So MANY Bible Edits pt 2/3  

@@TheTatlTael36 so true

What in the yap does any of this mean😂. "Good job" in listening to someone who pull claims from their backside with n evidence or proof whatsoever...? Is that how you kids were taught in school these days? Um no, most people who read the bible for what it says without trying to be a bible butcherer like satan, care about the truth, too bad the truth hurts. That's why Christ's word is described as a 2 edged sword, it divides, because his word involves truths that people like YOU are afraid of. But you shouldn't fear truth for the truth shall set you free

Friend? Did you read the pre-creation story of Revelations properly?

@@TronicManiaEnteracts That's New Testament's Satan. Did you read Job or Zechariah 3? Both versions of Satan are accusers (hence name) but their moral reasonings are very different. He's at God's right-hand in Zechariah, not his left. That's how important his position is.

​@@strawberrysangria1474 Firstly, provide a single piece of evidence that any essential christian doctrine has been changed or altered, and from which manuscripts, then state the time period where these manuscripts were mass altered. Because as actual scholars and historians say, not perverted freaks on youtube shorts who's whole channel is a rage bait; they say quote "No essential christian doctrine has been changed" Bart D ehrman, in his book 'misquoting jesus.' Like you heathens like to do. Hold on.... why did the person ask if you have read the "Pre creation story of revelations properly" then you responded with "That's the new testament Satan". Genuinely wondering wtf does this mean😂😂😂. Satan has been the same ever since he fell from heaven, using the exact same tactics, rhetoric, and with the same hatred and opposition, he used in the first place to decieve and destroys gods work. There's no difference in "moral reason" whatever than means🥴. His moral reasons is that he's the embodiment of wickedness, and only comes to steal, kill and destroy, John 10:10. Your another bible pervert pulling claims from your ass with no sources, and a pathetic eisegesis, so il educate you. In Zechariah 3:1-2, there is a vision where Joshua the high priest stands before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan is standing at his right hand to accuse him. This imagery depicts Satan as the accuser, attempting to bring charges against Joshua. However, it is important to note that Satan's position at the right hand does not imply favor or authority; rather, it signifies his role as an adversary. The Lord rebukes Satan in verse 2, affirming His choice of Joshua and emphasizing God's grace and mercy. This passage illustrates the spiritual conflict and God's ultimate authority over accusations and sin. Next, the account of Satan appearing before God is found in the book of Job, particularly in Job 1:6-12 and Job 2:1-6. In these passages, it describes a scene in which the "sons of God" present themselves before the Lord, and Satan comes among them. This scene illustrates a divine council where God allows Satan to present himself and to speak. The purpose of Satan's presence is to challenge the righteousness of Job, suggesting that Job is faithful only because of the blessings he receives from God. His role(as has always been as he is literally anti-God) is that of an accuser or adversary rather than a member of the council in a positive sense. Satan's presence in these scenes indicates that he operates under God's authority, but he is not part of the divine council in the same way that the faithful angels or divine beings are. Instead, he serves as an antagonist, challenging the faithfulness of God's people and representing opposition to God's purposes. Theologically, this dynamic illustrates the reality of spiritual conflict and God's ultimate sovereignty over all spiritual beings, including Satan. Please don't embarass yourself by acting as if you have an atom of bible knowledge. Isn't it funny how people like you display the same anti christ behaviour of being an accuser in opposition to God....like satan? You don't know the bible mate

no, that happened way earlier. This channel explores Gnosticism as well so you should check Gnosticism out(though take stuff the creator says with a pinch of salt, because thanks to persecution there isn't a concrete foundation on Gnostic beliefs, for example on how patriarchal or matriarchal Gnostics were or if they were purely egalitarian so many groups have added their own beliefs in a bit). And for perfect proof that Christianity was patriarchal way earlier than king James you can look at the Albigensian crusade, which was a crusade against the Cathars mainly because they had an egalitarian church structure which took place in the 13th century, way before King James was born in the 16th century. Junia was also started to be erased earlier than king James, around the 14th century, which was round about the same time as the church was finishing up their persecution of organized Cathar practice after the crusade (the last Cathar perfect died in 1321 and after him any remaining Cathars went into hiding or falsely converted and practiced Catharism in secret, privately)

@@wisereaper4747 Thanks! Yeah, I'm really interested in the history of the Bible and how much we actually know came from where and who decided to put what together when.

@@unicorntamer2207 yeah, its always good to try to look at the full context as well, and the early church that came about in the immediate time after Jesus' death is very different from what we understand today, even those who had the Orthodox view and would go on to form the united church (which would schism at different points into all sects of Christianity found today) and put together the bible. In my studies including the wider context of those times. I have come to sympathize with the Gnostic views of the bible recently, not that I would describe myself as a Christian or a Gnostic. An excellent youtuber I would recommend is Parry Megistus who has recently done a series on genesis, Moses and the new testament from the Gnostic point of view, and they seem to have a much more solid foundation than mainline Christianity does, as for one the Gnostic version of the old testament God more consistent

@wisereaper4747 Exactly! Context matters. All religions change over time, just like any other organization run by people. I'm currently taking an online intro to world religions class at my community college, and the first two weeks have been how do we talk about religions academically, how do we define religion, and one of the things the instructor wants us to keep in mind is that each religion is unique, and at any given time in history it can be different from when it started and how the religion is practiced today.

