Sinaiticus part 3: Which Part Is Scripture?

The Codex Sinaiticus was the book that tipped the balance away from the historical, preserved Bible and changed hundreds of scriptures in crucial places. Sinaiticus is the reason we have that note in almost every Bible about Mark 16:9-20 not belonging in the Bible. That’s 12 whole verses in the Gospel of Mark —the ending.

They don't want me to believe something because Sinaiticus doesn't have it.

So what does Sinaiticus have, that they want me to believe?

Isn't that a fair question? If you want me to release my faith in the King James Bible, and put my faith in your book, shouldn't you be able to tell me which parts to believe? Shouldn't you be able to tell me which parts of Sinaiticus are scripture, and which parts are not?

Hi, I'm David Daniels from Chick Publications.

I have been pouring over the latest books on the Sinaiticus.

Since I've seen what Sinaiticus really looks like, I have a myriad of questions.

I would like you to look at real, un-Photoshopped pages of Sinaiticus and see if you can answer these questions.

Then go to your professor, your pastor, your anti-King James friend, and have him watch this and see if he or she can answer these questions.

They are asking you to trust a document that changed the Bible in fundamental ways. They should be able to answer some simple questions.

Are you ready?


Which writer gave us the true scripture? Is it Scribe A, the main writer scribe of what we have of Sinaiticus? Is it Scribe D, the boss corrector scribe? What about B1, who wrote the Major Prophets? What about B2, who wrote the Minor Prophets and Shepherd of Hermas?

Yes, it has The Shepherd of Hermas, which taught that Jesus was a virtuous man filled with the Holy Spirit and adopted as the Son of God at His baptism. —He was not eternally the Son of God.

That would agree with Mark’s gospel, according to scholar DC Parker, since Mark in Sinaiticus omits that Jesus is “the Son of God” in Mark 1:1.1

So is it their original notes? Is it their self-corrections? See, this is quire 66, folio 1, verso. And right here, there’s 4:3 of Ecclesiastes that was omitted, and then self-corrected and put into the margin. And there are other things on this page.

Or is it when D came in and corrected it? Take a look at this one. Q43 f1r. This is the beginning of Isaiah. See all the scribbling around here? And this is partially erased here. And this is written over, and somewhat corrected, by D.

At what time do we stop and say, Wait! Go no further! Now we've got the scripture!

And if they didn't know, then how could we know?

You want me to base my precious faith in a document that has so many corrections, I can't even figure out what the final text is?

And this brings me to an important question:

If I am a faithful Christian, trying to please my Master, trying to find out what the Father wants, and I can't read Sinaiticus and answer these basic questions for myself, Then how did Tischendorf?

Tischendorf was an unrepentant liar. Tischendorf never told anyone I can find, about what really happened in 1844, or 1853, or 1859, when he supposedly got the Sinaiticus.

Look at what the pro-Tischendorf researchers backed by the British Library, in conjunction with the University of Leipzig, and the University of St. Petersburg, and St. Catherine's Monastery said about Tischendorf:

This is Codex Sinaiticus: the Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. It said these things about Tischendorf’s story about saving parchments from the fire:

“…there are a number of ways in which Tischendorf may have been confused...”

And this one: “...he might have misunderstood what was being said," referring to what the monk told him, supposedly.

And over here, it says: "In short, although there are no grounds for believing it to be deliberately misleading, one cannot take Tischendorf's account at face value."

You know, that’s another way of saying, “Yeah, it just isn’t true.”

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript believed Tischendorf was precise in his reporting:

"But this does not mean that his version is unquestionable."

And I already showed you The Bible Hunter in another vlog, and how he proves, in all these steps, how everything that Tischendorf said about 1844 is impossible.

If all of these guys in the Tischendorf Sinaiticus club can't tell me that Tischendorf told the truth,

and if I can't look at Sinaiticus and tell you which words are supposed to be scripture,

Then how can I base my faith on the opinions of the liar Tischendorf?

Does anyone see the problem here?

The bulk of the world, with all their modern Bibles, have faith-altering and faith-destroying words, phrases, and verses-- either changed or missing.

And they got them from the "educated guesses" of the liar Tischendorf?

Is this like the Fox ruling the henhouse?
Or the Wolf guarding the sheepfold?

Tischendorf said he was looking for God's original scriptures, to aid the Christian faith.

What part of this is faith in God?

All I see here is the supposed guesses of the liar Tischendorf!

