Ijaz Ahmad and Corruption of Scripture, Thoughts on the Condemnation of Michael Brown

Corruption of Scripture and the Meaning of Jesus’ Warnings

And good afternoon, welcome to The Dividing Line. We're gonna jump right into it because we've got a lot to cover and I keep putting finishing up this one task off Till we don't get very far on it. So I want to finish it up and then we've got a number of topics today and hopefully it will be useful and edifying to you.

We have been listening to a presentation that was made by Ijaz Ahmed on the subject of the corruption of scripture. In the process we're learning a little bit about. Yeah, I didn't sorry. Yeah, no Coogee today.

I had one on but it's it's 78 degrees outside. The storms coming in so the hot air is blowing up through and it's just warm outside. It's. Yeah, thanks so anyway. Someone was just totally shocked in the in the chat channel about that.

Anyway. What we're learning is the difference in terminology and thought process. Always important if you actually want to communicate to somebody. I'm starting to learn that not everybody that engages in apologetics actually wants to do that, but if you actually want to communicate to the other side and Your your actual desire is to do that then You need to understand how they think where they're coming from.

We learned this years and years ago. We'd go up to Salt Lake City and you know the first few times we went up there. We were green we didn't know what in the world we were doing but At least those first few years.

We had so many conversations that unless you're just not listening you start picking up on Commonalities on you know, you'd hit the same roadblock at the same point in the conversation until you start figuring out.

Hmm. That seems to be a commonality. I wonder how I can get around that. What is it the Mormons are thinking that I'm not picking up now once you've picked that up. Then you can change the way you speak in such a way as to avoid those roadblocks in the first place.

And that's how you help control conversations get farther down the road things like that. Anyway, so we are listening to Ijaz Ahmed and we had looked at we were looking at the concept of Corruption and basically what he's saying is well, look the the testimony scripture is that the Jews were so So evil That they would be willing to corrupt scripture.

Well, if that was within their capacity to do I mean if you look at the Jews of Jesus day We know that the scriptures were already laid up in the temple 200 years for the time of Christ there wouldn't have been any way In the days of Christ to somehow go.

Well, I'm gonna take these books that have been known for centuries and I'm going to alter them that that really wouldn't have been a Possibility at that particular point in time and we also looked at the difference in how Muslims look at the origination of scripture how we look at the Origination of scripture.

So again, if if we want to reach out to them if we want to Really communicate with them that we need to understand these things. This is a 15 Is a 21 minute no, I think it's 15. Yeah, I think it's just under it's like 16 minutes.

We're six minutes and 30 seconds into it. So If I don't talk too much who might be able to get through the rest of it.

We'll see. I want you to notice what Jesus says here. They are the children of Satan. What sin are the children of Satan not capable of committing? Corrupting scripture is the least sin that they will be capable of and I want you to pay attention.

He says that the Jews Currently do not hold to the truth and he says that their native language is the language of lies. By this logic it would mean that whatever scripture the Israelites in his time held to would not only include lies.

But that he also goes on to say that they do not belong to God because they do not hear. That's in the present tense. They do not currently hear what God says. That is because Jesus says that Satan is always on the prowl.

Waiting to take away scripture to destroy to hide it.

Jesus never said that and at this point there's complete disconnection with anything that Jesus is talking about. When it says that they are not hearing that. Those who are of God hear what God's saying the reason out here is going to but they do not belong to God.

In other words God has not sovereignly given them to the Son. John chapter 6 explains this. John chapter 8 explains this. John chapter 10 explains this. There's nothing here about the text of Scripture.

There's nothing here about Altering the text of Scripture. Hit all of it. Completely read into the text nothing. I've never seen any commentary from anywhere that that that that would even begin to suggest That this is the actual Topic under consideration.

This is is a Jesus and Toto. Because there's nothing in the context that even raises the subject whatsoever. This is just I it's it's hard to see where this is even even coming from. There is no disagreement between Jesus and the Jews on the on the actual text of Scripture.

On the Canon I want the text of Scripture is it's only on the interpretation. It's not on the idea of corruption and that doesn't even come up here so I Don't. We just simply have to go nuts. Not what Jesus is talking about completely missing his context.

Where do we read this Mark chapter 4 verse 20? It says these are the ones along the path where the word is sown when they hear. So when religious people hear the word Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them.

And what is that word that is the the message of repentance and faith in God? It's not Scripture. It's not the text of Scripture. It's not the law of Moses. It's not the prophecies of Isaiah or anything along those lines.

