An Example of Forgery in the King James Bible

[TheLionessjudah]

Bart Ehrman is used by the Islamic Brotherhood as a tool to discredit the Bible in favor of the Koran. You will notice many arab names sponsoring these uploads. Very much a Judas for Bible believers.

[wongjogja]

@TheLionessjudah

You can't accept arguments of Bart Ehrman

now you criticize who uploads Bart Ehrman videos

is that the best you can do? accept the truth no matter who said it !

[TheLionessjudah]

@wongjogja I find if silly that Muslims upload his videos, watch them and feel satisfied that he actually makes a dent in the Word of YHWH. The fact is the Koran Qu'ran says to adhere to the beliefs of the people of the Book, Christians and Jews. Actually the best that anyone can do is to Believe, You cannot please YHWH God without Faith. So Bart and all the rest are party to Satan, since anyone who opposes YHWH God is an adversary, But Bart can repent to Christ, Muslims still deny the Lord

[toobsucker]

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost

[AgApE010]

That 1 John 5:7 is not in the autographs has been known by Christians 400 years before there was a Mormonism. It's also interesting to note that Tertullian, Augustine, or Nicea did not need 1 John 5:7 to see the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@AgApE010 In Mormon Scripture, Jesus was the God of the Old Testament before His incarnation; so my posting this vid is in no way intended to prove Mormonism true, but,as I said in a previoous comment, intended to inform all Chrisiians (mormons included) that they've been fooled by a verse of the Authorized Version.

The only that's true about the Trinity doctrine is that Jesus really is divine, but God the Father and His only begotten Son really are two seperate persons

[AgApE010]

@LDSfaithDefender

What a Mormon calls divine is not the same as when a Christian uses the word. When most people say Christ is divine or deity, it means that he is God. There is only one God according to the Scriptures, btw.

[tadpoleposition]

No surprises there. Muhammad (salla allahu alaihi wa sallam) stated unequivocally over 1,400 years ago what Bart Ehrman has concluded through years of research. Oh, Muhammad (salla allahu alaihi was sallam) was an illiterate Arab living in 7th Century Arabia. It's just another of many proofs of his true prophethood (salla allahu alaihi wa sallam).

[bayreuth79]

I am sceptical of trinitarianism but I am even more sceptical of Mormonism! There is no historical evidence to support the veracity of the Book of Mormon, but Mormons continue believing in it regardless. Is it a coincidence that in the Book of Mormon all the religious questions asked by J Smith's historical-geographical context are "answered" therein? It is clearly a product of J Smith's time- not some "mythical" American past. Its also a painfully dull read.

[P1B1U1H1]

@bayreuth79 Alack & alas, no religious text survives excessive scrutiny. Evidence against Moses' existence continues to build.Cannibalism appears to survive such analysis quite nicely by lacking a specific text.

[bayreuth79]

I am not sure why an LDS apologist is posting Bart D Ehrmann- if the New Testament doesn't teach trinitarianism it certainly doesn't teach tritheism either (the idea that there are three separate 'gods')!If the Bible as a whole teaches anything about God it is radical monotheism, not trinitarianism nor tritheism, or any other -ism. Of course, Mormonism teaches tritheism; but that is even remoter from the OT & NT than trinitarianism.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@bayreuth79 My posting this vid is in no way intended to prove Mormonism, since Latter-day Saints themselves use the King James version: it's intended to inform the whole of Christendom, Mormons included.

The duty of any Christian is to inform other Christians about religious frauds

[shadapple]

Blasphemy

[believeonetime]

When scripture can’t be explained away, critics of the Trinity deny the reliability of scripture itself. It should always raise a red flag when someone claims to be a Christian but then discredits scripture.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

What scripture "can't be explained away?" What scripture says that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are "one substance?"

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman= Is this the scripture that you want to explained away?

1 John 5:7

King James Version (KJV)

 7=For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

[zorin85]

Dr. Ehrman's position with regards to the absence of the Trinitarian doctrine in the Bible is well attested in the circle of Biblical scholarship. Consider the following:

"NEITHER the word Trinity NOR the explicit doctrine appears in the New Testament" [The New Encyclopedia Britannica]."

"As Far as the New Testament is concerned, one does NOT find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity [A Short History of Christian Doctrine, by Bernhard Lohse]."

Hence, the Trinity is BOGUS.

[RPM11111]

Even without 1 Jn 5:7-8 the 3 persons of the GODHEAD are present in the Bible.

[believeonetime]

It started in Genesis 3: with satan Questioning Gods word to eve .

Did God surely say?

It will end with satan and man under the power of satan Questioning Gods word.

Did God surely say?.

[believeonetime]

Just to let you know Bart D. Ehrman says that Jesus the man is a fact that can be proven.

And that the crucifiction of Jesus is a fact that can be proven.

