Uncategorized

The Preservation of the Qu’ran Reply to Samuel Green. Part 2/2

Preservation of the Quran. Part 2/2

Textural Critizism of Quran. Debunking Samuel Green from Answering-Islam.

(Note: after we destroyed Samuel Greens Article in Part 1) Samuel Green from his frustration was completely muted on vast majority of our Responses, so he resorted to debating further Chapter 9 &10 of his article which Brother Ijaz Ahmed may Allah bless his soul completely Debunked Samuel.

Lets hear the debate” Samuel Green Vs Ijaz Ahmad

Note: If Samuel Reply’s we will post a update.

Debate beggins after Brother Mustafa Ahmed in the Screen shots bellow explain to Samuel Green that he is Wrong to claim there are multiple Quran. Warsh and Hafs version.
These are modes and not different Qurans:

Mustafa Ahmed writes” Samuel, hope u stop twisting the text from now on

Samuel Green writes” I have not twisted anything. Muslims are the ones who say there is only one Qur’an with no variations. This post is helpful.

Ijaz Ahmed writes: ” There is one Qur’an, just seven Ahruf. You do know what Qur’an means, yeah?

Samuel Green writes: Qur’an means recitation. The different qira’at are different recitations.

Ijaz Ahmed writes: You might need to go back to school. Qur’an is from qara’a yaqra’u, it is one. The modes are multiple, the articulation is one.

Samuel Green writes: So there are different recitations of the recitation?

Ijaz Ahmed writes: There more modes to the articulation, but one articulation. This is what happens when you use words you don’t know. Styles come from the modes and the modes come from one articulation, which is the Qur’an.

Samuel Green writes:
They are not stylistic differences but the words are formed differently: active or passive, plural or singular, etc.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
That is from the ahruf, not from the articulation. You seem to be confused. Let me simplify it for you. One, just one, there is only one articulation. This one has ahruf, which are modes. Simple.

Samuel Green writes:
I am not confused at all. Islam is confused on this topic. As for what is meant by these seven ahruf, there is a great deal of difference on this issue. Ibn Qutaybah (d. 276 A.H.) recorded thirty-five opinions on the issue, and as-Suyootee listed
over forty. Ibn Sa’adan (d. 231 A.H.), a famous grammarian and reciter of the Qur’aan, even declared that the true meaning of the ahruf was known only to Allaah, and thus to attempt to investigate into this issue was futile! (Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an, p. 175)

It is absurd to say there is a difference between articulation and mode. Recitation is recitation. The whole topic is simply a doctrine developed to harmonized the variants of the Qur’an.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
Thank you for copy pasting, however, while the scholars differ on the categories of what the Ahruf are, they do not disagree that the Ahruf exist, thus that copy pasted quote is not only irrelevant, it only serves to demonstrate you are an inept ignoramus.

“It is absurd to say there is a difference between articulation and mode.”

Sadly, only an uninformed and uninitiated person will claim an articulation is a style.

“Recitation is recitation.”

Nope, this is silly. There are modes of recitations, which styles belong to. Styles are not modes and modes are not styles. This is where Lughat, Balagh, Sarf wa Nahw come into play. It is clear you do not know the difference in English and thus due to your ignorance you reduce them to “being the same” and thus you cannot distinguish between them. We refer to this as the fallacy of reductio ad absurdum, it’s usually what children do when they do not understand something.

“The whole topic is simply a doctrine developed to harmonized the variants of the Qur’an.”

Variants of the Qira’at or of the Ahruf? See, I’ve picked up on your mistakes. I’ve realised you don’t know what you’re talking about. Since you claim to be educated, here’s a simple question. You use the term “synoptic Qur’ans”, I thus, posit that you cannot give me the Arabic term for this phrase. Despite constant and incorrect usage of it. Simple, prove me wrong.

Samuel Green writes:
No, but that is not the nature of differences between the different versions of the Qur’an.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:

1. I’ve asked him to refer us to the Arabic term that means “synoptic Qur’ans”, which is a phrase he has been using. He has been unable to do so.