It is when God's Word is proclaimed because that's that's what the whole parable the sower is you go out and you proclaim the word that's that's the message of. Of the gospel itself in the New Testament and then Satan comes along and in some of those instances there's just absolutely no response whatsoever because it's immediately forgotten and Then if you read the rest of it what it says is then you have different kinds of growth.

But only a certain kind of growth that brings forth fruit Which are the true disciples and even amongst them there's differences 30 60 90 fold a hundredfold. I'm sorry. But the other types of growth that die out are not true disciples because the fruit is what?

Demonstrates that one is the disciple in the first place. And so this is just simply talking about those that. There's there's nothing that there isn't even a recollection on their part of what they had heard there's there's no Spiritual reaction whatsoever to the message that is that is preached.

So God also Satan always wants to corrupt the scripture.

Again, no connection to corruption scripture here. There's it that's just that's just being completely read. There's and there's nothing in the text itself that even begins. To substantiate the assertion that this was in the author's mind.

This was the intention of what he was trying to communicate.

Nothing there at all. Therefore the Old Testament and Jesus Testified to the corruption of the scriptures given to the Israelites.

That's not been seen anywhere. Nothing that we have been given. And I the Old and New Testaments Actually testifies to that. The actual opposite of that is the case. If you really want to have a serious understanding of Jesus view of that I It's hard to Get a better example than Matthew chapter 22 when Jesus is arguing with the Sadducees and.

When he quotes from the scriptures I am the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. He not only holds men accountable to what God had spoken. Have you not read what God spoke to you? He couldn't say that if that was no longer in the in the possession of the Jewish people.

Have you not read what God spoke to you saying it was spoken 1400 years earlier and yet and yet he holds men accountable to it. But then his argument is based upon the tense of a verb. Jesus has the highest view of the preservation of scripture and.

So there's just there's just no evidence from from any meaningful source That Jesus taught that the scriptures have been corrupted that any of his Apostles taught the scriptures have been corrupted. There's absolutely nothing there at all so.

Being read in this is not an Islamic conspiracy, but an honest and responsible lesson as taught by the Old and New Testaments. Therefore the precedent has therefore been set that the Quran and surah 2 Just jump ahead here.

That the Quran and surah 2 verses 78 to 79 verse 89 surah 3 verse 93 Surah 6 verse 95 have all been validated. The Quran is merely saying that God at one point revealed the scripture to the Israelites and it is simultaneously Saying that the Israelites corrupted their scriptures by writing texts and attributing them to God and they will not obey in the traditional teaching of scripture where they were commanded to obey the prophets and believe in Allah as Quran chapter 5 verses 68 to 69 explains as well as Job 22 21 and 2nd Chronicles 20 20.

Those weren't brought up but We haven't seen the establishment of those things and They're I'm not gonna take time to it right now. We've done it in the past, but I think a quite honestly better reading.

It's certainly one it has definite foundation in the earliest writings of Of Islam itself in in various forms the early tafsir and and hadith that if it is sent down by a law, it cannot be corrupted and That there are fair readings of those texts that do not require us to believe That the actual wording of the text of the Torah and the Injil has been changed obviously modern Muslim Dai.

Want to take it that way? Want to interpret it that way? But It's it's not necessary and it certainly hasn't been the foundation laid in the scripture now.

I'm gonna ask Alex a very simple question. The Shema that we have today, is it preserved? Yeah, it is 100 preserved. There's no change to it. My friend you are wrong and you will learn today. Inshallah.

God willing. So.

Here we're looking at Matthew chapter 22. Now if you'd asked me I would say yes, we know exactly the Shema is however I think everyone recognizes the Shema is given to us in a couple different places in the Old Testament and not in the exact same words and.

So what we're gonna have here is a playing on translational issues. And a playing on the fact that when you quote. You know when I quote the Shema, I normally say Shema Yisrael Yahweh Eloheinu Yahweh Chad.

But a I wouldn't say it to a Jew. Because they would not appreciate the use of Yahweh. So what if I used Hashem or Adonai? Is that a change in the scripture or is it just simply a modification of the citation?

When the scripture quotes something from the Old Testament Does it mean to quote verbatim or does it have freedom? I mean the writer of the Hebrew says it says somewhere and then you have a citation. So what you have here, I think is a playing on The an application of a standard that clearly New Testament writers did not feel themselves bound by.

To try to create the idea that there are all these differences. The reality is that there is a shorter version longer version just like there's a shorter and longer version of the Lord's Prayer found in scripture and so it's it's not.

