Who wrote the bible?

[Eeman]

Please take the time out to watch these videos,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJzSwfEQhTY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URt8U...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mnX8...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJUXh...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9lgH...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZpcv...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiLSP...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOWbN...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04I16...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-ZfS...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D_lZ...eature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezlu0...eature=related


So it's clear that the bible is not the direct wod of God, and as we muslims believe it has been fabricated by mankind which the video clearly explains so why then do christians follow it blindfoldedly?

[Grace Seeker]

So it's clear that the bible is not the direct wod of God, and as we muslims believe it has been fabricated by mankind which the video clearly explains so why then do christians follow it blindfoldedly?

Only a small percentage of Christians claim it is the direct word of God. But we follow it (though not blindly) because we believe it to be the writing of men as inspired by God. It is thus a collabrative effort in which God used men who were instruments that received revelation, and in their own words (and sometimes editting) passed their understanding of that revelation on to others in written form. As such it can guide us into righteousness, knowledge of God and his activity in this world, and ultimately life in the will of God. Surely such a collection of inspired writings is worthy of our attention.

[Keltoi]

Adding to what Graceseeker pointed out, the Bible is not meant to be characterized as the "direct Word of God", meaning God wrote it. It is an account of man's interaction with God, beginning with the Jewish people. Yes, we believe these accounts to be inspired by revelation, but that is much different than the Muslim understanding of the Qu'ran, which they believe to be the direct word of God.

So making the claim that God didn't write the Bible isn't exactly a mindblowing epiphany. Most Christians would agree with that aspect. What Christians will not agree with is the claim that the Bible is "fabricated". It is our guide for our relationship with God.

[Cabdullahi]

I dont want any book written by paul,john or some other dude, what i want is the gospel of Jesus

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Keltoi]

I dont want any book written by paul,john or some other dude, what i want is the gospel of Jesus

I think what you mean to say is a book written by Jesus. There is no evidence at all that Jesus ever physically wrote anything meant to be kept as a religious text. I know Muslims believe differently, but that is a faith issue. As Christians we believe what is important is what Christ accomplished for us, which is indeed contained with the Gospel account.

[Grace Seeker]

I dont want any book written by paul,john or some other dude, what i want is the gospel of Jesus

Given that the word "gospel" means "good news", then what you want is a book that tells the good news about Jesus. That good news is NOT found in his teachings. However important and valued they are, the good news about Jesus is found in what he did and who he is in our lives. For this reason, the gospels of Jesus that are recorded by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John focus primarily on the last week of Jesus life more than all the rest of his life and ministry combined. It is that act of the cross and the resurrection that is the true gospel and the message of good news for humankind is found in them. If you don't want that, then (and I don't mean this in any pejorative way) you may talk all you want about some mythical Injil, but you'll never have the Gospel if you don't include that message.

[coddles76]

The Gospels or good word are four different biographies of the Prophet Jesus, peace be upon him, written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, whose identities are widely disputed. In addition, the New Testament contains the epistles of Paul, Peter and John. This is as well as the Acts - also due to Paul or Luke - and the Visions of John. It is quite clear that these are human made texts which in most cases most of these Gospel writers never even saw Jesus neither lived with him so I don't think you could get much good news from it let alone trust it to be anywhere close to the word of God.

[coddles76]

And thats why this world is so corrupt because its been corrupt by the hands of Men and the alteration of the true teachings of God Almighty. I guess thats just another proof why the Bible has so many different versions and still being created today. Hey why don't we just go and create a whole new bible inspired by the bible and just add a few more different things that would please us and we can all follow that.

[Mikayeel]

:sl:

Peace upon my christian friends:)

Well this I've never understood, why christians follow the views of normal everyday life people(in the form of mark, luke.....) These people are as imperfect as we are, they are no angels. Humans are bound to make stuff up, or make things look better then they are, or lie about a certain thing. How can a person write a whole book when he never met Jesus himself or seen him? That book will be based upon stories he heared, and everytime someone tells a story he tends to add more flavouring to it. I would like to see the views of christian on this.

:w:

[coddles76]

Yes I agree, And May Allah guide them to the right path. I truly hope that Allah will open the hearts to the truth and find the true happiness beyond what this world will provide.

[Eeman]

Only a small percentage of Christians claim it is the direct word of God. But we follow it (though not blindly) because we believe it to be the writing of men as inspired by God. It is thus a collabrative effort in which God used men who were instruments that received revelation, and in their own words (and sometimes editting) passed their understanding of that revelation on to others in written form. As such it can guide us into righteousness, knowledge of God and his activity in this world, and ultimately life in the will of God. Surely such a collection of inspired writings is worthy of our attention.

salam

if such collection of inspired writing is worthy of your attention, and this is what human beings wrote, then why does the actual word of God Almighty the noble Quran not the centre of your attention?
Now why on earth would God use men not a man but men ( as in many in numbers) to inspire them with His revelation and these so called "men" are not even mentioned in any of the scriptures as being prophets or messengers of God????
On top of all that why would God not reveal or inspire His noble messengers and prophets to do that instead?? wouldnt then the authenticity of the message that He is trying to convey be more evident???
I mean as you can see these so called men that have put together the bible, did so by focusing on the agendas that suited them, therefore you have many versions focusing portraying the message in different ways and differing from each other!!!
i mean that in itself surely would not make sense to anyone?

this is what you call FABRICATION! in the end result the word and message of the Almighty was changed and altered to suit these arrogant men (sorry but they are far from pious, inspired by God or noble scholars ) and distorted the message for which i am sure Allah swt will punish them in the fire of Hell.

[Keltoi]

salam

if such collection of inspired writing is worthy of your attention, and this is what human beings wrote, then why does the actual word of God Almighty the noble Quran not the centre of your attention?
Now why on earth would God use men not a man but men ( as in many in numbers) to inspire them with His revelation and these so called "men" are not even mentioned in any of the scriptures as being prophets or messengers of God????
On top of all that why would God not reveal or inspire His noble messengers and prophets to do that instead?? wouldnt then the authenticity of the message that He is trying to convey be more evident???
I mean as you can see these so called men that have put together the bible, did so by focusing on the agendas that suited them, therefore you have many versions focusing portraying the message in different ways and differing from each other!!!
i mean that in itself surely would not make sense to anyone?

this is what you call FABRICATION! in the end result the word and message of the Almighty was changed and altered to suit these arrogant men (sorry but they are far from pious, inspired by God or noble scholars ) and distorted the message for which i am sure Allah swt will punish them in the fire of Hell.

No offense, and this shouldn't come as a surprise, but as Christians we do not believe the Qu'ran to be the direct word of God.

As to the rest, insulting the authors of the Gospel record is all well and good, but your claims are nothing but claims. There was another thread that dealt with this question, but this thread begs it again.

Why exactly would the early Christians, the men who recorded the Gospel account, knowingly fabricate that account? What would they possibly gain besides persecution and premature death? That line of reasoning runs dry fairly quickly.

[coddles76]

When debate in religion comes at hand and when you claim that something is not the word of God you must put forward reasoning and proof with evidence from that book. What proof can you bring forward from the Quran itself explaining why christians don't believe it is not the word of Allah?
Your answer would be much appreciated,Thankyou

[Trumble]

When debate in religion comes at hand and when you claim that something is not the word of God you must put forward reasoning and proof with evidence from that book.

That's actually rather difficult to do... I could explain why I don't believe the Qur'an was written by God and indeed why its human authors did write it, but it would be virtually impossible to do so on an Islamic forum without offending somebody... so I won't.

All of this 'proof' stuff is pointless, amyway - we've been here so many times before. Billions of people accept Bible or Qur'an as their principle guide as to how to live; why not just accept that and move on to discuss genuine issues in comparitive religion?

[Grace Seeker]

When debate in religion comes at hand and when you claim that something is not the word of God you must put forward reasoning and proof with evidence from that book. What proof can you bring forward from the Quran itself explaining why christians don't believe it is not the word of Allah?
Your answer would be much appreciated,Thankyou

When I take a look at the simple historical evidence that there was indeed a man named Jesus of Nazareth who existed in history, a life attested to not only in the Christian writings but also spoken of by 1st century Jews and Romans who make the following claims regarding him themselves:
1) that this man was executed
2) that his followers claim he was resurrected
And despite this, I see that the Qur'an claims that these things never happen, then it puts the veracity of the Qur'an in significant doubt. And, whereas the Qur'an (unlike the Bible) makes a claim of being direct revelation, such a discrepancy in one part puts the whole of it in doubt. The arguments put forth that God fooled people into merely believing it was Jesus when it was really somebody else seem very contrived and not credible, and speak of a God who is dishonest in his dealings with people; by this very testimony of his own actions he cannot be trusted.

[Pk_#2]

I dont want any book written by paul,john or some other dude, what i want is the gospel of Jesus

My imaginary friend said that it was the word of God, but then St Nicholas re wrote it..

Allaah knows best.

[coddles76]

That's actually rather difficult to do... I could explain why I don't believe the Qur'an was written by God and indeed why its human authors did write it, but it would be virtually impossible to do so on an Islamic forum without offending somebody... so I won't.

All of this 'proof' stuff is pointless, amyway - we've been here so many times before. Billions of people accept Bible or Qur'an as their principle guide as to how to live; why not just accept that and move on to discuss genuine issues in comparitive religion?

Quoting FROM the Quran why you believe the Quran is not the word of God would certainly not offend Anybody and certainly won't offend me. This procedure should be quite easy for you to do if you could do it. I can easily state passages from the Bible why I believe its NOT the word of God and I once again don't think it would offend anybody because I'm stating facts written for the books of evidence.
"All of this 'proof' stuff is pointless"??? How can it be pointless when its a fundamental part of belief in a system you and I would follow for a way of life. I surely think it is a largely genuine issue facing us in this world today because to us as humans it directs our existence and were we will end up. We were not created for no reason and we need a law from the one that created us to know which is the best way to follow it and I would be largely wanting to follow the right path so that I know my existence was lived in the most righteous manner available, so we must scrutinise all the evidence that we have so we know what is true and what is false.

[Keltoi]

As Grace Seeker mentioned, the reason I do not believe the Qu'ran to contain the direct Word of God is because of its version of Jesus, primarily. There are other reasons, but I don't feel it is productive to mention them. What Trumble says is accurate. We are talking about faith issues. Nothing you say about the Bible is going to make me a Muslim, and nothing I say about the Qu'ran is going to make you a Christian. It is futile exercise.

[fantaxxy_moon]

yeah it has been fabricated by human kind and this is well known by all muslims, muslims all know that the real bible is not rela any more .. and a lot has been changed to it now .. do u know why they change it ?
to keep up with the developments of life ...
but alhmadulilah the quran will never be changed as it is protected by Allah and it is suitable for any era and at any time ...

actually the qu'ran reveals many things in nature, and many things of what will happen in the future and everyday scientists find new things in nature which has been actually recorded in the qu'ran since million of years ago .. Thanks to Allah who gave us Islam and the Qu'ran ...

[coddles76]

As Grace Seeker mentioned, the reason I do not believe the Qu'ran to contain the direct Word of God is because of its version of Jesus, primarily. There are other reasons, but I don't feel it is productive to mention them. What Trumble says is accurate. We are talking about faith issues. Nothing you say about the Bible is going to make me a Muslim, and nothing I say about the Qu'ran is going to make you a Christian. It is futile exercise.

Praise Be to Allah who has preserved the most beautiful stories about Jesus (Peace be upon him) in the Quran. His story in the Quran has Caused historical kings to shed tears and accept islam and if this is not enough to show you how much we respect Jesus (Peace be upon him) in islam then so be it, Allah guides whom he wills and misguides whom he wills, Whom he guides none can misguide and whom he misguides none can guide. If Allah wanted to guide you believe me he can do it quite easily but he must find in you something worthy of guidence and I pray that hopefully he will one day find something in you worthy of guideing you.

