr. Bart Ehrman probably the best-known critic of the New Testament in the english-speaking world today during the cross-examination in response to one of my questions he said we have far earlier attestation for the New Testament than for any other work of antiquity and of course he was exactly right in that statement and so if we are going to be skeptics about the text of the New Testament we need to be skeptics about everything in antiquity we can’t know what was written in any context if we cannot know what we have in the New Testament now what we need to understand is if I took a paragraphs of text and I began with the front row and I had each person copy what they have and give their copy to the next row and to the next row and we may even be cheering each other on let’s be super accurate let’s be super accurate by the time it got back to the back row you would have differences in the handwritten copies of what was distributed even in a room of this size that is because all handwritten documents of antiquity demonstrate textual variation every single one the Quran anything else the only way to avoid that is to chisel what you want to communicate in Iraq the problem is rocks are not overly portable and hence have a problem in communicating information over a large stretch of space for time so we have textual variants we’ve known that from the beginning this is not something that is hidden from anyone who reads a basic introduction to the New Testament and in fact in almost all modern English translations and the King James had many more of these notes when it originally printed you will find notations either in the column or the bottom of the page that will know when there are important variations now it has been estimated that there are about 1,500 to 2,000 meaningful viable variants in the New Testament
That means they do impact the meaning of the text and they might be original about 1500 2000 given that we have 3 million pages of handwritten text 1500 2000 ain’t half bad in fact it’s really really good now the vast majority of variants for example at Romans 5:1 there is a variant in the text between the indicative and the subjunctive form of the of the term echo men all right there is one letter difference they were pronounced very very similar to one another we do not have to assume any kind of nefarious purposes on the part of any copyist to explain almost any textual variant in the New Testament at all people like to come up with things like that if you want to write books if you want to come up with conspiracy theories you can do that type of thing but the reality is that there I’m not aware of any variants in New Testament that could not have simply arisen from fully understood mechanisms that do not require us to believe that early church writers were trying to change things dr. Ehrman has been big and trying to promote the idea of theological variants but classical textual critical scholars have recognized and even dr. Ehrman recognizes that the vast majority of scribes attempted to do their work as accurately as possible and they did a tremendous job I hold in my hand the Nestea all-in 28th edition of the Greek New Testament this is available for purchase well not this particular one but this is available for purchase for anyone this is available online it’s available on your phone it’s available in Bible programs we hide absolutely nothing the bottom notes are all textual notes with massive amounts of information provided to the manuscripts where they’re held when we think they were written most of them do not have dates on them so we put it into a century or something along those lines we do not hide the information in regards to any of the textual variants that exist in the New Testament what we do do is seek to consistently apply a standard so that we can arrive at the earliest possible text given the large amount of information we have now please recognize something when it comes to the New Testament we have fragments for example the Gospel of John that could be as early written as early as 125 ad now if John was written in late 90s or even before 70 this is a less than 100 year difference between when the original was written and the first manuscript evidence we have for any other work of antiquity whether it’s pioneers with tonyia sort a census whoever else it might be the average timeframe between when a book was written and when we have the first manuscript evidence is between five and nine hundred years between half on a full millennium between when it was written and when we have the first manuscripts for the New Testament maybe somewhere between 50 and 100 years that is why dr. Ehrman said obviously we have far earlier attestation for the New Testament than for any other work now let me in light of our debate subject this evening contrast this with the changes that were made in the text to the Book of Mormon the Book of Mormon is not a work of antiquity in English even if you’re a Mormon you have to admit it didn’t exist in English in antiquity obviously I don’t believe it existed in antiquity period I believe it is a modern production there’s much evidence of this but the point is the changes even recently when white and delightsome became pure and delightsome that’s not a textual variant that is a text that is controlled by particular central organization so the Book of Mormon has what is called a controlled transmission there is one central organization that controls its text the Quran is also a book that was initially controlled in its transmission ever since what’s called the youth monic recension about 25 years after the time of muhammad and so in a controlled transmission that’s very different than what we have in the New Testament you have to trust whoever controls it whoever controls it controls the text the New Testament was never controlled the New Testament was immediately distributed widely across the known world it was something called a free transmission of the text especially because the Christian church was under persecution so there could never have been a control of what was in it what would it contained or anything long long lines besides that it was written by multiple authors at multiple times to multiple audiences so it took different paths of transmission over time
and over later began to be collected into single collections such as P 46 which is a collection of Paul’s writings the earliest manuscripts we have of Paul P 75 P 66 early gospel manuscripts I’m doing a my third doctorate on a p45 in the C bgm that’s Matthew Mark Luke John and acts very unusual manuscript but began began happening later on as they begin become collected together initially they were individual books and so there is no control so for example when you compare the 1833 book Commandments of 1835 doctoring covenants and find over 400 words add or deleted from a single section that is controlled transmission that is not free transmission we have the New Testament there is no parallel between the two whatsoever and so we do have two blocks of text twelve verses the two largest textual variants in the New Testament are the longer ending of mark which was mentioned earlier and was called the perco pay adultery the story of the woman taken in adultery John seven fifty three two eight eleven twelve verses each now any modern translation is going to have brackets or notes in regards to both of these texts there’s much earlier evidence for the longer ending of mark then there is for the story of the woman taken in adultery that first appears in codex bezzie Canterbury ANSYS which is in the fifth century and I call it the Living Bible of the early church it is more of a paraphrase than anything else it is not reliable in almost in almost anything we are well aware of these attacks and we the question becomes well why don’t you tell people I do all the time anybody who reads a introductory text of the New Testament knows this when I preach if I preach through John I let people know I talk about text variations so it’s not like no one ever does that I realize that’s not popular but it’s not popular because we’re trying to hide something it’s popular it’s not popular because a lot of ministers who go through seminary aren’t all that clear themselves on all the details and so as my church history professor said long ago what is they missed in the pulpit is a fog in the pew and so if the preacher isn’t all that clear on it he’s not necessarily going to be bringing it up in in his sermons and so we must recognize that for example if you look at your Bible right now if you have a if you can compare the King James with the ESV you will see that the ESV in Gospel of John goes from John chapter five verse three to John chapter five verse five John chapter four five verse four isn’t there now remember when we talked about the Bible we’re talking about as it was originally written not as it was translated sixteen hundred years later and so when we talk about adding things to the Bible or taking the way things to the Bible that’s actually a misnomer it is really not understanding that what we want to know is what the Apostles originally wrote that must be our greatest desire so John 5:4 talks is it’s the it’s the the man the healing of the man by the by the pool and it’s the explanation of the one of the angel coming down and stirring the waters now who is responsible for the insertion of that verse in later manuscripts my suggestion to you is this is called a marginal gloss it is an explanation of why a bunch of people are laying around a pool in Jerusalem in the first place and it would be written in the margin of a manuscript and so when that manuscript is then copied by someone else if you couldn’t go back and ask the guy who originally copied it hey why is this in the margin the tendency of scribes was to be conservative which is a good thing they tend to be conservative they didn’t want to lose anything and so since it was written in the margin the copyist inserted it directly into his text at a later point in time he’s not trying to be evil or deceptive or anything else he’s trying to conserve what he has now why is this important I submit to you that
In the text and the notes of this volume I have everything that the inspired Apostles ever wrote the original readings still exist they have not been lost what we have to do is work through the fact that for example it’s very clear that later manuscripts there is an expansion of the names I call the expansion of piety so an earlier manuscript will have the Lord and the later manuscript will have the Lord Jesus or if the earlier manuscript has the Lord Jesus the later master would have the Lord Jesus Christ it’s an expand of the divine names out of respect and things like that not deception or anything along those lines if there’s going to be an expansion it’s that kind of expansion but the point is all the original readings are there and what we have are blessed to have is the ability in light of all of the manuscript evidence that we have to be able to determine what those original readings are and when we have particularly difficult variants you let the reader know you’re straight upfront and you let the reader know now if you want to say well I don’t like having any variants at all lots of Bart Ehrman says Bart Ehrman says if God inspired the scripture he would have never allowed textual variants what do you mean so if a poor scribe is copying a manuscript he wants to have for his family and it’s tired and his eyesight isn’t all that good he’s working by candlelight and he hasn’t had a lot to eat that that that that year in the 900s because of famines and he’s about to make a mistake what’s God gonna do strike him dead or something before he makes the mistake of course not if we only had one manuscript this would be an issue but we don’t just have one manuscript of any text of Scripture we have many manuscripts to compare with one another and so when a scribe makes a mistake he gets sleepy in first John 3:1 there is a beautiful phrase and such we are we are the children of God it was an error that was made due to something called home I tell you Tom the ending of one word clay Thoman is the same as the ending of s men the guys I went from clay Thoman to s men and he skipped over Caius men and so he accidentally deleted the statement we are the children of God now if we only had one manuscript of first John that’s a problem we have hundreds of them and we can recognize the standard error that was made by a scribe this is a great blessing it is not any reason to abandon the message that comes from the early church that there was an empty tomb outside of Jerusalem and Jesus Christ rose from the dead if you’re going to deny that you’re going to eat a whole lot more than the evidence from the New Testament which is the best-preserved work of antiquity Bar None.