[believeonetime]

1 John 5,7,8 King James Version (KJV) 7= For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8= And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one

. Authorized by a king just the way it supposed to be

Just stay with GODS word the KJV /// You believe GOD or Bart D. Ehrman

Thank I stay with GOD=JESUS=HOLY SPIRIT== THESE THREE ARE ONE

THANK YOU JESUS

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

The following statements are from Non-Mormon sources:

Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament--"The NT does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT."

William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation--"The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three coequal Persons of One Nature."

...cont....

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman This is not a loaded question /// who do you thank Jesus is and the holy spirit is ...

It would help in having a meaningful conversation ...

I apologize i first thought you was a Muslim becals they use allot of Bart D. Ehrman vids to discredit the Bible and also Jesus being God I apologize again..Thanks

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I believe that Jesus was chosen by the Father to come to earth to provide a way for ALL mankind to return to live with the Father. He did that by living a sinless life, atoning for the sins of all mortals in Gethsemane & on the cross, and being the first to rise from the dead in the resurrection. His is the only name given under Heaven by which ALL may be saved.

....cont....

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman You stated that you believe =Jesus was chosen by the Father to come to earth to provide a way for ALL mankind to return to live with the Father. Do you believe ALL mankind will go to Heaven.

Who do you thank Jesus was in Heaven .

I do not under stand how someone who professes to believe in GOD and understands GOD created the universe and all that is in it and does not thank GOD could keep his word in tack that amazing me. I believe the KJV is authorized by a king is GODS word

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

We do not believe that there is only "Heaven" & "hell." Just as people are not equally faithful, there are different places for the different levels of faithfulness.  We call these "degrees of glory." We do not believe ALL mankind will go to a singular place called "Heaven." The place where God the Father dwells is called "the Celestial Kingdom," only the most faithful & righteous will live with Him.

cont.....

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman 1 You stated=We do not believe that there is only "Heaven" & "hell." ///

Not biblical at all where you get this from.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

1 Cor 15: 40-42 speaks of glories of the sun, the moon, & the stars. John 14:2 tells of "many mansions." Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Origen, & John Chrysostom taught that these scriptures were referring to the different places mortals will be sent to upon the Judgement. The 4th place will be hell.

Jovinian, a monk from Milan, taught of only the saved & the damned. Jerome said that was more like Old Stoic philosophy than Christian belief.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

2- Before His mortal life on this earth, Jesus was the firstborn of the spirit children of God the Father. He was also Yahweh or Jehovah--the God of the Old Testament.

We do not believe God "could not" keep His word intact, but that He allowed satan to temp men & that they changed the scriptures to fit their designs. God has allowed many things to happen: the Ark of the Covenant to be lost, the Holy Temple to be destroyed, His chosen people to be scattered,

cont....

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman 2- You stated=Jesus was the firstborn //.

Do you thank Jesus was created ?

You stated=God allowed Satan to temp men & that they changed the scriptures to fit their designs //.

Do you thank God allowed . this to happen to the book of the mormons to fit their designs //.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

2- Jesus was not created in the sense Christians use.

We believe that ALL who live on this Earth lived as spirits in Heaven & were the two thirds who followed Jehovah. The other one third followed Lucifer & were cast out & will never receive mortal bodies. We are all spirit children of God, the Father & thus brothers & sisters. Jesus (Jehovah) was the First Born of the Father & therefore our Elder Brother. Romans 8:29 ..that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

3- Joseph received the plates directly from the angel Moroni. There were no redactors or copyists to corrupt the writings. Joseph said that any errors in the BoM were his.

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman All mormons need to read this.//

Joseph Smith:

America's Hermetic Prophet

by Lance S. Owens

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

What is so important about Owens' book?

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

3- bad things to happen to good people, and His Only Begotten Son to be executed like a common criminal.

King James is to be commended for what he did, but it was mortal men who decided which books were put in the Bible & which were kept out. The scriptures were corrupted long before James ordered his Bible.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

Moses "wrote" the 10 commandments & all other scripture the way God revealed them to him. We do not have the original writings of Moses. We have the remnants after many centuries of copying & redacting. During that time the originals were changed, sometimes by error, sometimes on purpose. Mormons believe that only through revelation from God can we know what the originals said.

Which books went into the canon was decided a long time after the original authors died.

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman So you dont thank the 10 commandments we have today is what God had Moses to right

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

You have an interesting way of interpreting my statements.

I said that mortal men decided which books went into the Bible. You decide that since "Moses was a mortal man" maybe he didn't pass the 10 commandents on the way God revealed them.

I said no, that the scriptures Moses wrote have been changed over the years. You conclude that I don't think we have the 10 commandments the way Moses recorded them.

What game are you playing?

