Waching daily Jan 14 2018

Hello.

I'm Brian Fitzgerald The Golf Doctor.

And today we are going to look at the difference between a pitch shot and a chip shot.

They sound similar but they are very different and a lot of people get confused.

If you want to know the differences stay tuned.

[MUSIC]

So if you're new to this channel.

Welcome.

This channel is all about helping you play better golf.

And one of the most confusing things about golf is the terminology.

And we have chip shots and we have pitch shots and a lot of people get confused between the

two.

So I am going to show you the difference between the two.

I am going to start with a pitch shot.

So if you think of a pitch shot as being the pitch of an opera singers voice.

The ball goes up in the air and down just like the pitch goes up and down.

I am not going to start and give my interpretation of an opera singers voice.

You don't want to hear me sing.

Once upon a time I used to busk and people payed me to stop and they were well within

their rights.

With pitching it's pitch goes up and down.

We really want to see the ball going up over something and landing softly.

So we would generally hit a pitch if we had to hit over a bunker, if the green was raised

or if we were say beyond 30 meters out from the flag.

They're all good opportunities to hit a pitch.

So I am now going to hit a pitch shot.

So you can see the ball going up landing just past the flag.

It stopped nicely.

So that is going to get over whatever it was I needed to get over.

It's a high risk shot.

I make it look easy.

I've been doing it for a long time.

But we let the club do the work for as much as possible.

So now I am going to show you how I would hit a chip shot.

And we are about 25 to 30 yards from the flag stick here.

It's there's a lot of ground to cover.

It's a bit lump.

The grass is not too long.

So I am able to hit a chip shot.

Now remember pitch shots go up in the air and soft like an opera singers voice.

Chip shots are like potato chips.

They are crinkle cut but they are flat.

So chips go low and run.

So a lot of people make the mistake when they are hitting a chip shot is they do what they

think golf pros do on the tv and they use sand wedge, pitching wedge, 9 iron for chip

shots.

And you can do it . But my philosophy is chip shots go low and run.

Which clubs make the ball run the most?

It's actually the club with the least amount of loft.

So I have got my hybrid out here.

This is my 3 hybrid.

It's got 19 degrees of loft on it.

So it's going to make the ball run the most.

So I dont' really want to get this in the air.

This is going to go no more than 5 to 10 yards in the air and it is going to run the rest

of the way.

This shot breaks left to right like a putt does so I am going to aim about 1 flag stick

to the left so we will see how I go.

The main thing I am thinking more in terms of what length of swing I need to use.

You can see that ball running up there.

And it's finished almost just a little bit closer than the last one.

You can see it went low.

It rolled.

I didn't make the ball roll.

The club made the ball roll.

And if there is one thing you can do to improve your golf in 2018.

The easiest thing in the world to do is start chipping with your hybrid.

Forget the sand wedge the pitching wedge the 9 iron.

Get used to your hybrid.

It runs beautifully.

There is very little technique involved.

You really just think you are putting with a hybrid.

Thank you for letting me help you with your golf.

I'm Brian Fitzgerald The Golf Doctor.

And if you like my videos you can Subscribe by clicking on the round avatar down the bottom

there.

You can get further information on my FaceBook page or my Twitter feed.

You can also sign up to my electronic newsletter at thegolfdoctor.com.au

For more infomation >> What Is The Difference Between A Pitch And A Chip In Golf - Duration: 4:18.

-------------------------------------------

Tarihi Ahşap Ev - Historical Wooden House - Duration: 3:50.

