Does Sinaiticus lead to faith?

Did a man who saw more of Sinaiticus
than anyone but Tischendorf grow in faith by trusting its words? In May of 1843,
after Constantin Tischendorf’s private meeting with
pope Gregory XVI, he raised money and waited anxiously
for the weather to clear. In 1844 he made a beeline to Egypt,
found the Sinaiticus in St. Catherine’s monastery,
and stole 5 quires and 3 leaves from it, a total of 43 leaves, or 86 pages. Then he went to other countries,
covering his tracks, until he planned on returning
to get the rest of Sinaiticus. Not until 15 years later, in 1859,
with help from a Russian delegation and money from the Tsar,
did he succeed. There’s so much to tell you about
what he was really doing. In 1847, Tischendorf wrote
“Travels in the East.” He told his backers
his reason for scouring the earth for Greek Bibles: “…to obtain a valid text
of the New Testament Scriptures, the bulwark of theology against the
attacks of doubting science and the sacred and indestructible
foundation of our faith.” He wrote this 4 years after
his private meeting with the pope and 3 years after
he “found” Sinaiticus in the St. Catherine’s monastery
in the Egyptian peninsula. Now, does reading and trusting
the Codex Sinaiticus lead to faith? Let’s look at what I found in the writings
of a man who spent years with its text. Hi, I’m David Daniels
from Chick Publications. This is a book called,
“The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow.” It’s by Kirsopp Lake, the very man
who spent more time with Codex Sinaiticus
than pretty much anybody but Tischendorf that I know of. He and his wife photographed
the Sinaiticus New Testament in the Summer of 1908 and
published it in 1911. Then he photographed
the Sinaiticus Old Testament in 1913 and published it in 1922. In chapter 3 of
Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake? and in a previous video I stated that
the original version of the Sinaiticus would affect somebody’s faith,
if you read them as they were written. I am talking about
the first physical writing on the vellum (animal skin)
by the hand of by Simonides, from the manuscripts handed to him
by his great uncle Benedict in 1839-40. And as I’ve said before, in Mark 1:1,
when it doesn’t say “the Son of God,” then by the time you get to
verse 10, 11, and 12, you start realizing: “Wait a second. This original version,
the original handwritten part of Sinaiticus is saying
that Jesus didn’t ‘become God’ or at least ‘become called God’
until He was baptized.” That’s called Adoptionism. It was a belief of some early Gnostics
who pretended to be Christians. Is that amazing, or what? Now, could those missing words
affect somebody’s faith? Short answer: Yes. I heard about this book,
“The Religion of Yesterday and Tomorrow.” This is a rare book. It was hard to find. I am thankful to God I got one. It’s from Houghton Mifflin Company,
published in 1925. So that’s, 17 years after
Lake photographed the New Testament with his first wife. Listen to Lake from page 134. “… it may be argued that Mark …
only shows that Jesus was believed to have become a ‘Son of God,’
possibly at the Baptism, and that the disciples
(and perhaps Jesus himself) believed that he was the ‘Son of Man’
(which only means ‘Man’), who would come from heaven
at the last day to judge the living and the dead. This is ‘Adoptionism’
[Jesus wasn’t God in the flesh; he was an ordinary man that God adopted] …
for it is historically unsound to identify with God a ‘Son of God’
(which may mean in Jewish language an angel, or a king, or a righteous man);
and whatever the ‘Son of Man,’ means, it certainly is not God
and cannot ever have meant this to Jewish ears.” So by 1925, Kirsopp Lake,
photographer of the Sinaiticus, didn’t believe that Jesus was God
come in the flesh. That’s bad. But he also declared that
he did believe Adoptionism, God adopting the man Jesus as His son,
little “s.” So Lake’s Jesus
isn’t really God the Saviour. And I can prove it. Back on page 18 Lake said
“From Greek and Oriental sources came belief in a Divine Saviour…” And look at what Lake said
the heathen sources taught about this “Divine Saviour:” “who was able and willing
to give to those who trusted and believed in him
a supernatural power of obtaining in a future life
an immortality and happiness denied to the rest of the world.” Wow. That sounds like
Lake is explaining away John 1:12. Listen carefully: 12 “But as many as received him
[Jesus Christ], to them gave he power
to become the sons of God, even to them
that believe on his [that’s Jesus’] name:” So Lake is saying
that this doctrine didn’t come from the inspiration of God. It came from Greek and Oriental,
that is, heathen, sources. And that’s not all. I can’t read this whole book to you,
but listen to some excerpts from page 147: “Whether therefore he [Jesus]
claimed to be the Messiah… or was merely so acclaimed by his disciples,
is likely to be disputable…” “I doubt very much
whether any one will think that such questions are important,
except for the special student. No one will believe in a ‘Messiah’
in any sense in which the word is valuable…” Maybe Google will
get this book scanned and online, so you can see it for yourself. But just one more small quote,
from page 148. Lake said regarding the terms
“anointed” and “suffering servant” being applied to Jesus: “1) that in every case
the reference is to a man, not to a God, and therefore indicates that
those who had heard Jesus, and produced the Synoptic tradition [Matthew,
Mark and Luke], did not regard him as God incarnate. 2) All of them,
with the possible exception of the ‘suffering servant,’
belong to the cycle of Jewish eschatological [end times] belief,
which is as mythical as the gods of Olympus…” Does it sound to you like
Tischendorf’s stated purpose in finding ancient manuscripts
was fulfilled? “…to obtain a valid text
of the New Testament Scriptures, the bulwark of theology
against the attacks of doubting science and the sacred and indestructible
foundation of our faith.” Does this sound like faith to you? No, it doesn’t. It sounds like doubt to me. And not just any doubt. This is industrial sized doubt,
served up with a helping of disbelief in the scriptures. But the only verses Kirsopp Lake
seemed to believe were the original handwriting
of Mark 1 in Sinaiticus, which removed the words
“the Son of God,” and thus changed the chapter to imply
that Jesus was only adopted by God as His Son,
not that Jesus was the actual Son of God from all eternity. The doubt logically followed. Romans 10:17 “So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” Lake didn’t get faith. He got doubt. I think what he had
wasn’t the words of God. We cannot trust any Bible that bases its
teachings and its readings on the Sinaiticus. I’ll stick with the Bible
that produces what God said His words produce, faith. And in English, that Bible
is the King James Bible. That’s what led to
the faith you see in me today. I hope you trust its words and
let it lead to your faith, as well. God bless you,
and have a wonderful day.