[Trumble]

.. do u know why they change it ?
to keep up with the developments of life ...

Can you provide ONE example of when the Bible (as opposed to some people's interpretation of what it says) has been 'changed' for that reason, explaining what the relevant 'developments' were?

[fantaxxy_moon]

dear brother Trumble please check this website .. i took it from the posts of one of the sisters her e.. but it is very important to make u believe that even jesus foretold the coming of prophet mohammed (SAW) .. thanks brother .. and rethink about what u said about islam ..

and it will show u the change in the bible .. thank you .. i wish u are interested in Islam, and i will make prayers for u to be a muslim . :embarrass

this is the web site: http://www.rasoulallah.net/fl_list_e...=2&parent_id=2

Can you provide ONE example of when the Bible (as opposed to some people's interpretation of what it says) has been 'changed' for that reason, explaining what the relevant 'developments' were?

[Tornado]

actually the qu'ran reveals many things in nature, and many things of what will happen in the future and everyday scientists find new things in nature which has been actually recorded in the qu'ran since million of years ago

^ Your link doesn't work.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I'd like a few examples of this. Nothing vague, nothing already known at the time, and nothing that was obvious either.

I think this is off-topic but I guess I would like to know.

[malayloveislam]

:sl:

And peace to honorable Christian friends

I personally believe that some of the Bibles are written by the same man who is called Paulus, I am not going to put saint in front of his name as he is not a saint. Bibles are just the accounts of prophet Jesus and his disciples life and it is just like Hadiths in Islam.

But as for Hadiths, we have complete accounts of the Rawi or the Narrators so we know which one is from the false sources and which one is from the true sources. Every new generations of Muslim Hadiths memorizer will have to learn strict procedures in checking the Hadiths before they are being kept in the memory. Hadiths are the second source in Islam and it contains interpretations on the acts of prayers, prophet traditions or Sunnah, and things concerning community life.

Al-Quran is the first source of Islam and it is not written by prophet Muhammad. In Islamic tradition, it is revealed by Archangel Gabriel the God's emissary and not inspired. Prophet Muhammad can't read nor write as he was not formally educated and during his time, writing lesson is considered as exclusive. Prophet Muhammad was raised in the village by Halimatussa'adiah and not in the Holy City Mecca.

The Trinity faith on which has been proclaimed formally as mainstream Christians faith today was justified in Nicean Councils after fourth Century. Thus other Bibles which includes the prophecy about prophet Muhammad were destroyed and the words in the Bibles was deflected to suit Trinity belief.

Holy books are not written but revealed by Allah to His messengers and prophets. Quran was recorded in the written form by prophet Muhammad companions and his followers in the sanctified leather, rocks, and palm leaves during he is still alive and he can check them words by words. Quran also was memorized by the followers during prophet Muhammad is still alive, he used to refresh his memory during Ramadhan as Archangel Gabriel will visit him under Allah's order and checking the recitation. Then prophet Muhammad will check his companions recitation and it happens to other Muslims until today even we already have Al-Quran in written form. It is only compiled in the form of book during Uthman Caliphate because Muslims afraid that the words will be lost as many memorizers of Quran being martyrs in the wars between the false prophets and their followers as an example.

While for Bibles, we learned that prophet Jesus was chased by the Jews his own tribe and the Romans. Although prophet Jesus is a literate person but he have no time to record the words of God or keeping the record as he was in refuge.

How about Christians put the Trinity faith aside when talking about the writer of Bibles. Trinity faith is the one that influenced the writing of Bibles. Even prophet Jesus being the center of worship for Christians and not Lord God Himself who had created prophet Jesus, prophet Muhammad, prophet Moses, and all of human race from Adam until today.

Basically, Trinity is Roman pagan tradition and it was inherited from the Greeks. This faith also can be traced in Hinduism known as Trimurthi. Why should God have to be divided in the function as He is Capable and Powerful above everything? Sorry this is a kind out of the topic, but I think it is related to the Bible concerning the basic faith in it.

[malayloveislam]

^ Your link doesn't work.
Sorry if this is off-topic, but I'd like a few examples of this. Nothing vague, nothing already known at the time, and nothing that was obvious either.

I think this is off-topic but I guess I would like to know.

Peace,

The person means that the Holy Scripture consists prophecies on the things that will come in the present. It already happens after human-being had reached a certain level that correspond the prophecies as what has been proved in scientific researches. There are verses in the Holy Scripture that human need to think and observe and some of the verses are talking about the things that will be happen. Human at the time when the verses were revealed hadn't reached the level of thinking yet. It is among the proves that the Holy Scripture is not of human creation.

[fantaxxy_moon]

oh sorry this is strange but it was working just today

[Grace Seeker]

yeah it has been fabricated by human kind and this is well known by all muslims, muslims all know that the real bible is not rela any more .. and a lot has been changed to it now .. do u know why they change it ?
to keep up with the developments of life ...
but alhmadulilah the quran will never be changed as it is protected by Allah and it is suitable for any era and at any time ...

actually the qu'ran reveals many things in nature, and many things of what will happen in the future and everyday scientists find new things in nature which has been actually recorded in the qu'ran since million of years ago .. Thanks to Allah who gave us Islam and the Qu'ran ...

Interpreted, what I hear you saying is essentially:

I believe what the Qur'an says about any and everything it talks about. Since I believe it, then I know it is true. And since all Muslims believe what the Qur'an teaches, then we know everything there is to know about anything worth knowing about any other religion.

But in my view that all stems from an initial belief that you hold which I don't happen to share. So, when you say something like, "muslims all know that the real bible is not rela any more," all you've done is convince me that you really don't know what you are talking about at all.



Even more, consider the irony of this:

dear brother Trumble please check this website .. i took it from the posts of one of the sisters her e.. but it is very important to make u believe that even jesus foretold the coming of prophet mohammed (SAW) .. thanks brother .. and rethink about what u said about islam ..

and it will show u the change in the bible .. thank you .. i wish u are interested in Islam, and i will make prayers for u to be a muslim . :embarrass

this is the web site: http://www.rasoulallah.net/fl_list_e...=2&parent_id=2


Correction to your link: the link I believe you intended to post is http://www.rasoulallah.net/subject_e...d=2&sub_id=222

You reference the Bible that you don't believe to find "proof" that Jesus prophesied about Muhammad who would say that he wasn't who the Bible describes him to be. And your "proof" is a passage from John where Jesus says that he will send another (you suggest this other is Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit) who lead us into the truth. You think this is the Qur'an, but Jesus goes on to tell us what this truth is: "you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20), an idea that is totally shirk to Muslims.


You seem not to just want to have your cake and eat it too. You actually want to throw it away as spoiled, and still claim it backs you up. This is the height of illogical thinking that accepts things not for what they are, but for what you want out of them.

[Eeman]

Can you provide ONE example of when the Bible (as opposed to some people's interpretation of what it says) has been 'changed' for that reason, explaining what the relevant 'developments' were?

please watch the vidoes links i have posted at the start of the thread, a chrsitian brother has gone ahead and done that no need for anyone here to explain it.

peace

[fantaxxy_moon]

we believe in the presence of the bible and that it was taught by Jesus and presented by him by the order of Allah..
we as muslims believe in it .. we believe that there is Jesus and the bible.. but what we really mean is that today's bible has been greatly altered and changed to keep up with the development of every new age " era "....
why do they keep changing the bible ?? doesn't it sound orginal like this ?
they keep changing it to prove that they are true ??

why don't u think then why don't we change the q'uran ?? we don't change it and never will because it will never be old and it will always keep up to the age's development .. think about it brother grace ..

Interpreted, what I hear you saying is essentially:

I believe what the Qur'an says about any and everything it talks about. Since I believe it, then I know it is true. And since all Muslims believe what the Qur'an teaches, then we know everything there is to know about anything worth knowing about any other religion.

But in my view that all stems from an initial belief that you hold which I don't happen to share. So, when you say something like, "muslims all know that the real bible is not rela any more," all you've done is convince me that you really don't know what you are talking about at all.



Even more, consider the irony of this:
You reference the Bible that you don't believe to find "proof" that Jesus prophesied about Muhammad who would say that he wasn't who the Bible describes him to be. And your "proof" is a passage from John where Jesus says that he will send another (you suggest this other is Muhammad, not the Holy Spirit) who lead us into the truth. You think this is the Qur'an, but Jesus goes on to tell us what this truth is: "you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you" (John 14:20), an idea that is totally shirk to Muslims.


You seem not to just want to have your cake and eat it too. You actually want to throw it away as spoiled, and still claim it backs you up. This is the height of illogical thinking that accepts things not for what they are, but for what you want out of them.

[fantaxxy_moon]

i mean " does it sound original like this "


( sorry for the wrong sentence )

[Cabdullahi]

GOD almighty is powerful and some of his attributes in the bible are very dubious for example in the bible god created the heavens and the earth in 5 days and he rested? on the sixth this is a very human like attribute, ALLAH has blessed me with a mind and so i have to use it to realise that if it says that god took a nap in the bible then i should automatically know that this was not the original teachings

The quran does perfect in restating what the real message was,some christians approached the prophet(sas) and they questioned him about islam and that if he's a prophet,the prophet was nervous and felt sick this used to happen whenever he was revealed chapter and with an instant the chapter alikhlas(SINCERITY) was sent down and it came out of his mouth in words as a reply to the christian guests

112.001
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
112.002
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
112.003
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
112.004
And there is none like unto Him.
..................

A very short chapter but its importance weighs more than the entire earth,why you may ask,simple because it clarifies allah's power and that he is above his creations and that everybody that ever exited on the day of judgement will come as a servent to him and even also jesus

[Grace Seeker]

we believe in the presence of the bible and that it was taught by Jesus and presented by him by the order of Allah..
we as muslims believe in it ..

In other words you believe in a Bible that cannot be shown to have ever actually existed outside of the claims of Islam.

we believe that there is Jesus and the bible

But you don't accept the Bible that was passed on to us by those who wrote it and those who first believed in its teachings. Rather you say that it is a man-made book filled with changes and alterations.

but what we really mean is that today's bible has been greatly altered and changed to keep up with the development of every new age " era "....

It is true that the Bible that we have today is not the original Bible, those original pieces of parchment and vellum have probably long ago turned to dust. And the copies made from them that we do possess have some inconsistencies with each other so that it points to copying errors some place along in the process, that too is true. What is NOT true is your ascertion that it has been changed to keep up with the development of every new age. I've never heard such an accussation before. There is simply nothing by slander behind such a charge.

why do they keep changing the bible ??

We don't. Rather we work very hard to preserve it's integrity and where possible to get back to as close as possible to the original text where discrepancies are found between the existing copies. If someone has told you that we keep changing the Bible, then you have been told lies.

What you will see, however, is that there will continue to be new translations of the Bible produced, for we desire to put the Bible into the common language of every person on the face of the earth so that each can read it in their own mother tongue. In the case of some languages, like English for instance, because the language itself keeps evolving we need to keep creating new translations for the English I speak today is different than the English of Shakespear or Chaucer and the English my children speak is even different in some ways from the English I speak. There are changes that take place in as little as a generation or less.

why don't u think then why don't we change the q'uran ?? we don't change it and never will because it will never be old and it will always keep up to the age's development .. think about it brother grace ..

You don't change it because you don't believe that interpretations of the Qur'an are the Qur'an. But I do note that there are many different interpretations of the Qur'an just like there are many different translations of the Bible, so you do exactly the same thing with your sacred text that we do with ours, you just aren't honest enough to admit it to yourselves.