Thank you very much all right let’s recap what dr. white just said about the preservation of the New Testament manuscripts first of all we need to understand that every ancient manuscript demonstrates textual variation what dr. white means by that is that there’s not a single ancient manuscript that doesn’t have differences in the handwritten copies of the manuscripts and why is that because they had to be hand copied and people make mistakes dr. white said there is absolutely no reason to assume nefarious motives for any of the textual variations that we find in the manuscripts that means that if we look at the manuscript differences there is no change to the message of the text there’s no nefarious motives that is no deceptive motives you can’t detect any evidence of someone trying to tamper with the text of the New Testament thirdly dr. white pointed out that the New Testament manuscripts contain manuscripts as far back as written within the first century of the original writings there is no manuscript support that goes back that far with any other ancient book in fact the manuscript copies that we have like for the Old Testament for example are you know what 500 years to a thousand years after they are written that we have manuscripts possess that we possess today that go back maybe to a thousand years but that’s not the case with a New Testament we have men should give copies going back within the first century we also have more manuscript copies for the New Testament than any other ancient book including the Old Testament with far more men script copies we are able to compare those copies and be able to be more precise in knowing what the original writers wrote because we have enough copies to be able to compare to determine what the original readings are so dr. white maintains that all of the readings still exist today even though we don’t have the original writings we can easily determine what the original readings were and then finally dr. white pointed out that the textual variation we see in the New Testament is not like Mormonism unlike Mormonism where we see Joseph Smith making changes to the text of the scriptures and altering the doctrines of the Mormon Church through those changes there is no sign of any doctrines being altered through the different variations that we find of the text of the New Testament Scriptures also the Book of Mormon is not a work of antiquity it is not an ancient work it was hand written by Joseph Smith and then delivered to the printer who made printed copies it didn’t have to be copied manually by hand over several centuries so there’s no comparison between textual variants that we find in the texts of the New Testament and the Old Testament and differences that we find in manuscripts of the Mormon scriptures let’s look at more details that distinguish the differences between textual variation in the New Testament manuscripts and the textual changes made to Mormon scripture and specifically let’s look at a chart that
I designed that compares and contrasts the differences between New Testament scripture and Mormon scripture I have this chart that discusses these differences between New Testament scripture verses LDS Mormon scripture the first thing dr. white pointed out and I note the age of the manuscripts New Testament manuscripts are an ancient document about 1900 years old they had to be preserved for 99 years there were no copy machines and therefore there were no ways to preserve but to hand copy those texts so the age is an ancient document in the New Testament and the transmission is hand copied but in Mormonism the age is a relatively recent text the English version of the Book of Mormon at least all Mormons would agree with this it’s a modern a relatively modern text only approximately 200 to 240 years old 1830 Book of Mormon so it’s a modern text it’s not an inch texts by any means and the transmission process was printed it sure it’s true that Joseph Smith hand wrote the book of Mormon text and then he gave it to the printer and there were some differences between what Joseph Smith henro and the first edition that was printed but even those differences are relatively minor compared to the major differences that have taken place in the Book of Mormon scripture over the past couple hundred years and so you have a transmission process that is printed with the Book of Mormon that does not account for changes you can take a manuscript that is printed you can copy it over and over and until your toner on your copy machine runs out of ink there are no changes to the documents or the copies that are made this is simply not the case with the New Testament manuscripts that are hand copied over and over over 1,900 years you’re going to see textual variances you’re gonna see textual variation you’re gonna see handwritten scribes scribal notes or scribal texts and the margins of the manuscripts that end up in some of the copies with those textual notes or those scribal notes put into the actual manuscript of subsequent copies but that’s this big difference between Mormonism where you have a printed manuscript that will not change unless someone manually makes a change to the text type of the printed version to the actual printed well they didn’t have copy machines but they had actual printers in the days of Joseph Smith where they would actually make a template a plate that they would use to print each of the pages of the Book of Mormon manuscripts so for changes to creep into that that was a very intentional process in the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants and book of Commandments and Book of Abraham Pearl great price transmission process in all of the Mormon scriptures they were printed they were not hand copied over hundreds of years to preserve them so there are no excuses for textual variation except in the case of somebody wanting to make a change to the text intentionally being deceptive and that is indeed what we see with Mormon scripture because you have these changes that show up between the 1830 edition of the revelations that became the Doctrine and Covenants revelations that were printed in 1835 so 1833 edition a book of Commandments versus the 1835 edition printed edition of the same revelations and you have major changes as dr. white pointed out to the very concepts of priesthood authority that did not exist in the original version of the these revelations.
so when you see changes in printed manuscripts it is clear that they’re intentional they are not accidental scribal errors the next thing we need to note is just what I was pointing out with New Testament scripture the content is the same message even with textual variation even an account of the woman taken in adultery that’s show up in some of the copies remember we’re not talking about a change that showed up in all of the copies of the text we’re talking about a changes showed up in some of the copies of the text of John we’re talking about changes in mark 16 ending there are different variations in various copies but they did not get into all the copies so it’s easy to tell which ones actually had the original text and which ones had additional text it’s very easy to tell that but in Mormonism that message is changed to the point where between the 1833 book a commandment edition of the revelations and the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants these changes are made major changes and they’re handed off to the Mormon people as if the nothing has changed here are your revelations printed in Doctrine and Covenants there are no additional copies of Doctrine and Covenants that don’t contain the changes and with you know notes in the margin that say hey these were these words were added it’s not noted in the 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants these changes that Joseph Smith made to the text are not noted in any way but when we look at the New Testament manuscripts because we have the large volume of copies that were distributed vastly distributed through many different countries and huge land masses it’s impossible to be able to collect all those manuscripts and to be able to put the change that you make in one in all of them so obviously God preserved the New Testament manuscripts through the fact that when textual changes were made by accidental slips of the pen through the scribes it’s easy to detect them so there is no comparison between the changes in the New Testament and the changes in LDS scripture the changes in the New Testament that effect no major doctrine or practice of Christianity as I pointed out earlier and just as dr. white pointed out the New Testament scripture is an uncontrolled text by nature of it being preserved through many different copies in many different areas and that it was impossible for one church or one person to control all the manuscripts so it’s an uncontrolled text so that God’s Word is preserved and no Catholic Church or any other Church can come along and change the manuscripts so when you see that uncontrolled manuscript being God’s method of preservation there is absolutely no comparison in the preservation of the New Testament that was well preserved the message was well preserved through the uncontrolled text of the New Testament versus the Mormon Church’s scriptures that have always been in the hands of either Joseph Smith or the top leadership of the Mormon Church that’s a controlled manuscript and therefore those changes that are made to the manuscript were intentional and dis used to change Church doctrines and then finally when we compare the New Testament scripture to LDS screen we see that the concept the message of the New Testament is delivered through the method of God breathing the inspired concepts of the text God breathed the inspired concepts not the exact words of the text this is a very important distinction because in Mormonism you have Joseph Smith receiving the translation of the Book of Mormon through a seer stone in the Hat in other words Joseph Smith took the seer stone put it in a hat and God supposedly dictated the very words the exact words for the Book of Mormon through illuminating the letters in the stone that was placed in the Hat to block out the light so you could see these letters and these words illuminate for Joseph Smith this is God supposedly dictating his
very words to Joseph Smith so when you have changes and revisions to the Book of Mormon text made since the 1830 Edition all the way up until today there’s no excuse for that because according to Mormonism God dictated the very words of the text this is a huge difference from New Testament Christianity where the message is preserved in spite of textual variation in spite of the words not being exactly what was dictated by God God dictated God breathed the inspired concepts of the New Testament so we’re talking about God breathing inspiration God breathing the message not God dictating the words of the text now what we’re going to look at is dr. white answering the question of the differences between how the New Testament was transmitted to our days so the difference is in the New Testament transmission process and then he’s going to compare that with the transmission process of the Old Testament and we’re going to look at the textual variants that we find in the Old Testament we’re going to also look at a video that a rabbi gave about the textual variants in the old test and he’s going to make the point just like dr. white makes the point with the New Testament this rabbi is going to make the point that textual variation in the Old Testament does not corrupt the text of the Old Testament that we possess today dr. white how does the textual transmission of the Old Testament compared to the textual transmission of the New Testament in 60 seconds yeah right no that is a fascinating question because there is a complete difference between the two one is through the covenant people themselves it is a much more much more ancient text obviously than what you have with the New Testament and so it is a different process because there was not the desire to spread a specific message outside the borders of Israel that would need to produce a text that could be used like the New Testament was the the New Testament is written during a period of persecution the church continues to experience persecution all the way through 313 ad and so you have to have a portable text of text that can be recreated and re replaced when people have lost theirs due to destructions on and so forth and so it has a very very very different history to it it is a fascinating subject but a far more than we can do in 60 seconds I want to say something about the differences in the textual transmission process between the Old Testament and the New Testament just like dr. white mentioned the Old Testament is more of a controlled text the covenant people that is God’s people Israel had control of the manuscripts pretty much the whole time it’s been transmitted so they were very careful in how they rendered the text they would check their work even to the point of you know counting the number of words on a page making sure that the center letter in their scroll matched what they expected to find there were a lot of things that the Jewish scribes did when they were copying their manuscripts to ensure the integrity of the manuscripts so you’re gonna find