  1. Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

    Mark 4:15 And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

  2. Your book convinced me when I read about John 7:8! And then I came to understand why many things didn't make sense in my bible, what I needed was a good translation, not a perVersion

  3. Are you the only one who found the information about sinaiticus that you show in your videos?

  4. What a pitiful character… Please DON'T MESS with GOD'S Word. Big mistake.
    Also the truth come up on the right time. How beautiful is our GOD?
    Satan's army won't make it easy for anyon…, satan AKA the author of confusion & the father of lies.
    Lord of the flys, prince of the power of the air, the dragon, that old snake. Old Nick, Santa Claus, Lucy, etc his always ajusting and doing just the opposite
    Of GOD'S will… SMH.
    Great review brother, GOD bless your heart and the ones you love.

  5. David, I love your videos and you have taught me so much about the Bible, but…


  6. “There’s nothing innocent or innocuous about trying to find the historical text, because there’s a presupposition in the enterprise of questing for the historical text that is identical with the higher critical presupposition, and namely it is this: that the church has fabricated the data and the evidence about who Jesus was, what he said, and what he did. And in order to find out the truth and the reality of the Christ experience and event of the first century AD we have to go behind what is called the ecclesiastical text and rummage through the fragmentary sources that exist behind it from the second and third centuries, and speculate on into the third century, in order to find out what really happened, because the church [via the received text] told us a colossal lie.”