Tarihi Ahşap Ev İstanbul - Historical Wooden House Istanbul

what I think how can I make a video like the one I'm gonna about to show you now

interesting so you can watch it so this this isn't going to be a bit of a

challenge all it is it's a start a diss lay the building behind me but I

can't get inside it but I'm going to try and make this interesting for you it's

not because I've run out of things to show you know plenty of things to show

you that's good let's go now behind me is an old historical buildings there

used to be a lot of these around his temple the Sultan dates mostly were

occupied by Greeks and Italians do a lot of nationalities living here at the time

and there still is this is one of them and it's all fallen down I'll show you

some pictures of it right here we go the actual interests looked pretty modern to

me today a barrier there to stop you from going in there

so this how these houses were all timber they probably had stone foundations

around the edges but none that timber was treated like today treated timber

and this is what the house would have looked like the amazing a double storey

mess of houses

let's see if I can get the camera over there so you can have a look at it

nothing left it's all about houselights this mystified and they're

just falling apart is not you can do with them

see what you see near is half a house the rest of the house is gone it's

fallen down all right so you can see the concrete wall the foundations of the

concrete wall and then the rest of us this timber it's all untreated with a

tile roof virtually that will fall down now I've done a video of that building

I've been inside it it's terrible I'm never going back in there again and

if you can see it but this pile the wall over there

all right so what what they did does they just built brick walls straight on

the ground and for the muck will do it and clay and then build a house on top

of it these houses the last what 40 30 years hundred years and then though

eventually is for the part if they're not maintained of course well it's a big

property just try and get over there bit more this is a better shot can you see

the wall in the background there that's obviously a room or pile of the house

probably the basement lower level all right so we great if I had a drone I'll

just take the camera up then you're gonna have a look at it the trade would

be awesome to have I'm never flying a drone before so I'll probably lose it

if you for watching out there was interesting I catch you guys again later

see you thanks for watching

Tarihi Ahşap Ev İstanbul - Historical Wooden House Istanbul

For more infomation >> Tarihi Ahşap Ev - Historical Wooden House - Duration: 3:50.

-------------------------------------------

👉OTRA TIENDA DE ROPA - MINECRAFT 1.9 🏯👕 - Duration: 2:51.

For more infomation >> 👉OTRA TIENDA DE ROPA - MINECRAFT 1.9 🏯👕 - Duration: 2:51.

-------------------------------------------

2018 Martin Luther King Jr. Commemoration - Duration: 2:09:27.

For more infomation >> 2018 Martin Luther King Jr. Commemoration - Duration: 2:09:27.

-------------------------------------------

How To Do The ALLEN IVERSON CROSSOVER! - Duration: 5:44.