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman No game // you stated that the kjb was wrote by moral men so it could not be a perfect word from God // my point is God has always used mortal men including Moses so if i thought like you do i would have to say the 10 commandments could not be what God said // Moses was a mortal man // see my point // i'm not trying to play games // you got to have faith that God can use Mortal man to do his work / Jesus read from a translation of Isaiah in the temple did he not / ?

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

What exactly do you think? Do you believe that the Bible we have today is inerrant and the accurate word of God?

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman Moses did NOT write the 10 commandments God did with his finger Exodus 31 -18 kjv .

So moses translated them to paper / Jesus read from a translation of Isaiah / so God has no problem with translations / In the kjv God said he magnified his word above his name / God said Heaven and earth shall pass away but my word shall not / Yes men gided by the Holy Spirit gave us Gods word for todays beliver kjv / I wish everybody had the conviction i have about the kjb / Faith in God i have

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

Yes, God wrote on the original tablets, but in Ex 32:19 Moses broke those tablets. In Ex 34:28 "And he (Moses) was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights; he (Moses) did neither eat bread, nor drink water. And he (Moses) wrote upon the tables the words of the covenant, the ten commandments." We have what Moses wrote.

When Jesus read from Esaias, He read it in Hebrew, not a translation. He approved of what He read. What other scriptures did He read from?

cont..2

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman Yes we have the 10 commandments as God gave to Moses.

Jesus spoke primary Aramaic so he would have had to translate which he also read and spoke Hebrew .

He read from a handwritten copy not the originals which was no problem for him / He approved of what He read / He would have read scripture daily because he was a law keeping Jew / As for these books you say is lost if they was of any importance we would have them / I thank God could do that no problem./ Faith in God.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

Did you read any of the verses to see how important those books were?

Let's look at EX 24:7-8 "And he (Moses) took the Book of the Covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words."

That sounds very important, something Israel should have to remember God's covenant.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

2- Here are some books lost from the OT: The Book of the Covenant-Ex 24:7; The Book of the Wars of the Lord-Num 21:14; The Book of Jasher-Josh 10:13; The Book of the Acts of Solomon-Kgs 11:41; The Books of Samuel the Seer, Nathan the Prophet, & Gad the Seer-1 Chr 29:29; The Book of Shemaiah the Prophet-2 Chr 12:15; The Story of the Prophet Iddo-2 Chr 13:22; The Book of Jehu-2 Chr 20:34; The Sayings of the Seers-2 Chr 33:18.

Much that was important has been lost.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

The Holy Spirit is the 3rd member of the Godhead. He testifies of Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit has been manifest in every dispensation of the gospel since the beginning, being first made known to Adam.

I believe the Bible to be the word of God, but I believe that the original writings have been corrupted like Ehrman says, but I do not agree with everything he says.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

2-Ernest F. Scott in An Encyclopedia of Religion--"In the NT, there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity."

Harper's Bible Dictionary--"The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the 4th & 5th centuries is not to be found in the NT."

Many say that Mormons are not Christian, because they do not believe in this NON-biblical creed.

[godswordsheal]

2.What I'm saying is that what we argue over today is really very little since we have such a rich treasure of early manuscripts, the BEST of ANY book of antiquity. Because of this the Bible is still thought of as very, very close to the original writings contained therein.

[godswordsheal]

Thank God that He made us smart enough to understand things that are not explicitly written of in the bible through a complete examination of all text that pertain to that subject. Now this is from a Mormon so of course this person wants us all to doubt the reliability of the Bible. I'm not saying perfect preservation, nor inerrancy...I'm saying that despite the devil and men tampering with it, it stands about 99% in historical certainty.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal No, on the contrary, Mormons do NOT want you to doubt the reliability of the Bible, since they're the world's most devout Bible believers: what they want you to understand is that specific parts of the Bible have been changed, and that you shouldn't believe those parts.

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender Its interesting that I just watched some of the G.C. and Richard G. Scott said that the validity of the 4 LDS scriptures don't even matter...according to him its irrelevant if it was forged, or the BOM was changed, or the PoGP was written by Walt Disney. What do you think about that?

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender Do you know many Mormons? Anyway, it seems you have admitted, by stating your purpose and experience, that you are quite ignorant to the religion your are supposedly defending.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal 1. My sister IS a Mormon, though a backsliding one. And my best Utahn friend is a Mormon. 2. You've never stepped into a Mormon church at east once to attend its meeting and see what it feels like: I did. 3. I have examined Mormon Scripture since 1989, not the writings of anti-Mormon activists that you read, and I've come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith was a genuine person, who was in no way trying to perpetrate a hoax.

Continued in next comment

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender So, what you are saying is...you only read one side of the story. What do you do when the so called "anti-mormon" sites use more actual church sources than the LDS sites do? If all you are going to do is look at the Mormon sources then you'd do just as well by walking up to any Mormon and asking them if Joe Smith was a fraud, you'll get the same answer. I'm curious as to how you came to this conclusion. Have you learned of Joe's 33 wives and how they came to be his wives?