This isn't again One of the problems we have here and this is not just Ijaz Akhmed. But this is this is common in a lot of the stuff that you read about. About the Bible when people are alleging corruption in it.

There's different that that term has to be used specifically first. I think I would like to see it limited in its utilization to Transmissional corruption which would have to do with textual variation.

Part of this has to do with Interpretation by the New Testament writers of the Old Testament text in light of the fact the New Testament is written in Greek and Because it's written in Greek and it's being written to a Greek audience.

Then when it quotes the Old Testament it does so from the Greek translation of the Old Testament the vast majority of the time. There are some places where the Hebrew is used. The reality is the vast majority of the time it is the Greek Septuagint that is being translated that is being utilized as the Translation that the people to whom these books are being written would have access to if they want to look it up.

That's that's where it's going to be. So this is significant. It's it's very important anyone who reads New Testament Commentaries will know. That very often reference is made to the Greek Septuagint sometimes abbreviate LXX.

To give some of the background as to why. The author is emphasizing something the way the author is emphasizing something and so we've pointed out one of the really significant Aspects of this is that when you keep that in mind that text in John chapter 12 where John quotes from Isaiah 6 Isaiah's temple vision.

They says these things he said because he saw his glory and he spoke about him. For Isaiah, he saw Yahweh's glory in his temple vision. Isaiah 6 for John, he saw Jesus's glory and he spoke about him and in the Greek Septuagint in Isaiah 6 1 there's a textual variant and Instead of saying his skirt the the the skirt of his throne of his robe was filling the temple.

It says his glory was filling the temple you literally have in the Greek Septuagint seeing the glory of God and That's what John makes reference to to make sure that his readers know what he's. What he's referring to is the temple vision of Isaiah.

That identifies Jesus as Jehovah as Yahweh. So It is important to recognize these things there are. When we when I preached through Hebrews a couple years ago at PRBC. The folks were kind enough to allow me to make reference to some of the the very significant variants found in the book of Hebrews.

In Hebrews chapter 8 though I was a husband to them though. I did not care for them. The variant in Hebrews chapter 10. These again are Between the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek Septuagint. It's amazing I was noticing a former friend Criticizing me very strongly a couple days ago for the comments that I made once again on Luke 23 34 and alleging that I had given to the Muslims a Weapon to attack the gospel as if as if I was the first one to talk about.

The variant at Luke 23 34. Obviously, it's been known for literally hundreds of years and you'd have to assume that the that the Muslims Never read a book. This this individual is well aware of the fact.

That it's a it's our a hawk was written back in the 1860s and The author of that work had access to this kind of material. I almost brought in my 1950s vintage Nessie Allen text from the other room. Just simply to show you that it lists the variant at Luke 23 34 before I was ever born.

So the idea that that discussing these things is somehow giving Ammo to the other side the other side already knows about this stuff. Christians should never be individuals that are hiding things or being concerned about.

What if the other side finds out about this? Well, just tell the truth and trust it to God for crying out loud. What this this this idea that if we discuss this then, you know. Hey, if someone takes something they hear from someone else and abuses and misuses it got to hold them accountable for that.

You're not accountable for that. You're accountable for being truthful in what you say in the context of what you're saying and. So anyway, you know, I'm sitting here talking about You know variants between the Greek Septuagint and the Hebrew Old Testament, it's like oh don't tell them that.

You think these people don't read books or something? III. It really concerns me when I when I hear people Acting in in that fashion. We are going to discuss Whatever needs to be discussed in regards to a meaningful defense of Scripture.

On this program and If if someone sits there and goes, oh, but someone might use that, you know, they might and I leave that between them and God God will judge God's gonna accomplish his purposes. Our calling is to be Truthful and accurate with the information that we have in our hands today.

That's that's what you do. So anyway, I just bring that up because That's gonna be coming up and The idea of Alleging that people somehow, you know, you're you're somehow helping the other side just doesn't make make any sense.

We do not need to go far for this corruption. All we need to do to see corruption in the New Testament and the Old Testament Is to go to the Shema as Jesus reads it. So he says he said to him You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.

The word for mind here is dianoia. So Jesus here is supposed to be quoting the most important belief of the Israelites their monotheistic Testification, but Jesus here is not reading from the same Testification that is recorded in the Old Testament that Alex reads today.

So the Greek Septuagint, which was the Old Testament used at Jesus time reads differently. What does it read? So this is what the Septuagint reads the Jewish Old Testament. It reads and love the Lord your God with your entire heart and with all your soul and with all your physical power.