what's going on guys I'm coach Haywood, AKA King handles, here with visionary

basketball and today we're gonna show you how to do the Allen Iverson crossover

alright so guys today we're gonna do the Allen Iverson crossover I don't never

since probably won the best ball handlers the league's ever seen probably

basketball in general the way higher dribbles the ball the way how cells is

moved the way how he sells his crossover so today I'm gonna show you guys how to

do that to the to do is uh one of his top moves okay so the key for this move

is selling you want to pretend to go one way but actually going the other

direction so you got to really sell and show that ball right so basically how to

do it is okay if you even watch all knives and you slow down the tape okay

he's pretending to go this way so when you when he's pretending to go this way

he's sticking that right leg out okay or your left leg would either either hand

you could do it okay so BC if I'm going my right hand I got

to stick out my right foot so my right foots forward my left foot kind of back

but look at my gap right and look at me I'm an intern athletic stance knees are

bent okay so I'm pretending to go this way right but really I'm gonna go this

way okay but how the move really really works he's selling his shoulder he's

dropping that right shoulder right and going over here so it's kind of like a

jabbing like he's jabbing out and coming here but also jabbing his foot his

shoulder his half of his body is going on one side the other half is stand on

this side right so it's kind of like a lunge like you're lunging okay and you

got to move you got to move that shoulder alright

so it's one two BAM but look at my head when I do it right

it's one two kid right my head is going this way and I'm going that way so

go here here boom okay and I'm shaking my body right you got to shake your

upper body so one two fan right it's push-pull over here right one two here

right one two here but even look at him he pauses for a little bit right so he

does kind of a hang trouble right hangs it want to hear right freezing the

defense is very crucial right you have to free the defense you can't go fast

every single time you have to slow it down give an opportunity for the defense

to relax because that's how you get the defense on their heels right so remember

you always want to keep it here pretend like you're gonna go this way

my right leg is out okay if you know if you want to cross from left to right the

left foot is out this way okay all right pretending to go here pretending to go

here right if I pretend to go here I'm gonna go like that way right okay and

when you guys shaking when you guys want to really sell the move you're going

from here one two here okay one two here one two - all right

okay so right now I'm gonna show you guys how to really practice that move in

the game situation okay we're going to sue the same movements we did like I

showed you guys I told you guys basically we're gonna do the same

movements but now we're going to do it in a game situation going to the basket

all right okay all right so when I come down right I'm

gonna go from left to right I'm gonna go finish I'm gonna finish with my right

hand so I'm gonna come down here okay when I get close enough to the cone you

don't know we you don't want to be too close here remember this is a defender

you don't be too close you always want to get a nice little gap in between okay

so you could sell your move and do your move okay or even have room to do your

move okay so I'm gonna come down I'm gonna start here to the behind this blue

line here I'm gonna come down here okay I'm gonna have that foot out here I

got to make sure have that foot out I'm gonna sell so I'm gonna go here push out

here pull and I'm gonna go do a crossover keep it in lassen low all

right make sure you guys got a part pause do a hand dribble and sell it sell

that foot so like you're gonna go to the left side but really going to the right

side okay so I'm going to come down here to boom

finish the right hand layup well so once you practice goal from left to right

with your right hand make sure you go from right to left finished with your

left hand or the opposite hand doesn't really really matter

alright remember you always want to work both ways okay same thing I'm gonna have

the ball on my right side here okay coming down here remember you want to

sell that foot right you want to pause hand dribble you remember guys quick

note you don't want to put your hand under the ball because that's gonna be a

carry right you want to put it to the side on top of the basketball okay and

you're crossing over nice and low remember push pull right hang dribble go

push one two pull right go to the lip okay that was the Abhinav crossover

remember we want to sell that crossover okay sell it sell it is the key and

doing hang doable okay if you guys liked the video hit the like button and

subscribe to visionary basketball

For more infomation >> How To Do The ALLEN IVERSON CROSSOVER! - Duration: 5:44.

-------------------------------------------

Wir bewerten Dampfbongbongs Videos][spikemis sm - Duration: 14:54.

For more infomation >> Wir bewerten Dampfbongbongs Videos][spikemis sm - Duration: 14:54.

-------------------------------------------

How to Draw Cosmetics Makeup for Girls | Makeup Coloring Pages for Girls | Coloring Books - Duration: 10:24.

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

[Music]

Magic

Coloring Pages

For more infomation >> How to Draw Cosmetics Makeup for Girls | Makeup Coloring Pages for Girls | Coloring Books - Duration: 10:24.

-------------------------------------------

Creationist And Evolutionist Are Handcuffed For 24 Hours - Duration: 10:59.

- Every time John introduces us to somebody

he says we're engaged.

(upbeat music)

- I'm John Rael, and I am a skeptical filmmaker.

- My name is Kevin Conover and

I'm a Young Earth creationist.

- I make films that promote science,

critical thinking, skepticism.

- I have a radio program where I talk about apologetics.

A lot of people don't know what apologetics is.

It comes from a Greek word, apologia,

it means "to defend," and I teach apologetics

to Christian school students.

- When it comes to evolution versus creationism

I think evolution is real and creationism is a story,

it's a myth, it's a religion.

- I believe in a six day creation,

what it says in Genesis in the Bible.

- Spending a whole day handcuffed to anyone

is gonna be awkward.

- I like trying new things.

I'm kind of excited.

- Let's get handcuffed.

I want to meet this guy.

- I'm ready to put the handcuffs on.

(upbeat music)

Nice to meet you, John.

- Kevin Conover? John Rael. - John Rael.

Ready to do this?

- I haven't been arrested too often, so.

- Oh yeah, now this will be my first time in handcuffs.

Look at that, that's the real. - This is the real, like.

- No flexibility there.

We're going to be really, really close to each other.

- What are the terms of blasphemy for you?

I was Catholic, so that means I have a ton of swears in me.

- You don't say things, like "Blank damn it."

And don't, say, use Jesus's name in vain.

- Let's go.

(laughs)

Okay, here we go.

