Scribes distort to support the divinity of Jesus

 Christians are always asked a question, quoting

Father Basit, who distorted the Holy Book?

The answer is

the scribes .




((Many scribes of manuscripts have a desire to distort texts to support a doctrinal idea regarding the divinity of Jesus))




Therefore,



we are not surprised that Christians cite



*some forged texts*



to support a false theological doctrinal idea.



We will talk about one of the texts that they use despite its forgery to support a false theological idea.
We have a text in which we found that some copyists deliberately manipulated and changed the words to confirm a false theological idea.
The text in question is

John 1_verse 13. There are some manuscripts that made the text speak about Jesus to support his divinity. For example: ((((Who was born , not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God))))) Of course, this text speaks about Christ, and this clarifies that the birth of Christ is a unique birth that makes him a god. Okay, let's read this text together in the common Arabic (critical translation) John 1_verse 13 (((13Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of Flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.))))) So, have we become gods or what? The story? The differences. Between the word (who was born__those who were born ) who was born is pronounced___ *hos oak* ὃς οὐκ ((( ὃς οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ))) who were born____ is pronounced **** hoy oak***οἳ οὐκ "( οἳ οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος The difference between the two letters (sigma ς and iota ἳ )) of course We will talk about the evidence, of course, there are the ancient Greek manuscripts in which the word (who were born)) came as a verbal formula that pertains to everyone as a description of the believers, but the surprising thing is 1 _ The first evidence is the critical Catholic USCCB version http://r.search.yahoo.com/ …/RK=0/RS=HxH3v56Tufjd0uUR9Gis5OW… http://www.usccb.org/bible/jn/1:13#51001013 http://www.usccb.org/bible/john/1#51001013-j . The variant “he who was begotten,” asserting Jesus' virginal conception, is weakly attested in Old Latin and Syriac versions. 2 _The Second Guide_____ __ #Bruce_Metzger Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament Bruce M. Metzger's Textual commentary Source I photographed the page from his book because I have the book in PDF format.

















































































































































pdf




Several ancient witnesses, chiefly Latin, read the singular
number. “[He] who was born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” The singular would refer to Jesus' divine origin. The Curetonian Syriac and six manuscripts of the Peshitta Syriac read the plural “those who” and the singular verb “was born.”
All Greek manuscripts, as well as the other versional and patristic witnesses, have the plural number, which refers to people who become children of God as a result of God's initiative. (Several minor variant readings occur within the verse: a couple of manuscripts omit the article οἳ, thus leaving the verse without grammatical connection with the preceding sentence. Other variants in the verse are mentioned in the following entry.)
A number of modern scholars have Argued that the singular number is original. But the overwhelming agreement of all Greek manuscripts favors the plural reading, which, moreover, agrees with the characteristic teaching of John. The singular number may have arisen from a desire to make the Fourth Gospel allude explicitly to the virgin birth or from the influence of the singular number of the immediately preceding pronoun αὐτοῦ. The singular number is adopted in the Jerusalem Bible (1966), but not in the New Jerusalem Bible (1985) nor in the 1998 revision of the Jerusalem Bible).




Translation:



Some ancient evidence, specifically Latin, reads the text in the singular reading



* who was born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.



The singular form indicates the origin of the divinity of Jesus.



The Syriac Curitonianus and six manuscripts of the Syriac Peshta have the plural reading * who * With the singular verb ***was born****

All Greek manuscripts contain the plural reading, not the singular, describing the believers. Two manuscripts removed the relative pronoun “who” and left the text without a relative pronoun. Some scholars support the singular reading **was born**, but the majority prefer the B reading. The Greek manuscripts for the plural The reason for the appearance of the reading of individuals is the desire of the copyist to highlight the virgin birth. This reading appeared in the Jerusalem Bible version in 1966, but was removed from it in the 1985 version. ____ 3_The Evidence Willker ****** Source http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/TC-John.pdf Quotes ( Tertullian, who has this reading, wrote that the Valentinians have made the change And he reads with this reading books and said that Valentinus caused the change, meaning that Tertullian was declaring that the correct reading is (the one who was born) and he accused Valentinus of changing it to (the reading of the group who were born)) as Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman and others said.





























































Tertullian is one of those who changed the reading of the plural to the reading of the singular and accused Valentinus of changing the singular to the plural :)
Brief summary (Tertullian is one of the fathers of the second century AD. He was the first to use the word #Trinity. There was no nonsense or the words Trinity or anything else except when Tertullian, the innovator, gave free rein to this word. For more, see the source




http://r.search.yahoo.com/ …/RK=0/RS=IlS3WC7NmktgFXoMTFGz9cE

…

Tertullian preceded the Western fathers in using the word Trinity in Latin:




* Tertullian preceded other Western fathers in using the word Trinity in Latin and succeeded in selecting other words that were greatly appreciated in scientific clerical circles, so they became very popular and are still used to this day,



but he disbelieved in Christianity,




which means that the founder of the word Trinity and innovated Next, Christ disbelieved in all of Christianity. See the same source:




http://r.search.yahoo.com/ …/RK=0/RS=jHn6Vb1BBm0svqPy2ymAQhd…


Unfortunately, between the years 202 and 205 AD, he fell into the Montanist heresy, as Montanius claimed that he was the Paraclete promised in the Gospel (they forbade marriage, meat, etc.); and we do not know whether he returned to the universal church again before his death or not. __ Returning to our discussion from the same source, we see the statement of Bart Ehrman: "what we have here is not a heretical tampering with the text, but an orthodox one. The corruption serves to locate the orthodox notion of Jesus' birth in a passage that otherwise lacked it. This reading was defended by Blass, Boismard, Burney, (Harnack), Loisy, Menge1st ed., Resch, Zahn. This means that the reading of individuals was the view of this group of scholars, which means that they saw that the text supports the divinity of Christ and they disagreed with the reading of the Greek manuscripts that support the reading of the plural because the text describes believers in God. Harnack thinks that the complete verse 13 is secondary, probably an early gloss on kai. o` lo,goj sa.rx evge,neto from the Johannine community. He notes: Harnack thinks that all the problems with this sentence can only be solved by declaring it secondary. It has a Johannine flavor. J. Schmid agrees with Harnack that the words are a secondary insertion by the author into an original early Hymn. A. Pallis (Notes, 1926) writes: "The true position is represented by o]j ... evgennh,qh, by which in accordance with sense it is to Jesus alone that an immaculate birth is attributed. Rating: - (indecisive)





















Balis sees that the real and natural situation is to present the reading ((who was born)) to match the meaning with the pure birth of Jesus.
The final assessment is not decisive or conclusive.




____________
4_The fourth evidence: The




Aramaic Khborus




https://archive.org/search.php …


((((This who is not of blood and flesh)) 

Conclusion: As long as the copyists among them have distorted the text in the manuscripts to convert the reading of the plural to the individuals to establish the Christian doctrine in the form of (divinity due to the virgin birth), we must reconsider all the texts of the Holy Book that are interpreted to suit the establishment of the doctrine of the divinity of Jesus. This reading was used by Tertullian from the second century and Origen from the fourth century and others, which confirms that these early ideas of the first time were based on the spread of the doctrine of the Trinity for illusions that have no correct foundations to establish them, and thus all the ideas of the crucifixion and redemption The divinity of man, the Trinity, sin, etc. have become in grave danger. I ask God to benefit from what he has taught us and to guide us to what he loves and is pleased with.