Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.
Keltoi
As for the Bible with 7 OT books added, you are referring to the Catholic Bible. It does indeed have 7 books the Protestant Bibles do not. Why? That is a long standing source of disagreement. Protestant do not feel the " deuterocanon", or "apocrypha" are inspired books, but Catholics do. You are right on that score. However, adding or subtracting the apocrypha does not alter Christian doctrine. So the disagreement is not over doctrine.
It is not a matter of
who feels which books are inspired and which are not, we are talking about
WHICH BIBLE is really God’s word? And you simply can’t prove that because the original manuscripts are not available today.
I am not sure to which denomination of Christianity you are belongs to, but I am sure that you are sticking to
ONE BIBLE only and can’t use other Bibles because you know very well that they are
different/VERSIONS, as we will see later in this post.
As for the RSV of 1952 as compared to later versions, that is a case of different translations, as I stated. The difference between the Bibles are different translations of Hebrew words. There is no doctrinal difference.
Ok let us examine both Bibles, but before that I urge you to lay your hand on RSV (1971), and read the preface, and you will note that those scholars who
re re re revised the KJV said,
that the KJV has grave defects, and that these defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS…
I wonder how could these defects be so serious if there are no doctrinal differences and mistakes? Just imagine with me for a second, how Muslims would feel when hearing form Scholars
of the highest eminence,
backed by 50 cooperating denominations that the KJV of the Bible HAVE GRAVE DEFECTS?
Anyway, now let us examine those Bibles: (i.e. the twin RSV).
1- If you read RSV 1952, you will see that there is no mention of
BEGOTTEN son of God as it is found in KJV (John 3:16).
2- If you read the 1st epistle of John 5:7 of the same version (RSV 1952), there is no mention of
Trinity (i.e. that those three are ONE as mentioned in KJV).
3- Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51… please read them in RSV 1952 and you will see that
Mark 16 ends at verse no 8. which means that
the ascension of Jesus is not mention in that VERSION, and instead they replaced “
and was carried up into heaven” by a tiny letter ‘
a’ to ask the reader
if he wishes to look at the footnote where you can see those missing words, and I guess, any honest man would agree that
FOOTNOTES are not God’s words or even inspired by God.
4- Forgot to tell you that Christian scholars also have said that the RSV is the most accurate Bible, goes to the most ancient manuscripts (200 – 300 years after Jesus) bringing their Bible step closer to Islam by removing, God’s begotten son, Trinity, and sitting on God’s right hand/ascension.
5- All the above points and more were
RESTORED into “God’s word” in RSV 1971. Now which one really is God’s word? And what are the evidences?
As for the Jehova's Witnesses version of the Bible, let me ask you a question. If a group of people, with a figurehead, decided to take the Qu'ran and add words and change phrases to match their own ideology, would you consider their version to be valid?
They can’t change the Qur’an, it is written on the hearts of Muslims, that is how Allah preserve it. On the other hand, neither you nor Jehovah’s Witnesses can tell us which version of the Bible is really God’s words because again and again,
the original do not exist today, and these are NOT MY WORDS, it’s the words of Bible Christian Scholars.
The Jehova's Witnesses "Bible" is nothing more than a standard translation of the Bible with their own words added to it. It isn't a case of a different version of the Bible that have always been around, it was a Bible altered in the 19th century. Not really a valid criticism of the Bible mainstream traditional Christianity uses.
Again, because you are NOT a Jehovah’s Witness, it is just normal to speak against their own version of the Bible, which is believed
BY THEM to be the accurate word of God. How can anyone prove that they’ve added into the
original Bible, if we don’t have the original at all???
Salam
Serving Islam.