[Grace Seeker]

GOD almighty is powerful and some of his attributes in the bible are very dubious for example in the bible god created the heavens and the earth in 5 days and he rested? on the sixth this is a very human like attribute,

If you are going to question it, at least get it right what you are questioning. In the Bible the work of creation lasts 6 days and God rests on the seventh, not the sixth.

As to your actual point:

ALLAH has blessed me with a mind and so i have to use it to realise that if it says that god took a nap in the bible then i should automatically know that this was not the original teachings

It doesn't say that God took a nap. This is your interpretation from what is there. But that is not what actually is there. It isn't even what is implied. So, please use that mind that Allah gave you and let's get the story right.

God had completed creation. There was no more to do. God is not resting from his labors to restore his energy. He is resting because he has done all that needs be done. On this the day of rest what he does is bless and sanctify.

Note that all of the other days end with this tag line: "and there was evening and there was morning the ___th day." But not on the seventh day. Why not? Because every day is a part of this 7th day of creation. Thus, we who live in the created world, live in a world that God has acted to bless. And if we live in the creation as he created us to do so, we will live blessed lives. There is a new day coming, the day of judgment when God will sift the righteous from the unrighteous, but that day has not yet arrived. When it does it will be the end of this world as we know it, and a new day, a day known as the Day of the Lord, will welcome all those who belong to God into his kingdom and all the rest will be left outside unable to ever enter.


A very short story but its importance weighs more than the entire earth,why you may ask,simple because it clarifies God's relationship to this earth. He is above his creations and yet desires to bless it. Everybody that ever existed has the opportunity to live in the blessedness, if only they will not go after the gods of their own devising or those proclaimed by prophets who do not truly know Yahweh nor Jesus.[/QUOTE]

[coddles76]

If you are going to question it, at least get it right what you are questioning. In the Bible the work of creation lasts 6 days and God rests on the seventh, not the sixth.

As to your actual point: It doesn't say that God took a nap. This is your interpretation from what is there. But that is not what actually is there. It isn't even what is implied. So, please use that mind that Allah gave you and let's get the story right.

God had completed creation. There was no more to do. God is not resting from his labors to restore his energy. He is resting because he has done all that needs be done. On this the day of rest what he does is bless and sanctify.

Note that all of the other days end with this tag line: "and there was evening and there was morning the ___th day." But not on the seventh day. Why not? Because every day is a part of this 7th day of creation. Thus, we who live in the created world, live in a world that God has acted to bless. And if we live in the creation as he created us to do so, we will live blessed lives. There is a new day coming, the day of judgment when God will sift the righteous from the unrighteous, but that day has not yet arrived. When it does it will be the end of this world as we know it, and a new day, a day known as the Day of the Lord, will welcome all those who belong to God into his kingdom and all the rest will be left outside unable to ever enter.


A very short story but its importance weighs more than the entire earth,why you may ask,simple because it clarifies God's relationship to this earth. He is above his creations and yet desires to bless it. Everybody that ever existed has the opportunity to live in the blessedness, if only they will not go after the gods of their own devising or those proclaimed by prophets who do not truly know Yahweh nor Jesus.

[/QUOTE]

"As to your actual point: It doesn't say that God took a nap. This is your interpretation from what is there. But that is not what actually is there. It isn't even what is implied. So, please use that mind that Allah gave you and let's get the story right.

God had completed creation. There was no more to do. God is not resting from his labors to restore his energy. He is resting because he has done all that needs be done. On this the day of rest what he does is bless and sanctify".
Thankyou grace seeker but please don't belittle people and certainly do not try to dazzle us with words and try to defame others. You are trying to form something which in yourself does not make any sense. It seems your own interpretation has been a bit skewered trying to make you own meaning out of the word "REST" which corrupts your own point of view. The word rest means:-
1. the refreshing quiet or repose of sleep: a good night's rest.
2. refreshing ease or inactivity after exertion or labor: to allow an hour for rest.
Please do not create a new meaning from a word from your own imagination.

Quran 2:204 There is the type of man whose speech about this world's life may dazzle thee, and he calls Allah to witness about what is in his heart; yet is he the most contentious of enemies.

Quran 10:65 Let not their speech grieve thee: for all power and honour belong to Allah it is He Who heareth and knoweth (all things).

[Grace Seeker]

The word rest means:-
1. the refreshing quiet or repose of sleep: a good night's rest.
2. refreshing ease or inactivity after exertion or labor: to allow an hour for rest.
Please do not create a new meaning from a word from your own imagination.

I'm not making a new meaing out of my own imagination.

Remember the word "rest" is the English translation of a Hebrew text. Those who play off of the word "rest" coming up with ideas about sleep and repose are ignoring the original. I'm not a Hebrew scholar, so I depend on others who are to help me with details when it comes to Old Testament passages. The information I passed on is as old as Moses and you will find it in many commentaries both Christian and Jewish. The rabbis who used to frequent the "Ask a Jew" thread made these comments themselves some time back. Please read the following: Why Would A God Need to Rest on the Seventh Day?, by Rabbi Dr. Michael Samuel.

The Sabbath rest has nothing to do with napping, you can take that bit of information to the bank.

[Cabdullahi]

If you are going to question it, at least get it right what you are questioning. In the Bible the work of creation lasts 6 days and God rests on the seventh, not the sixth.

As to your actual point: It doesn't say that God took a nap. This is your interpretation from what is there. But that is not what actually is there. It isn't even what is implied. So, please use that mind that Allah gave you and let's get the story right.

God had completed creation. There was no more to do. God is not resting from his labors to restore his energy. He is resting because he has done all that needs be done. On this the day of rest what he does is bless and sanctify.

Note that all of the other days end with this tag line: "and there was evening and there was morning the ___th day." But not on the seventh day. Why not? Because every day is a part of this 7th day of creation. Thus, we who live in the created world, live in a world that God has acted to bless. And if we live in the creation as he created us to do so, we will live blessed lives. There is a new day coming, the day of judgment when God will sift the righteous from the unrighteous, but that day has not yet arrived. When it does it will be the end of this world as we know it, and a new day, a day known as the Day of the Lord, will welcome all those who belong to God into his kingdom and all the rest will be left outside unable to ever enter.

A very short story but its importance weighs more than the entire earth,why you may ask,simple because it clarifies God's relationship to this earth. He is above his creations and yet desires to bless it. Everybody that ever existed has the opportunity to live in the blessedness, if only they will not go after the gods of their own devising or those proclaimed by prophets who do not truly know Yahweh nor Jesus.

[/QUOTE]

Sorry for the mistake it was the seventh day :rolleyes:

These are the definitions for the word rest

[PIE]'to cease from action or motion : refrain from labor or exertion'[/PIE]

[PIE]: to get rest by lying down; especially : sleep b: to lie dead[/PIE]

Resting and blessing in the english dictionary are two different words,it would have been more appropriate for the verse to say that god created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and blessed on the 7th day but no it doesnt say that what it says in exodus i think ''god rested and was refreshed'.in the quran its very different it gives us a standards check measure if you like, in allowing us to know what is true and what is false from the previous revelations i.e the bible, it says god created the heavens and the earth and what ever is in between them and no fatigue took him over, which of the two verses from the quran or from the bible sounds more realistic.

Like i said god's attributes in the bible are very dubious and to a muslim it really hurts for example in the book of judges it says 'so the lord was with judah and the drove out the inhabitants of the mountains but they could not drive out the inhabitants below the mountain because they had armoury made of iron' but in the quran theres a quality control 'Glory be to Him! when He determines a matter, He only says to it, "Be", and it is'
Take your choice the god of the bible that could not prevail against the people with armoury made of iron or the god in the glorious quran that can do what ever he wills

[malayloveislam]

:sl:

I have some personal view here:

How about the changing in the metaphor phrase "the right hand of God"? As there are also people who are using left hand to read or write or living their life with left hand functioning to do works? The metaphor has to be changed from right hand to left hand to respect them. I am sorry I can't remember where did I read about this but I had read about this around two or three years ago?

The verses are in Psalm 110:1; Psalm 118:16 and they were quoted in Matthew 22:44, 22:41-45.

This is not about the interpretation anymore, it is more to the translation that suits a certain community or to fulfil certain people's desire.

I agree with brother Grace Seeker about Al-Quran translation is different from the translations of Bibles. The translations are not believed as the sacred texts and the verses must be and should be articulated in Quraisy Arabic in which it is the Arabic dialect spoken by prophet Muhammad and in which Al-Quran was revealed in the language. The real text that considered as sacred is in Arabic. Muslim are using the gloss translations where there are original language reference in parallel with their mother tongue or the language that they speak. Muslims too are encouraged to learn Arabic and it is the duty of other Muslims with the ability in Arabic to teach others and spreading the language.

What are the texts used by early Christians if they are not recorded as apocryphals by the Vatican? Why should some of them being destroyed by the Holy Papal if it is certain that Trinity faith is in parallel with what had been taught by prophet Jesus -peace be upon him- ?

Is there any mentions about the disciple that being a martyr because being killed by his people in Antioche in the accounts of prophet Jesus apostles, disciples, and followers life?

The evident is in Surah Yaa-Sin 36:13-25, it is Habib An-Najjar who is the person who were martyred as he had plead his people to follow the Tauhid teaching spread by the two apostle of prophet Jesus. God Himself had tell us about the condition of Habib's soul after he had been martyred in Yaa-Sin 36:26-27 where his soul is grieving about his people who were not realizing about the truth and they will be paid with heavy torments in the next life. Habib only experienced a short course of torments before his soul seperated from his body when his people killed him, but after that his soul was prepared to be entered into paradise.

How about the seven dwellers of the cave? Why are they running away from their people? Their people are the people who are believing in Polytheism and Trinity might be among the focus of their worship. Is there any Council that concluded about the Trinity faith and canonizing the Bibles that should be used by people with faith during that time and what are the faith of those early followers of prophet Jesus -peace be upon him-?

Are they going to be casted into the hell and counted as Kafir (heathens) after Trinity being enforced as there is no Trinity at that time and according to historical evidences the Trinity faith was first preached by Paulus in order to convert the gentiles into the Convenant without touching their principle points of culture that contradict Tauhid ot the Unitarianism of God which is nothing is equal to Him or unattributed to others? Is the objective permits the manner?

[Trumble]

Thankyou grace seeker but please don't belittle people and certainly do not try to dazzle us with words and try to defame others. You are trying to form something which in yourself does not make any sense. It seems your own interpretation has been a bit skewered trying to make you own meaning out of the word "REST" which corrupts your own point of view. The word rest means:-
1. the refreshing quiet or repose of sleep: a good night's rest.
2. refreshing ease or inactivity after exertion or labor: to allow an hour for rest.
Please do not create a new meaning from a word from your own imagination.

As a 'neutral' as it were I'd just like to reinforce the comments that that really is total rubbish.

What the word 'rest' means in English is pretty much irrelevant; as has been pointed out it is a translation. With all due respect, that same point is made so often here in relation to English translations of Quran'ic Arabic I really wouldn't expect it to be that difficult to grasp. Several different words in Hebrew are actually translated as "rest". The Hebrew word here actually means something more along the lines of "abstained", i.e from further creating. There is no implication of "having a nap", or anything like it.

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry for the mistake it was the seventh day :rolleyes:

Hey, we all make mistakes. So, we can leave that one and go one to the main issue.

These are the definitions for the word rest
[PIE]'to cease from action or motion : refrain from labor or exertion'[/PIE]
[PIE]: to get rest by lying down; especially : sleep b: to lie dead[/PIE]
Resting and blessing in the english dictionary are two different words,it would have been more appropriate for the verse to say that god created the heavens and the earth in 6 days and blessed on the 7th day but no it doesnt say that what it says in exodus i think ''god rested and was refreshed'.in the quran its very different it gives us a standards check measure if you like, in allowing us to know what is true and what is false from the previous revelations i.e the bible, it says god created the heavens and the earth and what ever is in between them and no fatigue took him over, which of the two verses from the quran or from the bible sounds more realistic.