just from the the differences in mission process the Old Testament will have not as many textual variants in the text that we find in the New Testament and then from the simple fact that you know unlike the New Testament where the manuscripts were being distributed and copied on the fly because of persecution they had to flee that and their their copies would get destroyed and they’d have to make new copies and it wasn’t able to be you know as tightly controlled in the transmission because actually there was no control the New Testament church had no control of all the manuscripts and when people made their copies it was just like you know okay I need that copy let me let me write this down as quick as I possibly can before you know they get persecuted so they’re not able to check their work as well although they attempted to do a good job there are definitely more textual variants just from the fact of the differences in the transmission process and the other thing I want to point out with the New Testament is we have far more manuscript copies for the New Testament than we do for the Old Testament and just the simple fact of all of these copies being handwritten just the the simple fact of you know have nearly six thousand copies of the New Testament versus you know a few hundred copies of the Old Testament manuscripts you’re going to see you know a whole lot more managed kept textual variants in the New Testament then you will the old just because we don’t have as many copies to compare in the Old Testament that we do for the New Testament so I just want to point out some of these differences they they actually do impact some of the things we see with textual variants but the reality still exists the Old Testament even with all the measures of Jews took to preserve the manuscript does demonstrate textual variation in those manuscript copies and so we’re gonna look at some of those textual variants and I’m gonna now feature a video that a Jewish rabbi gave regarding the preservation of the Old Testament and they’re going to talk about how we know that the Old Testament text has not been corrupted
even though there are textual variants in the copies of the Old Testament. What how do we know that what we have today in the Tanakh the hebrew the the actual words word-for-word how do we know that it’s still accurate how do we know that the hebrew whether it’s a mess erotic text whatever the case may be how do we know that it hasn’t been tampered with how do we know that it’s still the same as it was before the Jesus time frame one of the things that of course anyone would find extremely striking is if you take the Torah itself I believe the Torah has three hundred and four thousand eight hundred and thirty five letters I think I believe as it turns out you go to a Torah scroll in London you find an ancient Torah scroll from hundreds and hundreds of years ago brought in from a rack or a scroll that survived the Holocaust you go to a scroll and in Australia they’re the same and I should mention that we would expect them to be the same for a theological reason because if the Torah is the Word of God if it’s divinely inspired meaning it’s an eternal message not just of that generation who heard it the Torah clearly is writing for all future generations to Eternity it would be very important that God if God is the author of the Torah that he would have made sure not just to convey it properly but what good would be if the Torah the original Torah would be lost think about that for a moment as it turned out a hundred years ago the oldest complete Jewish Bible all of Tanith that we had is was the little is lemongrab codex which dates to the year one thousand eight we had another text which would have been in the aleppo codex which we don’t have completely now but we have the vast majority of it so the lapell codex which is very reliable it’s not a scroll to codex codex is only means a book that’s all names so the aleppo codex it’s not a scroll book now we have leaves of a book is 9 + 8 930 here there haha all you have is a Jewish Bible that dates back a thousand years so it’s true granted the aleppo codex matches exactly what you find in tonight and our tonight of course but they’ll say what does that mean your claim is that the total let’s just take the total one the major segment of the Jewish Scriptures you’re saying that it’s roughly three thousand three hundred years old how do we know that prior to the calippo codex people didn’t tamper with the change it was on and so forth why don’t we have that where is it but that that whole conversation ended in nineteen for the is a result of the most important archaeological discovery in the scripture in 20th century 1947 a bedouin young man Mohammed Adeeb in the Dead Sea area in the Qumran area took a stone threw it up into a cave heard crashing a vessel and he went to inspect it and lo and behold there was a massive discovery of Jewish text that had been hidden away and that came to be subsequent discoveries in other caves and very big discovering KFOR but what we have in the in in the Dead Sea scrolls and with every scholar Jewish or Christian of us makes no difference if you take any Jewish or Christian scholar and ask them what is the most important piece of information that we can that we have we can walk away with from this discovery what is very clear and that is we have the Jewish Scriptures and the Jewish Scriptures matches our text today that’s it that means that we have the Torah in the Dead Sea Scrolls Oh a date for the Dead Sea Scrolls the Dead Sea Scrolls date back from the first century BCE the
3rd century BC which means instead of us having home a text of Leningrad which is 1008 or or leppe owes roughly both a thousand years old now we’ve gone back two thousand three hundred years old and now what we find is lo and behold we have the Isaiah scroll which is there for everyone to view the Torah is perfectly preserved and for all intents and purposes if he has any scholar whether the secular with the Christian it doesn’t make you different they’ll tell you that they’ll use the term 99% where 99.9% is the same and that’s correct so the prophets and the writings that’s the prophecies the Veeam and the writings are the Coutu then I’m not going to get into why why there would be three categories of text are also as I said 99% the same everyone’s know okay great the 99 but tell me about the 1% is a variance that we have very few but if you’ve studied it you’ll know about it so there’s a variant of the example in Psalm 145 and the King David the author wanted to be famous and more to ensure that no one would forget it and therefore what he did was he the first verse of each passage of Psalm 145 follows the order of the alphabet so the first letter is a charade the first would this begins in the chapters ASHRAE is an Aleph you know then an X is a base and this is called an acrostic okay so King David used an acrostic and there’s reasons why they would do it it’s not that he was trying to show off his writing skills is a reason for it first of all it makes it easy to remember you know if you read the the next God all a sham so that’s a gimel the third letter then the fourth one Darla’s door each generation Dollard and so on very easy to follow now as it turns out i think it’s a line let’s say wine 12 why 13 one is missing meaning that when we get to my hustle my host Larry one was all the coal-hole d’oeuvre door that means his kingship his kingdom I host my lover is the kingdom of all eternity so that begins with a member so we would expect that the next line we begin with a nun is that’s the following letter as it turns out King David did not put in a nun and what he did was he skipped the nun and it goes to the next letter which is Summa so therefore what happens is the text skips the nun and then it discussed extensively in Talmudic literature of why that nun is skipped okay now and as it turns out if you hope in a if you go to the Dead Sea Scrolls it’s in there if you go to the Dead Sea Scrolls there is a passage for the nun which we don’t have in any of our text whether you look at a text from the Yemenite Jews or a text from and Jews from the what from a thanks to make a difference we don’t have it but we do have a text and Dead Sea Scrolls where that text was inserted and everyone wasn’t really someone did that we know it’s not there well the answer is yes but the questions some you might ask about how do you know maybe our text that we have everywhere is a mistake we somehow lost the line and the originally it was there that means I’m making quite a claim it’s really not a very difficult claim to make because every Bible in the world every by the way all the Christian Bibles base it on ours so it’s there’s as well there’s no line for the norm it’s not there so it’d be very almost impossible achievement for someone to add in a text and then everyone could every Jew in the world to agree upon it that would be extremely unlikely but I want to take I want to ignore that for a this is how do we know that the original text did not have a nun and what we encounter in the Dead Sea was somebody who clearly looked at this chapter and what we have unknown it’s missing this line isn’t there I’m going to make up a verse someone did that but the question is how do you know maybe what you find in the Dead Sea Scrolls this
extra line maybe that’s the original and what we have in our Hebrew Bibles is all defective is missing how do you know what I’m saying is correct so the answer to that question is that I’ll tell you what the passage that you’ll find in in Qumran this is this an example so the text in Quran says for none use this is the text naman Hashem behold the wrath of the hosts become massive which means namwon so that can only means the word trustworthy trustworthy is God the host of the whole massive muscles are massive and he is closet what he does kindly in all of his works that’s the extra text that you’ll find in Psalm 145 in the Dead Sea Scrolls okay so there’s two possibilities either as I said I want to make this clear because someone get confused either it was originally not there and King David deliberately did not put the nun in there for the reason is not germane to this show but it no foul means to full and King David didn’t want to put that in there or it really had it the Dead Sea scroll on this line is correct and we somehow it fell out of it got jettisoned by all of our Bibles everywhere in the world understand this point good so the answer is very obvious every religious Jew or any person studying who reads the Hebrew knows is laughing right now why because naman Hashem hold the rest of the husband Maseo of what that really is is that saudi line copied and pasted if you look at two lines later it says Sadiq hashem behold the rock of a possible home ourself which means God is just in everything that he does and he’s a closet doesn’t mean like I seen him means that he does which is kindly in everything he does so what the author did was he went a few lines later whoever did this he copied the whole line except he can’t copy that first word because that first word has to begin with a nun so the the word Sadiq is deleted jettisoned and then the word that in certain studies naman and then it was pasted int in between that text we know that because we have the exact same line only a few lines later except the first word is changed so that it follows the acrostic now an anomaly in acrostic is very common the Jewish Bible and in the Book of Psalms which means it is a method is a technique is it is a tool of the Orphic to get our attention if it goes holidays gimmick dollar hey bubs I tested and one letter is missing so right away there’s a theological message in the in the letter that’s missing and this is done another place most people not familiar with it but the key point is we know that this particular text this is very strange well people don’t spend time studying in this text which has the noon in it which begins with namwon he is trustworthy is an interpolation by a scribe or other scribes what happened they did somebody or some people looked at it same you know it’s missing a line because it’s it’s not following the Hebrew alphabet of 22 letters it’s missing one will put in a line but in whoever did this wasn’t very creative at all because what he did was he found one word naman put that in their sand I have the none taken care of and then the rest of a line three day lines later is then put in so we know that the text we have is correct and in this again this is like you know you would never come across this but we know that that