So the Old Testament leaves off the mind and it says love him with your physical power dunamis. That's the Greek word. So the Shema has been changed just by one word. Let's move on. This is the difference between the words here either you love God with your mind and your thoughts or you love him with your physical strength jihad war as you see in the Book of Numbers and numerous other books in the Old Testament.

Now there's a fascinating example of An extra biblical application of interpretation as if dunamis Would mean jihad or war I Suppose you could you know when you talk about your strength if you use strength in war then you could I guess make that make that connection and in some sense, but bit as it may All your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength in that context would be significantly more related to Every aspect of your life, which would include your your thoughts and your and your thinking as well.

But is that interpretational or is that an issue of Corruption because when you When you look at the at the Hebrew again How do you translate these things? What translations being used? What does the author wish to communicate to the audience?

These are all issues that that have to be addressed and you can't just simply go well. You know, this means we can't know what it originally said or anything along those lines. I mean, yes the the issue the transmission of the Old Testament text is very complex the Relationship of the various forms the Greek Septuagint this particular point in time the Aramaic the the Masoretic text all these things quite important quite relevant quite complex.

And not simplistic at all and I'll be honest with you utterly unknown to the author of the Quran utterly unknown to the author of of the Quran and to be honest with you utterly unknown to Islamic scholarship until very very very very very recently as far as I can tell be willing to be corrected on on that.

So the word used here is dunamis, which means physical power or physical strength. So these are diametrically opposed terms, but we're not finished here. If we go to the they are not diametrically opposed terms.

I don't know where he gets that.

He's trying to limit that only to physical power and strength. That's that's not a when when you when you look at mode in its utilization in the Hebrew. To say they're diametrically opposed I would say that they that their semantic domains overlap you could if you go to one extreme of Dunamis and one extreme of Deanoia, then you might be able to to separate them out that way, but there there is in Semitic thought a Area where the two would overlap you can't.

I'm sorry. And again is going way beyond the actual text less on Greek Septuagint.

We read something even more different from Deuteronomy chapter 5. So we have one Septuagint which says the Testification is one thing and we have another version which says it's a different thing. So let's move ahead.

This is what it says. I love the Lord your God with your entire mind and with all your soul. I'm with all your physical power, you know here that the word heart is missing. So you don't need to longer love him with your heart.

That's gone. That's been deleted. But remember he said it.

Okay, we need to be very careful and and I'm a little surprised he does did this because he studies textual criticism. So he knows that he's using freighted words. He's using words that are not utilized by scholarship.

In This particular context it's been deleted. This kind of terminology Assumes something that textual criticism does not assume right from the start. What you could have here is a part of the tradition where you have multiple streams and you have a scribe faced with four options.

One stream over here one has Cardea one stream has Deanoia one has Dunameos and You bring the two together or you could have had all of them and they split into two streams of three. There's there's a number of different ways.

It could be looked at but the point is you don't use prejudicial language like this in a scholarly way Until you have evidence of being able to demonstrate What your actual conclusion is on that particular subject.

You don't just throw it out like this. I think that's an inappropriate way of doing it.

100 the same but we've seen that the first of the three things you're supposed to do. Loving with your heart loving with your mind loving with your physical strength. It's been changing changing. So Going ahead really quickly because I have very little time left.

How much time do I have left? Three minutes inshallah. Okay, so you'll notice that the word Cardea or heart is missing instead. It is replaced with the word Deanoia which again is mentioned before means of the mind.

Jumping ahead. You can see where it's been removed here. So perhaps we could find a solution by going to the gospel attributed to mark. Because we know that Jesus reads the Shema twice once in the gospel of Matthew the second time in the gospel of Mark.

But there's a problem by the way. I just want to point out Deanoia being utilized as one possible translation When we talk about Cardea heart and mind in Hebrew thought, you know We Westerners distinguish heart is always, you know, where you've got the flowers and the Valentines and stuff like that, you know, that's not the the heart is the very soul and seat of the self and so Cardea and Deanoia would actually have very close semantic overlap as Greek translations of the Hebrew terms at that point and So Again, it's simplistic to simply say changed altered so on so forth when you're talking about Remember we the the the stories about the how the Greek subject came along are mythical.