- We got into the car through the passenger side.

And then crawl over to the driver seat

because we're handcuffed,

and I don't know how else to do this.

- This guy's giving exposition.

(laughter)

- You're the, sorry, I'm not so experienced

with filmmaking.

Okay, here we go, hopefully we don't crash.

You know, if you want to accept Christ,

now might be a good time.

(laughs)

So as soon as we got into the car, we were talking about

how do you get chlorophyll if the sun's energy's

coming to the Earth, and chlorophyll

is what takes advantage of the sun's energy.

How do you get the chlorophyll to evolve

if it doesn't exist yet and there's nothing

to harness the energy?

- And I was like, hold on?

A little biology card to play,

and that's when we met Steven Orzack.

- That is what I'm asking, yeah.

- I was comfortable with it,

I kept announcing our engagement.

- And I said, "No, we're not engaged,

"I have a ring, I am married."

So, when did you start getting into filmmaking?

- Well, you know, you come to LA to do the acting thing,

and you're like, "Well, I'm sick of commercials,

"I'm sick of background work, so I got to start

"making my own cool stuff."

And so that's kind of what I do now.

What about you?

Where are you taking the podcast?

- I'm sharing a Christian perspective on the radio

and that's what I've done my whole life.

I've had a lot of questions about God

because I kept running into all these people

that didn't believe what I believed.

And so I was like, "Man, what in the world?

"What do I believe?

"And how do I know that what I believe is true?"

At what point were you like,

"I'm definitely an Atheist?"

- I was 14 and we asked our drama teacher,

"What do you believe?"

And she's like, "Oh, I don't really want to discuss it,

"but I'm an Atheist."

And I just started reading all these websites

and books, and I'm like, "Oh, crap, that's what I am."

- I was born with believing parents,

but biblically, the argument is that

it's something you have to decide for yourself,

it's not something your parents can decide for you.

- I think if anything could change my perspective

it would be the evidence.

- I'm open to having my perspective changed.

Experience has told me that's unlikely.

- And then we ended up at the Natural History Museum.

- Right when we walked in the had a dinosaur exhibit,

which I was not expecting.

All throughout, it's mentioning evolution,

and it's mentioning millions of years.

How do you know that this creature was from

all the way back then?

I'm questioning everything from this

evolutionary paradigm.

- At the Creationism Museum, as you can expect,

it was a little frustrating.

There were children there, and that breaks my heart.

- I think it's good that kids have

the opportunity to choose.

- We should examine them, we should look into them,

hypothetically, in our own time, but when it comes to, like,

you know, "Hey, here's the stuff you need to learn, kids."

If I had my way, we would be in a society where

Creation Museum would never occur to somebody.

- I am radically opposed to what he just said.

- We got to the radio station, and I got my man

Ross Blocher on the line.

- Is Christianity specifically good for culture,

good for society, or is it a detriment,

and a drag on society?

The difficulty I have is an Atheist

who tells me they have a yardstick.

Because, there is no yardstick except

the yardstick you make.

And we also have Michael Shermer who is a publisher

of Skeptic Magazine.

Michael, thank you so much for taking the time

to be with us today.

The Big Bang is a poof and it happened,

I mean that's what the Big Bang is, right?

All the 28 billion light years across

came from absolutely nothing, that's the claim.

And it came with it without a designer,

or purpose, or anything.

To me, if you want to talk about, "Let's become a skeptic."

I'm like, "That's crazy."

It's hard for me to understand why you would think

it makes more sense that nothing made everything.

- Nobody is saying that nothing made everything,

we're saying, "We don't know, therefore,

"we don't fill in our lack of knowledge

"with whatever we want."

(laughter)

- This is my wife, Marissa.

- [John] How are you?

- Hi.

- He got there, and my wife immediately

kicked into, you know, hospitable mode,

and she's just really good that way.

Yeah, they're serious.

- They're the real deal.

I'm not worried about the handcuffs

as much as I'm curious how our bathroom breaks

are gonna work.

- You know, that's gonna be a little weird.

Okay, ready?

I'm going to the bathroom.