text is a corrupted text so that would be an example all right well here we see an excellent example of a textual variant in the Old Testament that was added because the scribe who was copying it felt like it didn’t quite fit the acrostic that he was seeing in the actual manuscript of psalm 145 so he added the word nun a word to go with nun and then I copied another text from that chapter there in psalms and added that text to the verse that he made up but even with that kind of textual variant as the rabbi explains it doesn’t change the message of the text of the Old Testament and these kinds of textual variants only indicate you know a scribal error or a scribe or addition that ultimately changes nothing so even whether you have that that verse in or you don’t have that verse it doesn’t change anything that the manuscript is still valid it still reliable it’s still preserved and the message still comes through and that’s the point that the rabbi made with showing this textual variant in the Old Testament and that’s what we see just like we see with the New Testament the textual variants do not change the message of the text in the New Testament just like they don’t change the message of the text of the Old Testament now what were I want to show you now is a video from this very same rabbi discussing a textual variant that we see in the New Testament and he makes a claim that this textual variant shows corruption in the text but I want you to consider the similarities between how this textual variant came to be here in the New Testament and the textual variant the rabbi just discussed in
this other video from the Old Testament. But as it turns out the credit Christians changed altered interpolated their own Bible far more than they change the Jewish Bible Christian scribes who were looking at the looking at the the Eucharist at Luke 22 and there’s nothing there about Jesus dying that this take them you know the the bread and the wine and take it that I gave this for you like we find in the other books it looks doesn’t included because it did not conform to Luke’s view to Luke’s Christology what did what did scribes do they interpolated it which means they put it in there and therefore half of Luke 22 19 and old Luke 20 was edited later we know this it didn’t in fact to be take out a Christian Bible and they’re not fans of Judaism they will many them in the footnotes will say that the Greek manuscripts the best Greek manuscripts do not include this as well this is Holland cooling so the Christians did the New Testament committed far more violence against the Christian Bible in terms of its textual integrity to ensure that it conformed to the orthodoxy of the time
far more than they tampered the Jewish Scriptures let’s look at the textual variant this rabbi just brought up as what he believes is an example of corruption in the text of the New Testament Scriptures it’s Luke chapter 22 beginning at verse 19 and ending at verse 20 let’s read it in the new American Standard Bible it says and when he had taken some bread and gave thanks he broke it and gave it to them now this is where the textual variant starts this is where most ancient manuscripts of this passage do not contain the following words saying this is my body which is given for you do this in remembrance of me and in the same way he took the cup after they had eaten saying this cup which is poured out for you is a new covenant in my blood okay so the text in question is the latter half of verse 19 and all of verse 20 and most of the ancient manuscripts of Luke chapter 20 do do not contain these text however when we read this same account in the other Gospel accounts let’s read we read here in Matthew chapter 26 verse 26 now as they were eating Jesus took bread and after blessing it broken and gave it to the disciples and said take eat this is my body that’s Matthew 26 26 we also read mark 14 22 and as they were eating took bread and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them and said take this is my body okay and then we get over here to first Corinthians 11 verse 24 and he took bread and when he had given thanks he broke it and gave it to them saying this is my body which is for you do this in remembrance of me so we see both of the phrases this is my body given for you or broken for you and do this in remembrance of me in the first Corinthians chapter 11 verse 24 passage so then you have to ask the question why is this addition to the text somehow corrupting the text of the New Testament I mean it’s just a copying of the text from prior accounts of this same event you know it’s a copying of the text from mark or Matthew and and possibly first Corinthians when Paul wrote about it so you have to say okay if the scribe who was adding this text to Luke chapter 22 how is he trying to corrupt it by copying maybe a marginal note and saying well you know this is like first Corinthians so maybe he put it in the margin of his copy of the the manuscript and then someone
later on came along and said well I don’t know if this is original or not it’s in the other text of the gospel so maybe they came along and reading his marginal note added it to the text I mean it’s very easy to explain how this textual variant could have occurred in the manuscript and given the fact that the scribe changed nothing of the message of the text well then how can you claim this is a distortion of the text or a corruption of the text how was this any different from the example this very same rabbi gave of Psalm 145 where that extra verse is added for the nun which was missing in the manuscript copies all the other manuscript copies we have of that text here from the Masoretic age you go to the Dead Sea Scrolls in well this extra line is in there and scribes looking at that today think well maybe it was copied from a few lines down from the text so how is this copying of the text in first Corinthians into the text of Luke 22 any different from the textual variant we see here in the Old Testament in Psalms I would submit to you it’s no different I mean this kind of changed the text that was made in in a different later manuscript copy of Luke 22 doesn’t change the message it’s easily explained as maybe a marginal reading that somebody wrote from the text you know in Corinthians wrote it down and in Luke so I would submit to you that this is not an example of corruption to the text of the New Testament rather just an easily admissible scribal error that can occur just from people writing notes in their margins of their Bible just like we do today we write notes and explain you know certain things in the passages or cross-reference different passages we do that all the time in the text of our Bible so why is it wrong for some Christian copyists who may be copying a manuscript that has a scribe I’ll note that the person before wrote down in the margin of their Bible that’s not an example of corruption any more than the you know a seeing scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls seeing a missing nun there’s no nun there’s no verse for that and copy a text just a few verses down into that place in the manuscript of Psalm 145 to show that you know the acrostic to make it complete you know there’s no sign of collusion or or distortion in the text of the New Testament if you’re gonna argue that then you’re gonna have to argue the Old Testament is corrupted and the rabbi won’t go there I mean obviously it’s not corrupted that the message hasn’t been changed neither for the psalm 145 passage where that verse is added nor for this you know latter half of verse 19 and the verse 20 being added to the passage here in Luke chapter 22 now let’s look at some more examples of what the rabbi thinks are corruptions in the text of the New Testament and the evaluate whether those are really corruptions or
whether those textual variants are easily explainable through the transmission process of the New Testament as well the book of Mark has no resurrection accounts all you have is the women encountering encountering what appears to be an angel and nobody is meeting Jesus in the book of Mark they put in twelve verses twelve passages at the end of the book of Mark which has encounters with Jesus why because it wasn’t there the woman caught in adultery from John seven verse 53 through John 8:11, twelve passages.
I mean the resurrection account. This has enormous theological implications. Should the story of the woman taken in adultery in John eight be considered fake simply because there’s a good indication that it may not have been included in John’s initial version of the Gospel of John I would say no for two reasons the first reason is we have a statement at the very end of John’s Gospel at John 21:25 he states and there are also many other things which Jesus did the which if they should be written every one I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written amen when you have that statement from John himself saying that there are so many things that Jesus did and said that it would be nearly impossible for the world to contain the books that would be written then there’s a lot more stories of what Jesus did than what John included in his gospel and who’s to say that this story of the woman taken in adultery might not have been one of those stories how do you know what makes you think that the story is fake simply because it may not have been included in the first version in John’s original gospel that he wrote another thing I’d like to point out as to another reason why the story may not be fake it may actually be a true story is the fact that God is able to preserve his stories for many more than five centuries here you have the first century account of the Gospel of John this lady gets to meet Jesus and discovers that her encounter with Christ saved her life I mean you’ve got to think of the impact of those words that Jesus spoke to her neither do i condemn you go and sin no more can you imagine how that impacted her life wouldn’t she share that with her children and her grandchildren and they in turn would share that with their children from generation to generation until we get to the fifth century we know that God is able to preserve his stories the ones that he once written in his scriptures just look at the Genesis accounts from Adam and Eve Abraham Isaac and Jacob the stories of Noah the stories of Joseph those span nearly 1500 years actually 2500 years if you think about it from Adam and even about the fourth century BC until we get down to Moses at about 1500 BC Moses writes these stories down nearly 2500 years after they were took place in the space of 2500 years God was able to preserve those stories in the generations of the children who experienced those stories so how do you know that the story of the woman taken in adultery wasn’t like one of those stories that carried on in her family line from generation to generation until we get to the fifth century where it shows up in the manuscripts the other thing I’d like to point out about this story in John II is that the words of Jesus are likewise spoken in other similar accounts where Jesus encounters people who are sick or people who are struggling with sin take for example the woman at the well in John 4 he spoke very graciously to her and shared the truth about him being the Messiah and if we also look at the paralytic when he was healed of his illness what did Jesus say to him he told him that
his sins are forgiven that concept of his forgiving of sins and not condemning this paralytic is the same concept that we see here with a woman taking an adultery his words are not lost even if we take that story of John 8 out of the scriptures his very words of go and sin no more are spoken not only to that were spoken to that woman are not only spoken there but in the story of another account the healing at Bethsaida in John chapter 5 and the fact that he gives eternal life to those who believe in him similar words that we read in the longer ending of mark 16 are also spoken in John chapter 5 where he says truly truly I say unto you he who hears my word and believes leaves him who sent me has eternal life and does not come into judgment but has passed out of death into life you have eternal life by believing in the one whom he has said whom God has sent Jesus Christ there’s so many accounts where that idea of believing in Jesus to be saved is spoken of throughout the New Testament accounts of Christ so even the words of Jesus in mark 16 just like the words of Jesus in John chapter 8 are not lost if you remove the ending of mark 16 the resurrection of count of Christ or the words here of Jesus here with the woman taken in adultery so going back to my original question should we consider this story fake I would say absolutely not because this story is in agreement with the stories similar to it and other accounts of Jesus there is no discrepancy and obviously nobody is trying to tamper with the message of Scripture by putting that story in in the fifth century so when we see those similar words of Jesus being spoken in other Gospel accounts you cannot claim that the words of Jesus were added or lost by either adding that story in John chapter 8 or removing it in critical editions of the New Testament and then we have to remember the fact that God has preserved his word he has preserved it and Jesus said heaven and earth will pass away and my words will not pass away so when we have textual critical issues like John chapter 8 and mark 16 where the words of Jesus appear if we can see those words those ideas those concepts conveyed and other gospel of counts we know that what Jesus spoke in Matthew 24 about His words enduring and not passing away are true no matter which edition of the New Testament you have. Now I’d like to turn this over to another clip from dr. James why I want you guys to see how he responded specifically to the question of how can the Christian Bible be trusted when these expansions to John eight or the original version of mark 16 didn’t include the resurrection account and merely ended with the empty tomb.