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal I will no longer exchange comments with you. You don't even know how I performed my investigations on Mormonism. Trying to reason with you would just like trying to discuss philosophy with a dog

I thought I was dealing with a true Christian at first, but after all your following coments, I found out you were NOT a Christian: it's no use dealing with a charlatan

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender Here is what you said "I have examined Mormon Scripture since 1989, not the writings of anti-Mormon activists that you read" so you've only read of the Mormon explanations...unless you were lying, but I wouldn't know either way I can only go by what you tell me.

It seems you are not only truly ignorant but you are intolerant! You call me a charlatan without evidence of such a claim. You are the one making a claim to knowledge that I have read "anti-mormon literature"...

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal Part 1: What I wrote is one thing, what I MEANT is another. What I meant was: I did read anti-Mormon literature since 1989; but when I discovered the fraudulentness of those who wrote it, I stopped trusting it. Here's one of the countless examples of their charlatanism. To defend the Bible's sanctity, they use archaeologists to debunk Mormonism. Those archaeologists assert that Native Americans came from Southeast Asia 25,000 years ago, thereby disproving their jewish origin.

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender I wouldn't say that they are defending the Bible by proving Mormonism wrong, all they are doing is proving Mormonism wrong. They also did DNA tests to show that Native American's are not descendants of Jewish people. But I'm confused how this is a charlatanism since it is true. Do you have a better example of how the "anti-mormons" are being fraudulent in their criticism of Mormonism? I'm truly interested.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal Like I said, the examples are countless; so the other one I'll give you will be the last one

Mormon Scripture reveals that our souls lived in heaven before we were born onto this earth. Anti-Mormon activists preach against that. Well, it turns out that several of the people who've had a near-death experience and did experience heaven instead of hell, were shown there what their lives had before their coming into this world: they saw themselves remembering living in heaven

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender So because some people who have had near death experiences think they saw a pre-mortal life means its true? How does that show fraudulent attacks on Mormonism?

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal Well, Christians that are anti-Mormon activists have posted videos and comments on YouTube dismissing Mormonism as heretic and blasphemous for teaching about pre-mortal life, because it's not contained in the Bible

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender It's odd that you say you are not a Mormon yet you are certainly biased toward their view of things...not only are you "defending" their faith but you have yet to show a good reason why you reject outside criticisms of the LDS faith; and lastly truth be told in the Articles of Faith for the LDS church "We believe in the Book of Mormon as divine scripture, and we believe in the bible as long as it is translated correctly. (paraphrased)" What does that have to do with forgery?

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal No, this very video you're posting comments on is not meant to prove Mormonism, but only to inform the whole of Christendom, both Latter-day Saints and non-LDS Christians

[LDSfaithDefender]

@LDSfaithDefender Correction of the previous message: that's "what their lives had BEEN before their coming into this world"

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal Part 2: According to biblical chronology, Adam was born c. 4,000 B.C., making it thereby impossible for mankind to have existed on this planet 25,000 years ago. So what those anti-Mormon activists actually did to defend the Bible's sanctity was use archaelogists that, while debunking Mormonism, unwittingly put the lie to the Bible at the same time.

That's just one of the countless frauds I found in anti-mormon literature's fraudulentness

[godswordsheal]

@LDSfaithDefender So what you are saying is that both are wrong...but as I said DNA also confirms that...so despite the idea that archaeology would disprove the idea's of both religions doesn't solve the problem for Mormonism, since there are other ways to show the inconsistency with history.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@godswordsheal 4. There have been a lot of charlatans in religious history over the last decades indeed, and I can tell you Joseph Smith was NOT one of them. If you want me name you an example of a fraud, here's one: Charles T. Russell.

[blahblahreadabook]

@godswordsheal 99% historical certainty, how do you figure? are u aware: The bible is written by unknown authors about 100 years after the events. This means the bible was originally passed orally for 100 years by illiterate uneducated peasants who had almost no understanding of the natural world, who lived in a time when people changed gods as often as the changed their underwear, a time when natural disasters were direct acts of the gods, this is who wrote your 99% historical accurate bible.

[godswordsheal]

@blahblahreadabook How do I figure...textual criticism. Since there is more than one "book" in the bible you need to be more specific. For sure they are a collection of writings from different authors, from different areas, written at different times, and written for different audiences...When I said 99% certainty I was only talking about the New Testament, I forgot to clarify that. Thanks.

[godswordsheal]

@blahblahreadabook 2.And not all of the writings in the New Testament occurred 100 years after, many letters of Paul were well within the time of their events. Also, depending on the scholar, some scholars date at least the gospel of Mark within 50 years of the events...Not to mention your talk about "passed orally for 100 years..." is somewhat nonsense because of the fact that the bible that we have today wasn't officially cannonized (put together) until about 1546 AD.

