22 thoughts on “The shocking Trinitarian corruption of the Bible”

  1. Most KJV onlyists i’ve talked with clearly shows that their main motivation for defending that really dubious translation is their croyance in some eternal Father-son-holy spirit sitcom…their premise is built up on many unproven assertions and it’s one hell of a nasty translation affirming their doctrine, your lover Shamoun is one of them as far as i know…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply

    1. There is no basis for clinging to a particular translation, especially if it’s based on later and corrupted manuscripts. That’s what the KJV Bible is. But try telling that to the brainwashed KJV-only masses. But yeah, it is due to certain important verses that they are so clingy.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

  2. You and Ehrman have it wrong, friend. For anyone who actually cares about the truth, here is the info:

    “the textual evidence for the reading “GOD was manifest in the flesh” is massive. It is the reading found in the Majority of all remaining Greek manuscripts we have today. Of the 300 known Greek cursive copies we have of the epistle of Paul to Timothy 254 of them read “GOD was manifest in the flesh”.

    Source:
    https://brandplucked.webs.com/1timothy316godorhe.htm

    Like

    Reply

    1. This is the typical deceit Christian apologists indulge in. They talk about the manuscripts but neglect to mention the fact that most of the manuscripts are LATE.

      It’s not about numbers. It’s about how early or how late the manuscripts. And the fact of the matter is that the EARLIEST manuscripts do NOT support the trinitarian reading of the text.

      ” There is a good reason that no one in the fourth century church ever mentioned the passage. The word “God” did not appear in 1 Timothy 3:16 until much later. It first appeared in manuscripts after Trinitarian dogma was developed and canonized and is an obvious later alteration. The oldest and best manuscripts do not have the word “God” (theos) in 1 Timothy 3:16 which is why modern Bible translations do not have the word “God” at 1 Timothy 3:16 either.”

      Source: http://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/trinity/verses/1Tim3_16.html

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I’m sorry to break this to you, but your source is demonstrably incorrect. Had you read the article that I linked, you would have noticed that the next paragraph after my quotation addressed this issue conclusively. I will quote it here for your benefit.

        “This is also the reading found in Sinaiticus correction, A correction, C correction and D correction.” Clearly, everyone that saw that reading knew that it was a known mistake by the first copier so they corrected it as soon as possible. We can be sure that the earliest reading is not always the best because Paul says that people were corrupting the Bible in his days (50s-60s AD). 2 Cor 2:17 – Please read this!

        Finally, your article is wrong about patristic support. I will quote the info for you.

        “The fathers in support of this passage are as follows (Burgon, p 486-90): 1st Century: Ignatius (90 AD); 2nd Century: Hippolytus (190 AD); 3rd Century: Apostolic Constitutions, Epistle ascribed to Dionysius of Alexandria (264 AD), Gregory Thaumaturgus; 4th Century: Basil the Great (355 AD), Chrysostom (380 AD), Didymus (325 AD), Diodorus (370 AD), Gregory of Nazianzus (355 AD), Gregory of Nyssa (370 AD). “Euthalian” chapter title of I Tim. 3, attesting to “God in the flesh.”; 5th Century: Anon. citation in works of Athanasius (430 AD), Cyril of Alexandria (410 AD), Euthalius (458 AD), Macedonius 11(496 AD), Theodoret (420 AD); 6th Century: Severus, Bishop of Antioch (512 AD); 8th Century: Epiphanius of Catana (787 AD), John Damascene (730 AD), Theodorus Studita (790 AD); 10th Century: Ecumenius (990 AD); 11th Century: Theophylact (1077 AD); 12th Century: Euthymius (1116 AD). Hippolytus (170-236 A.D.) “God was manifested in the flesh.” (Against the Heresies of Noetus I: 1:17), and Dionysius (3rd cent.) “For God was manifested in the flesh.” (Conciliations I: 1:853)”

        Sorry, friend, but if you are using that article as “proof” that the King James reading is wrong, then you have been lied to. The evidence is overwhelming. The King James text is correct.