I’d like you to listen in as dr. James white addresses this question how can the Christian Bible be trusted how can the Christian Bible be trusted when the kind-hearted words of Jesus himself in the totally imaginary story of an adulterous woman John 8 1 through 11 we’re deceitfully added by an unknown person is this really the Word of God again we’re going to see this repeatedly the deceitfully added line and let’s just get rid of it right now you have no way of knowing what anyone’s motivation was for any textual variant in the New Testament you can guess you can speculate but you don’t know it the per capita dolt Rey John 753 through 811 that you just made reference to does not appear in any known Greek manuscript that we have found to this date until the 5th century and the first example we have of it in a manuscript is codex bez a Canterbury Genesis codex D which is a notoriously unreliable manuscript which is also a die Glocke by the way it’s a Greek Latin die Glocke now we’ve discussed this before I’m not gonna go into like I said trying to be brief here but the assumption of this list is that the people that you’re talking to are ignorant of the history of the Bible and that’s most everybody now we’ve been dealing with these issues for decades and debating these issues for decades and no one who has a serious has any serious training in the history of the New Testament is unaware of these realities but they’re thrown out there as if there’s some kind of terrible horrible thing that no one had ever thought of before ever discussed before these things have been discussed literally for millennium and so you throw in words like deceitfully and then is this really the Word of God the perk of a adultery has significantly less manuscript evidence behind it then the longer ending of mark does and so I would not preach it in the context of the church as the authoritative Word of God there are those people who would think otherwise unfortunately their argumentation will require the acceptance of some kind of ecclesiastical theory that has one major problem it assumes that
the ecclesia the church has actually addressed these issues when the ecclesia has not there has been no Protestant Synod Council that has pretended to determine the textual history of the prick of a adultery or the pericope adulterae in either one so as I said there are some some others but can the Christian Bible be trusted yes because we happen to know that that’s not original we have the manuscript evidence if all we had was what you might get from Joseph Smith or something like that then there would be no way of knowing because you can just always change it but we have manuscripts that predate the earliest manuscripts that contain the perk of a adultery and so yes we can trust those scriptures and that’s why we engage in textual criticism how can the Christian Bible be trusted when the very first and most important documentation of the resurrection of Jesus the foundation of Christianity was deceitfully added by an unknown person is this her lira God mark 16 9 to 20 long grinding it mark again this assumes that we know the order of the writings of the books of the New Testament which we do not there are many people who believe that Paul’s writings including the 1st Corinthians chapter 15 text that was already addressed would be earlier than mark now I don’t know nobody knows I would put mark around the same time as first Thessalonians and Galatians Paul is plainly teaching the same message at that point that he then mentions to the Corinthians First Corinthians chapter 15 so it could be contemporaneous but anyway long grinding a mark much earlier documentation than the prick of a adulterated story of the woman taken in adultery but still it’s not just longer raining of mark you’ve got the medium ending remark you’ve got the Amalgamated in america the shorting a new mark and the whole point is since you’ve got a bunch of different endings of mark that’s the best reason to be skeptical about any of them being the proper ending of mark but the point is that matthew luke john all of paul hebrews there’s no question about the resurrection if the longer reigning is on include there’s no question about the resurrection jesus prophesied it in mark there’s no question about the resurrection nothing whatsoever.
Alright, so Dr. White gave us some good insight into the textual basis behind these variants in john 8 and mark 16; now I’m going to feature another section from the debate where dr. white discussed the reliability of the new testament and actually discussed mark 16 and the reason why he thinks the original version of mark 16 did not contain a resurrection account of jesus but merely ended with the empty tomb and in fact if you think about it for a minute even just the fact that the tomb is empty even if you don’t have the resurrection account you still have an empty tomb which seems Sam apply that Jesus rose from the dead so even with mark 16 ending with just the account of the empty tomb that doesn’t indicate any kind of corruption to the text adding additional accounts of the resurrection but let’s listen in as dr. white talks about his view of mark 16 and why he thinks Mark 16 may have
ended with the empty tomb. It was said in the opening scriptures being added to the Bible again what we want to know is what the apostles originally wrote a scribe who includes a marginal note is not trying to add to Scripture and we can recognize when it happens because of the manuscript tradition and we provide the notes this has been known since the early church in talking about the long grounding of mark we had the phrase the clown’s that changed it the reality is that the ending the gospel mark at verse 8 which is where I do believe that it ended there are many people who would disagree with this but was prophet mark was probably the first one written we don’t know the order in which the Gospels were written but in all probability it ended where it did there were prophecies of the resurrection the the tomb has already been discovered but it would probably ended where it was so that the eyewitnesses who had that Gospel of Mark could give their own testimony of their own encountering of Jesus mark at Matthew and Luke and John provide much further detail but mark is the shortest he has a specific purpose he’s trying to get to the point again is I want to know what Mark wrote and not the fact that there are multiple endings in the manuscripts to the Gospel of Mark because people were concerned it ends too suddenly so let’s have some of this over here, some of that over there, and they put that together. They were not trying to change something. There wasn’t some group that decided you know what Mark just didn’t do a good job here let’s add to it that is not what was going on there is no a bunch of robed monks in a room someplace going well let’s make some changes there in the Feria so on and so forth it is said that the core message New Testament has been altered how we have not been given a single example of this I challenged. Dr. Ehrman, the best english-speaking critic of the New Testament, was asked, “Show me where the message of the New Testament was assaulted. He couldn’t. There is not a single text he can point me to that we do not have clarity on somewhere else in the New Testament on any doctrinal issue at all. It has not been altered, and I would challenge him. You show us how the message of the New Testament has been altered by any textual variant that you are referring to this evening. He said it’s ludicrous of us to refer to the originals. If you have read the Chicago statement on inerrancy, it specifically refers to exactly what was quoted by the by the evidently in the statement of faith of the church to which he keeps making reference in regards to the fact that you can believe and should believe and should recognize the inspiration of the original even in light of the transmission process down through history they are not contradictory things they just require you to do some study to grow in your understanding and knowledge of your own faith
up to this point all of the textual variants we’ve examined so far not a single one of them has changed a doctrine of the church and can be easily explained through maybe scribal notes that were put in the margin of their manuscripts or copying of the text from other passages of scripture being put into the text so not a single example has been given of a textual variant that has changed a doctrine of the Christian Church yet the rabbi we are featuring actually claims that Christianity was changing over the centuries that the Christianity of today does not resemble the Christianity of the early church and he goes so far as to claim that these textual variants that are being added to the text of the New Testament he claims that those were actual changes in doctrines but yet we haven’t seen a single example of any one of these textual variants changing a doctrine of the church let’s listen in as the rabbi expounds on his claim that he believes Christianity has actually changed through textual variants in the scriptures
I think people believe that when you look around about us today and you encounter so many denominations of the church the disagree on fundamental things that they think that well maybe at one time in the old days Christians were fairly unanimous on on their beliefs and then later as a result of schisms that later followed that separately the division of these in the West ensures the Great Schism of the 11th century the Reformation now was stuck with the most variegated religion of world nothing can be further from the truth in fact if you turn back the clock 1,800 years you would encounter expressions of Christianity I don’t think that usually any person would even recognize I believe that people would call themselves Christians would ever identify with this is one of the most outlandish claims of this Jewish rabbi he can’t point to a single textual variant in the New Testament that actually changed a doctrine of the Christian Church and yet he claims that Christian today does not resemble the Christianity of the first century he claims that if we were to meet Christians in the first century our beliefs would be so different that would be hardly recognizable as a Christian I find that claim completely false completely wrong how could he say this he can’t point to a single textual variant that changed a doctrine of the Christian Church now let’s contrast this with what occurs in Mormonism nearly every generation of Mormonism has seen major changes to the doctrines of the Mormon Church nearly every generation within Mormonism has seen major changes to the doctrines to the scriptures and to the teachings and the policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints in Mormonism not only do we have changes even from the early days of the Mormon Church in 1830 when Joseph Smith baptized 2,000 people into the Mormon Church before he even had a revelation about Peter James and John bestowing upon him the Melchizedek Priesthood he baptized people without priesthood Authority those revelations didn’t come in until we get to the 1835 edition of Doctrine and Covenants of their scripture Doctrine and Covenants major major changes that were made between the 1830 original revelations of those scriptures on the priesthood Authority and the 1835 edition and those effected the doctrines and policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints you do not see those kinds of changes even in textual critical editions of the New Testament none of the changes that are made in removing let’s say John chapter 8 or mark 16 the longer ending of the of mark 16 if you remove those it doesn’t change any policy or doctrine of Christianity and adding those passages to the Christian scriptures don’t change anything either whether you have the story of the woman taken in adultery or not doesn’t change the policies like I’ve said this before but that’s the point that leaders trying to make that just like Mormonism change their scriptures so Christianity changed its scriptures but as we see this argument does not work let’s draw this back even further so in Mormonism you have a scriptural changes write off at the very beginning new conference come into the church without any idea of priesthood Authority and then you get the revelation later and then all of a sudden that revelation becomes a condition for being able to act in the name of God let’s go on another generation later you have Mormons practicing polygamy all the way up until 1890 why because they’re told that unless they practice polygamy unless they take on these additional wives they will not be able to have the highest level of heaven so it becomes a condition for salvation then in 1890 they get a revelation that supposedly doesn’t wait with with polygamy and basically so that the the Utah State could be added to the Union the United States Union they came up with this public revelation that they added to their scriptures the 1890 manifesto but we find out in 1904 it takes the second manifesto in 1904 to actually