Focusing on the English word "rest" is just as big of a mistake as getting the wrong day, bigger.

Getting the wrong day is like a copyists error, easily spotted and corrected.

Focusing on the the word "rest" implies you don't understand the process of Biblical interpretation. For those who use English translations it begins with an assumption that the translation is a credilbe translation of the original text. But if one is going to do a word study, which is what you are doing when focusing on a key word, then one has to go back to the original languages. And that is where your critique of this passage breaks down.

Let me illustrate from the Qur'an.

003.028. Let not the believers Take for friends or helpers Unbelievers rather than believers: if any do that, in nothing will there be help from God: except by way of precaution, that ye may Guard yourselves from them. But God cautions you (To remember) Himself; for the final goal is to God.

004.139. Yea, to those who take for friends unbelievers rather than believers: is it honour they seek among them? Nay,- all honour is with God.

004.144. O ye who believe! Take not for friends unbelievers rather than believers: Do ye wish to offer God an open proof against yourselves?

005.051. O ye who believe! take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily God guideth not a people unjust.

Well, this appears to be pretty clear, at least on the surface -- Muslims should not have non-Muslim friends. But let's look at an English dictionary to be sure. What does the word "friend" actually mean?

Main Entry: 1friend
Pronunciation: \ˈfrend\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English frend, from Old English frēond; akin to Old High German friunt friend, Old English frēon to love, frēo free
Date: before 12th century
1 a: one attached to another by affection or esteem b: acquaintance
2 a: one that is not hostile b: one that is of the same nation, party, or group
3: one that favors or promotes something (as a charity)
4: a favored companion
5capitalized : a member of a Christian sect that stresses Inner Light, rejects sacraments and an ordained ministry, and opposes war —called also Quaker
— friend·less \ˈfren(d)-ləs\ adjective
— friend·less·ness noun
— be friends with : to have a friendship or friendly relationship with

Exactly what I suggested originally. Muslims should not have as a favored companion, an acquaintance, or affectionate relationships with people or esteem those who are not Muslims. Such friendships should only be with brothers and sisters in Islam.

Now, all I have done is use the same principles of interpretation that you have used for the passage in Genesis that speaks of God resting. So, I suspect you agree with my interpretation of the Qur'an-- or at least you should if you think you used a valid process in your own interpretation of the Bible.

But the wise Muslim would differ with my interpretation of the Qur'an and with good reason. You see, I based my understanding on an English translation, when I should have based it on the Arabic original. The following article shows the proper way to interpret these verses, and it begins by correctly understanding the word that is translated as "friend" in the referecned verses: the word Awliya is often incorrectly translated as friends.

It isn't that the word "friends" is wrong, but that if one thinks of friends in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Similarly, it isn't that the word "rest" is wrong, but that if one thinks of rest in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Just as one needs to return to the Arabic text to truly understand the Qur'an (no amount of defining the English word "friends" helps until you get back to the actual Arabic word, "Awliya," behind it), so one needs to return to the Hebrew text to truly understand these passages from Genesis. No amount of defining the English word "rest" is going to help us understand the passage until we actually get back to the Hebrew word, "Shavat," behind it.

And when one does a word study on the actual Hebrew word used in the passage, one finds that it has nothing to do with taking a nap. It simply means that God ceased creating.

Thus, when one better understands what this passage is actually saying, rather than the false concepts that have been put forth for it, one sees that there is no issue with God having human weaknesses. You've been barking up the wrong tree. This makes the rest of the criticism stemming from that mis-observation moot.

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

On another note, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with addressing the question as to who wrote the Bible. Though it is a nice rabbit trail if you like to chase rabbits.

[Cabdullahi]

Hey, we all make mistakes. So, we can leave that one and go one to the main issue.





Focusing on the English word "rest" is just as big of a mistake as getting the wrong day, bigger.

Getting the wrong day is like a copyists error, easily spotted and corrected.

Focusing on the the word "rest" implies you don't understand the process of Biblical interpretation. For those who use English translations it begins with an assumption that the translation is a credilbe translation of the original text. But if one is going to do a word study, which is what you are doing when focusing on a key word, then one has to go back to the original languages. And that is where your critique of this passage breaks down.

Let me illustrate from the Qur'an.


Well, this appears to be pretty clear, at least on the surface -- Muslims should not have non-Muslim friends. But let's look at an English dictionary to be sure. What does the word "friend" actually mean?



Exactly what I suggested originally. Muslims should not have as a favored companion, an acquaintance, or affectionate relationships with people or esteem those who are not Muslims. Such friendships should only be with brothers and sisters in Islam.

Now, all I have done is use the same principles of interpretation that you have used for the passage in Genesis that speaks of God resting. So, I suspect you agree with my interpretation of the Qur'an-- or at least you should if you think you used a valid process in your own interpretation of the Bible.

But the wise Muslim would differ with my interpretation of the Qur'an and with good reason. You see, I based my understanding on an English translation, when I should have based it on the Arabic original. The following article shows the proper way to interpret these verses, and it begins by correctly understanding the word that is translated as "friend" in the referecned verses: the word Awliya is often incorrectly translated as friends.

It isn't that the word "friends" is wrong, but that if one thinks of friends in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Similarly, it isn't that the word "rest" is wrong, but that if one thinks of rest in the common use of the term, then one is going to have a misunderstanding as to what these verses are saying. Just as one needs to return to the Arabic text to truly understand the Qur'an (no amount of defining the English word "friends" helps until you get back to the actual Arabic word, "Awliya," behind it), so one needs to return to the Hebrew text to truly understand these passages from Genesis. No amount of defining the English word "rest" is going to help us understand the passage until we actually get back to the Hebrew word, "Shavat," behind it.

And when one does a word study on the actual Hebrew word used in the passage, one finds that it has nothing to do with taking a nap. It simply means that God ceased creating.

Thus, when one better understands what this passage is actually saying, rather than the false concepts that have been put forth for it, one sees that there is no issue with God having human weaknesses. You've been barking up the wrong tree. This makes the rest of the criticism stemming from that mis-observation moot.

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

On another note, I'm not sure what any of that has to do with addressing the question as to who wrote the Bible. Though it is a nice rabbit trail if you like to chase rabbits.

The english translators for the quran have a choise of words to choose from that best describe without distorting the true meaning and i think it is the similar situation for the bible except the choice of words do not make sense, what i cannot understand is the usage of the word rest why not something close to the actual meaning which is abstained or ceased creation,ok fair enough as you say that ''one needs to return to the Hebrew text to truly understand these passages from Genesis. No amount of defining the English word "rest" is going to help us understand the passage until we actually get back to the Hebrew word, "Shavat," behind it.'' What were the translators thinking? when using the word rest ,we are talking about god here and they had an amplitude choice of words that they could've use to describe the ceasing of creation by god,why the hell would they choose 'rest' a word that doesnt fit especially if one is trying to glorify his god and is probally devout a chistian, to me it doesnt make sense,

[Keltoi]

The english translators for the quran have a choise of words to choose from that best describe without distorting the true meaning and i think it is the similar situation for the bible except the choice of words do not make sense, what i cannot understand is the usage of the word rest why not something close to the actual meaning which is abstained or ceased creation,ok fair enough as you say that ''one needs to return to the Hebrew text to truly understand these passages from Genesis. No amount of defining the English word "rest" is going to help us understand the passage until we actually get back to the Hebrew word, "Shavat," behind it.'' What were the translators thinking? when using the word rest ,we are talking about god here and they had an amplitude choice of words that they could've use to describe the ceasing of creation by god,why the hell would they choose 'rest' a word that doesnt fit especially if one is trying to glorify his god and is probally devout a chistian, to me it doesnt make sense,

Probably because when you are describing the Almighty, the One who is and did create the Universe and all in it, it is assumed one knows He has no need of the human biological function of sleep. They could have used the word "ceased" or "stopped", but I believe they chose the word "rest" in the translation to better describe the process of a great divine work taking place and the finality of its conclusion. It conveys, in English, a sense of a great miracle taking place and the great power involved in it. By "resting", we understand that the great miracle has been completed, in all of its detail, beauty, and complexity.

In any event...this rabbit is losing its luster.

[coddles76]

As a 'neutral' as it were I'd just like to reinforce the comments that that really is total rubbish.

What the word 'rest' means in English is pretty much irrelevant; as has been pointed out it is a translation. With all due respect, that same point is made so often here in relation to English translations of Quran'ic Arabic I really wouldn't expect it to be that difficult to grasp. Several different words in Hebrew are actually translated as "rest". The Hebrew word here actually means something more along the lines of "abstained", i.e from further creating. There is no implication of "having a nap", or anything like it.

Thankyou Trumble but I guess our minds think alike and so I think your comments are also totally worthless and rubbish creating the exact problem the bible has created for many years and thats called Fabrication. You are not in a position to change the meaning of an english word and if you were maybe you can go and create a NEW dictionary aswell, And second of all please don't try to trick people about how the hebrew language has been translated because if you wanna get into that the bible has a history of changing the translations to suite there outcome. If you don't want people to take things out of context or to mistranslate the bible then produce the original manuscript in its true form as it was revealed, hence why the Quran holds multiple amounts of more value then the bible, because the quran has not changed its form and will never be changed. As it was revealed over 1400 years ago in its original form you can find that exact form today. Not a single dot or word has been changed. Even if you were to grab every single Quran available and throw it in the ocean, there are thousands of people around the world who have memorised the Quran word for word and could recreate it in its original form within hours. Allahu Akbar, now thats what I call a perfect book and a perfect way of life. You may continue to try your utter best to trick people with your words but the religion of Allah SWT will be victorious now matter how much you despise it.

Quran 9:32
Fain would they extinguish Allah's Light with their mouths, but Allah will not allow but that His Light should be perfected, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

Quran 61:8
Their intention is to extinguish Allah's Light (by blowing) with their mouths: but Allah will complete (the revelation of) His Light, even though the Unbelievers may detest (it).

[Grace Seeker]

The english translators for the quran have a choise of words to choose from that best describe without distorting the true meaning and i think it is the similar situation for the bible except the choice of words do not make sense,

Agreed, both sets of translators often have a variety of words to choose in many different instances. I'm don't think any of them every get it right all of the time. I think they all get it right most of the time. Though, apparently the folks at Load-Islam think the translators who choose the word "friends" to translate "awilya" didn't think they choose the best word without distoring the true meaning, they called the choice of the word "friends" a "mistranslation". As for choosing the word "rest" for "shavat", I don't think the Biblical translators made that bad of a choice. Afterall, when one takes a look at the meaning of the English word one can see that there are mutliple meanings. The reader is expected to use some intelligence and use the meaning that fits most closely the context of the passage. Since God doesn't nap, to think of rest in those terms is not so much a mistake on the part of the translator, but on the part of the reader. But, just as you, yourself, noted above, rest can also mean: "'to cease from action or motion : refrain from labor or exertion'". So, the intelligent reader would be wise to consider this aspect of resting, that it is the ceasation of action -- that gets pretty close to what the word "shavat" means, one just has to think a little bit rather than make unfounded assumptions when reading any translation be it the Bible or the Qur'an, otherwise we are left with the conclusion that truly Muslims cannot be friends with non-Muslims (5:51) and that Muslims are even to slay pagans wherever they see them (9:5), for that is what it says in my English version of the Qur'an.

Thankyou Trumble but I guess our minds think alike and so I think your comments are also totally worthless and rubbish creating the exact problem the bible has created for many years and thats called Fabrication. You are not in a position to change the meaning of an english word and if you were maybe you can go and create a NEW dictionary aswell,

You are talking nonsense. Trumble did no such thing. You are the one who is focused on the wrong word, not Trumble. Ahmedjunior seems to have grasped that, why can't you?