[blahblahreadabook]

@godswordsheal Seeing as you more or less agreed with what I said, I can't really argue:) ... I am a confused however at how you can claim that the new testament (which is what I was reffering to as well) is 99% accurate. Given the way in which the bible came to be, how can you claim that it is provably accurate? You can say "it is the word of god so through his power it maintained its integrity", but this is merely a hope/belief and not something that can be supported except by faith alone.

[blahblahreadabook]

@godswordsheal PART 2. Also, even if I concede and put aside this obvious problem, it still does very little to resolve the biggest issue of all. Even if we had video recordings, or better yet had the authors here for an interview with CNN, it would still be a group of men telling nearly impossible stories and having no proof what so ever to back up their claims. Simply put, this is not credible evidence. It is no different than me saying I have a pet dragon. Where's the proof!?!

[godswordsheal]

@blahblahreadabook Let's not get the issue confused. When I am speaking of Historical certainty I am not speaking about whether or not the events recorded in the New Testament happened as they said, but I am saying that we can be confident that we do have the actual New Testament as originally written. This video is not about believing what the bible says but about whether or not the bible says what it originally said.

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

In the Mar/Apr 2007 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks interviewed Bart Ehrman; James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist & Baptist minister; Lawrence H. Shiffman, a prominant DeadSeaScroll scholar & Orthodox Jew; & William G. Dever, one of America's best-known & most widely quoted archaeologists, who had been an evangelical preacher, but lost his faith & is agnostic.

All four agreed that the Bible is not inerrant & that not every word is accurate & devine.

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Wow...that's really interesting? So what?

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

You claim that the New Testament is 99% of the original. Do you have any evidence to support that? Because biblical scholars do not agree with you.

There were about 40 different books that were accepted by different Christian groups at the start of the 2nd century which are not in the current Bibles and some that were disputed are in the KJV.

For example the book of Revelation(aka the Apocalypse of John) was disputed as valid scripture....cont...

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Which Biblical scholars?

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Also, let me remind you, I wrote "historical certainty" I'm not saying that the books in the New Testament now were all automatically accepted (although most scholars do agree that many of the writings were agreed upon well before the 3rd century), nor that they are the only writings. Do you have any proof that those books you mentioned should be included or excluded besides the fact that they were disputed?

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

Martin Luther was quite the Biblical scholar. He rejected 4 NT books: Hebrews (because it refuses a 2nd forgiveness to apostates), James (which declares that 'faith without works is dead'), Jude (he thought it came from 2 Peter & gave no clear witness to Christ), & Revelation (he believed it was not clear, did not properly teach Christ, was neither apostolic nor prophetic, & was subject to personal interpretation.).....cont

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman By the time Martin Luther came around the canon had already been quite complete not to mention that although he "rejected" them he never quite managed to exclude them from the canon, as he did with many deuterocanonical books.

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

Martin Luther is portrayed by some as the poster boy for the Bible being the "inerrant & accurate word of God." He wasn't. He relegated the 4 mentioned books to the end of the NT as not being entitled to the same status as other biblical books.

The canon was completed by men who did so according to their likes & dislikes, not revelation.

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman You are just making assertions...once again the majority of books in the canon were already thought as divinely inspired by the majority of christians, you produce 5 or so early christians who disagree about the inspiration about some books but that's a far jump you must make to claim that all the canon books were just chosen for aesthetic reasons. Clearly, they and others had criteria they felt needed to be met and argued over whether certain books were authentic.

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

Here is a list of early Christians who claimed that the scriptures were corrupted during the 2nd century: Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Rufinus. They were leaders & scholars who knew what they were writing about.

You claim that "the majority of christians" thought that the books were divinely inspired, but don't give any names. Who were those people? When did they live?

cont......2..

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

2- I did not "claim that all the canon books were just chosen for aesthetic reasons." Those deciding the canon did the best they could, but they had to choose from what was left over after the corruption during the 2nd century.

When we talk about the Bible being translated correctly, it isn't just about writing from one language to another, but about transferring the original text correctly, even in the same language.

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman And as I said before, Luther KEPT the books in the canon. Whether he thought them unworthy of the same status is inconsequential to the fact that he respected the canon as we have today.

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Even Bruce Metzger admitted this: "Although the fringes of the emerging canon remained unsettled for generations, a high degree of unanimity concerning the greater part of the New Testament was attained among the very diverse and scattered congregations of believers not only throughout the Mediterranean world, but also over an area extending from Britain to Mesopotamia. (The Canon of the New Testament)

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

2-Irenaeus claimed that the Valentinians changed the scriptures "by transferring passages, & dressing them up anew, & making one thing out of another."