- Oh, it's real.

- [Kevin] (laughs)

John, this is Emma, my daughter.

- Emma, how's it going, I'm John.

No pressure, I didn't mean to scare you.

- Can you say nice to meet you?

- Nice to meet you.

- Nice to meet you.

- If you guys don't want to be on this, though.

(laughter)

- [Kevin] You want to be on BuzzFeed?

(laughs)

I believe murder is always wrong.

It emanates from God's character.

So, that being the case,

there's a grounding there for morality.

From an Atheist perspective, you may say,

"Murder is wrong."

If I wasn't a Christian, I might say,

"I think it's okay to murder certain people."

Well, where do you go with that?

There's no grounding for morality.

It'd just be your opinion versus my opinion.

- Taking a life that is unnecessarily taken

is not okay.

- Yeah, but who are you to say that?

- I'm a person, I'm me.

- Yeah, but why is your opinion better than mine?

- Because you want to kill--but you would hypothetically

be saying that it is okay to kill somebody, and it's not.

- Yeah, but who are you to force your morals on me?

- The moral actually would be - You're telling me I'm wrong.

- You can't throw somebody's life away from them.

- Yeah, but you're telling me I'm wrong

and you're right.

- In this hypothetical case, yeah.

- Is it okay to tell somebody else

that they're wrong and you're right?

- Definitely.

We're getting ready for bed.

- (laughs) How awkward is that?

- I'm kind of morbidly curious

about how the sleeping arrangement is gonna happen.

- I'm a little nervous about having a guy,

a stranger, sleep in my house, you know,

with my wife and my kids.

That's a little weird.

- Go ahead and use, yeah.

- Yeah, okay, there we go.

Okay, that's what we're doing here.

I put water on my toothbrush.

- You've never slept with a stranger before.

- No, that's true, especially not a stranger

like a guy on the first night, you know?

First time I met you, that's really weird.

And it was actually really comfortable at first,

like I was lying back, and I was just like,

we had all these pillows, we had tons of pillows,

and a gigantic teddy bear, too.

I was trying really hard not to move my arm.

Because I didn't want to bother him,

I didn't want to wake him up,

and so I started to get stiff, and I was like,

"Oh, man, I can't move."

- [John] Marissa, aren't you guys gonna say a prayer,

or something?

- Do you want us to say a prayer?

- [John] I'm not trying to force you into being good

Christians, I didn't think that was necessary.

But I thought that was something that people did

before bedtime.

- Well, normally I pray for my kids before we go to bed,

but you prevented that from happening.

(laughter)

- Good night, BuzzFeed.

- Night.

- We're doing the breakfast handcuff thing,

waking up, lovely morning, how are you missy?

- (scowls)

- [John] No pressure.

(laughter)

(upbeat music)

- Overall, when I was getting involved in

getting handcuffed to somebody who completely

disagrees with me, I was thinking, like,

"What is the point of this?"

As I thought more about it,

I think for me the big takeaway is that

it really helps me to see the humanity of John.

I got to know him as a person.

What was cool about this whole experience

is it's great realizing there are people

who disagree with you about a particular subject,

but that's not necessarily what defines them.

There's so much more to a person than just

their opinion on creation and evolution,

or whatever it may be.

- Yeah, it was nice coming face-to-face

with creationists, not just because,

"Hey, you're a human, I'm a human, it's all good."

But to actually gain respect for who he is

and the way he thinks.

To know that as much as I might feel one way

about his ideology or what he thinks or believes,

I can't necessarily feel that way

about him directly as a person.

- I mean, the conversations we had,

I mean there's no doubt about,

he's a softie underneath this cold, hard exterior.

- You're touching me.

- (laughs)

Here we go.

This is the big moment.

- And, there we go.

- Ah, yes.

- Goodness.

- Ah, I feel like I can stretch.

Praise the Lord.

(laughter)

For more infomation >> Creationist And Evolutionist Are Handcuffed For 24 Hours - Duration: 10:59.

-------------------------------------------

Dimash "Саған" - Duration: 0:14.