And second of all please don't try to trick people about how the hebrew language has been translated because if you wanna get into that the bible has a history of changing the translations to suite there outcome. If you don't want people to take things out of context or to mistranslate the bible then produce the original manuscript in its true form as it was revealed,

Fine, here is the Hebrew text for this passage. Knock yourself out:

וַיְכַל אֱלֹהִים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה; וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה.
וַיְבָרֶךְ אֱלֹהִים אֶת-יוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי, וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֹתוֹ: כִּי בוֹ שָׁבַת מִכָּל-מְלַאכְתּוֹ, אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים לַעֲשׂוֹת.

[Imam]

Peace for All


I would prove the following inshaAllah:


1- The problem with Christianity is not (Jesus was crucified or not) , but rather his death(whether killed or not) of any significance to humanity ?

2- The Non-Christian Documentary Sources (which proved to be forgeries eg; Josephus Testimonium Flavianum http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus) mention the crucifiction,if even proved to be authentic , would by no mean help the Christians ,actually it would be argument against them !!!...

3- As the only tool Christians use to affirm the alleged crucifixion is the work of the NT writers ,that could be easily proved to be a work of a hearsy, with contradictory material ,then It is safe to believe the one negates (the Quran) and neglects the one fails to be a trustworthy source (NT)….


1

When I take a look at the simple historical evidence that there was indeed a man named Jesus of Nazareth who existed in history, a life attested to not only in the Christian writings but also spoken of by 1st century Jews and Romans who make the following claims regarding him themselves:
1) that this man was executed
2) that his followers claim he was resurrected
And despite this, I see that the Qur'an claims that these things never happen, then it puts the veracity of the Qur'an in significant doubt.

.

Seeker , Do you trust The Non-Christian Documentary Sources as authentic sources
reflecting the true historical Jesus?


If so :

Do you believe Jesus(pbuh) as a son of fornication?
Do you believe Jesus(pbuh) as a Magician ,who learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it?


Those Jews who ascribed to him illegitimate birth, magic ,are those who ascribed to
him a shameful death as well .....

If you agree that they lied in the 1st and 2nd ,so why not the 3rd as well?!!!!!!!


The Jewish legends in regard to Jesus are found in three sources, each independent of the others—(1) in New Testament apocrypha and Christian polemical works, (2) in the Talmud and the Midrash, and (3) in the life of Jesus ("Toledot Yeshu'") that originated in the Middle Ages. It is the tendency of all these sources to be-little the person of Jesus by ascribing to him (1) illegitimate birth, (2) magic, and (3) a shameful
death. (from JewishEncyclopedia)




their attitude is expressed for the first time in the "Acts of Pilate" ("Gospel of
Nicodemus," ed. Thilo, in "Codex Apoc. Novi Testamenti," i. 526, Leipsic, 1832; comp.
Origen, "Contra Celsum," i. 28). Celsus makes the same statement in another passage, where he refers even to a written source (ἀναγέγραπται), adding that the seducer was a soldier by the name of Panthera (l.c. i. 32). The name "Panthera" occurs here for the first time; two centuries later it occurs in Epiphanius ("Hæres." lxxviii. 7), who ascribes the surname "Panther" to Jacob, an ancestor of Jesus; and John of Damascus ("De Orthod. Fide." iv., § 15) includes the names "Panther" and "Barpanther" in the genealogy of Mary. It is certain, in any case, that the rabbinical sources also regard
Jesus as the "son of Pandera"

It appears from this passage that, aside from Pandera and Sṭada, the couple Pappus b. Judah and Miriam the hairdresser were taken to be the parents of Jesus. Pappus has nothing to do with the story of Jesus, and was only connected with it because his wife happened to be called "Miriam" (= "Mary"), and was known to be an adulteress.


All the "Toledot" editions contain a similar story of a dispute which Jesus carried on with the Scribes, who, on the ground of that dispute, declared him to be a *******.



Jesus as Magician.

According to Celsus (in Origen, "Contra Celsum," i. 28) and to the Talmud (Shab. 104b), Jesus learned magic in Egypt and performed his miracles by means of it; the latter work, in addition, states that he cut the magic formulas into his skin. (Tosef., Shab. xi. 4; Yer. Shab. 13d);
The accusation of magic is frequently brought against Jesus. Jerome mentions it, quoting the Jews: "Magum vocant et Judæi Dominum meum" ("Ep. lv., ad Ascellam," i. 196, ed. Vallarsi); Marcus, of the sect of the Valentinians, was, according to Jerome, a native of Egypt, and was accused of being, like Jesus, a magician (Hilgenfeld,
"Ketzergesch." p. 370, Leipsic, 1884). There were even Christian heretics who looked upon the founder of their religion as a magician (Fabricius, in "Codex Apocr. Novi Testamenti," iii. 396),

The third Legend

The scholars of Israel took Jesus into the synagogue of Tiberias and bound him to a pillar; when his followers came to liberate him, a battle occurred in which the Jewish party was worsted and his disciples took him to Antiochia. On the eve of Passover he entered Jerusalem riding on an ass (comp. Matt. xxi. 4-17), disguised—according to several editions—so that his former disciple Judas had to betray him in order to secure his seizure. He was executed on the eve of the Passover festival, which was also the eve of the Sabbath. The executioners were not able to hang him upon a tree, for he had conjured all trees, by means of the name of God, not to receive him, and therefore they all broke; he was finally received by a large cabbagestalk (comp. Targ. Sheni to Esth. vii. 9).

the halakic assertion that Balaam (i.e., the prototype of Jesus) had no part in the future life must also be especially noted (Sanh. x. 2). It is further said: "The pupils of the recreant Balaam”refers to Jesus” inherit hell" (Abot v. 19).

The Jewish (Jesus been crucified) legend ,goes on and tells


Jesus is accordingly, in the following curious Talmudic legend, thought
to sojourn in hell. A certain Onḳelos b. Ḳaloniḳos, son of Titus' sister, desired to embrace Judaism, and called up from hell by magic first Titus, then Balaam, and finally Jesus, who are here taken together as the worst enemies of Judaism. He asked Jesus: "Who is esteemed in that world?" Jesus said: "Israel." "Shall one join them?" Jesus said to him: "Further their well-being; do nothing to their detriment; whoever touches them touches even the apple of His eye." Onḳelos then asked the nature of his punishment, and was told that it was the degrading fate of those who mock the wise (Giṭ. 56b-57a). This most revolting passage was applied in the Middle Ages to another Jesus (e.g., by R. Jeḥiel, in the Paris disputation; "Wikkuaḥ," p. 4, Thorn, 1873).


the Encyclopedia goes on and tells the following (pay attention)

(Neither this accusation nor that concerning the birth of Jesus is found in the
canonical Gospels, but it occurs in the apocryphal accounts)



In other words ,of all the 3 hearsays by the Jews, the Gospel writers selected only the third(crucifixion) to be recorded in their gospels, and that is easily could be understood If we realize How they zealously tried to propagate the amusing Pagan, repeated tale of The crucified savoir ,to attract their audience……

Having they found the story (Jesus never been crucified ) more helpful to attract the audience ,they would have propagate it without hesitance ,but as we see they did what you try to do now ,Seeker , selecting the Jews hearsay which help their case and ignoring the other accusations !!!!!!


Anyway the authors of Jewish Encyclopedia did it well, and affirmed honestly ,that the 3 accusations “illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death” are nothing but ( Jewish legends in regard to Jesus)


Such hearsay legend(crucifixion) grew and crept into the NT writings “written at least 40 years after the alleged crucifixion”

But fortunately the writers gave us the keys to expose their work

The amount of contradictions eg,Mark 16:2 versus John 20:1 ,Matthew 28:1 versus John 20:1 ,misuse of old Testament passages Zechariah 11:13,Psalm 22:18,Zechariah 13:7,Isaiah 53, false prophecies regarding the alleged crucifixion ,resurrection (Luke 24:33),(Matthew14:40),(Mark 14:26-31) ,the forgery of the end of Mark in the alleged resurrection story etc...

In light of all that, one would be wise to believe the Quran and pay no attention to the contradictory narratives of The NT .


to sum the point up:


The NT : Jesus was crucified

The Quran :The claim that Jesus crucified(whether from some of the Jews or the NT) is false. where is your proof of your claim?

The NT: I have contradictory acounts,false prophecies from anynomus writers to prove the case. could you prove the opposite the Jesus wasn't crucified?

The Quran: The burden is on your shoulder ,as you who alledges ......I'm not supposed to bring witnesses of something never happened.....

the validity of the crucifiction stands or fall on the validity of your text,which proved to be untrustworthy...


Phase 2

The arguments put forth that God fooled people into merely believing it was Jesus when it was really somebody else seem very contrived and not credible, and speak of a God who is dishonest in his dealings with people; by this very testimony of his own actions he cannot be trusted.

Where in the Quran that it was someone else put in his place?

if you bring another translation,bring with you the linguestic reasons for it....

That they said, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. [Al-Qur'an 4:157-158]



More important:

What If the Holy Quran says that Jesus was killed ( by means of crucifiction,stoning etc…..) ?


As a matter of fact christians fancy themselves that the Quran negates the crucifiction in order to negate the

So called ( blood atonment) , but they failed to understand that even if the Quran affirms that Jesus was killed,

They need much homework to prove that his execution is of any significance to humanity …………..


Let’s imagine the Quranic verse like that

verse 4:156-159 “That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; and they killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.



So what?

Jesus was a great prophet who was killed by the Jews ,just as some other prophets before him…………..

There would be no big deal about it…….

The Quran is of no need at all to negate the crucifixion in order to negate the (blood atonement)


What if the people (including even the disciples) believed the Jewish hearsay (‘We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary) ?


Again there would be no blame on them ,

Jesus the teacher ,prophet ,messiah (who was sent by God and performed miracles in front of them and preached the gospel of monotheism , obeying the law ) was killed just as some other prophets before him…..

If a disciple or even some christian early sects who belived in Jesus message as a prophet who preached them the Gospel, true monotheism ,keeping the commandments etc..,and such great prophet faced the same end that other great prophets faced before.....,we have no reason at all to consider such persons,sects as misbelievers, they were just misinformed regarding the last days of Jesus,which holds no merit compared with the facts regarding the message he preached.



The grave error of the NT writers is not preaching that Jesus was crucified ,but their misuse of such allegation (died for the sins etc……..)

Holy Quran 22:37 It is not their meat nor their blood, that reaches Allah. it is your piety that reaches Him: He has thus made them subject to you, that ye may glorify Allah for His Guidance to you and proclaim the good news to all who do right.

Proverbs 21:3
"For I (God) desired mercy, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings."


They tried by all means to convince the listeners that the crucifixion has a significance

And the writers especially Matthew tried hopelessly to find any Old Testament passage to Justify his hearsay story

Their failure basically lies in the fact that even if the Old Testament has a passage(s) predicting that someone righteous will be executed sometime in the future ,that will be of no help for their case, as hundreds if not thousands of righteous people were crucified till the time of Jesus and after him .