Tertullian claimed that "Marcion expressly & openly used the knife, not the pen, since he made such an excision of the Scriptures as suited his own subject matter."

He also said that "writings which wrongly go under Paul's name" were forged by a presbyter in Asia to give "license for women's teaching & baptizing."....cont...

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Hmm I will do more study on this...have any sources I could use?

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

"The Ante-Nicene Fathers" Alexander Roberts & James Donaldson, editors.

Ireaneus reference at vol 1:326

Tertullian references at vol 3:262 & 3:677

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

3-The books that were considered scripture & some of the content of those books changed from the beginning to the end of the 2nd century.

There is no "proof" for the inclusion or the exclusion of either "rejected" or "accepted" scripture, it is all subjective. In the sometimes deadly conflict to establish "one Lord, one faith, one baptism," it was the Christians who over whelmed their opponants who won. As the winners, they decided which scriptures were "acceptable."

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman I'm not sure to which deadly conflicts in the early church you are referring to, I'm pretty sure that for the first 300 years Christians were persecuted, (not the whole time, mind you). These were people willingly dying for their faith, not causing battles and conquering people and then forcing some new beliefs on the conquered.

[godswordsheal]

@GaryKColeman Seems like you are mixing up your history a bit. But i could be wrong.

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

The deadly conflicts were those imposed on Christians by other Christians. In his book, "Voting about God in Early Church Councils," Ramsay MacMullen says, "In councils, bishops are at their most ceremonious and reverent; yet...they sometimes strike each other or restrain by force,... and yell out the most savage cries for this or that adversary to be killed in this or that cruel manner."

cont....

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

2-"Besides, what of the tongues torn out of the mouths of bishops found to have uttered blasphemous opinions? and bishops worked to death by a sentence to the mines?"

The violent Christians cowed the others into accepting the canon and creeds used today by the Christian churches.

[GaryKColeman]

@godswordsheal

...along with the Apocalypse of Peter & The Shepherd of Hermas.

Irenaeus thought Revelation & The Sheperd of Hermas were scripture.

Gaius argued that Revelation was not scripture.

Eusebius put Revelation on his rejected list.

The Muratorian fragment claims "We receive only the apocalypses of John & Peter."

Martin Luther rejected Revelation.

Inspite of rejects, Revelation ends up in the current Bibles. Who decided what should be scripture?

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

You need to do some studying.  Ehrman was an evangelical until his scholarship led him to find contradictions & discrepancies in the Bible. He then shifted to a fairly liberal Protestant church. He later lost all faith because of theodicy.

[believeonetime]

@GaryKColeman He never lost faith he never had it to begin with.

Then he got a education and is now making a living helping Satan // Muslims // atheist.

I know who this man is /// ever time he talks he messes up like in this one he says there are three gods then makes a joke / if you listen to him long you can see he's the joke.

Why is he so nerves.thank i know why JESUS.

[GaryKColeman]

@believeonetime

You are entitled to your opinion about him never having faith, but it is only your opinion until you can back it up with solid facts.

[pianobomber]

*SIGH* There goes Bart Ehrman repeating Metzger's old rhetoric. 1 John 5:7 is only one of MANY places where the Trinity is clearly portrayed. Also, Bruce Metzger perpetuated the nonsense of Erasmus' stipulation for including 1 John 5:7, and now Ehrman is repeating this falsehood. People are offended at the notion that Metzger could have influenced Ehrman, but his many videos show otherwise. The difference between the two is that Ehrman is more open about it, whereas Metzger was never definitive.

[pyrobryan]

@pianobomber There are many verses the mention the father, the son and the spirit, but none specifically portray them as separate aspects of the same entity in the way that 1 John 5:7 does. At least, none that I'm aware of.

[jahbabylon]

@pianobomber You said ' 1 John 5:7 is only one of MANY places where the Trinity is clearly portrayed.' You then went on to list.......none! I'm very interested in this, but would appreciate some references that back up your claim that this is mentioned many times. Many thanks.

[pianobomber]

@jahbabylon Isaiah 48:16; Matthew 3:16,17; John 15:26, just to name a few, and the word translated as God in English is "elohim" in Hebrew, which implies plurality, which consists of three or

more in the Hebrew language. Honestly, are you a KJVO? We do not need the KJV to believe in the Trinity. It would be difficult to explain away Cyprian's comment regarding the Trinity.

If this is difficult, here is a decent site:

bible-truth . org/Trinity . html

[TruthIsLife7]

@jahbabylon Not only do we not need the KJV to prove the KJV, the man who first put the manuscripts together that the KJV is based on was Lucian of Antioch and the first Arians were his students and attributed much to him...so he is really the father of Arianism and it comes through in the KJV in some places. Compare for example John 1:18 in the KJV and then the NLT.

There are over 1000 verses supporting the trinity in different ways. See recent pages on my channel comments&I have much more.