"Sahan" :)

On this stretch, Dimash said only one word In the spring of 2017 in the Youtube I saw comments with the question "What did Dimash say?" I hear that he said: "To You" ("For you") And I guess to whom he said it But I will not voice it. Guess, if you have options. My version: This post is my weak attempt to get rid of stress. Stress I received today from one uteyubera And I say to him - "Sahan" :)

На этом отрезке Димаш сказал только одно слово Весной 2017 в ютюбе я видела комментарии с вопросом "Что сказал Димаш?" я слышу, что он сказал: "Тебе" ("Для тебя") И я догадываюсь кому он это сказал Но не буду озвучивать Догадайтесь, если у вас имеются варианты. Мой вариант: Этот пост - моя слабая попытка избавиться от стресса. Стресс я получила сегодня от одного ютюбера И ему я говорю - "Саған" :)

For more infomation >> Dimash "Саған" - Duration: 0:14.

-------------------------------------------

2. La Confiabilidad del Nuevo Testamento: Corrupción Textual (Sub. Español) - Duration: 12:59.

Is there textural corruption in the new testament?

The obvious answer is yes? But how much and is this a serious problem for Christianity?

In the introduction of this series we pointed out there are about 40 lines of the new testament unresolved by textural criticism,

giving it an accuracy of 99.5%

But does the fact that we do not have 100% certainty pose theological or textural problems for Christians.

Some skeptics will, surprisingly, say that since we do not have 100% certainty this means we can never know what the original text says.

Well, there are two problems with this

The first is that it is self-refuting.

If it is true we can "never know" then we also cannot know with certainty that we can say we can never know.

In other words, to claim it is absolutely true we can never know what the new testament was originally is to claim you have some special knowledge, that everyone else lacks, and know it is truly lost,

but how would you know that?

The other issue is this underpins all of historical investigation.

If we can never know, then what's the point of academic historical studies?

Why not give up in all historical investigation and eclipse all knowledge we have of history?

The fact of the matter is historical or even scientific investigation can never yield 100% certainty.

Our goal to arrive at the most logical and parsimonious explanation,

which is what we do in any other type of investigation.

Why set the bar to an unreasonable standard with the new testament if you are not going to do with other areas as well?

Scholars argue the originals are still in the manuscript tradition and through textural criticism we can rebuild what the originals said.

There are some better objection than this paranoid one though.

One used by skeptics is extrapolation.

Basically that the highest rate of variance is in our earliest manuscripts from the 3rd and 2th century,

so extrapolating backwards means there is even higher variation in earlier manuscripts we don't have.

Well there are several problem with this, the first is it is an association fallacy.

The scribal habits of copyists from the 3rd and 4th century don't necessary apply to copyists.

This objection also discounts the originals and first generation copies would still of been around to cross check for accuracy during this time.

And particularly in the first century many of the Apostles and members of the first church would also still be around to prevent doctrinal changes.

Finally, this objection ends up getting us no where.

If we extrapolate variation in our manuscripts backwards we also have to extrapolate the percentages based on what we do have,

as discussed in the introduction,

so the 0% of doctrinal changes is still 0% based on estimated increases of what we have.

Doesn't really do the skeptic any good.

But didn't the first and second generations of Christians not consider these documents to be sacred?

So they would not of been careful with copying?

This objection is silly because even a copyist of a secular document was careful to make sure it was accurately transmitted.

This was not a frivolous task for anyone.

It is also can be challenged if the first Christians considered these works scriptural or not.

Early writers like Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Justin Martyr quote the new testament several times.

Polycarp even refers to the letter to the Ephesians as scripture,

and Justin Martyr refers to them as the memoirs of the Apostles.

So there is evidence in early Christian writings that show they would of at least considered the works of the Apostles and founders of the church to be authoritative and deserved respect.

The basic point to remember is if one wants to argue the new testament has been drastically changed that requires evidence.

Paranoid suspicion doesn't cut it

New Testament documents were spread all over the ancient world and we have recovered several manuscript from the 2nd and 3rd century in various regions during times of great persecution and no political power.

There was never any central control over the New Testament and no ability to produce drastic changes.