2. The Qur’an was revealed with modes, the modes all go back to one source and were taught, recited and memorized together with each other.

3. He tries to claim that this means the Qur’an has variants like the Bible, however this is a false comparison as the variants in the Bible are due to textual emendation and have no link with Jesus, nor can they be said to be from Jesus or his disciples.

4. The very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an attests to it’s letter by letter preservation. Green does not understand how orthography works and as such he confuses a development in orthography with the change in the reading of the Qur’an.

5. There is one Qur’an. Just one. This one articulation has modes of the Ahruf, and from these modes, we have the styles or Qira’at of the Qur’an. Still one Qur’an. His problem is that he does not understand the Arabic language and it’s devices and so tries to lower the Qur’an to the level of the man made Bible.

For points 2 and 3, a Christian scholar, Dr. Michael Cook who studies Islam and had been critical of the Qur’an, accepted that there was mutawatir transmission of the Qira’at on gigantic level.

In other words, through stemmatics, the Qira’at were being recited in multiple cities at the same time, on a massive scale yet in these cities separated by months of travel, they all had the same recitation between them. So if Samuel Green is saying that variants were developed and then a accepted, this is not only a false understanding, it would mean that he is dishonest, incredible and purposely ignoring the most sophisticated research and published studies on the historical transmission of the Qur’an.

Samuel Green:
> 1. I’ve asked him to refer us to the Arabic term that means “synoptic Qur’ans”, which is a phrase he has been using. He has been unable to do so.

Your question is irrelevant. The companions of MUhammad made their own collections which differed in sura order, number and content. These are synoptic.

2. The Qur’an was revealed with modes, the modes all go back to one source and were taught, recited and memorized together with each other.

No, because many of the modes are not counted authentic. And there is no agreement about what these modes even are. A simpler solution is that this whole doctrine is a doctrine of harmonization.

3. He tries to claim that this means the Qur’an has variants like the Bible, however this is a false comparison as the variants in the Bible are due to textual emendation and have no link with Jesus, nor can they be said to be from Jesus or his disciples.

Any textual variant of the Qur’an is called a mode. This is just avoiding the obvious and seeking to harmonize the variants.

4. The very earliest manuscripts of the Qur’an attests to it’s letter by letter preservation. Green does not understand how orthography works and as such he confuses a development in orthography with the change in the reading of the Qur’an.

The manuscripts were burned to standardize one version. This is catastrophic for the preservation of the Qur’an. You cannot boast about burning all the early Qur’ans to standardis one text.

5. There is one Qur’an. Just one. This one articulation has modes of the Ahruf, and from these modes, we have the styles or Qira’at of the Qur’an. Still one Qur’an. His problem is that he does not understand the Arabic language and it’s devices and so tries to lower the Qur’an to the level of the man made Bible.

The word Qur’an means recitation. The qira’at are different recitations. You cannot say there is one recitation and many recitations at the same time. There are many versions of the Qur’an.

The different Readers read the words differently and put the vowels and diacritical marks in different ways. To say that all of these 1000s of differences go back to Muhammad is absurd. All of the differences exist where the Arabic text is vague. That is there source not Muhammad.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
Before I begin, and I do want to keep this brief, there is a relevant quote concerning you with which I would like to preface my reply with:

“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” – Bertrand Russel.

With that said, I could probably write three books on a rainy day about your statements and their inaccuracies. however you are not worth my time or my effort, but for the sake of whosoever may read this, I will provide some response.

“Your question is irrelevant. The companions of MUhammad made their own collections which differed in sura order, number and content. These are synoptic.”

– Merely saying that something is irrelevant, does not make it irrelevant. You are irrelevant. Personal copies are meant for personal consumption. What you are positing it beyond silly. A codex is not automatically a canon, but a codex can contain the canon. These are therefore not synoptic by any means. Now that we’ve covered that mistake, you would need to qualify your usage of the term, “synoptic Qur’ans”. Why do you refuse to qualify it, yet persist in using it? It is because you are wrong, and do not understand the topic and as such, are making things up as you go along. So, my friend, demonstrate your integrity and qualify what you claim, or accept that you are wrong and uneducated on this topic of study. It’s quite simple, a man with answers and knowledge can respond to what he is asked, a man who lacks both, finds every reason not to answer the question.

“No, because many of the modes are not counted authentic. And there is no agreement about what these modes even are. A simpler solution is that this whole doctrine is a doctrine of harmonization.”

– There are only 7 modes. Everyone accepts there are 7 modes. No one says there are 8 or 9 modes, or 5 or 6. So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious. This is evidence that you have confused the Ahruf with the Qira’at.

“Any textual variant of the Qur’an is called a mode. This is just avoiding the obvious and seeking to harmonize the variants.”

– Wrong! Ahruf != Qira’at. One comes from the other. A textual variant is not attributed to the Qira’at, it can be due to lapsus calami or to development in orthography, ergo not only are you wrong, you’re making this up as you go along. Lastly, these variants in recitation existed in parallel with each other, for their to be harmonization there needed to be divergence and then convergence, not parallel transmission via stemmatics. Ergo, you’re wrong again.

On another note, a variant between the Qira’at must be mutawatir, and as such, any variant, or a shadh, or gharib, or ahad variant is wholly rejected, because it does not mean ijma due to its lack of criteria to suffice mutawatir transmission. In other words you’re very wrong.

“The manuscripts were burned to standardize one version. This is catastrophic for the preservation of the Qur’an. You cannot boast about burning all the early Qur’ans to standardis one text.”

– Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement. Burning of unauthorized copies is what preserved the Qur’an. As opposed to the NT where with no such burning we still lack any early mss for over 200 – 300 years! Heck, we’re still rejecting the use of the earliest mss for that of later conjecturally emended variant units, see the lack of use of P45 in any modern critical edition πŸ˜‰

“The word Qur’an means recitation. The qira’at are different recitations.”

– Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation. One of these words is singular and the other is plural. You’re an adult, I assume you know the difference. There is one Qur’an, but many Qira’at, there is a reason I write the “t” at the end of Qira’at, I’m trying to help you, but you’re too daft to distinguish between the two terms. One Qur’an, many Qira’at.

“You cannot say there is one recitation and many recitations at the same time. There are many versions of the Qur’an.”

– Style != Version. Qira’at != “many Qur’ans”. There is one Qur’an, but many Qira’at. This is not complicated. You do not seem to understand the difference because as demonstrated you think:

Qur’an = Ahruf = Qira’at.

Which is wrong. Unless you can demonstrate that you understand these are different terms, describing different things, you are merely demonstrating to me that you are uneducated, unqualified and ignorant on this topic of discussion.

Samuel Green writes:
> You are irrelevant. Personal copies are meant for personal consumption.

Wrong: The hadiths are clear that the companions used these manuscripts to teach their students. This is what caused the arguments. I reference this in my article. They were not for personal use.

> So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious.

Islamic scholars record up to 50 different qira’at.
(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 63-71. Also, Ibn al-JazarT, Nashr, vol. 1, pp. 34β€”7, cited from, Intisar A. Rabb, “Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur’an: Recognitition and Authenticity (the Himsi Reading)”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 2006, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 124 footnote 114. And Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, pp. 191-192.

No one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected. They are judged in the same way a hadith is judged for authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da’eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur’an is the same as the Hadith.

> Lastly, these variants in recitation existed in parallel with each other, for their to be harmonization there needed to be divergence and then convergence, not parallel transmission via stemmatics. Ergo, you’re wrong again.

They have to be parallel in order to be harmonized.

> – Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement.

Yes, and these text show major variants.

The main significance of the San’a 1 (Standford 07) manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this Utmanic textual tradition. In this sense, it is β€œnon-Utmanic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. (Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’an of the Prophet”, Arabica 57, 2010, p. 344)

> – Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation.

Nonsense, just read them, they have nothing to do with style, the words are simply constructed differently.

Samuel Green writes:

You claim> Open any Arabic website, it is normal to write without using diacritical marks. Open any NT papyri pre-4th century, none of them have diacritical marks (breathings/ polytonic miniscule koine). By your own standards, it would mean the earliest NT writings were vague and could not be read.

Here is an Islamic scholar on this subject.

The (Arabic) script used in the seventh century, i.e. during the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, consisted of very basic symbols, which expressed on the consonantal structure of a word, and even that with much ambiguity. While today letters such as baa, taa, thaa, yaa, are easily distinguished by points, this was not so in the early days and all these letters used to be written with a straight line. … When more and more Muslims of non-Arab origin and also many ignorant Arabs studied the Qur’an, faulty pronunciation and wrong readings began to increase. It is related that at the time of Du’ali (d. 69H/638) someone in Basra read the following aya from the Qur’an in a faulty way, which changed the meaning completely:

That God and his apostle dissolve obligations with the pagans (9:3)

That God dissolves obligations with the pagans and the apostle.

This mistake occurred through wrongly reading rasulihi in place of rasuluhu, which could not be distinguished from the written text, because there were no signs or accents indicating the correct pronunciation. Unless someone had memorised the correct version he could out of ignorance easily commit such a mistake. (Von Denffer, `Ulum Al-Qur’an – An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’an, pp. 57-58)

Ijaz ahmed writes:
Isn’t that book almost two decades old? I’m pretty sure Deroche disagrees on the scripts used as does Sadeghi. So please cite anything from 2010-2014 please. Try to keep up, old man.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
“Wrong: The hadiths are clear that the companions used these manuscripts to teach their students. This is what caused the arguments. I reference this in my article. They were not for personal use.”

The recitations caused the differences, that is what I see in your article, and this can be explained by a companion learning one qira’at and not learning another, which was often the case. Not all the Qurra recite all the qira’at. some specialize only in one.

“> So your statement that they “are not counted as authentic” is completely fictitious.
Islamic scholars record up to 50 different qira’at.
(Al-Nadim, The Fihrist of al-Nadim – A Tenth Century survey of Muslim Culture, New York: Columbia University Press, 1970, pp. 63-71. Also, Ibn al-JazarT, Nashr, vol. 1, pp. 34β€”7, cited from, Intisar A. Rabb, “Non-Canonical Readings of the Qur’an: Recognitition and Authenticity (the Himsi Reading)”, Journal of Qur’anic Studies, 2006, vol. 8, no. 2, p. 124 footnote 114. And Abu Ammaar Yasir Qadhi, An Introduction to the Sciences of the Qur’aan, United Kingdom: Al-Hidaayah, 1999, pp. 191-192.

No one accepts all of these versions as authentic, some are accepted and others are rejected. They are judged in the same way a hadith is judged for authenticity. The gradings are: sahih (authentic), shadh (irregular), da’eef (weak) and baatil (false).[3] In this way the Qur’an is the same as the Hadith.”

– THANK YOU. You’re again confusing Qira’at with Ahruf. My statement that they are not counted as authentic, refers to AHRUF not Qira’at. You’ve confused the two. Thank you for demonstrating that you CANNOT and DO NOT know the difference between the two. One is not the other, one comes from the other.

“They have to be parallel in order to be harmonized.”

– You may need to check that. Harmonizing means joining together, a convergence. How can it be parallel in transmission, yet harmonized/ converged? Either you don’t know what the words mean, or you’re making it up as you go along.

“> – Wrong, we have texts that pre-date the alleged rescension with DAM 01 – 27, in fact you quote Sadeghi’s paper in which he specifically mentions this and is met with agreement.

Yes, and these text show major variants.

The main significance of the San’a 1 (Standford 07) manuscript is that its lower text does not belong to this Utmanic textual tradition. In this sense, it is β€œnon-Utmanic.” It belongs to some other textual tradition which is designated here as C-1. (Behnam Sadeghi and Uwe Bergmann, “The Codex of a Companion of the Prophet and the Qur’an of the Prophet”, Arabica 57, 2010, p. 344)”

– Where does that quote say there are major variants? You do realise I own that paper and have cited it many times. The textual tradition, i.e. the orthography is different. Mostly due to the use of hatta and ‘ala, which we find in the Topkapi codex, see Atakulic’s paper on this. You need to study more.

“> – Qur’an means recitation, qira’at are styles of the recitation.

Nonsense, just read them, they have nothing to do with style, the words are simply constructed differently.”

How Qira’at and Qur’an are two different words, they refer to two different things. One is from the other. Please learn what words mean before you use them. It’s like saying every codex is a canon, and that codex means canon. You are confused and very wrong.

Ijaz Ahmed writes:
I just checked the publishing date of Von Deffer’s book, it’s 1983. We are in 2015. Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sadeghi, Bergmann, Goudarzi, Deroche, all now agree the text was sensible and could be read, with even Sadeghi proposing diacritical marks in DAM. Guess you didn’t want to quote where he proposed that in the same paper and provided MSS evidence for it, ya? πŸ˜‰

Lastly, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Syriac, none of these in their early forms had diacritical marks. Just as with today, if you don’t understand how to read the text, you can’t. It had to be learned. So there is no issue here. If you are arguing that the lack of diacritical marks is an issue, then you need to be consistent and accept that NOT A SINGLE NT PAPYRI from before the 4/5th century could be read as they were in majuscule scriptio continua koine and had no vowels. Be consistent. If you can’t accept that (and you are factually wrong btw), then you are willingly lying. According to you, they were teaching people to read from their personal codices, how could they teach and read them if they lacked diacritical marks…? Clearly they had a system, as we do in MSA and do not need diacritical marks.

Ergo, you’re wrong and you’ve been proven wrong by PBC/ proof by contradiction. The onus is now on you to practically qualify your point, given that you have contradicted yourself.

Standard
Uncategorized

21 Questions to cook a Christian

  • Top: 21 (Questions) to cook a Christian

Under construction.

By: Mustafa Sahin

Question 1:

Where is the explicity mentioning of the Truine Godhead mentioned in the Old Testament?

Answer: ?

Question 2:

How do you get a Christian to believe in Carbon Dating?

Answer: Tell them it disproves the Quran

Question 3:

If you were the deciple who witnessed the Cruicifiction of Jesus would you want him killed or would you try and rescue him from the Cross?

Answer: ??? πŸ˜…

Question 4:

How do you convince the Quran is the Word of God and not Word of Satan?

Answer: Tell them Christians claim the Quran Confirms todays complete Bible. Sureh 2:41- 2:97- 3:3

Question 5:

If Jesus is God, does Jesus have a Son?

Answer: ?

Question 6:

The Father killed his Son on Cross to save you right? So will you push your Son under a moving Car in order to save sombody elses Son. The Bible says be like God. Ephesians 5:1

Answer: ?

Question 7:

Since Christian God loves unconditionally,
Does he love Satan or Hitler?

Question 8:

Why does God send those who he loves to Hell like Hitler?

Question 9:

If the Christian God can do everything, can He lie or steal or act immoral?

Answer: ?

Question 10:

If Muslims kill in the name of God, what about the Desciples who contribute to sending people to Hell and Torture them? Since they participate in judging the 12 tribes of Israel. Mathew 19:28

Answer: ?

Question 11:

How do you convince a Christian ISIS also follows the Killings in the Bible? Don’t Christians say the Quran claims Muslims should judge by the Bible? Sureh 10:94

Question 12:

Insult a Christian by calling him Karinyo ( small Dog ) if he then tells you his offended. Tell him but why? Jesus called a Kenanite Women a small Dog in the Bible?

Did Jesus offend her?

Answer: ?

Question 13:

Question 14:

Question 15:

If the Quran isn’t inline with biblical teaching, therefore a false book. Is the Old testament also a false book for not being inline with the teachings of the New Testament.

Deuteronomy 25:11-12

Answer:??

Question 16:

Christians say the Bible could not have been corrupted because it was Allah who sent it.