Thomas Paine highlighted the problem very well

"To make a monody into a prophecy is an absurdity. The characters and circumstances of men, even in the different ages of the world, are so much alike, that what is said of one may with propriety be said of many; but this fitness does not make the passage into a prophecy; and none but an impostor, or a bigot, would call it so.saiah, in deploring the hard fate and loss of his friend, mentions nothing of him but what the human lot of man is subject to. All the cases he states of him, his persecutions, his imprisonment, his patience in suffering, and his perseverance in principle, are all within the line of nature; they belong exclusively to none, and may with justness be said of many. But if Jesus Christ was the person the church represents him to be, that which would exclusively apply to him must be something that could not apply to any other person; something beyond the line of nature, something beyond the lot of mortal man; and there are no such expressions in this chapter, nor any other chapter in the Old Testament.It is no exclusive description to say of a person, as is said of the person Isaiah is lamenting in this chapter, He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; he is brought as a Lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before his shearers is dumb, so he openeth not his mouth. This may be said of thousands of persons, who have suffered oppressions and unjust death with patience, silence, and perfect resignation." :thumbs_up

( Examination Of The Prophecies, by Thomas Paine)

[coddles76]

You are the one who is focused on the wrong word, not Trumble. Ahmedjunior seems to have grasped that, why can't you?

Grace Seeker,
With all due respect,
If I wasn't focusing on the word 'Rest' then which word was I focusing on?
Please do not insult my intelligence and please do not insult others either. You seem determined in chasing a fabrications which deep down you and I know will never prosper. The word rest has a meaning which is known and formed and used throughout time. If you or others would like to come and change that meaning it only just further convinces the fabrication of yourself and the book you follow.

Fine, here is the Hebrew text for this passage. Knock yourself out:

Do you still think that its the orginal text as revealed? Produce the Bible as revealed and preached by Jesus and Moses?
You wouldn't be able to in a million years

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker,
With all due respect,
If I wasn't focusing on the word 'Rest' then which word was I focusing on?

Indeed, I do think you have been focusing on the word "Rest". That's why I say you are focusing on the wrong word. You should be focusing on the Hebrew word from which the word "rest" was translated.

Please do not insult my intelligence and please do not insult others either.

I'm not insulting anyone's intelligence. I leave that for people to do on their own.

You seem determined in chasing a fabrications which deep down you and I know will never prosper. The word rest has a meaning which is known and formed and used throughout time.

Indeed it does. How that meaning is relevant to the original Hebrew is beyond me, but you seem to believe it is. A question for you: in reading the English translations of the Qur'an, it says that Muslims should not be friends with non-Muslims. Do you think that is what the Qur'an really intends for us to understand? Why or why not?

If you or others would like to come and change that meaning it only just further convinces the fabrication of yourself and the book you follow.

The only one fabricating anything in this passage is you in your insistence that the passage can be better understood by reading into an English translation than by reading the original Hebrew text.

Do you still think that its the orginal text as revealed?

Yes. Do you think the original was in English and actually said "rest"? Because that is basically what you are arguing for if you think that interpreting the English word "rest" is a better choice for getting at the meaning of these verses than interpretting the Hebrew text I shared with you.

Produce the Bible as revealed and preached by Jesus and Moses?
You wouldn't be able to in a million years

That's because Jesus never preached the Bible. He preached a message about God and God's kingdom, some of which was recorded by others and passed on to us along with their message about the good news that God has made salvation available to humanity in Jesus Christ. As for Moses, what quoted for you above is what Moses shared with the nation of Israel as revealed to him by God, and then preserved and passed on to us.

[coddles76]

Indeed, I do think you have been focusing on the word "Rest". That's why I say you are focusing on the wrong word. You should be focusing on the Hebrew word from which the word "rest" was translated

So once again thankyou for proving to everyone the the bible has been translated incorrectly.

That's because Jesus never preached the Bible. He preached a message about God and God's kingdom, some of which was recorded by others and passed on to us along with their message about the good news that God has made salvation available to humanity in Jesus Christ. As for Moses, what quoted for you above is what Moses shared with the nation of Israel as revealed to him by God, and then preserved and passed on to us.

So the message that jesus(PBUH)preached should be in the bible correct? How much of what jesus(PBUH) preached is in the bible?
You and I both know that there isn't much of Jesus(PBUH) teachings in the bible. Of all the books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the teachings of Jesus (PBUH). The rest is made up of stories, History and like you said recorded by 'Others'.
So I guess everyone now knows 'Who wrote the Bible?'. If you can't contribute the whole bible to the actually man who is at the centre of the whole religion, how credible can that religion be.
I guess we'll leave that to the readers.

[Grace Seeker]

So once again thankyou for proving to everyone the the bible has been translated incorrectly.

Duh, no news there. Of course the Bible has been translated incorrectly. So has the Qur'an. So has any other book or piece of writing that has every been translated from one language to another in the entire history of humankind. Do you know why? Because it is impossible to make a correct translation. Translations are attempts at coming close but can never communicate the whole of the original. That is why when one seeks to go deeper into a passage, that it is important to go back to the original to understand it. The word "rest" is a perfectly acceptable word that communicates much of what was meant by the original Hebrew word "shavat", but it isn't going to give you all that was meant by the Hebrew, no English word is. Translation is an art, not a science. We cannot say that word "a" in this language equals word "b" in that language. The words are not interchangeable as equals, they merely come close enough to have equivalence and thus we use them as the best choice available, but they are not identical. This is most certainly true with "rest" and "shavat" just as it is with "friends" and "awliya".

So the message that jesus(PBUH)preached should be in the bible correct?

Is suppose that is your opinion. It isn't mine.

How much of what jesus(PBUH) preached is in the bible?

Hardly any. Jesus lived for 30 years. The Gospels record only a couple of events from his life beyond the 3 years of ministry he had. And of those three years of ministry there are a total of only about 50 days that are actually accounted for. Even then the focus is not spread evenly but on the last week of his life. Clearly, those who wrote the Gospels were not even trying to be recorders of Jesus' teachings. That is not what they saw as the central focus of his ministry. Rather they point to his passion and resurrection as the key to understanding who Jesus is. His message is not found so much in his words but his actions.

Indeed, I would submit to you that Jesus' message was not even that unique. If one gleans the writings of other teachers from his time (the rabbinical time period on Jewish history), one will find the stories and key points of Jesus told by many other teachers -- though Jesus often has his own unique twist that he gives to them. What was truly special about Jesus was who he was, the incarnate God come to be among us, and what he did, offering his life on behalf of fallen humanity to bring us to God.

You and I both know that there isn't much of Jesus(PBUH) teachings in the bible. Of all the books of the New Testament, only a small fraction can be accepted as the teachings of Jesus (PBUH).

But that isn't the point. The Bible does not even attempt to be a record of all things Jesus, nor should it. John said it well:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

(John 21:25)

The rest is made up of stories, History and like you said recorded by 'Others'.
So I guess everyone now knows 'Who wrote the Bible?'. If you can't contribute the whole bible to the actually man who is at the centre of the whole religion, how credible can that religion be.
I guess we'll leave that to the readers.

I don't have any idea what you are getting at. The idea that the whole Bible should be attributed to one man is ridiculous to my way of thinking. It isn't a single message, it is a history of God's interaction with people over time. From this we learn about the nature of God, the way God relates to us, and how we are to relate both to God and one another. But not even the Tanakh tried to tell the whole story of God, that wasn't ever it's intent. To force your desire for such a record on it might leave you disappointed and hungrying for more, but it does not make it less than what it purports to be -- God's revelation of himself to humanity.

[coddles76]

Grace Seeker,

One last statement I want to make and that is to Thankyou, I say Thankyou to you for strengthing my faith in the Oneness Of Allah and the greatness in islam because you have just strengthened my Belief in the Almighty attributes of Allah and in his words revealed in the Miraculous Quran. This is due to the fact that during my conversation with you the words of Allah have tapped through my head and just strengthened my belief in them and how true they are. Thankyou once again......

Quran 2:7
Allah hath set a seal on their hearts and on their hearing, and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they (incur).

Quran 2:9
Fain would they deceive Allah and those who believe, but they only deceive themselves, and realise (it) not!

Quran 2:10
In their hearts is a disease; and Allah has increased their disease: and grievous is the penalty they (incur), because they are false (to themselves).

Quran 2:15
Allah will throw back their mockery on them, and give them rope in their trespasses; so they will wander like blind ones (to and fro).

Quran 2:17
Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.

[Cabdullahi]

Duh, no news there. Of course the Bible has been translated incorrectly. So has the Qur'an. So has any other book or piece of writing that has every been translated from one language to another in the entire history of humankind. Do you know why? Because it is impossible to make a correct translation. Translations are attempts at coming close but can never communicate the whole of the original. That is why when one seeks to go deeper into a passage, that it is important to go back to the original to understand it. The word "rest" is a perfectly acceptable word that communicates much of what was meant by the original Hebrew word "shavat", but it isn't going to give you all that was meant by the Hebrew, no English word is. Translation is an art, not a science. We cannot say that word "a" in this language equals word "b" in that language. The words are not interchangeable as equals, they merely come close enough to have equivalence and thus we use them as the best choice available, but they are not identical. This is most certainly true with "rest" and "shavat" just as it is with "friends" and "awliya".



Is suppose that is your opinion. It isn't mine.


Hardly any. Jesus lived for 30 years. The Gospels record only a couple of events from his life beyond the 3 years of ministry he had. And of those three years of ministry there are a total of only about 50 days that are actually accounted for. Even then the focus is not spread evenly but on the last week of his life. Clearly, those who wrote the Gospels were not even trying to be recorders of Jesus' teachings. That is not what they saw as the central focus of his ministry. Rather they point to his passion and resurrection as the key to understanding who Jesus is. His message is not found so much in his words but his actions.

Indeed, I would submit to you that Jesus' message was not even that unique. If one gleans the writings of other teachers from his time (the rabbinical time period on Jewish history), one will find the stories and key points of Jesus told by many other teachers -- though Jesus often has his own unique twist that he gives to them. What was truly special about Jesus was who he was, the incarnate God come to be among us, and what he did, offering his life on behalf of fallen humanity to bring us to God.


But that isn't the point. The Bible does not even attempt to be a record of all things Jesus, nor should it. John said it well:





I don't have any idea what you are getting at. The idea that the whole Bible should be attributed to one man is ridiculous to my way of thinking. It isn't a single message, it is a history of God's interaction with people over time. From this we learn about the nature of God, the way God relates to us, and how we are to relate both to God and one another. But not even the Tanakh tried to tell the whole story of God, that wasn't ever it's intent. To force your desire for such a record on it might leave you disappointed and hungrying for more, but it does not make it less than what it purports to be -- God's revelation of himself to humanity.

lets not tire out our fingers because the bible has been translated so was the quran but in the quran in each and every translation the arabic text is there along side it but the bible has many different versions one version has 7 more books than the other and some versions have had verses deleted from them,in islam there is only one book and only one version, the arabic is the same no verses edited nor does it contradicts itself so what book does the christian follow:

Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Pe****ta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Purver, 1764)
Analytical-Literal Translation, The (not yet published)
Aramaic Bible (Alexander, not yet published)
Bible, The (Barker, 1615)
Bible in Living English (Byington, 1972)
Bible Revised (Barham, 1850)
Bishop's Bible (1568)
Black Bible Chronicles (McCary, 1993)
Book of the New Covenant (Penn, 1836)
Christian Community Bible (Grogan, 1995)
Christian's Bible (Lefevre, 1928)
Clementine Edition (1790)
Commonly Received Version of the New Testament (Cone, 1850)
Complutensian Bible
Cotton Patch New Testament (Jordan, 1970)
Cranmer Version
David Macrae Translation (Macrae, 1799)
Dramatized Bible (Perry, 1989)
English Translation of the Bible (Mace, 1729)
Family Expositor (Dodderidge, 1755)
Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed (Whiting, 1849)
Great Bible (Grafton and Whitchurch)
Hebrew Name Bible
Holy Bible (Bellamy, 1818)
Holy Bible (Conquest, 1841)
Holy Bible (Forshall, 1850)
Holy Bible (Fry, 1812)
Holy Bible (Geddes, 1797)
Holy Bible (Madden, 1850)
Holy Bible (Sharpe, 1892)
Holy Bible (Julia Smith, 1876)
Holy Bible (Thomson)
Holy Bible (Wordsworth, 1885)
Holy Bible: An Improved Edition (American Bible Union, 1912)
Holy Bible Containing the Old and the New Testaments (Sawyer, 1862)
Holy Bible with Amendments (Webster, 1833)
Holy Scriptures (Leeser, 1855)
Holy Scriptures (Wellbeloved, 1859)
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (George Richter Berry)
Jewish Bible (Kaplan)
Jewish School and Family Bible (Benisch, 1861)
Liberal Translation of the New Testament (Harwood)
Matthew's Bible
Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament (Whiston, 1745)
Modern Bible Version (Pratt / American Bible Society, 1893)
Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible (McGraw-Hill, 1962)
New and Corrected Version of the New Testament (****inson, 1833)
New Dispensation: The New Testament (Weekes, 1897)
New Family Bible (Boothroyd, 1833)
New International Reader's Version (1995)
New Literal Translation (MacKnight, 1795)
New Testament (Belsham, 1809)
New Testament (Bowes, 1870)
New Testament (Brotherhood Authentic Bible Society)
New Testament (Campbell, 1826)
New Testament (Clementson, 1938)
New Testament (Cunnington)
New Testament (Greber, 1937)
New Testament (Haweis, 1795)
New Testament (Highton, 1862)
New Testament (Hollybushe, 1538)
New Testament (Jefferson, 1820)
New Testament (Joye)
New Testament (Kneeland, 1822)
New Testament (Morgan, 1848)
New Testament (Murdock, 1851)
New Testament (Panin / Bible Numerics, 1914)
New Testament (Richter, 1877)
New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
New Testament (Sharpe, 1856)
New Testament (Simon, 1730)
New Testament (Thorn, 1861)
New Testament (Wakefield, 1791)
New Testament (W. Williams, 1812)
New Testament (Wynne, 1764)
New Testament in an Improved Version (1808)
New Testament of Our Messiah and Saviour Yashua (Traina, 1950)
New Testament or New Covenant (Worsley, 1770)
New Translation (Archbishop Newcome)
New Version of All the Books of the New Testament (Batly and Chandler, 1726)
Newe Testament of Our Saviour Jesu Christe (Jugge, 1552)
Numberical Bible (Grant)
Old and New Testaments (J. Clarke and Co., 1899)
Old Covenant, The (Thompson, 1808)
Old Testament Scriptures (Spurrell, 1885)
Poetic Bible, The (Gray, 1973)
Pulpit Bible, The (Parker, 1937)
Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures (Ray, 1799)
Revised Translation of the Old Testament (Cookesley, 1859)
Rheims-Challoner Version
Semitic New Testament (Trimm)
Short Bible, A (Farrer, 1956)
Taverner's Bible (Taverner, 1759)
Thomas Cromwell Version (1539)
Translation of the New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
Translator's New Testament (1975)
World English Bible

Some of these may be duplicated in the above list.

(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text

(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader

(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version

(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

lets not waste our time and dispute about the word rest because in exodus it says god had a rest and was refreshed but then our Christian brothers gave us an explanation that rest actually meant abstained,so on that basis we listened and took notice but what about the word, refreshed ,what i say is it perfectly fits with the word abstained,
'god abstained(from creating)and therefore was refreshed' no matter how hard the Christian tries there is no escaping that one! because the words used do not fit with allah's attributes,i dont need an explanation from a christian brother the proof is in the quran and in it,it says allah created the heavens and the earth and whatever is in between them and no fatigue took him over if you look at the quran it gives the right explanation of the creation stating that god never took rest,why would god say that in the quran more than 1000 years ago when the christian brothers apparently say it was translated but in the original hebrew the word rest was actually abstained if this was then the case why does the quran clarify and clear this up saying god had no rest some 1000 year before the translation took place it might be that when the quran was revealed the christians had this sort of thinking and mentality giving god human attributes or that allah knew(for he is the knower of all things) that this silly interpolation would take place and that these Christians would deviate from the path

[energy_22]

Quran 2:7
........and on their eyes is a veil; great is the penalty they incur.

So, Allah placed a veil over my eyes. And now he will punish me for not seeing!

Their similitude is that of a man who kindled a fire; when it lighted all around him, Allah took away their light and left them in utter darkness. So they could not see.

OK as Alllah took away the fire how do I get it back again? How do I beat Allah?

[energy_22]

If you can't contribute the whole bible to the actually man who is at the centre of the whole religion, how credible can that religion be.

The bible starts with Genisis. There is no Jesus in genisis.

How credible can the critisim be?
-

[coddles76]

I would like to also thank you also energy_22
You are more of a shining example than Grace seeker.
Thank you once again

[Grace Seeker]

lets not tire out our fingers because the bible has been translated so was the quran but in the quran in each and every translation the arabic text is there along side

Not in the Qur'an that sits on my shelf. And it wasn't a Qur'an that I purchased for myself. It was a gift from a Muslim who loves.

Perhaps you don't mean lterally, but figuratively. If that is the case, then the same is true for the Bible afterall, the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it is translated are there along side the Bible as well.

But as for the quality of the translations, well they vary greatly depending on the skill of those who provided them. it is with the Bible just as it is with the Qur'an:

There are several translations of the Koran into English, some of which are not recommended as they do not give an accurate rendering of the words of the Prophet. It is probably very difficult to give the exact translation of the original words, as of course is the case with other sacred books.

(source ReadingIslam.com)

The bible has many different versions one version has 7 more books than the other and some versions have had verses deleted from them

This I will agree is true. Of course the difference in our understanding of the nature of revelation which produced the Bible and the Qur'an account for why you would find this to be true with the Bible. It makes an intersting story (I didn't say convincing, just interesting) if you care to learn it. Though perhaps you know it already?

In islam there is only one book and only one version

Now this I find intersting. You don't consider the Hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) to be authoritative for the life and practice of Muslims?

So what book does the christian follow:

Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Pe****ta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Purver, 1764)
Analytical-Literal Translation, The (not yet published)
Aramaic Bible (Alexander, not yet published)
Bible, The (Barker, 1615)
Bible in Living English (Byington, 1972)
Bible Revised (Barham, 1850)
Bishop's Bible (1568)
Black Bible Chronicles (McCary, 1993)
Book of the New Covenant (Penn, 1836)
Christian Community Bible (Grogan, 1995)
Christian's Bible (Lefevre, 1928)
Clementine Edition (1790)
Commonly Received Version of the New Testament (Cone, 1850)
Complutensian Bible
Cotton Patch New Testament (Jordan, 1970)
Cranmer Version
David Macrae Translation (Macrae, 1799)
Dramatized Bible (Perry, 1989)
English Translation of the Bible (Mace, 1729)
Family Expositor (Dodderidge, 1755)
Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed (Whiting, 1849)
Great Bible (Grafton and Whitchurch)
Hebrew Name Bible
Holy Bible (Bellamy, 1818)
Holy Bible (Conquest, 1841)
Holy Bible (Forshall, 1850)
Holy Bible (Fry, 1812)
Holy Bible (Geddes, 1797)
Holy Bible (Madden, 1850)
Holy Bible (Sharpe, 1892)
Holy Bible (Julia Smith, 1876)
Holy Bible (Thomson)
Holy Bible (Wordsworth, 1885)
Holy Bible: An Improved Edition (American Bible Union, 1912)
Holy Bible Containing the Old and the New Testaments (Sawyer, 1862)
Holy Bible with Amendments (Webster, 1833)
Holy Scriptures (Leeser, 1855)
Holy Scriptures (Wellbeloved, 1859)
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (George Richter Berry)
Jewish Bible (Kaplan)
Jewish School and Family Bible (Benisch, 1861)
Liberal Translation of the New Testament (Harwood)
Matthew's Bible
Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament (Whiston, 1745)
Modern Bible Version (Pratt / American Bible Society, 1893)
Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible (McGraw-Hill, 1962)
New and Corrected Version of the New Testament (****inson, 1833)
New Dispensation: The New Testament (Weekes, 1897)
New Family Bible (Boothroyd, 1833)
New International Reader's Version (1995)
New Literal Translation (MacKnight, 1795)
New Testament (Belsham, 1809)
New Testament (Bowes, 1870)
New Testament (Brotherhood Authentic Bible Society)
New Testament (Campbell, 1826)
New Testament (Clementson, 1938)
New Testament (Cunnington)
New Testament (Greber, 1937)
New Testament (Haweis, 1795)
New Testament (Highton, 1862)
New Testament (Hollybushe, 1538)
New Testament (Jefferson, 1820)
New Testament (Joye)
New Testament (Kneeland, 1822)
New Testament (Morgan, 1848)
New Testament (Murdock, 1851)
New Testament (Panin / Bible Numerics, 1914)
New Testament (Richter, 1877)
New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
New Testament (Sharpe, 1856)
New Testament (Simon, 1730)
New Testament (Thorn, 1861)
New Testament (Wakefield, 1791)
New Testament (W. Williams, 1812)
New Testament (Wynne, 1764)
New Testament in an Improved Version (1808)
New Testament of Our Messiah and Saviour Yashua (Traina, 1950)
New Testament or New Covenant (Worsley, 1770)
New Translation (Archbishop Newcome)
New Version of All the Books of the New Testament (Batly and Chandler, 1726)
Newe Testament of Our Saviour Jesu Christe (Jugge, 1552)
Numberical Bible (Grant)
Old and New Testaments (J. Clarke and Co., 1899)
Old Covenant, The (Thompson, 1808)
Old Testament Scriptures (Spurrell, 1885)
Poetic Bible, The (Gray, 1973)
Pulpit Bible, The (Parker, 1937)
Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures (Ray, 1799)
Revised Translation of the Old Testament (Cookesley, 1859)
Rheims-Challoner Version
Semitic New Testament (Trimm)
Short Bible, A (Farrer, 1956)
Taverner's Bible (Taverner, 1759)
Thomas Cromwell Version (1539)
Translation of the New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
Translator's New Testament (1975)
World English Bible

Some of these may be duplicated in the above list.

(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text

(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader

(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version

(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible

And how many different translations of the Qur'an are there? I know it has been translated into 65 different langauges and I have seen at least 15 different forms of it in English with my own eyes. Which one of them is non-Arabic speaking Muslim to use?


As for which Bible the Christian will choose, the answer is going to vary from one individual to the next.

You begin with asking yourself what language to do you understand well enough to study in. Do Muslims who do not understand Arabic read the Qur'an in the original Arabic? How foolish that would be. Similarly Christians read from a Bible in their own language. And then you decide if you would be better served by a dynamic translation or a more literal translation. The translators of the Qur'an make these same decisions when translating the Qur'an into the many various languages it is translated into. Then you may decide that you want just plain text, or one with additional commentary and explanatory notes. I have noticed in the mosques I have attended that these same aids are available for those who wish to study the Qur'an. So, you see, for all of you complaining about our multiple translation, Muslims have done the same thing with the Qur'an that they criticize Christians for with regard to the Bible. It shows me that those Muslism who level such critiques simply don't understand the process of translation either for the Bible or even their own sacred texts.


But here are what some Muslims say with regard to selecting a translation:

Generally speaking, translations of anything can be problematic. While translating any text, whether it is an academic text, a poem, or even a newspaper article, the translator must walk a fine line between accurately transferring the meaning of the original text, and avoiding any input of his or her own as much as possible.


With all the differences between translations, the true answer to your question about which one conveys the "spirit" of the Qur'an best would be: all of them … and none of them.

I'm not trying to be "smart" with that statement. I, and indeed many of my friends and colleagues, have been dealing with translations of the meanings of the Qur'an for several years now and we all believe that there is no one translation that is "the best."