        Like

  3. mr.heathcliff

    “We can be sure that the earliest reading is not always the best because Paul says that people were corrupting the Bible in his days (50s-60s AD). 2 Cor 2:17 – Please read this!”

    then how can you put your confidence in “god was manifest in flesh” since this could be an early corruption

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. My apologies if I said this poorly. I should have said “trying” to corrupt the Bible in his days. They obviously couldn’t achieve their goal since God promised to preserve his words (Ps 12:6,7, etc.).

      I still think you understand my point tho. You guys are claiming that the reading of “God” is a late alteration. It most certainly is not.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mr.heathcliff

        “My apologies if I said this poorly. I should have said “trying” to corrupt the Bible in his days.”

        WHAT MAKES u think those corruptions or “tries” did not get into the manuscript tradition? lol

        “They obviously couldn’t achieve their goal since God promised to preserve his words (Ps 12:6,7, etc.).
        ”

        we know this is false since when we compare the earliest manusripts with the later ones, we read that scholars have HEATED debates on which reading went back to the SECOND CENTURY.

        “I still think you understand my point tho. You guys are claiming that the reading of “God” is a late alteration. It most certainly is not.”

        how do you know this? i did not compare the church father readings and neither have i compared the manuscripts which contain the reading to the other ones which don’t. all i know is that you have parroted someone and that someone most likely parroted someone else.

        lets say church fathers knew of reading ” god” how did they know it was right? how do we know that they werent parroting earliest corruptions ?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. mr.heathcliff

        “They obviously couldn’t achieve their goal since God promised to preserve his words (Ps 12:6,7, etc.).”

        to justify your belief you make reference to a book written by an adulterous sinner .
        okay, tell me, what are the earliest readings of this psalms 12:6-7?

        Liked by 1 person

  4. mr.heathcliff

    do you agree with sam shamoun

    i will quote ijaz ahmed :

    Ijaz Ahmad Reminds me when Sam Shamoun said that the earliest complete codex of the Bible: Codex Sinaiticus, was fit for a trash can because it contained heresies, mistakes and errors.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
  5. stewjo004

    @ Vakebiblia

    Hi welcome to the blog,

    To begin the earlier manuscript is pretty much ALWAYS considered the most authentic one, the number of manuscripts that have the reading is pretty much irrelevant.

    Next, you said:

    “God promised to preserve his words (Ps 12:6,7, etc.)…”

    This passage quoted has nothing to do with Scripture preservation:

    The words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace, like gold purified sevenfold. 7You, O LORD, will keep us; You will forever guard us from this generation.

    But for discussion sake let’s leave 1 Timothy to the side there’s so much we don’t even need it:

    Pretty much-agreed forgeries by all scholarship:
    1. The lady taken in adultery (John 8:1-11 )
    2. The end of Mark (Mark 16:9-20)
    3. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7)

    Other Issues
    4. The book of Revelation almost didn’t make it in
    5. The book of 2 Enoch was heavily debatted as being Scripture (even to this day)

    The Jews straight up say they altered the text and there are many missing books:

    Wrote a whole article on this:

    https://quranandbibleblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/21/missing-books-in-the-bible/

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Sir, this is the reason that the King James Bible issue is so important.

      I don’t desire to give an intro to the subject in these comments. The issue is discussed all through my blog also on the website that I have previously linked to.

      I’ll just say this. I reject the scholars when they make their comments on those Biblical texts that you brought up, just as we reject theory of materialistic evolution.

      Like

      Reply
  6. stewjo004

    @ vakebiblia

    I can reject gravity that doesn’t make it true or itteligent to do so. Since you reject that these texts are pretty much agreed forgeries 2 points:

    1. Will you give us a verifiable videotape of you drinking poison and living as per the end of Mark?

    Afterward he appeared unto the eleven…And he said unto them…
    Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.

    16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

    17 And these signs shall follow them that believe… if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them (Mark 16:14-18)

    2. Even then let’s reject your own scholars who translate the book to you so you can read it in the first place, you didn’t comment about the missing books in your text and people quoting verses that do not exist. So please explain that strange phenomenon to us as well as the tourist notes that Moses(as) allegedly wrote such as

    “Random spot still stands here to this day?”

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
      1. mr.heathcliff

        so then why does jesus say that in the future many will comes and say did we not do this and that……get away from me…..

        that makes no sense if this is a future prophecy.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a comment