Can any of you text scholars or famous preachers, right now, show me which part of this is scripture, and which is not? [Q48 f8r]

Which part of this is scripture, and which is not? [Q36 f8v]
Check it out. Look at all those changes.

How about this? Which part of this is scripture, and which part of this is not? [Q36 f4v]

This is Nehemiah, and these are all omitted verses, written into the margin. Do they belong, or not belong? And how do you know?

Or this? [Q36 f4r] Take a good look. Which is scripture, and which is not?

Can John MacArthur show me?

Can James White show me?

Can Charles Ryrie show me?

Can Dr. Paul, my old Greek professor, show me? Where am I to base my faith?

Is it in the Sinaiticus? Or in the liar, Tischendorf? Or in your own educated guesses about what is scripture and what is not?

What are my criteria? Sinaiticus is in such bad shape.

Codex Sinaiticus is: (Are you ready for this?)

  • Missing all but 4 chapters of Genesis (a couple of pieces were discovered in a small room of the monastery in 1975),

  • Missing all of Exodus

  • Missing all but 3 chapters of Leviticus

  • Missing all but 12 chapters of Numbers

  • Missing all but 5 chapters of Deuteronomy, all but 3 chapters of Joshua, all but 7 chapters of Judges And it’s missing all of Ruth, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, all of 1 Kings and 2 Kings, has parts of 1 Chronicles --twice-- (How do you make a mistake like that and keep going? Remember, from the other vlog,2 it jumps from 1 Chronicles 19:17 to the middle of the sentence in Ezra 9:9 and just keeps going, without fixing it!)

  • Missing the first 8 chapters of Ezra,

  • Missing Lamentations after 2:20,

  • Missing all of Ezekiel

  • all of Daniel

  • all of Hosea

  • all of Amos

  • all of Micah

So it's missing 11 entire books and most of 6 more, over 1/4 of the Bible books.

But of course, it has Apocrypha! It has all of Tobit, all of Judith, all of 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, all of Wisdom of Solomon, and all of Sirach.

Seriously? You want me to abandon a solid foundation and a solid faith in a preserved scripture, passed down by persecuted believers, whose Bible brought about such faith it started the Reformation, and the largest missionary movement in history, for the biggest mess of pages masquerading as a Bible I have ever seen?

Where nobody but a liar named Tischendorf can tell me which words are God's, and which are man's?

God said in Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31 and Luke 21:33: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Unless they are over a 1/4 of Sinaiticus?

God said through Solomon in Proverbs 30:5-6: “Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”

So isn't this adding? All these notes?
This is Quire 92, Folio 1, recto —front. You can look it up.
This isn’t adding?

By the way, this is the Epistle of Barnabas, that teaches baptismal regeneration.

Brothers and sisters, this is a con job!

And it's only adding insult to injury, to say, "Well, you have to match it up with the Vaticanus."

You're kidding.

I now have to trust the Whore of Babylon to give me reliable scripture?

Weren't they the persecutors of Bible-believers through history?

And now you're gonna believe their book, against the Bible that our ancestors in the faith died to preserve to the next generation?

You're gonna trust the Bible of the Inquisitors? Seriously?

Reformed? Read what your founders said about the Whore of Babylon.

Lutheran? Read what your founders said.

Baptist? You were never a Catholic, What are you doing, believing their Bible?

Do you realize that since 1966, the Catholic Church has wholly-endorsed the new critical Bibles and Critical Greek, and Critical Hebrew, and changed their Latin to match it?

I document that in Why They Changed the Bible: One World Bible for One World Religion.

You're gonna trust the Bible that’s endorsed by the guy who says he is in place of Christ on earth? And you will gladly hand over your preserved Bible to him and accept his Sinaiticus and Vaticanus?

Why did the pope commend the liar Tischendorf for calling this mess scripture?

Do you think that just maybe he had a plan, a long-term plan, and Tischendorf fit into it?

Even if the story were true, this monastery didn't preserve scripture, it abandoned it and took it apart and used it for binding books!

Porfiry Uspensky who saw this the year after Tischendorf saw it, said this was a faith-destroyer. Tischendorf arrogantly responded that Uspensky was just unable to recognize scripture when he saw it.

What do you see as a result of Sinaiticus: faith or doubt?

Say what you will about the mess called Sinaiticus. I will place my faith, my trust, my acceptance of what the Greek and Hebrew actually say, in the 400+ year tried, tested and proved, hated by Catholics and liberals alike, Holy King James Bible.

I have never gone wrong by trusting what God said, prayerfully and properly understood. And neither will you.

God bless you, and have a wonderful day.

Products of interest: