Excerpt from The Yahushaic Covenant Volume 1 by Rav Sha'ul New Testament altered to support The Trinity and Incarnation by Rav Sha'ul   In the attempt to turn Yahuah the one and only God into a pagan trinity, the New Testament has literally been altered to add phrases that are not inspired words of Yahuah.  I want to cover just a few of them here. 1 John 5:7 & 8 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.  And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one (KJV). Some English versions have a shorter rendition of 1 John 5:7 and 8 than the KJV quoted above.  The King James Version has words that support the Trinity that most modern versions do not have.  How can this be?  The reason that there are different translations of this verse leaving out the passage I have in red above is that some Greek texts contain an addition that was not original.  That addition was placed into some English versions, such as the KJV (the words added to some Greek texts are underlined in the quotation above).  The note in the NIV Study Bible, which is well known for its ardent belief in the Trinity, even admits it, “The addition is not found in any Greek manuscript or NT translation prior to the 16th century.” Most modern versions are translated from Greek texts without the addition.  We will quote the NIV: “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”  We agree with the textual scholars and conclude from the evidence of the Greek texts that the statement that the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit are “one” was added to the Word of God by men, and thus has no weight of truth.” Wow.  The entire doctrine of the pagan Trinity begins to implode upon true inspection of The Word of Yahuah.  There are many Trinitarian scholars who freely admit that the Greek text from which the KJV is translated was adjusted in this verse to support the Trinity.  The Greek scholar A. T. Robertson, author of the unparalleled work, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in Light of Historical Research, and the multi-volumed Word Pictures in the New Testament, writes: At this point [1 John 5:7] the Latin Vulgate gives the words in the Textus Receptus, found in no Greek Manuscript. Save two late cursives the Vatican Library of the fifteenth century, of the sixteenth century in Trinity College, Dublin.  Jerome did not have it.  Erasmus did not have it in his first edition, but rashly offered to insert it if a single Greek Manuscript actually had it, and (those that did have it) was produced with the insertion, as if made to order (to promote the pagan Trinity).  Some Latin (pagan) scribe caught up Cyprian’s exegesis and wrote it on the margin of his text, and so it got into the Vulgate and finally into the Textus Receptus by the stupidity of Erasmus.” Robertson shows how this addition entered the text.  It was a marginal note written by uninspired Latin pagans trying to translate the Word of Yahuah.  They literally “made to order” The Trinity in the text.  Since all texts were hand-copied, when a scribe, copying a text, accidentally left a word or sentence out of his copy, he would place it in the margin in hopes that the next scribe would copy it back into the text.  Unfortunately, scribes occasionally did not make the distinction between what a previous scribe had left out of the last copy and wrote in the margin, and marginal notes that another scribe had written in the margin to help him understand the text.  Therefore, some marginal notes got copied into the text as Scripture.  Usually these additions are easy to spot because the “new” text will differ from all the other texts.  However, there are times when people adore their theology more than the God-breathed original, and they fight for the man-made addition as if it were the original words of God.  This has been the case with 1 John 5:7 and 8, and we applaud the honesty of the translators of modern versions who have left it out of their translations.  Now we need to erase the Trinity from our vocabulary and more importantly from our minds. With the spurious addition taken out, it is clear that there is no reference to the Trinity in 1 John 5:7 and 8. 1 John 5:7 & 8 For there are three that bear record in heaven: the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one that Yahusha is the son of Yahuah. I will cover these 3 witnesses of Yahuah that Yahusha is His son in great detail in this book.  Yet another passage of scripture that has been altered to promote the pagan Trinity by Hellenized translators is found in the Great Commission itself! Matthew 28:18-19 18 And Yahusha came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit The words underlined in red above were added to the original text again by scribes copying marginal notes.  They believed in the pagan Trinity and chose to altar the texts.  These words are not the words of Yahusha.  Below is the actual true translation: Matthew 28:18-19 18 And Yahusha came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in my name. What Yahusha was saying is to make disciples of The Yahushaic Covenant or the covenant that is in “my name’. According to the Biblical historian Dr. C. R. Gregory: “The Greek manuscripts of the text of the New Testament were often altered by the scribes, who put into them the readings which were familiar to them, and which they held to be the right readings.” But keep in mind, these were GREEK and LATIN scribes who were attempting to Hellenize the scriptures.  This is the case in Matthew.  After the council of Nicea all original manuscripts were burned to try and hide these abominations. F.C. Conybeare further elaborated: “In the only codices which would be even likely to preserve an older reading, namely the Sinaitic Syriac and the oldest Latin Manuscript, the pages are gone which contained the end of Matthew.” The reason the end of Matthew is “gone” is because the pagan scribes of Christianity changed the end of Matthew and did not want evidence to the contrary.  In two controversial works written in Conybeare’s extreme old age, and entitled, the one ‘Against Marcellus of Ancyra,’ and the other ‘About the Theology of the Church,’ he used the common reading. One other writing of his also contains it, namely a letter written after the Council of Nicea was over, to his seer of Caesurae.   In his Textual Criticism of the New Testament Conybeare wrote: "It is clear therefore, that of the manuscripts which Eusebius inherited from his predecessor, Pamphilus, at Caesurae in Palestine, some at least preserved the original reading, in which there was no mention either of baptism or of Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It has been conjectured by Dr. David-son, Dr. Martineau, by the Dean of Westminster, and by Prof. Harnack (to mention but a few names of the many) that here the received text could not contain the very words of Jesus - this was long before anyone except Dr. Burgon, who kept the discovery to himself, had noticed the Eusebian form of the reading." The Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics states: The facts are, in summary, that Eusebius quotes Matthew 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between ‘nations’ and ‘teaching,’ or in the form ‘make disciples of all the nations in my name,’ the latter form being the more frequent. Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. I, page 352. : The anonymous author of De Rebaptismate in the third century so understood them, and dwells at length on ‘the power of the name of Jesus invoked upon a man by Baptism’. In Origen’s works, as preserved in the Greek, the first part of the verse is cited three times, but his citation always stops short at the words ‘the nations’; and that in itself suggests that his text has been censored, and the words which followed, ‘in my name’, struck out. – Conybeare According to Dr. Thomas, in Revealed Mystery Article XLIV: There is but one way for a believer of ‘the things concerning the Kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ’ to put Him on, or to be invested with His name, and that is, by immersion into His name. Baptism is for this specific purpose." "As for its significance, baptism is linked inseparably with the death of Christ. It is the means of the believer’s identification with the Lord’s death. - God’s Way, pg. 190. The Father did not die, nor the Holy Spirit. As the scripture says, “buried with Him (Jesus) in baptism,” not with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:3-5) For a more in depth look into the changing of the Great Commission from making disciples in The Yahushaic Covenant to making disciples of the Trinity, please refer to the articles In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit? On my website www.sabbathcovenant.com. Entire paragraphs were added to scripture Before I leave this section I want to impress on everyone just how badly the Scriptures were mishandled and passed down to us.  A prime example (of far too many examples that I could give) is found in the Gospel of John.  Interestingly enough the passage in question has become one of the most famous stories about “Jesus”.  We all know the story well, it is where “Jesus” is confronted by the Scribes and Pharisees with a woman caught in adultery.  They lay a trap for “Jesus” (I say Jesus because this event never happen in the life of Yahusha).  They ask “Jesus” what they should do with her.  On the one hand if “Jesus” says to let her go he will be accused of violating The Law of Yahuah that demands she be stoned to death.  On the other hand if “Jesus” says to stone her in accordance with The Law he will be accused of violating his own teachings of love.  In an amazing twist “Jesus” uses his whit to get not only himself out of the trap but save the life of the woman.  Quoting from the book “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman renowned Bible Scholar, Textual Critic, and Chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at The University of North Carolina on pages 64: “Despite the brilliance of the story and the captivating qualities and its inherent intrigue… there is one other enormous problem it (the story of the adulterous woman) poses.  As it turns out it has been proven by all scholars not to be in the original Gospel of John.  In fact it was not originally part of any of the Gospels.  It was added by later scribes.” Yet this story was never removed and remains in your Bible.  Satan has twisted the scriptures and elevated this story to one of the most popular “tales about Jesus”.  It is used to justify that “Jesus abolished The Law” and established a new “law” of love outside of keeping the Commandments of Yahuah.   As I stated there are many examples of the New Testament being altered by pagan scribes to build false doctrines into the text.  I suggest the book Misquoting Jesus by the textual critic Bart Ehrman.  This book demonstrates that in almost every “doctrinal” addition to the NT; words were added or deleted to establish the doctrine of The Trinity, incarnation, and the abolishment of The Law. I will be addressing these “additions” throughout this book. Next: The Throne of Creation and The Throne of The Kingdom

HOME   |    DONATE