[jahbabylon]

@TruthIsLife7 Saw recent pages on your channel. I see no point in further conversation. All the best.

[husky394xp]

The "Johannine comma" (1 John 5:7) appears in the Greek Codex Wianburgensis of the 8th century. It was cited at the Council of Carthage in 415 AD, by Fulgentius in 510 AD, Jerome cited the verse in 450 AD, Athanasius quoted it in 350 AD, Cyprian cites the verse in 250 AD, Tertullian quotes it in 200 AD, and the verse is also quoted in the Old Syriac in 170 AD!

This nut in the video, doesn't know what he is talking about!

[FactualVSFictional]

@husky394xp 1 John 5:7 verse about "these three are one" which still remains in the KJV, has been recently expunged in the RSV by 32 Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by 50 Christian denominations based on the most ancient Greek manuscripts.

[DanielBuckphd]

This is a very strong charge, of Forgery in the KJV. Ehrman is right about the historical case for the Johannine Comma being an insertion into the Greek text--which does qualify for the term 'forgery.' But he's wrong that the JC is an explicit statement of the Trinity. The word "God" is nowhere in it. Neither is "Son," although many Latin versions of the JC do have it. Furthermore, neither the JC now found in Greek Bibles, nor any previous version, are a direct translation from any Latin ms.

[doyoublush]

@phaxad just checked Genesis 1:26 and couldn't find anything about the Trinity...

[cmccaable]

Hi: Sir

Where does it stay trinity in the KJV?

What psyche do you get your tales from concerning scholarship?

Pastor David Skakun

[Harizl]

This doesn't sound like the god that I heard yesterday while walking in the woods..

[MrTruthAddict]

@Harizl that was a horny bear

[Pearlcussion]

You can dislike this video all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

[p3n2]

Allow me to mention that in my edition of the German translation by Martin Luther (essentially a version of 1912) said passage is not included. A footnote explicitly mentions that the passage is absent because it is neither present in the Greek texts nor in Luther's own translation.

[glower125]

KKKritianity is an insult to basic human intelligence

[Shyhalu]

@glower125 Religion in its entirety is an insult to basic human intelligence.

[Machin3God]

@glower125 Totally agree. But the Book Of Mormon raises the bullshit to a whole another level.

[GaryKColeman]

In the Mar/Apr 2007 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks interviewed Bart Ehrman; James F. Strange, a leading archaeologist and Baptist minister; Lawrence H. Schiffman, a prominent DeadSeaScroll scholar and Orthodox Jew; and William G. Dever, one of America's best-known and most widely quoted archaeologists, who had been an evangelical preacher, then lost his faith and is agnostic.

All four agreed that the Bible is not inerrant and that not every word is accurate and devine.

[nuberiffic]

@GaryKColeman who cares that these scholars agree. any child can tell you that the bible is the most poorly written book in circualtion. The errors are blindingly obvious. If the bible was to be published for the first time today, it would not even get past the editor's in box.

[GaryKColeman]

@nuberiffic

And yet it has been the "Best Seller" for so many years.

[Onetruthrgv]

Why do you insult the KJ bible when that is in fact the bible that the LDS use?

[LDSfaithDefender]

@Onetruthrgv No, they have their own edition of the KJ Bible: it contains footnotes concerning the parts that have been tampered with, showing what the original manuscripts said for those parts. For instance, for the part of Exodus 3:2 that says "the angel of the LORD appeared unto him...", there's a footnote that says "the presence of the Lord" instead of "the angel of the Lord"

Because the Bible had been tampered with, Joseph Smith was divinely commissioned to rewrite it

[Morkindie]

@LDSfaithDefender I accept that the bible has been tampered with, but how does that authorize J. Smith to rewrite the bible? How can one prove that his rewrite is canon and mine is not? I will mention that I have never been convicted of fraud.

[CluebotUK]

@LDSfaithDefender

There was no "original version" of the Bible. It's assembled from multiple sources in multiple languages over many centuries. Its history is a bewildering tale of fabrication, plagiarism, artful revision and confabulation.

Your church doesn't own the truth about anything, let alone the origins and recension of the Bible.

[HeroOfChristArchives]

The quadricentenary King James Bible possesses numerous drawbacks and shortcomings, being an antiquated 400-year-old Anglican translation which utilizes Elizabethan prose and is completely disconnected from contemporary English-speaking laypeople, incorporating multitudinous Medieval-period archaisms, translational errata, archaic phraseology, translational inconsistencies and unjustifiable omissions. Its Shakespearean-like constructions & terminologies are outdated, cumbersome and unforgivable.

[poolerboy0077]

It's interesting that you quote Ehrman as being an authority because most of his writings go to attacking the weakness of the Christian faith in its foundation: the Scriptures.