stop the practice so you have a period of time where the Mormons are still practicing polygamy believing that they need to do this to please God but yet they have to do it secretly why because they want to be accepted into the Union of the United States so it’s practice secretly and Mormons going to hiding you don’t think those policies of the Mormon Church affected the daily lives of the Mormons that lived these policies you bet they affected their lives and children grew up hiding from the authorities just in case they would find out that they were the children of a polygamous wife so you had that generation of Mormons major major changes to the policies of the church then take place with the second manifesto where they actually start practicing not ordaining the the marriages of second and third fourth wives so then we go on down another generation of Mormons pass we have this situation where in the Mormon scriptures blacks are considered cursed from God the policy of the church taught that blacks could not obtain the priesthood so they would deny blacks the privileges of going to the temple and are and being able to practice the kinds of things they would have been able to do if they held the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods all because of a scriptural policy a scriptural teaching in their scriptures that blacks are cursed now sport another generation of Mormons and you get to the 1978 revelation which does away with a ban on the on the priesthood authority for the blacks and all of a sudden the blacks are allowed that priesthood Authority they’re no longer curse from God and now they can gain the privileges that are necessary to gain the highest level of heaven do you see where I’m going with this this was the point the original point that leave used to make with this argument about his grandfather if he lived Mormonism he would have been a polygamy a polygamist and then you know and his father if he lived Mormonism he would have thought blacks were cursed and then we come on down to leaders generation and he saw major changes within the Mormon Church on the oaths and the ceremonies within the temple which again according to Mormonism are necessary for salvation so you see how this argument worked very well with Mormonism because you have major changes in every generation of Mormons from the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints in 1830 until now the church continues to undergo major major changes in the revelation so the idea of salvation was indeed if if grandfather was in Mormonism it would not have been clear to him he’s absolutely correct when you apply that argument to Mormonism it wasn’t clear to my grandfather it wasn’t clear to my father and it wasn’t clear to me you know he’s absolutely right in Mormonism because of the doctrinal changes that their own scriptures have made to their policies over the years these concepts the concepts of what is required for salvation are not clear we’re not clear to prior generations of Mormons and even the Mormon generation growing up today has seen major changes even from the last prophet who banned the children of same-sex marriages from being able to be baptized into the church now with the new profit not only are those children welcome into the church that’s this generation of Mormons they continue to undergo change after change after change within Mormonism I attest to you this is not the case with biblical Christianity I have a family heritage that goes back several generation in the Christian faith and I can attest to you that my great-great-grandfather believed the exact same things that I believe as a Christian on what is necessary for salvation he believed the same Athanasian Creed that articulates the Trinity doctrine formulated by the Christian Church in the 4th century he believed the Nicene Creed 325 Creed of Christianity he believed all of these things because they’re taught in the Bible and if you go back 1,900 generations of Christianity all the way back to the first century salvation by faith alone in Jesus Christ alone as articulated by the teachings of Paul the Apostle and are not affected by any textual variant whatsoever in the text of the Bible these doctrines have held firm as a firm foundation for the historic Christian faith so his argument when applied to Mormonism is very true was it clear to my grandfather in Mormonism if his grandfather was a Mormon absolutely not it wasn’t clear to his grandfather but when applied to biblical Christianity if his father or his grandfather was in biblical Christianity he would be able to say like I can say about my grandfather who was a biblical Christian that yes the doctrines of salvation have always been clear all the way back to the first century of Christianity and even if we take the Creed’s that were codified as the doctrines and beliefs of the church in the third and fourth century you can go back to the writings of the very early church fathers who studied let’s say let’s take Ignatius for example who’s studying under the Apostle John a nations talked about how Jesus is God he studied under the writer of the Gospel of John he studied under John directly and we read statements as early as Ignatius saying Jesus Christ our God being the followers of God and stirring up ourselves by the blood of God ye have perfectly accomplished the work which was be seeming to you there is one physician who has possessed both of the flesh and spirit both made and not made God existing in flesh even Jesus Christ our Lord that is a very clear statement about Jesus being God agreeing with John 1:1 in the beginning was the word and the Word was with God and the Word was God and we just read a little bit later on and we see the word became flesh and what did he say he say that God is existing in flesh Ignatius agreed a hundred percent with John’s Gospel in John 1 and then we also see other Church Fathers teaching the concept of the Trinity not just the God’s nature of Christ but the concept of the Trinity let’s look at clement of alexandria who lived around 215 ad that was you know a good hundred years to 200 years before the the Creed of Athanasian was codified by the church but he yet talked about the Trinity listen to this kalenna dogs and Rhea said I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant for the third is the Holy Spirit and the sign is a second by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father so these concepts of the Trinity were nothing new all the Creed’s did in the fourth century was codify into a doctrine of the church what had already been taught by the early early church fathers the Apostles themselves in their scriptures a little bit later on in this debate you’ll see in just a few minutes on from this point in the debate you will see Lee bring up the first John 5 passage about the Father Son and Holy Spirit being one and he’ll make a comment like you know this is a key verse that teaches the Trinity and at that point in the debate he looked at me because I wrote the book yes he should believe in the trendy but in that book I point out just as dr. white has pointed out that verse doesn’t appear in the manuscript tradition of the of the New Testament Scriptures until way past the Council of Nicaea and the Council of Constantinople and the Creed a bath anisha’s when they were adopted in the 4th century I think dr. white said that verse actually shows up around the 10th century so that’s how many hundreds of years passed before that verse even shows up in the scriptures the Creed was adopted so we see what about 600 years later after the Creed is adopted by the church you finally see that passage show up in somebody’s manuscript so leave makes a comment you know it is this isn’t a key scripture on the Trinity or it’s not the best one and at that point I said and I don’t think you can hear it in the audio but I said it’s not the best one I’m going to give you guys a verse that is not disputed by a textual variant it’s very very clear where the training doctrine can be seen clearly in the New Testament Scriptures now we’ve already seen where that appears in the Old Testament you probably remember that screen verse that I put up when Lee was saying it’s their shadows of the Trinity but it’s not clear and I pointed out the verse in the Old Testament that says now the Lord God has sent me and His Spirit the Lord God being the father has sent me Jesus Christ and His Spirit there’s a three persons and one God how about this in the New Testament of a clear teaching of the Trinity it’s not the college I am it is 1st Corinthians 12 four through six now there are varieties of gifts but the same spirit and there are varieties of ministries yet the same Lord and there are varieties of operations and yet it is the same God who performs all the operations in all persons so here you have the same spirit is the same Lord and the same God there’s Holy Spirit the Lord Jesus and God the Father the same spirit is the same Lord and the same God first Corinthians 12 4 through 6 that is my favorite verse for showing the Trinity in one verse of scripture both in the New Testament there’s a verse and in the Old Testament the Trinity doctrine is clearly taught in the scriptures and thus it has been a teaching of the early church even before the Creed was adopted in the 4th century so I’m going back to my original point go back 1900 centuries of Christianity and you find that the first century Christians believed exactly the same thing that I believe and that my grandfather and my great-grandfather believed reading their King James Bible and me reading my NES B Bible the textual variants make absolutely no change whatsoever to the doctrines and the policies and the teachings of the Christians now we’re gonna look at yet another video clip from the same rabbi who claims that textual variants show distortion in the text of the New Testament and he’s going to be talking about first John 5:7 3 in answer to someone who had called into his radio program and in this video you’re going to see an interesting claim of the rabbi that this is a principal teaching of the trainee that it was needed the scripture was needed to be added to the text in order to bolster a doctrine of the Trinity that he claims was unknown to the early church and that it was not in the text of the New Testament Scriptures but as we already saw in 1st Corinthians chapter 12 verses 4 through 6 that claim is simply not true because in first Corinthians 12 4 through 6 we see a clear example of the Trinity where the father is the same God the Son is the same Lord and the Holy Spirit is the same spirit the Father the Son the Holy Spirit are the same God you can’t get much clearer than 1st Corinthians chapter 12 verses 4 through 6 yet this rabbi claims that there is no other scripture for the trendy that is so clearly articulated then this one passage here in first John 5 7 through 8 which is added in the 14th century so let’s listen to this rabbis he gives this argument and then he gives some interesting history and how this particular passage got added to the text of the New Testament color welcome to the show what I have is been one quick one quick thing as years ago I found out several years ago about the comma Jehan akarma assertion for the first John 5:7 could anything that was admittedly inventive and added into Scripture question to the rabbi is maybe he knows more about this the coin Creek papyrus which is pre Nicean Council I have it’s available online for free as hundreds of things were edited to the original New Testament and the coin in Greek that aren’t in any of the Christian Bibles I’ve ever seen this is like the new jermaine juris thing they invented JC into 8th the design thing was he was never that way in the beginning this seems to be totally ignored by Protestants I was have been we need to started back into the courtesan Bible what was never there and it’s Roman Catholic thing it never existed can grab way elaborate on that please that’s really interesting point he brings out there’s so many things that were not in the original why do they keep adding stuff or why did they as it turns out the if you’re looking at a King James Version of the Bible there’s only one passage that where you will find clearly find the doctrine of the Trinity conveyed and encapsulated and that’s in first John so it’s an epistle it’s a letter chapter five verse seven eight and what you’ll find in the King James is there are three there bear witness in heaven the father the word and the Holy Spirit and these three are one well that pretty much encapsulate the doctrine of the Trinity as it was hammered out in at me and I see it and subsequently in Constantinople with comport perfectly with the Nicene Creed that there is one God but there is a distinction between three later term the three persons the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit although they manifest differently but there’s a division between them they each have a role but they’re ultimately hopefully are one that’s like you’ll find in the King James Version this is the only passage in a Christian