O.k if we accept this. Will you agree then Allah is Yahway?

Question 17:

If you want to prove a Christian to be a Hypocrite, swear at him by foul words. Say things like you are a Dog.

The Christian will then, tell you how your a bad Muslim etc.

Soon as he does that Qoute him the foul words used by Yahway in Detronomy 23;2

Question 18:

Since the Quran confirms the Bible as a True Book. Is the Quran a True book or a false book?

Answer: ?

Question 19:

If the Quran approves everything of the Bible. Why do Christians have a Apocrythal Collection?

So you agree Allah doesn’t Approve Everything?

Answer:?

Question 20:

Do Christians really deep down believe there are One God instead of Three?

I wonder why they would never write SON, FATHER AND SPIRIT but father, son and spirit. Ask them which is the 3rd in the Trinity, they’ll never say it is the Son or the father but only the spirit yet they still claim they are One.

Question 21:

How do you get a Christian to believe in the Laws of the Old Testament to apply today?

Tell them to Qoute: Detronomony 18:22, where Christians assert the Prophet Muhammed spoke in the name of other God’s which proves his a False Prophet

Notice the Christian’s use the O.T but then when Muslims use the O.T against Christian’s it suddenly becomes an outdated law?

Standard
Uncategorized

Christian Trinity makes no Sense!

According to Christian Trinitarian Theology:

1 – Jesus is both God at the same time the Son of God.
2 – Mary is the Mother of God Jesus but not the mother of God the Father.
3 – Jesus is both the Son of God. And the Son of Man. But God is not a man. But Jesus is a Man, therefore Jesus is God man.

Are you confused yet? Yes, No? Let’s continue:

4 – The Father is not the Son.
5 – The Son is not the Father.
6 – The Son is not the Holy Spirit.
7 – And the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor the Son.
8 – But the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the SAME one God

Are you still confused? Yes no? Let’s continue;

9 –Β  Β The Father God has a Son. But God Jesus has no Son.
10 – The Father God has no Father. But Jesus God has a Father.
Are you still confused? Yes or No?
11 – The Holy Spirit God has No Son. But he is the same God as the Father.
Still confused, not to worry let’s continue?
12 – There is One God in heaven. But Three of them Bare Record. Not one of Them.
13 – 1st Person Father & 2nd Person Son & 3rd Person Holy Spirit. They are not Three God’s. But Three Persons.
14 – Jesus or the Father can never be the Third person in the Trinity. The Third person is the Holy Spirit. But they are ALL the same God, not three Gods.

Still, confused? Yes no, let’s continue.

16 – God Father sent God Jesus to the World. They are One God.
17 – God Father gave God the Son Authority. But They are the same God. (Mathew 28:18)

Still, confused? Well, the Bible testifies God is not the Author of Confusion:

Let’s read;

For God is not the author of confusion, but peace, as in all churches of the saints.
(1 Corinthians 14:33)

No why would you be confused?
Only a “Lie” such as the Trinity verse, is a late addition even according to Biblical Scholar of the New Testament see video:

Christian Apologist website admits “No Christian Scholar’ can explain the Trinity:

Quote: “The Trinity is a great mystery, and even the most learned Bible scholars cannot adequately explain it. However, the Bible, specifically the New Testament, teaches that the one true God exists as three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). The Bible also teaches that it was the Son who became incarnate, not the Father or the Spirit. Thus, Binitarianism is not biblical”. End Quote.
Source: http://www.gotquestions.org/Binitarianism.html

Credentials of GotQuestionsSite:

All of our answers are reviewed for biblical and theological accuracy by our staff. Our CEO, S. Michael Houdmann, is ultimately accountable for our content, and therefore maintains an active role in the review process. He possesses a Bachelor’s degree in Biblical Studies from Calvary Bible College and a Master’s degree in Christian Theology from Calvary Theological Seminary (Kansas City, MO).

Now get ready for the “Shock” the Trinity verse was added later to the Bible. Meaning it wasn’t found in the Earliest Ancient Manuscripts.

Forward to (minute: 5.11)

Standard