Sometimes we prefer a specific translation over another for certain verses and not others, for example. Sometimes we prefer a certain style of [one] translator, but prefer the accuracy of another translator.

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. This person understands the value and the failings of translations. And the same concerns that apply to translating the Qur'an are those that one needs to take into consideration with regard to the Bible as well (or with any translation, especailly of sacred texts).

lets not waste our time and dispute about the word rest because in exodus it says god had a rest and was refreshed but then our Christian brothers gave us an explanation that rest actually meant abstained,so on that basis we listened and took notice but what about the word, refreshed ,what i say is it perfectly fits with the word abstained,
'god abstained(from creating)and therefore was refreshed' no matter how hard the Christian tries there is no escaping that one!

You have to read it in context. Words have multiple meanings and they frequently change from one usage to the next.

because the words used do not fit with allah's attributes,i dont need an explanation from a christian brother the proof is in the quran and in it,it says allah created the heavens and the earth and whatever is in between them and no fatigue took him over if you look at the quran it gives the right explanation of the creation stating that god never took rest,why would god say that in the quran more than 1000 years ago when the christian brothers apparently say it was translated but in the original hebrew the word rest was actually abstained if this was then the case why does the quran clarify and clear this up saying god had no rest some 1000 year before the translation took place it might be that when the quran was revealed the christians had this sort of thinking and mentality giving god human attributes or that allah knew(for he is the knower of all things) that this silly interpolation would take place and that these Christians would deviate from the path

You lost me. But I will agree that God as presented in the Qur'an has some attributes that are different from God as presented in the Bible. You may assert that the Qur'an got it correct. I happen to assert that the Bible did. On that we can agree to disagree.

But when you start telling me that the Bible says someething about God that it really doesn't, then you do indeed need to be corrected. Believe what you want about God. But don't tell me that the Bible says this or that when in fact it says something quite different. And again, for the record, the Bible does NOT present a God who needs a nap or gets fatigue. You are misreading those passages, if that is your understanding of what the Bible says. You simply don't understand it very well and should quit trying to represent what it says to others until you actually understand its message yourself.

[AvarAllahNoor]

Gospel of St Thomas says it all really. The True Spoken words of Jesus.

[Cabdullahi]

Not in the Qur'an that sits on my shelf. And it wasn't a Qur'an that I purchased for myself. It was a gift from a Muslim who loves.

Perhaps you don't mean lterally, but figuratively. If that is the case, then the same is true for the Bible afterall, the Greek and Hebrew texts from which it is translated are there along side the Bible as well.

But as for the quality of the translations, well they vary greatly depending on the skill of those who provided them. it is with the Bible just as it is with the Qur'an:


This I will agree is true. Of course the difference in our understanding of the nature of revelation which produced the Bible and the Qur'an account for why you would find this to be true with the Bible. It makes an intersting story (I didn't say convincing, just interesting) if you care to learn it. Though perhaps you know it already?


Now this I find intersting. You don't consider the Hadith of the Prophet (PBUH) to be authoritative for the life and practice of Muslims?





And how many different translations of the Qur'an are there? I know it has been translated into 65 different langauges and I have seen at least 15 different forms of it in English with my own eyes. Which one of them is non-Arabic speaking Muslim to use?


As for which Bible the Christian will choose, the answer is going to vary from one individual to the next.

You begin with asking yourself what language to do you understand well enough to study in. Do Muslims who do not understand Arabic read the Qur'an in the original Arabic? How foolish that would be. Similarly Christians read from a Bible in their own language. And then you decide if you would be better served by a dynamic translation or a more literal translation. The translators of the Qur'an make these same decisions when translating the Qur'an into the many various languages it is translated into. Then you may decide that you want just plain text, or one with additional commentary and explanatory notes. I have noticed in the mosques I have attended that these same aids are available for those who wish to study the Qur'an. So, you see, for all of you complaining about our multiple translation, Muslims have done the same thing with the Qur'an that they criticize Christians for with regard to the Bible. It shows me that those Muslism who level such critiques simply don't understand the process of translation either for the Bible or even their own sacred texts.


But here are what some Muslims say with regard to selecting a translation:

I agree wholeheartedly with the above. This person understands the value and the failings of translations. And the same concerns that apply to translating the Qur'an are those that one needs to take into consideration with regard to the Bible as well (or with any translation, especailly of sacred texts).





You have to read it in context. Words have multiple meanings and they frequently change from one usage to the next.





You lost me. But I will agree that God as presented in the Qur'an has some attributes that are different from God as presented in the Bible. You may assert that the Qur'an got it correct. I happen to assert that the Bible did. On that we can agree to disagree.

But when you start telling me that the Bible says someething about God that it really doesn't, then you do indeed need to be corrected. Believe what you want about God. But don't tell me that the Bible says this or that when in fact it says something quite different. And again, for the record, the Bible does NOT present a God who needs a nap or gets fatigue. You are misreading those passages, if that is your understanding of what the Bible says. You simply don't understand it very well and should quit trying to represent what it says to others until you actually understand its message yourself.

Some people use alot of vocabulary and big words but they have substandard intellects and some who are clever do not have a variety of vocabulary at their disposal
You are saying i didnt understand but you are the very same brother that told in one of the first posts that 'rest' was a blessing,then you told me after you had done some research that it was actually abstained from the word shavat,ok that we accepted from you,but then you compared the quran with the bible and said the incorrect translations are similar but in the quran they do not add they only translate and the outcome can only be either its a good translation or its fairly weak but the bible is the opposite it has had alot of interpolation,instead of translating the greek or the hebrew they have added other things into it and thats why the quran is there,the bible says god rested (whether it was a the english translation or not)the quran still says no! he never had rest,in the bible it says the holy spirit came on to marry(earthly words used :rollseyes) but the quran says the opposite when allah wills a matter he says be and it is.

what the quran says:
This Koran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book

Brother the message was the same in judaism,christianity and islam believe in one god and his messenger not the father,the son and the little helper that came onto marry no! only one god

Hope the best for my christian brother :w:
Peace out:thumbs_up

[Grace Seeker]

Some people use alot of vocabulary and big words but they have substandard intellects and some who are clever do not have a variety of vocabulary at their disposal

These words are very true.

You are saying i didnt understand but you are the very same brother that told in one of the first posts that 'rest' was a blessing,then you told me after you had done some research that it was actually abstained from the word shavat,ok that we accepted from you,

Right on both counts. The act of God abstaining becomes a model for humans to take Shavat as well. Perhaps you would recognize the word in one of its more common forms -- Shabbot or Sabbath. This is indeed a gift from God to human kind that they are to take Sabbath, abstain from work and rest one day a week because God himself rested (i.e. abstained from working) at the end of creation. And now, all of creation lives in that blessed rest that God gives.

but then you compared the quran with the bible and said the incorrect translations are similar

I said the process of translation is similar, not the translations themselves.

but in the quran they do not add they only translate and the outcome can only be either its a good translation or its fairly weak but the bible is the opposite it has had alot of interpolation,instead of translating the greek or the hebrew they have added other things into it

I disagree. I don't think that the process is significantly different between the two. Yes, there are those who in copying made glosses, and these need to be and have been purged when identified. But the introduction of these glosses is not part of the translation process, they are a result of not having Xerox machines. Mistakes in copying were made with the Qur'an as well. And when these were discovered I understand those copies were burned. Of course, if all you had was a set of copies, someone had to determine which was the copy that was the true copy of the original and which was the copy that was flawed. Imagine if that person was himself in error, then you would have been making perfect copies of something that was actually a mistake. Before you get upset at my suggestion, consider this hadith:

Umar bin Al-Khattab said, "I heard Hisham bin Al-Hakim reciting Surat-al-Furqan during the lifetime of Allah's Apostle (SAW). I listened to his recitation and noticed that he recited it in several different ways which Allah's Apostle (SAW) had not taught me. So I was about to jump over him during his prayer but I waited till he finished his prayer whereupon I put, either his upper garment or my upper garment, around his neck and seized him by it and asked him, "Who has taught you this Sura?" He replied, "Allah's Apostle (SAW) has taught it to me." I said (to him), "You have told a lie! By Allah, Allah's Apostle (SAW) has taught me this Sura which I have heard you reciting." So I dragged him, to Allah's Apostle (SAW), I said, "O Allah's Apostle! I have heard this man reciting Surat-al-Furqan in a way which you have not taught me, and you did teach me Surat-al-Furqan." On that Allah's Apostle (SAW) said, "O Umar, release him! Recite, O Hisham." So Hisham recited before him in the way as I had heard him reciting. Allah's Apostle (SAW) said, "It has been revealed like this." Then Allah's Apostle (SAW) said, "Recite O Umar." So I recited it. The Prophet (SAW) said, "It has been revealed like this." And then he added, "This Quran has been revealed to be recited in seven different ways, so recite it which ever way easier for you." (See Hadith No. 514 Vol. 6)

And you know well the story how it is that there were originally seven arhuf in which the Prophet received the Qu'ran, and now the only recognized version of it is the harf of Quraysh. But that does not make the other 6 wrong. Or does it? If it does, then Muhammad allowed the Ummah to use versions of the Qur'an that were flawed. I don't think so. What I do think is that there is (or at least at one time was) actually more than one acceptable version of the Qur'an.

and thats why the quran is there,the bible says god rested (whether it was a the english translation or not)the quran still says no! he never had rest,in the bible it says the holy spirit came on to marry(earthly words used :rollseyes) but the quran says the opposite when allah wills a matter he says be and it is.

what the quran says:
This Koran is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book

Brother the message was the same in judaism,christianity and islam believe in one god and his messenger not the father,the son and the little helper that came onto marry no! only one god

Hope the best for my christian brother :w:
Peace out:thumbs_up

Where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirit came on earth to marry? I don't think so. I suspect that this is another misinterpretation of what the Bible was actually saying.

What the Qur'an says with regard to Allah's attributes is interesting when one is studying Islam. But when one is trying to determine what the Bible has to say about God, what the Qur'an says is completely irrelevant. I think you need to give that part of your argument a rest. (Play on words definitely intended.)

[Sami234]

Ok guys.

Let's speak clearly about the NT :

1-Jesus was speaking Hebrew and Aramean, as far as we can know.

Can you proove me that the textes writtent in Greek are a correct translation?

No you can't.

2-Please, read the book untilted "Misquoting Jesus".

The New Testament is clearly a human book, written by diffrent people for different purpose. Just an human book.

[Sami234]

You also said :

And you know well the story how it is that there were originally seven arhuf in which the Prophet received the Qu'ran, and now the only recognized version of it is the harf of Quraysh. But that does not make the other 6 wrong. Or does it? If it does, then Muhammad allowed the Ummah to use versions of the Qur'an that were flawed. I don't think so. What I do think is that there is (or at least at one time was) actually more than one acceptable version of the Qur'an.

Try to speak only about things you understand.

I really like seeing Christians speaking about "version of the Qur'an". This is completely laughable.

[Keltoi]

Ok guys.

Let's speak clearly about the NT :

1-Jesus was speaking Hebrew and Aramean, as far as we can know.

Can you proove me that the textes writtent in Greek are a correct translation?

No you can't.

2-Please, read the book untilted "Misquoting Jesus".

The New Testament is clearly a human book, written by diffrent people for different purpose. Just an human book.

It is more than likely that Jesus at the very least had a rudimentary understanding of Greek, if not completely fluent. Many Jews spoke and wrote in Greek during this period, especially traders and others involved in commerce and scholarly work. The Gospel writers knew what they were stating in Greek. One could suggest they misquoted Christ, which I of course do not believe, but it wouldn't be due to any language barrier.

As for the New Testament being a "human book", which is a strange phrase, but in any event...it was never claimed to be a book written by God. It is an account of a divine event, meaning the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

[fantaxxy_moon]

thank you