[rujiel17]

@poolerboy0077 "It's interesting that you quote Ehrman as being an authority because most of his writings go to attacking the weakness of the Christian faith in its foundation: the Scriptures." He was a christian for a fair amount of his life. You only see his comments as attacking because scholarship exposes the very human roots of this religion.

[slbrail87]

...and that's why it's not in the NIV, the version most used by Evangelicals. But the Trinity doctrine is still taught in the Bible.

[dashan091]

Are u 2an alien non-believer? Some people claim 1st hand experience of alien sightings abduction space travel etc which most of us(?) couldnt care less about, right? Questions: even if all such claims are false (unlikely) does that prove theres no alien intelligence elsewhere in the universe? If aliens came to earth preaching monotheism would that be a game changer? Why is the God Q so taunting for those who claim there is no evidence? What makes most sense of a rationally intelligible universe?

[dashan091]

cont;d Oh I forgot Hawkings claim "there's no need for God because we have the law of gravity by which the universe can & will create itself from nothing." Hmmm! So which is it, "nothing" or "gravity".

I, the cause hits a ball which moves according to certain laws. Did the laws create the bat or ball. Where did the LAWS come from? I wish I had such faith in scientism do explain all of reality in terms of matter & energy which science says has a finite past.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@dashan091 What are u talking about? I'm a defender of the Mormon faith: Mormons happen to be the only Christians on earth to believe in aliens, because they have additional scriptures revealing that God has created civilizations on countless other planets than this one, and that this planet's NOT the only inhabited one at the present time

[dysesthesiaAethiopi1]

@LDSfaithDefender He's still wrong because the actions he should of took was to bring the bible to any consumer rights group and sue the authors for breaching trade description laws or ask the police to to in-act the racketeering laws . P.S, are you sure you weren't anally probed by those aliens you believe in?

[MrKGatl]

@LDSfaithDefender Mormonism is rediculous. To follow a charlatan zealot like Joseph Smith is crazy. You actually believe that god buried golden tablets in north america, that only smith could know about? or that black people are black because god cursed them? Yes, i will give credit, the Mormons that i meet do seem to be good people that help others. What evidence do you have that any of your Mormon beliefs are true?

[korzon]

@LDSfaithDefender Aliens are angels just people get that mixed up,And from old historian reports there seems to be bad and good ones.Aliens come from the heavens so do angels deosn't this seem the least bit suspicious?Most likely these so called aliens would decieve us and have already decieved the governments by not letting them expose them to us so if there are aliens there most likely up to no good.Why hide if you got nothing to hide?Either way I wouldn't trust in it.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@korzon No, aliens are for real: there are countless inhabited planets in the cosmos. From what I gather, the reason you think aliens are fallen angels is because of alien abuduction. Alien abduction is a product of demonic forces indeed. But the real aliens, that is, those that visit our planet from outer space, never abduct anyone

Because of the narrow-mindedness of human nature and comprehension, people get both things mixed up

[korzon]

@LDSfaithDefender I never saw either so actualy I don't believe in them,That or they go thru great lengths not to be seen and screw up accasionaly and got caught.Not saying there is nothing out there but if there is I wouldn't go trusting it so easily,I'm just saying no matter what they are smarter than us and could be more deceptive than we are.Lets say just check out something before you believe in it you might find out later you were wrong and usualy by then it's too late.Test the Spirits.

[TruthIsLife7]

@LDSfaithDefender It's completely wrong that only momons believe in aliens. What they are is the question. Quite a number of Christians believe that God has created beings that live on other worlds, etc. (based on Job and other verses) and aliens also exist..although Christians that I think have the most compelling case show that they are probably demonic agents..since many have the symbol of a flying snake on their clothing.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@TruthIsLife7 No, outside of Mormonism the only Chirstians to believe in aliens are those that are NOT members of the clergy. A reverend was invited onto a TV show years ago to make an official statement on the topic: he testified that God had never created humanlike forms of intelligence on any other planet

The very "alien encounters" that are demonic in origin are those referred to as "alien abductions"; even 98% of UFO sightings are demonic in origin

[TruthIsLife7]

@LDSfaithDefender Sorry, but you are not right at all. My dad is a pastor and he believes aliens exist and I know quite a few other pastors who do as well. I majored in religion in my church and have done some volunteer pastoring myself and I also believe UFOs are real. The Bible doesn't tell us what UFOs are..but it certainly allows for the creation of other beings on other worlds. But, my opinion is that most or possibly all UFOs are of demonic origin.

[LDSfaithDefender]

@TruthIsLife7 I Am glad your dad and other pastors do believe in aliens. But I'll try to write you a few personal messages showing you why I think the largest portion of church dignitaries worldwide prohibit belief in their existence.

[didgodsaythat]

Go Bart, I love this guys stuff.

[M424Filmcast]

Thanks for posting! Very niceeeee....