Lost and buried manuscripts to that time that have been rediscovered today would of revealed doctrinal changes in the current text we have,

but none of them actually show this.

demonstrates is as James White says

What history demonstrates is there were multiple lines of transmission coming out of the first century all confirming the same message.

James White: And it is preserved through the entire manuscript tradition. So, there's never a controlling authority that can change or edit the text. Put in doctrines, Take out doctrines, etc. etc.

The result of that is: We have to look at textual variants. But the fact is that is the best way to preserve the text especially given the evangelical mandate of the early church.

So, the idea that, well, you know, if there were these primitive corruptions before the manuscript tradition is found in history. Therefore we can never know what the originals were.

When you have multiple lines. How do all those multiple lines end up having the same readings in them?

Not identical readings, but it's still the same New Testament. Still teaching the same things.

The burden is on the skeptic,

the Christian can stand on what historical evidence has revealed.

But what the about the variations we do have?

Well, as discussed the vast majority do not affect the meaning of the text and cannot even be translated.

The many that do affect the meaning of the text are from late manuscripts and resolved by textural criticism.

Then there are only a few, less than 1% of all total variants, that do affect the meaning of the text and are from earlier manuscripts.

Dan Wallace estimates around one thousand total.

But even most of these are not even a real major issue.

For example one unresolved textural variant is 1 Thessalonians 2:7 where Paul either says we became gentle or little children among you.

The difference in Greek between the two is one letter, and both could fit with the context.

Another is in Romans 5:1, where Paul either says "let us have peace with God" or "we have peace with God."

Again the difference is one letter and both make sense with the context.

But do either of these variants really affect Christian theology regardless of which one is right?

Of course not!

So no variant is affecting theology,

it is affecting our understanding of select passages,

as Dan Wallace says : The question that we're asking is not which one fits into Pauline theology. But which one fits into that passage.

So, the value of knowing about these texture variants is how they affect our exegesis in our exposition. Not how they affect our theology.

Beyond this, there are only about 7 popular variants that skeptics bring up

Well really only six.

No reputable scholar questions if this reading of 1 John 5:7 was in the original.

It was very clearly a late addition that came over from the latin.

and is not in any early greek manuscripts

This verse does not do much good for support of the Trinity either,

since it doesn't explain the doctrine or the nature of each member.

And it is so vague it could be used to support modalism or even arianism really.

Early church fathers argued for the Trinity without the need for this verse and we demonstrated in another series the Trinity is confirmed throughout scripture.

So the absence of this verse doesn't threaten the Christian doctrine of the Trinity.

So, what about John 1:18?

Some manuscripts say the only son, some say the unique God,

which as scholars note, would simply mean culturally He who was Himself God

Does either reading change Christian doctrine? No!

John affirms Jesus is God in several places [John 1:1, 8:58, 20:28]

and that He is the Son of God [John 1:14; 34, 3:16-18, 20:31].

Either reading would be fine and doesn't affect Christian doctrine.

What about Matthew 24:36?

Some of our earliest manuscripts omit, "nor the Son."

Does this change our fundamental understand of Jesus if he did know the time of the coming tribulation?

Well, it is debatable if the phrase "nor the Son" was in the the original reading of Matthew or not,

but even if it wasn't this also doesn't affect Christian doctrine,

since the parallel reading found in Mark 13:32 has no textural variation from early manuscripts

Plus this verse [Matthew 24:36] still says only the Father knows.

So lacking this phrase doesn't affect our understanding of Jesus or affect Christian doctrine.

So lets move on to Mark 1:41.

An early manuscript from the 4th century and a few latin ones claim the verse says Jesus moved with anger to heal a leper,

not that he moved with compassion.

External evidence favors the majority reading,

but some scholars do in fact believe anger was the original reading from internal evidence of the text.

But is this variant a problem for our portrait of Jesus?

Not really, since other passages [Mark 3:5; 10:14] in Mark depict Jesus as being angry, and there is no variation with them in manuscripts.

There is nothing inconsistent with a Jesus who gets angry anyway.

