The Codex Sinaiticus was the book that tipped the balance
away from the historical, preserved Bible and
changed hundreds of scriptures in crucial places.
Did you know that Sinaiticus casts doubt on
the resurrection of Jesus Christ?
Neither Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus in its present form
contains Mark 16:9-20.
Do you know what that means?
For the last 150 years, to a textual critic,
or a Bible-doubter, it has meant two things:
1) Jesus in His resurrected body is not in the Gospel of Mark.
Textual criticism then claims that Mark is the first gospel,
not Matthew. (You'll see why in a minute.)
That would mean that the first Gospel did not have
a resurrected Jesus.
2) They say, since Mark was
the first gospel written, then the whole doctrine
of Christ's bodily resurrection is not part of the original Gospel.
They say it was added later, by the church!
That's funny. Jesuit-educated Norman Geisler said
"none of these [changes] affect any basic doctrine
of the Christian faith."
I think the resurrection of Christ is a pretty basic doctrine.
Don't you?
Want to hear more of what happens when you trust the Sinaiticus,
and how you can answer those critics?
Hi, I'm David Daniels from Chick Publications.
I know that it's essential to their theories
that Mark has to have been written first.
Everywhere, even in Wikipedia, they will tell you
that it was in the 5th century, the 400s AD,
that people got the idea that the gospels should be
"Matthew, Mark, Luke and John," in that familiar order.
They even go on to list what they say are 5th century,
400s AD documents that have that order.
But what they don't tell you, that would hurt their theory --
is their beloved Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
are also in the order of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John!
Shh! Don't tell them I told you.
Let them look it up for themselves!
But they don't stop there.
What comes after the resurrection? The ascension, right?
Get ready for this. The Sinaiticus does not have
the ascension of Christ in the Gospel of Luke, either.
Here is the page of Sinaiticus that has Luke 24:51.
This is the area I'm gonna focus on.
It says here, in English:
"And it came to pass, while he blessed them,
he was parted from them"
But can you see that arrow right there?
That refers to words at the top of the page,
up here.
They show the rest of the verse: "and [was] carried up into heaven."
But you can see it for yourself. It was not a part
that the original scribe wrote in the text.
Someone wrote it, in a different ink,
at the top of the page.
What does this mean?
Well, let me ask you: in how many verses
of the four Gospels do you find
Christ's bodily ascending into heaven?
Just this one.
So if this one doesn't belong, according to 20th century text critic
C.S.C. Williams:
"...there is no reference at all to the Ascension
in the original text of the Gospels."
It's a one-two punch!
1) They say Mark is the first Gospel. Their Sinaiticus/Vaticanus Mark
is missing the bodily resurrection. So they say the doctrine
of Jesus' resurrection from the dead is a later addition.
2) Here in Luke 24:51, Sinaiticus is missing
the ascension into heaven of our risen Saviour.
So they say the doctrine of Jesus' ascension into heaven
is ALSO a later addition!
Oh, and did I add that by "first gospel,"
they also meant that the "first gospel"
was written about the year 80 AD, after the fall of Jerusalem and
after most of the apostles and eyewitnesses were dead?
Still think no basic doctrine
of the Christian faith is affected?
Now let's turn the tables on the text critics.
Please get out a King James Bible and look at Luke 1:1-3. It is important.
Pause if you need to.
Luke 1:1 "Forasmuch as many have taken in hand
to set forth in order a declaration of those things
which are most surely believed among us,"
Luke says that "many have" written
accounts of the Gospel story. So there were Gospels
--plural-- before Luke wrote.
2 "Even as they delivered them unto us,
which from the beginning were eyewitnesses,
and ministers of the word;"
Here Luke said that there were eyewitnesses
back to the beginning that were still alive,
and ministered the word, and passed the information
to Luke and others. So they were obviously
still alive for the earlier gospels, like Matthew and Mark.
But text critics like my old professor,
the late Dr. Ralph Martin, said Luke was written
in the 2nd century, after they all were dead!
3 "It seemed good to me also, having had perfect understanding
of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order,
most excellent Theophilus,"
So Luke took it in hand to check on the story
from the very first scene, talking with eyewitnesses,
and to write it down in order as it happened.
So get this-- these modern scholars
are calling the very first verses of the Gospel of Luke a lie!
Do you trust Luke, or the text critics?
Now go to Acts 1:1-2. You need to see and hear this.
Acts 1:1 "The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus,
of all that Jesus began both to do and teach, "
Nobody I've found disputes that the same guy wrote
both Luke and Acts. Luke here is referring to his Gospel.
2 "Until the day in which he was taken up,
after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments
unto the apostles whom he had chosen:"
Whoops! "Until the day... He was" what?
Taken up!
Luke just told us his gospel ENDS with the ascension!
Imagine that!
The original New American Standard Bible,
from 1963 until 1994, actually removed those words
from Luke 24, "and was carried up into heaven,"
copying Sinaiticus!
So they may have copied the American Standard 1901
or the English Revised Version, 1881 and 1885.
But that's no excuse for taking out God's words.
So the Lockman Foundation translators followed the Sinaiticus
on this -- even though Vaticanus and
Alexandrinus and almost every other manuscript
in existence has those words!
And on top of it, Luke himself TOLD us
they were there!
Who are you going to believe, the text critics,
or the author Luke himself, inspired by the Holy Ghost?
Gail Riplinger pointed it out in New Age Bible Versions.
People saw the blunder. And in 1995
an embarrassed Lockman Foundation
released the Updated NAS with even more mistakes, but--
they put the ascension back into Luke 24:51.
So Sinaiticus is wrong. The text critics were wrong.
And someone removed those words, gutting the doctrine of Christ.
I think I see Satan's claw prints.
I wanted to get more into the dating of Sinaiticus,
but I'll have to put it in another vlog.
Here's the summary. Ready? 1, 2, 3.
1. Only Sinaiticus and Vaticanus remove Jesus' bodily resurrection
from Mark 16:9-20.
2. Sinaiticus --not even Vaticanus-- takes away Jesus' bodily
ascension into heaven out of Luke 24:51,
the only reference to Jesus' bodily ascension
in the four gospels.
3. Two of the most basic, foundational doctrines
of the Christian faith, Jesus physical resurrection and
Jesus' physical ascension into heaven,
are totally removed from crucial Gospel passages
in the Sinaiticus. Then unsuspecting
Bible college students, the future pastors and leaders,
are taught that they don't belong. Then they will teach
those same Bible-doubting lies to their congregations or classes.
It's just another step in creating a Bible flexible enough
for anyone to believe in, one world Bible
for one world religion.
This is the fruit of textual criticism.
And this is the fruit of trusting Sinaiticus.
If this is what the pro-Sinaiticus guys want,
they can have it. I refuse to bow down.
I'm going to trust God's holy and preserved words
in the 400-plus year tried, tested and proved
King James Bible.
Let them show me their doubt.
And I'll show them my faith.
And we'll see who stands in the judgment day.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.