There weren't 70 scholars that went into 70 caves and came out 70 days later with the exact same thing and all the rest I cast a and it didn't originate at only one point in time and So one of the issues when looking at textual variation in the Greek Septuagint and so for example, I in in my software I have in The in accordance I have one that has Cardeas and suitcase and Duna Meos and And then in the gutting in Septuagint there you have Deanoia's suitcase and Duna Meos so the real difference between those two is Really a translational issue of whether you translate the Hebrew that it comes across as as as heart in The in the Greek Septuagint as With one of two ways either Cardea or Duna Meos is Is the difference that you have at that particular point in time?

And so these are you know? Live normally means heart but it also can refer to the very the very core of one's being. So these are Valid things to point out. But there's a whole lot more work that has to be done to say.

Oh and that means that either the original has not been the original is not obtainable or we. You know any of these any of these issues along along that line? Going way way beyond what the the text actually allows.

I'm sorry the Textual data actually allows for at that point. Mark doesn't solve the issue.

He creates an entirely different way to add to the Shema. What does he see? So he says and you must love the Lord your God with all your heart with all your soul with all your mind. And with your physical strength, so it was three things before now, it's four.

Let me show you. So this is a quick chart of comparison. Matthew lists three things and is he agree on what those three things are with the other three documents the Greek Old Testament. The Lexham Greek Old Testament or the Gospel of Mark?

No. There's the Greek Old Testament list three or four things tree doesn't agree with the other three documents. No, there's the Lexham Greek Old Testament list three things in the Shema. Yes. Does it agree with the other things in the other documents?

No the same with the Gospel of Mark so therefore we are at a dilemma if the most important teaching is not preserved and is Inconsistent in the manuscript record we are then presented with several options.

Option one Jesus in the Old Testament got the Shema wrong. So God does not know the Shahada. Amazing option number two the author of the Gospels got the Shema wrong and thus the New Testament is corrupted.

Option number three the author of the Greek Old Testament got the Shema wrong and thus the Old Testament is corrupted. Well option number four all of the above are true and thus the Old and New Testaments are corrupted.

Now I would point out as I you know, it's interesting. I've pointed out before when we look at the parallel accounts of Lot and The destruction of Sodom Gomorrah as they're found in the Quran. We find even in parallel accounts even when quoting lot we have differences in The terminology that is used now one could ask the question.

Well, you know if God is the author Which one is the perfect one? If if we want to be really You know literalistic then we could make that kind of of an argument, you know, most people would say well If God's the author of the Quran then he can express himself by different by different means well, can't the New Testament writers or Jesus the Apostles Whatever.

Can they not do the same thing at the in the days of Jesus? But what has been documented is That there was a tendency toward an expansion of The Shema which makes perfect sense. I mean think about what it's saying the Shema is saying that love for Yahweh is to be absolutely extensive and so it makes perfect sense in the I think you would probably find in various of the Midrashic commentaries and things like that and in the intertest of testamental writings a great expansion of Terminology that would be utilized as to How love for Yahweh is to be expressed in the entirety of? human existence looking at at the Textual apparatus for Deuteronomy 6 5.

You have Cardia you have Interestingly enough they list Sukkah in with Matthew and Luke so they actually use the New Testament rendering as a as a Testimony, but you have Sukkase and Iskewos, which is the difference between strength and and soul.

Deanoia is here, Dunameos is there. They are all listed in the various places. Probably what you have here is expansion due to preaching and teaching. You have an expansion you and you get an example of this in Paul, that's what Deuteronomy.

I'm sorry First Corinthians 8 5 through 7 is is an expansion of the Shema. He's showing that the scribes the the Pharisees he trained as a Pharisee Well aware of the fact that the rabbis would expand upon these things and make application of these things and I really have to wonder in light of The Quran's own lack of direct Literary connection to the sources it cites and Hence its utilization of a historical sources and and things along those lines.

Do you really want to get into? Making an accusation against the preceding scriptures that would be understandable as sermonic expansion when the Quranic writer Can't seem to tell the difference between sermonic expansion and actual textual citation from the sources.

He's utilizing In other words once again, it just seems to me that for many Muslims the Utilization of this kind of argumentation is self refuting. If it if you apply it to your own system and it refutes your own system.

You might not want to be applying it to other systems. I recognize that Sadly, there are a lot of Christians as well that don't care about consistency and argumentation. And there's certainly a lot of Muslims I've encountered that aren't overly concerned about consistency and argumentation either but Especially at this point It's not like you have one that says you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart soul mind strength.

And another one says you shall not love the Lord your God with all your money lands and flocks okay, that would be a complete Departure from from from the meaning of the text. The reality is you take any one of these manuscripts and It is going to adequately communicate to you the point that The entirety of man's Constitution is to be involved in his love for God.