book in a King James Version where you’ll find a passage that specifically outlines the doctrine of the Trinity clearly and succinctly there are other passages that Christians use from the Christian Bible to demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the Christian Bible rather than was a later Christian invention which it was but none of them illustrate none of them described it as this does the Great Commission that gone to all nations and the end of very end of the book of Matthew Matthew 28 the little nations and baptize in the name of the Father Son Holy Spirit that doesn’t that doesn’t convey the Trinity because there’s nothing in that passage that tells us about the relationship between the three doesn’t tell us that they’re one none of that so no matter what anyone tells you whether you know doubting Thomases my lord my god none of that tells us the Trinity only that passage none of them do but you go to any fun messy Vangelis Elizabeth Hawley possibly nonsense no one believed this and they the Trinity would have been everywhere the doctor binary it was placed in because later Christians were disappointed that it did not appear there and they then put interpreted in two translations that people commonly read without were read publicly in the churches they did this two translations in Latin and many other translations and Erasmus was threatened literally like because he was going to produce a second and actually a third and fourth subsequent edition with all the corrections he was threatened you would better insert first John five seven and eight that means insert that Trinitarian clause that’s what the word column means it’s like all the Joanne Ian Khama he better inserted so you’re a Smith said hey this is described by med school one of the great scholars of the 20th century he she said just bring me a Greek manuscript that has this in it this reading this Trinitarian reading in him and I will definitely put it in my next my my next edition and actually did they actually made a tailor-made custom-made manuscript which is now sitting I believe in the museum in Ireland we they literally had someone write create a manuscript of the New Testament and then when they came to that passage they translated into the Greek that translation became the foundation for the Texas receptors which is also like what the King James was built on and that’s why I used the term King James Version carefully because many Bible this is widely known what I’m telling you now is not some conspiracy theory in fact in honest Christian Bibles they’ll say that this is a later edition doesn’t appear in any Greek manuscript and so this is very well known but the King James left it in there some King James Bible to do I should say put it in brackets some of them will annotate this point that they’re very very important but they literally had to create a Greek man now this was done everywhere up and down we’ve just listened to the claims of a Jewish rabbi who teaches that the first John five seven and eight passage in the King James Bible was added to support the Trinity doctrine but let’s see what dr. white has to say about this claim was this scripture added to the text of the New Testament in order to teach the doctrine of the Trinity was it used ever in any of the literature of the Christian Church to support the Trinity doctrine let’s listen as dr. white answers these questions both in the question and answer period of the debate we’ve been featuring on the New Testament reliability and then the next clip will be from his dividing line Pro where he answered the question on this verse that was challenging the credibility of the New Testament texts so let’s listen as he answers these questions on the first John 5 7 & 8 passage dr. white was on 1st John 5:7 not invented to prove the Trinity there was no reason for the invention to prove the Trinity because the Trinity is a biblical doctrine is rather easily defended from the text of New Testament the comió Han ium arose as a what’s called a gloss probably a marginal gloss that was the early interpretation of what the three witnesses that are there the word the blood in the spirit and as a marginal note it became incorporated in Latin manuscripts in about the 5th century became predominant in the later forms of the Latin Vulgate and then was transferred into the Greek text beginning in about the fourteenth fifteenth century and was not in the first two editions of Erasmus but was put into the third edition which became quite popular of Erasmus as novum instrumentum how can the Christian Bible be trusted when a principal scripture of the Trinity first on five seven to eight was deceitfully added by an unknown person to suggest the concept of the Trinity was valid is this really the Word of God now as soon as anyone mentions the comi ohan IAM which is first John 5:7 in the King James Version Bible five seven eight I know we’re not talking about a person who has serious understanding with the doctrine the Trinity is in the first place and certainly does not have any meaningful idea of how the early church discussed the issue talked about the issue you will not find the Cameo hon iam as the central verse that was being used the Council of Nicaea or anything else like that to try to establish Trinitarian dogma as I mentioned to the Muslim this is probably a marginal reading that originated in the latin manuscripts and became a part of the latin text but did not become a part of the Greek manuscript tradition and so well over well at the earliest of 14th century and even then it never it’s it’s never become a part of the Greek manuscript tradition unless you decide to turn the TR or whatever version the TR you wanted into some inspired translation and then you you might as well just throw all the rest this discussion out because you’re no longer dealing with history you’re dealing with a modern development and some type of theological argument you have to come up with to explain all that so this is not a principal scripture of the Trinity you would not be able to demonstrate that from reading just use athenais shoes Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria he was the the primary defender of the Council of Nicaea see how central it was to him and you’ll see that it was not so deceitfully added well in all probability it was a marginal note that a scribe when you copy someone else’s manuscript if they’re not around for you to ask them about marginal notes the tendency of scribes was to include marginal notes in the text because when you were copying a text if you missed something if you skip something accidentally and then you’re proofreading you know I missed it you didn’t go out and kill another cow to get some more parchment you wrote it in the margin well if you can’t ask the original scribe but what was in the margin was supposed to be there or not there was a conservative tendency amongst Christian scribes and so you you have the addition just as you have in John chapter 5 the insertion of what was a marginal note into the text itself in later manuscripts that’s probably where first John 5 came from so you don’t know that it was deceitfully added by anyone you don’t know what their their reasons were you seem to think that you do to suggest the concept that Rainey was valid what’s that’s nice how did you gain this capacity of reading people’s minds who you don’t know who died thousands of years before you were born may I question the validity of that particular process of yours yeah I will question the validity of that process the fact is we know that it’s not original it’s not central to the doctrine of Trinity and there you go so there you have it there’s absolutely no reason to suggest that this first John five seven and eight passage was added to the TR Texas Receptus of the King James Bible that’s the Greek text the King James Bible relied on it was not added to the text of the King James Bible in order to teach the Trinity doctrine if it was we would have seen it quoted in a significant church doctrine when they were trying to use look for scriptures to support the Trinity doctrine at the nation’s himself whose work formed the basis of the development of the Athanasian Creed one of the best Creed’s in the Trinity doctrine he never quotes this passage so there’s no indication in church history that this passage was used to support the Trinity doctrine and there’s no indication in the writings that became the foundation for the Trinity doctrine being adopted by the early church there’s no indication they ever used this passage at all no one referenced it no one quoted it so there’s no indication that this text was a corruption added to the text of the Bible in order to teach the Trinity doctrine this rabbis claims are completely baseless but what about this idea that the this text was being forced upon de Sedaris Erasmus to add it to his third edition of the Textus Receptus Greek text that he was compiling in order for the King James translators to be able to produce a Bible in English what about this claim he was pressured into putting this passage in because it appeared in the Latin Vulgate well here’s my reason of why I think he was pressured it I used to attend a King James only church and in that church if you walked into that church with a different Bible other than the King James Bible they would give a hard time about it because they taught that the King James Bible was the only inspired Bible and that all these other modern translations that rely on different Greek manuscripts not the Textus Receptus but like the Nestle Ireland 27th edition of the Greek that they would say that those new Greek manuscripts that are compiled from ancient manuscripts are really corruptions to the text why because the nestled Arlen Greek text or other Greek texts used by our modern English Bibles do not contain all of the expansions that the King James text contains and so they’ll say that well the translators of these modern Bibles were taking things away from Scripture and they were removing key doctrines of Scripture when they removed some of the texts like this coma ham passage that’s found in the King James Bible they used the same kind of argument that was put on today’s Adair’s Erasmus when he tried to compile a Greek text looking at just the Greek manuscripts he had available and because those Greek manuscripts did not have this expanded text found in the Latin Vulgate they pressured him into putting it into his read text because they felt that Erasmus was actually corrupting the text of the Bible because they thought it was original because it was in the Bible that they were used to reading it was in the Latin Vulgate the very translation that everybody had access to and so it was the same argument that was given to me for wanting to read my new American Standard Bible at the dis King James only church they would argue no that’s a corrupted text because it doesn’t have the Khomeini on him it doesn’t have all these expanded phrases that we find in the King James text so the very same argument that was given to me by King James translator was likely the same argument that was given today za’darius Erasmus so the reason I bring this story up is I believe there’s a very likely good reason for why why that text was pressured on today’s address Erasmus people thought it needed to be in there because it was in the Bible they were used to reading in the Latin Vulgate it’s not because they were trying to support a Trinity doctrine that they felt wasn’t supported well with the rest of the Scriptures in their Bible that’s not it at all they just thought that well it was in the Latin Vulgate he should have added it to his Greek text for the King James Bible and as we see he was pressured into putting this in because they manufactured a Greek text to try to trick him into putting this this passage in and he ended up in the King James Bible as a result but this is not an evidence of the overall text of the New Testament scripture being corrupted nobody else puts the Coma Union in there true modern translations that we find today only those that follow the Greek text the desease desmos compiled the Textus Receptus only those people which the King James Bible is based upon the New King James Bible is based upon but all of the modern additions today that utilize the best and more ancient Greek manuscripts do not put that in so there’s no reason to suggest that the New Testaments being corrupted by the fact that this verse is in some of the the Greek text well the Textus Receptus primarily and some of the additions and translations that have been based on that that particular Greek text all of the textual critical scholars today all unanimously pretty much agree that wasn’t original that text in the first John five and they don’t put it in so how can you use this verse that is a spurious reading that is only utilized by a few of the Christian Bibles translations why why how can you even use this scripture as an example of corruptions to the text of the New Testament you might say well it’s an example of some expansions that occurred in some