In fact interlay speaking, one can argue an angry Jesus makes more sense with the passage.

Since prior to this it records Jesus was preaching in the synagogues so the healing was public.

A leper was considered ritually unclean and anyone who came in contact with them would also be considered unclean and must leave the public to remain in the wilderness for a time.

And Mark records after this had happened Jesus had to go into the wilderness once the word got out they he had healed the leper.

Having to heal the leper publicly meant Jesus' ministry in the Galilee was being hindered by being ritually unclean.

The leper could of waited to be healed privately and honored Jesus's requite to keep it unknown, so it is reasonable that Jesus would be angry about this.

As Bock and Wallace say, "…"becoming angry" only strengthens the image we see of Jesus in this Gospel by making it wholly consistent with the other texts that speak of his anger.

It doesn't significantly alter the picture we have of Jesus but instead strengthens what Mark says elsewhere." [Dethroning Jesus. Page 67]

So now lets move to Hebrews 2:9.

Most manuscripts say Jesus died by the grace of God,

where as 3 from the 10th century say he died apart from God.

Plus, many early church fathers seem to affirm this reading, as well as few later translated manuscripts.

But how does this affect Christian doctrine?

Do not several verses say Christ's death was given for us by the grace of God [Romans 5:15; Eph. 2:5, Gal 2:21].

Does scripture not teach that Jesus died apart from God [Mark 15:34]

or that without God's help Jesus experienced death on behalf of humanity?

Strong cases can be made for either reading,

but either way, which ever the original reading was the variant doesn't effect Christian doctrine.

So finally we will look at two of the largest variants.

John chapter 8 and the long ending of Mark do not appear in our earliest manuscripts and I know of very few scholars that consider them authentic.

Some argument can be made for their authenticity but that is not the point of this video.

The point is even considering these texts are probably not in the originals, removing them still doesn't change any Christian doctrine.

As Bock and Wallace say, "… it needs to be stressed that these passages change no fundamental doctrine, no core belief–even though much emotional baggage is attached to them.

The probability of their not having been part of the original text has been understood for more than a century, yet no theological formulations have been altered." [Dethroning Jesus Page 64]

So none of these variants are really a threat,

and we need to remember no disputed variants are not hidden from Christians and just about any study bible will put notes on the side, saying that some manuscripts differ here or there;

This is not secret information for anyone who has done their homework,

because there is no reason to keep it a secret.

But does the fact that there is variation in our manuscripts pose a problem in itself?

Aren't we suppose to have the inerrant word of God preserved to every letter for all time?

I think this is a drastic claim that some modern Christians and skeptics have put forward,

but this view of scripture was not kept by the early church or the apostles.

The real purpose of the new testament is to persevere the faith handed down from the apostles, not to create an inerrant relic,

as some have turned the Bible into.

The apostles didn't even apply this standard.

Look at how they quote the old testament

Most of the time they quote the Greek Septuagint,

but there are times when they quote the Hebrew Masoretic text,

and variations between them [Psalm 2:7 - Hebrews 1:5 (MT); 5:5 (LXX) Psalm 117:27 - Luke 13:35 (LXX); 19:38 (MT).]

They didn't expect that every single word had to be perfect for it to be an authoritative witness of the faith handed down.

The point of the new testament is to persevere the message of Christ and what He did for us and it has been up a 99.5 accuracy as the evidence shows.

Remember It is the Gospel that saves, not perfect copying.

I'll leave you with the words of Scholar Craig Evans,

"Let me put it this way: What did Peter and the other original followers of Jesus proclaim following the experience of the resurrection?

…Peter and the rest of the apostles proclaimed the resurrection of Jesus.

For them this was the good news, this was conclusive evidence that God was at work in the ministry and person of Jesus of Nazareth.

Peter didn't tanned up and proclaim, "Men of Israel, I have good news; the Bible is verbally inspired and therefore inerrant and, moreover, the Gospels can be harmonized."

…It was the reality of the resurrection and its impact on those who heard and responded to it in faith that propelled the new testament forward, not "mistake-free" Scripture." [Fabricating Jesus. Page 28-29]