    Theodore P. Letis: The Quest for the Historical Text, The ESV, and The Jesus Seminar… via @YouTube

  7. Lake also influenced the Christian world to believe wrongly that fornication includes adultery. The photo of him and the woman beside him at minute marker 6:50 looks like his young assistant He had a child out of wedlock, divorced his wife, and married his lover. Here is the backgound from Facebook Jewish Marriage, Betrothal Divorce, and Rremarriage ebook: Page 78. —— Sir James Donaldson (1864) cautions that the Sinaiticus reading is of recent origin. It was first published in 1856 and analyzed by Tischendorf as a re-translation due to the modern Greek words and medieval Latinisms. After discovering a similar Shepherd of Hermas in 1859, bound inside the Sinaiticus codex, Tischendorf quietly retracted his error (pp. 309-310). Dr. David Sorenson (2017) elaborates, “[Hermas] was an integral part of Sinaiticus. . . written on the same vellum parchment, with the same ink as the rest of volume, and by the same scribe” (p. 116). On individual words, the Sinaitic Greek differed often from the extant Greek passages and agreed with later Latin translations (ibid., p. 121). Dr. Musurillo (1951) found that the Greek manuscripts and the papyri excavated in the last 50 years differed widely and Hermas needed to be revised (p. 386). Dr. Grenfell and Dr. Hunt (1901) found the Mt. Athos version to be closer to the ancient papyri, “The papyrus tends to agree with the Athous” (p. 195). The Athos reading, “persists in her sin (hamartia),” has far more support.

    Mt. Athos, having 20 monasteries, has been the repository of ancient manuscripts since at least 800 AD. The Athos reading of hamartia “sin,” predates the 1859 Sinaitic, “porneia.” Other Hm. 4.1.5 textual discrepancies: “An alternate Latin rendering Palatine: two 15th cent. mss.; trans. orig. made in 4th cent.) presupposes poneria, ‘evil’ ” (Dr. Robert G., communication, August 31, 2015). When scholar Kirsopp LAKE published the Sinaitic Greek text in 1913, he altered pornia πορνία, to porneia πορνεία, instead of poneria πονηρία (iniquity) or the Mt. Athos’ “hamartia” (sin). Lake failed to note the MODERN Greek words and Latinism in the alleged “4th century” Greek Sinaitic Hermas. Lake’s bias is evidenced by his life. He had a child out of wedlock, divorced his wife, and married his lover.

  8. Is there any reason to read the book you mentioned? I see many copies available at university libraries listed on worldcat and two copies for sale on abebooks "Religion of Yesterday and To-Morrow"

  9. There is so much garbage out there Dear Daniel that I'm just sticking to the King James Bible. I don't need to read anything else. Thank you so much for your info. God bless😊😊😊❤️❤️❤️

  10. Great video David. Thank you for trying to open believers eyes to the truth. Most people just do not see the differences between the ancient manuscripts. I am KJV all the way.

  11. Well said and we'll researched, thank you for your great effort to expose the fake sinaiticus.
    God bless you

  12. I open mail at my job and Christians often return our free mailing envelopes with Chicktracts! I began collecting them and while I was already a believer, they led me to you to strengthen my faith.

    You have made me a firm and only believer in the King James. I've heard about the forgeries and accuracy of the KJV in the past, but never so completely and logically as you have presented. You made this very easy for me and have done my life an unbelievable service. You went even further to give me a healthy distrust of footnotes.

    I recently prayed to the Lord to help me find the best version, and He made it a simple decision for me by guiding me to you. I was worried I'd have to lose the beauty of the King James in order to gain the "accuracy" of the others, now I know I have both! Thank you David Daniels.

  13. David Daniels I know you're awful busy. But I've come across a video of person that I have dealt with before. He said Leviticus once condone homosexuality but was rewritten to condemn it. I just wondering if there's any material I can study about the old testament. Maybe variants.

  14. I wonder if Westcott and Hort and whoever were influenced by the corrupt manuscripts, were they influenced by Jesuits in their schools? Did Oxford, Cambridge and Westminster start a Jesuit agenda in the 18th and 19th centuries? And if so, how can you tell?

  15. Thank the lord for your service, I have read all the Antonio Rivera comics his books and a couple more early in my faith, and let me tell you even if it was rough 2 accept it, now i can consider myself a warrior in waiting for the LORD, I translate the KJV with the reyna y valera to my family and show them how much they are missing. Now on the hunt for a SPANISH version close to my dear old KJV

  16. Kirsop Lake had an affiar with his assistant who then had a child out of wedlock. Lake divorced his wife and married his lover.