@@wisereaper4747 Thank you for the recommendation. I'll definitely look Parry Megistus up.

Which Satan? Old Testament or New? It matters because your books keep changing characters and situations.

@@zackdole6474 Source for the Junia claims? Because most Scholars completely disagree with you on that one

@@JeGaysus It appears that I miss interpreted my source. I will give you a rare point on that. But the overall message and tone of christianity being inherently oppressive of women still stands. The bible acknowledged men and women of being equal in value but with different roles.

​@@zackdole6474 👏🏿👏🏿❤️‍🔥

​@@zackdole6474 Excellent points. Of course the truth will prevail, no matter who tries to pervert it. As you notice they have yet to respond to your slew facts against their funky agenda😂. That's why the church has never been destroyed since Jesus uttered his last words on earth, as he promised. Now regarding Adam and Eve. Some theological meat. 1. Genesis 2:18-24, If you read these verses, you notice some things. This is a more detailed follow up of the creation of man, in Genesis 1:27 The reason why Satan did not Tempt Adam, and Tempted Eve, is because Eve was the last thing God created. Literally. Why does this matter? Because Eve was not there to experience the glory of God's works. Adam watched as God brought forth animals of every kind, out of the ground which Adam named as Genesis 2:19 shows. He watched the Goodness of creation in all its glory. When you experience a person's work being created first hand, you have a better appreciation. Adam what the beauty of creation in its formation, looked like. Eve obviously came after all creation was finished, so naturally she was ignorant. Thats why Satan knew he could easily decieve Eve, and convince her that God is hiding something maliciously. Thats why Paul later on says that Eve was decieved First. This isnt an insult or degrading, it simply highlights the reality of the events. Genesis 2:23 ESV [23] Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Then is the first time marriage is documented, A man leaving his father and mother to hold fast to his wife. "And they shall become one flesh." The hebrew word used here is echad, a compound unity. Because afterall, They came from the same body right? Extremely misogynistic of course for God to programme a man to love his wife, his helper, and his image. The apostle Paul that "Hates women and marriage" according to the freak of nature, made Excellent theological comparisons with the themes in the old testament, as example: Ephesians 5:25-28 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. Amen.

​@@JeGaysus Just to educate you as you are clearly uneducated, as usual. 'The absence of Mark 16:9-20 in some of the earliest manuscripts, such as Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, has led to scholarly debate regarding its authenticity and original inclusion in the Gospel of Mark. There are a few reasons for this: 1. **Manuscript Variations**: Early Christian scribes may have had different traditions regarding the ending of Mark. Some manuscripts end at verse 8, which describes the women finding the empty tomb and being afraid. 2. **Theological Considerations**: Some scholars suggest that the abrupt ending at verse 8 may have been intentional, emphasizing the mystery of the resurrection and the call to faith without providing a detailed post-resurrection narrative. 3. **Later Additions**: The longer ending (verses 9-20) may have been added later by scribes who wanted to provide a more complete account of the resurrection appearances and the commissioning of the disciples, drawing from other Gospel accounts. Despite the variations in manuscripts, the content of Mark 16:9-20 is consistent with the overall message of the New Testament regarding the resurrection and the mission of the disciples. Many scholars and theologians still regard it as an important part of the Gospel's message. Soo textual variants doesn't mean that essential doctrine has been corrupted or altered, or was "edited" i.e changed from 1 form to another form. Can you explain which essential doctrine that was removed, changed, or altered, by the "addition" of verse 9-20? Scholars like Bart D ehrman attests to the preservation of core Christian Doctrine despite textual variants, and that textual variants have no affect on essential christian doctrine. So please try again. And your last point about satan...? We all know your a clown but this is embarassong and desperate. So can you provide me the earliest manuscripts of the "Satan courtroom scenes" not being present in Job 2?😂. Back to the drawing bored

... how's your gag reflex?

How ?

Er. No. The prophets didn't write the bible.

Yes the Bible is multiple books written by different people chosen by God, I also checked the Codex Sinaiticus and while there is an abrupt ending no evidence suggesting it was maliciously changed, also why would they change a disciples name? In today’s modern world there is girl power and equal rights movements but why push today’s propaganda on stuff that happened LITERALLY 2000 YEARS AGO! You don’t give any evidence why they were a girl, just that they were; there are examples of important women like Ester in the Bible so why change Judas and not her? Doesn’t make sense right. “but even though there are examples of women in the Bible why aren’t there more” can be easily disproven because times change, men simply did things that took more work, they are biologically speaking stronger, women biologically speaking are not, I’m not going to bring in politics but what I am saying that army leaders like David need to be seen as strong, King and Pharisees where to have much more experience under there belt and to show of a more masculine build, women filled roles such as house work and upkeep, not saying there roles weren’t vital, in fact the opposite, but in terms of strength a women would have a much harder time doing stuff like walking hundreds of miles to follow Jesus, or be a symbol of strength like King David, or be a great leader people can trust in like Moses. It’s not an opinion, it’s a fact.

Is God senile? He keeps contradicting his oldest words in the newest books.