of the later manuscripts of the text but we can go back to the those manuscripts that are far more ancient and determine what the original readings are and that’s why all of the New Testament scholars agree that the New Testament is 99% accurate because you know the small variants that we do find like this como unum they don’t change the overall message of the and the removal of that passage doesn’t remove the fact that we can easily prove the Trinity from many other passages of the New Testament as dr. white will examine in just a moment here but I want to conclude this part of the this video on textual variants with one more statement from this Jewish rabbi where he goes in and tries to make the claim that the new Trinity doctrine is not found in the New Testament so let’s listen to what he says and then we’re gonna hear what dr. white has to say about that claim I wonder does this last point you have you have been told if you’re a Christian listening to this you have been told and drilled it into your head of the Trinity the doctor the Trinity with all the word of the Trinity is not there but the concept of the Trinity is fully developed in the Christian Bible it’s just absolutely not true it’s an absolute life and this proves it because what need would latest frogs have to interpolate this thoroughly Trinitarian comma this clause why would they put it in there if it was vestigial it was unnecessary they obviously put it in there because they were very unsatisfied with the way the Christian Bible looked before it was put in there and that’s why we’re living this doctrine of the Trinity but this is the very nature of who God is and this the writers and it doesn’t just didn’t think this was important enough to mention and the only best proofs you have is like he said my lord my god this is the best you can come up with the passage in 1st Corinthians that it basically can only infer confirmed not even a Trinity just that Jesus was and somehow a kind of divine being of what exactly nature is ambiguous and that’s the source of that’s the bottom line the aerial answer is that the Jews don’t have to do that the coach Murphy gave us a tire they told Zach God’s nature is and this is it Shema Israel heroes oh I think no you Lehane then you heard Lord is our God the Lord is one we don’t there’s no didn’t have to interpolate anything before me there was no God for know that what they want after me I am alone god there’s no one else with him but me besides me automated I know my shame you are my witnesses declares Lord obvious Shiva hearty my servant my shows to do what what was my purpose the purpose is to know that there is no other Savior besides me read Isaiah 43 verse 10 and 11 and turn back them because he loves you he makes the plain we didn’t have to do this we didn’t have to interpolate all these crazy things because the radical monotheism of Judaism was never change and there’s no evolution nothing we’ve just listened to this Jewish rabbi make the claim that isaiah 43:10 where god says you’re my witnesses know and understand that before me there was no God formed there will be no God after me he used that passage in the Hebrew Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4 hear o Israel the Lord our God the Lord is one to try to teach that the treaty doctrine is not found in the text of the Old Testament but let’s listen in to what dr. white had to say about this argument in his closing statements of the debate we’ve been featuring on New Testament reliability he actually talked about this passage here in isaiah 43:10 and he tied it to the claims of Christ in the New Testament and showed how Jesus was claiming to be God let’s listen in as he discusses this we’re told what nobody in the Old Testament expected a these things folks I mean let me let me give you something that I’ve used many many times let me show you like hami of him me you got a Bible somebody’s got a full Bible full full text because all I’ve gots the Greek New Testament thank you very very much all right let me show you where the doctrine of the Trinity is revealed I’ve just turned to the beginning of Matthew the end of Malachi see the gutter right here there’s worth revealed what do I mean by that the primary revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit which took place in history right there everything after it is written in light of what happened historically in the incarnation of Jesus Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and therefore is written upon the by experiential Trinitarians Peter was a Trinitarian he had heard the father speak from heaven he had walked with the son he was non dwelt by the Holy Spirit of God and so why should you have the Old Testament talking about the Trinity when the revelation had yet to take place oh there are texts that specifically give us images Isaiah chapter 9 verse 6 and many others that give us images of what’s coming but the revelation had not yet taken place it took place in history in John 13 19 take a look at it with me on the night of his betrayal and by the way we have the earliest manuscript evidence of guests which one of the gospels john in that interesting may have been the first one written but the earliest manuscript evidence we have all comes from john on the night of his betrayal jesus says to his disciples from now on I’m telling you before it comes to pass in order that when it does take place you may believe hotsy ago I mean that I am that I am now it’s just said the Jews knew their scriptures yes they did and many of the Jews knew their scriptures in Greek because it was good to know Greek in those days especially when the Roman soldiers started yelling at you in Greek it was good to know what he was saying very very good and so when Jesus said these words and he’s talking about the betrayal of Judas I’m going to tell you before it happens so when it does happen you may know and believe and understand I am he you know where that comes from Jesus quoting scripture of himself you and I know isaiah 43:10 because we deal with Mormonism all the time before me there is no God for him there should be done after me right what’s the beginning of the verse you are my servant whom I have chosen right why what was wherever they chosen what was what was I gonna do for them it’s in the context of prophecy of future events and he says this to them and he says so that you may know and believe and do what and understand that I am he the Hebrew is onna who what is onna who translated by in the Greek Septuagint all through Isaiah ego Eimi I am uses the exact same forms of verbs did Jesus know his Old Testament Scriptures you better believe he did and on the night of his betrayal he says to his disciples I’m telling you what happens before it happens so when it does you may believe that I am and he quotes from the prophet of Isaiah about himself identifying him as who Yahweh the New Testament writers identify the father is Yahweh the son is Yahweh the Spirit is the spirit of Yahweh and so you have one God we are monotheistic but the fact that Paul will quote from Isaiah every knee will bow every tongue will confess to who Yahweh who is that – in Philippians chapter 2 Jesus Peter does the same thing John does the same thing this is the earliest testimony that we have and I can back up the historical reading of that text there aren’t any variants this is what was written so we’ve covered a lot of ground tonight there are excellent books out there that would give you a background especially to the issues in regards to textual criticism there are exciting developments right now in this area we are evermore increasing our level of confidence in this area the very time it’s under attack that’s a wonderful gift from God it is not a reason to reject the Christian faith there’s something else going on there take the time to do to study yourself and you will discover the new testament is the best most ancient and widely attested work of antiquity I believe God has preserved it for us he’s preserved it in such a way it could not have been changed by some organization had control over it and that’s why you have the few textual variants you have that was the methodology of preservation thank you for being here this evening well we’ve covered a lot of ground as we’ve been going through this series on the textual variants that are found in the text of the New Testament and also in the text of the Old Testament and as we’ve been studying each of these textual variants we have seen that none of them correct the message of the text in any way not a single textual variant whether you go with one reading or with another reading whether you have that passage included or you have that passage taken out even in the case of the coma you johani I’m in first John five seven through eight even if you remove that it doesn’t take away the message of the New Testament that shows the Trinity doctrine so we know that just by examining the evidence we can see that textual variants do not change the message of the New Testament or the Old Testament the Bible has been preserved as God promised as jesus promises the heaven and earth will pass away but my word he said my words will never pass away and we can see that clearly when we examine these textual variants that his words his message his teachings his truth about the gospel salvation being by faith in Christ and if we trust in what he has done at Calvary to pay for our sins we can have our sins forgiven if we trust in Him and we know we can live eternally with God and that Jesus is able to pay for our sins because He is God in the flesh he is the son of God who is both God and men 100% man and 100% God that’s why he’s called the Son of God and the son of man we see that clearly in the scriptures and as our white said the primary revelation of the doctrine of the Trinity is found in the New Testament in the incarnation of Jesus Christ as it said the word became flesh the word who is God you know in the beginning was the word and the Word was God and God was the word how things in Ilocos so God was the word Jesus himself the word became flesh verse 14 and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory as the glory of the only begotten full of grace and truth as it says in John chapter one so that’s the beauty of the New Testament it completes the revelation of the Old Testament which just gives us shadows of the Trinity we see many passages where God shows up as both you know when he comes to Abraham you see God show up and he and so the Lord shows up and then he sends down fire from heaven on Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis chapter 18 so he shows up three men appear to Abraham and he finds out that they have the Lord and the Lord goes and brings judgment on Sodom and Gomorrah and and brings out lot in his family from Sodom and Gomorrah and at the same time calls down fire from heaven from the Lord Yahweh in heaven so we see shadowing of the trendy of the two natures of God of of one invisible God and one visible God known as the angel of Yahweh who appears to Joshua in Zechariah three and takes away his sins as Joshua is standing before Yahweh the throne of Yahweh yep the angel of Yahweh before the throne of Yahweh and they’re both God called Yahweh the Lord God in Zechariah chapter 3 so we see so many shadows of the Trinity in the Old Testament but the primary revelation is to be found in the New Testament so this concludes our analysis of the textual variants found in the manuscripts of the Bible as we have seen there is absolutely no comparison between the doctrinal changes that Joseph Smith made to the text and the revelations of Mormon scriptures and those textual differences scribal marginal notes and mistakes that were copied into the some of the manuscripts of the New Testament there’s absolutely no comparison between textual variants and changes that Joseph Smith made to Mormon scriptures as we can see Christianity is not the Mormonism of Judaism there’s a complete difference between how Mormonism distorts the scriptures and how Christianity has preserved the message of both the new and the Old Testament with our manuscripts God has preserved the manuscripts through his inspiration even when you do have variants in the New Testament manuscripts or the Old Testament manuscripts they do not change a single doctrine and we know that we can trust that God has preserved his word especially as we have analyzed the manuscripts that we have of the Bible and can see God’s truth shining through even in the textual variants this is a stark contrast to Mormonism were the very revelations that Joseph Smith received from God were changed in a controlled manuscript that is an ancient it wasn’t a result of copying errors these were direct changes that Joseph Smith made to the text but in the New Testament none of the scribal differences and errors that we see in some of the variances in the manuscripts affect a single doctrine of Christianity God has preserved his word and you can trust it to be your foundation for your faith [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] you you