There is no aspect of human existence and and behavior and activity that is excluded from the command to love God because God is man's maker and Everything man has is made by God and so the I and and and I would let's sit back for just a second say if if you Ejaz if you really want to try to say that this is due to What you said before and and that is the Depravity of the Jewish people from John chapter 8.

Why why why isn't this actually just why isn't it? Just not just deleted in other words. The the variations are fully understandable In regards to either scribal variation or teaching variation expansions based upon The explication of the text.

There's nothing here. That's saying you shall Not love the Lord your God, but you shall love your sin. I mean, that's what you would think that that someone who is truly perverted would change it to or something like that there's no evidence that this is this is some type of corruption that would flow from a a Rebellious act on the part of a scribe or someone along those lines.

So all you've established is that when you have Citations of a foreign language translation That they can differ from one other. I'm pretty certain. I haven't spent much time about I'm pretty certain Even though it's a much smaller text that if we look carefully at the set at the Quran's utilization of Sources, and I'm sorry.

The Quran does use sources. I realize you know, I'm not sure what your view on that is, but I've met well How could you believe it uses sources now that I think about it? Well, I suppose there might be a way to make it work.

But I mean if you believe that the Quran has eternally existed How do you even deal with I know I know one really sharp Muslim that that said that Any parallel between a secular? Source that existed before the Quran and the Quran is pure coincidence.

So I'd be interested in knowing do you accept because it seems all the scholarship you're using all the scholarship You're using from outside of Islam would go. Uh, yeah Arabic infancy gospel. It's the gospel Thomas These Jewish sources over here.

We can find it here here just all these sources are utilized By not not by direct Literary citation or even copying but orally. So, I mean that even moves it farther back down down the road from the original sources I'd be interested in knowing what you think about that.

Whether you believe that the the Quran actually does do that And if it does has that fit into your criticism at this particular point would be one of the questions.

Paul Williams, the Shema, and the Problem of Overstated Corruption Claims

I would but we don't have to stop there. You can look at some other corruptions that are quite easier to follow. This is one of the problems on Paul's letters where he misquotes the Old Testament. About the arrival of the Messiah whom he names as the Redeemer in Romans chapter 11 verse 26 He says.

And this way all Israel will be saved as it is written. Referring to the Old Testament the Deliverer will come from Zion. He will turn godlessness away from Jacob. However, what do we read? This is not what it's reading in the Old Testament.

In the Old Testament. It says that he comes to Zion not from Zion. So the Messiah does not know whether he's going or coming. Amazing.

Okay My suggestion, you know, obviously at that point. Was that necessary. You know, I That that seemed a little a little bit Unnecessary to me. A Redeemer a deliverer will come to Zion Isaiah 59 20. The Deliverer will come from Zion.

He'll remove ungodliness from Jacob in Romans 11 26. So When you if we go back to what did I would I say that reference was I just closed the window. That's the problem with using computers. Is there 59 20 Old Testament texts?

Did he did I already had a bunch of stuff? Set up for something else, but we'll look at anyways a Redeemer will come to Zion and those who turn from transgression Jacob and you look over at Isaiah 59 20.

And Hicks I is the Greek that is utilized in that particular Text and if there was a Reason So had to to come to or to present and Then it is not let's just say it's exact same term. Okay, ek see. Oh, okay.

I'm looking and Hennekin there's there's where you're well still for the sake of but there is a slight textual variation in the Greek Septuagint again, it's. Then there are fewer in the mosaic books. But it depends on which of your prophets and the various qualities of the of the manuscripts in the Septuagint.

But the verb is actually the same and how does this impact? It's it's not Paul's point to or from that that's not that's not what he's emphasizing in Romans 11 26. And. So unless you're saying that there is no manuscript that reads Hicks I ek see own.

There are some manuscripts that have Hicks I Hennekin see own. But that's not a that's how does that impact the meaning Is is really what what the question is there and and why. Why then say well? Messiah doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

It let me just if someone did the same thing with Muhammad. Would that just automatically turn on turn you off from hearing it. Just a suggestion just something it struck me when you said also adds another problem to it and the problem is this.

It doesn't just affect the reliability of scripture it affects the identity of the Messiah and who the Messiah saves. Literally salvation is dependent on this passage of corrupted scripture. According to Paul in Romans Jesus comes from Zion to turn the godless away to banish them from the Jewish people.