  17. I'd love to see you debate with James White, as none of this information came up in his discussion with Steven Anderson… more people need to know this stuff. People I know say they wouldn't read the KJV because their modern Bibles a full of footnotes which say ''This verse isn't in the oldest manuscripts''. I'm more of a Textus Receptus only guy as opposed to KJV only, but I try to explain about majority vs minority text to my friends, but they don't listen. I think it's partly because a lot of my friends are Calvinists, and modern Bibles seem to me to be more Calvinist friendly…

  18. I appreciate your work. The most amazing thing is that God himself has brought me to my reliance on the KJV and I would be a rebellious sinner to walk away. My faith is supernatural and so is this Bible

  19. Hogwash!! Removing "Son of God" is a direct kick at the Deity of Christ. This is clear proof they were trying to push their own theology, or form of ideology on the populace. "We are not to be ignorant of Satan devices". God stressed to study & Not to ignore or change His word several times, & stressed the use of "the whole Counsel of God", as in "the whole Bible". As well as the need for 2 or 3 witnesses, as in "it must be listed clearly in 2 or 3 different verses of scripture to be valid".. The heretics also felt it necessary to wickedly change the next identifying verse of Mark (Mk.1:2) from "prophets" to Isaiah in all new per•versions of those Alexandrian manuscripts (sin & vat). The following quotation verses in Mk.1:2-3 did Not only come from Isaiah alone as thr claim, but from both Isaiah & Malachi, "prophets" just as the Kjv revealed. This is a huge blunder of deception because not only is it wrong on their part, but it contains a vital prophecy from both Advents of Christ. 2 seperate days, 1 prophecy by each Prophet per context. Remember God said He'd send both Elijah & Moses, 1 before the great day of the Lord, & the other before the terrible day of the Lord.. *(Isaiah.40:3) reads "The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, prepare ye the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God"- This is a 2nd Advent prophecy, Not 1st if read in context. In Mk.1:2 yes, Its clearly referring to John the baptizer who was much more than a messenger btw. But Mk.1:3 is also from *(Malachi 3:1) & reads, "BEHOLD, I will send 'my' messenger, and he shall prepare the way before 'me': and the Lord, whom ye seek, shall suddenly come to 'his' temple, even the messenger of the covenant, whom ye delight in: behold, 'he' shall come saith the LORD of hosts"- This is undoubtedly 1st Advent, exact & on point. Note the capitalization & defining characteristics of the person involved. The person "thy" in Mk.1:2 is "me" in Mal.3:1, & "me" in Mal.3:1 is "the Lord" (Jehovah) "of hosts". Malachi is clearly identifying Jesus Christ as the same Jehovah of the Old Testament… As far as "adoptionisim", that's even more hogwash, water baptism doesn't have anything to do with the New Birth of Spiritual Baptism, nor does it save you. One can get baptized a million times & still end up in Hell. Biblically speaking "for the remission of sins" does NOT refer to anyone getting baptized 'so they can' or 'in order to' get their sins forgiven. Every time this phrase occurs, it's referencing a Believer that's getting water baptized because their sins 'have already been forgiven'-( Act.2:38, Rom.3:25-26 c.f. Heb.9:15). A Faithful Believer in Christ is baptized into His death, as a form of purification. According to the prophets, God had already forgiven His chosen nation of Israel way before His messenger (John Baptizer) even showed up. God said Israel had paid more than double their due on account of their brutal captors & wicked persecutors over the ages, which history speaks volumes on. Scripturee is clear, when Jesus returns after Jacobs trouble, He will restore them Himself. God promised that all of those who hurt or stand against Israel (past, present, future), will perish. I don't know why or how people can deny God's restoration of Israel, there is more written about His return & restoration, than the Gentile belivers salvation in Christ… Study is is an imperative command of God, if not one can easily fall for any one of Satan's devices….

  20. Of course the 19th century corruption known as SINaiticus can not lead to faith. It, along with Vaticanus and a few others somewhat like them are leading millions to hell. All the modern corruptions called Bible translations such as the RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV, etc. ad infinitum should be burned. All who promote them are incompetent, or children of Satan, or insane.

Leave a Reply

(*) Required, Your email will not be published