The Bible -- What is it?

[Grace Seeker]

That was the title of a thread on a Christian forum I frequent. There were a number of interesting answers posted. But there was one that I found I really liked after I read it.

It wasn't the more technical answer that I had chosen to give, but I think it captured the essence of how Christians feel about the Bible better than any of the rest of us did.

To me, it's 2 different things.

First, it's a love letter from God to the world. It's the writers telling us "this is how much God loves you, this is why he loves you, & this is why he'll never stop loving you."

Second, it's man's religious interpretation of historical events, how he explained (or believed God explained to him) what had happened & was happening around him.

Third, it's what Schnerples described in the first reply: a very long book that gathers dust in most homes, but is well-worn & beloved in others.

Comments? Questions? Reflections?

[Grace Seeker]

And here's an idea. Let's try to write in the affirmative.

In other words, Christians should not try to compare the Bible and the Qur'an in ways in which puts the Qur'an down, and vice versa. It's possible to have opposing views without resorting to put downs and being negative. Say what it is, not what it is not.

['Abd-al Latif]

If this is a love letter then what's the concept of Hell all about and according to this I understand a corrupted and rebelious evil doer the same as a righteous saint - because this is how much god loves you?

Walaahu la yahiboo zalimeen (And Allah does not love the evil doers)

[GreyKode]

Do the Jews believe that the OT(tanakh) is the literal word of God, or the inspired word of God, or a religious interpretation of historical events?

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

[Grace Seeker]

If this is a love letter then what's the concept of Hell all about and according to this I understand a corrupted and rebelious evil doer the same as a righteous saint - because this is how much god loves you?

Walaahu la yahiboo zalimeen (And Allah does not love the evil doers)

I would say that the Bible tries to warn people who are living lives outside of God about hell so that they would return and submit to him rather ending up spending eternity apart from him. I think that type of warning is a way of showing love.

Do the Jews believe that the OT(tanakh) is the literal word of God, or the inspired word of God, or a religious interpretation of historical events?

Some do. Some don't.

['Abd-al Latif]

Then god isn't all love if there is a hell, because if one is thrown into Hell fire then he is obviously unloved by god and i'm sure you agree that he will abide in Hell fire forever.

[Grace Seeker]

Then god isn't all love if there is a hell, because if one is thrown into Hell fire then he is obviously unloved by god and i'm sure you agree that he will abide in Hell fire forever.

That doesn't mean that the Bible couldn't be a love letter. My momma loved me, but would punish me if I walked across the street without permission.

However, this thread isn't about the nature of God, but what you understand the Bible to be. Maybe you think it is the product of some fancy religious imaginations? Or a book composed by humans about God? Or God's divine word that was for a certain group of people at a time now in the past? But I think we should take questions about the nature of God elsewhere if you want to continue discussing that issue.

[mkh4JC]

Well, I've heard this used before in describing the Bible. The Bible=Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth

[Follower]

Abd-al Latif - There has to be a place for the soul of those that do evil, do not repent and haven't had their debts of sin paid. Is it that GOD is mean or is it that He is so holy that it can't be the way humans think it should be for Him to be loving?

back on topic:

The Holy Bible, the inspired WORD of GOD is- In the Old Testament the history of man's relationship with GOD, how we really messed things up and how we need Jesus. The New Testament shows us how to get right with GOD.

[malayloveislam]

Peace,

NT and OT are for Christians, OT is only for Jews. Both OT and NT are in a book called Bible :statisfie.

[جوري]

I'd say it is indeed Man's personal interpretation as you have quoted in the first post, but would add that it isn't historically accurate at that.
should indeed be valued as one values Chaucer's, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Whitman etc.

[coddles76]

Its a largely Human written text which is based on stories and historical events and mostly rewritten for political and power driven gains which has a very small portion of Jesus's true teachings.

[Woodrow]

At first I thought I had an easy answer, but reflecting on my past I see the Bible has held many meanings for me in my lifetime, depending at what stage of my life I was in.

But, having been raised as a Catholic and venturing from Catholicism into Fundamentalism (Baptist, Church of Christ, Assembly of God etc) it has been many diferent things, a complex book that can only be understood after years of study, a message of love, a Holy Revelation necessary for salvation, a religion in itself.

Today I see it as a guide book that lead me from nothing to finding God(swt) and from there to the Qur'an and acceptance of Islam. I owe much to my early interest in the bible as I now feel it was an essential part of my finding Islam.

Often I tell people I found Islam through Jesus(as)

[coddles76]

Today I see it as a guide book that lead me from nothing to finding God(swt) and from there to the Qur'an and acceptance of Islam. I owe much to my early interest in the bible as I now feel it was an essential part of my finding Islam.
Often I tell people I found Islam through Jesus(as)

Excellent response and today I find it to be a written text that strengthens my faith in islam.

[Hafswa]

The Bible is as written in 2nd Timothy 3:16" All scripture [is] given by inspiration
of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness."

It is the inspired word of God. He communicated His nature and attributes.
The Bible is for Doctrine- it is the Holy book for Christians all over the world. Reproof,correction, instruction and righteousness. It always bears a word that will apply to your situation, you get rebuked (reproof) if you are on the wrong path just like a parent scolds a wayward child. Correction, getting you back on track after we have gone our way and hoped that it will fit into God's plan for us. it reminds you of His mercy and Kindness. Instruction, a manual on what to expect in this life and how to handle it. If you are mourning, joy comes in the morning, if you are brokenhearted it reminds us that A broken a nd contrite spirit God can never despise etc
Lastly for righteousness: Upright,Honest, Moral, Just- all the qualities required from a christian if only they follow the teachings and live a life worthy of this calling.

[Follower]

GOD revealed thoughts to men who recorded them in their own language. GOD used 40 men to pen the Holy Bible over 1400 years to record the Word of GOD.

The Holy Bible -who we believe to have written it down-

Genesis Moses ? - 1445 B.C.
Exodus Moses 1445 - 1405 B.C.
Leviticus Moses 1405 B.C.
Numbers Moses 1444 - 1405 B.C.
Deuteronomy Moses 1405 B.C.
Joshua Joshua 1404-1390 B.C.
Judges Samuel 1374-1129 B.C.
Ruth Samuel 1150? B.C.
First Samuel Samuel 1043-1011 B.C.
Second Samuel Ezra? 1011-1004 B.C.
First Kings Jeremiah? 971-852 B.C.
Second Kings Jeremiah? 852-587 B.C.
First Chronicles Ezra? 450 - 425 B.C.
Second Chronicles Ezra? 450 - 425 B.C.
Ezra Ezra 538-520 B.C.
Nehemiah Nehemiah 445 - 425 B.C.
Esther Mordecai? 465 B.C.
Job Job? ??
Psalms David 1000? B.C.
Sons of Korah wrote Psalms 42, 44-49, 84-85, 87; Asaph wrote Psalms 50, 73-83; Heman wrote Psalm 88; Ethan wrote Psalm 89; Hezekiah wrote Psalms 120-123, 128-130, 132, 134-136;
Solomon wrote Psalms 72, 127.
Proverbs Solomon wrote 1-29
Agur wrote 30
Lemuel wrote 31 950 - 700 B.C.
Ecclesiastes Solomon 935 B.C.
Song of Solomon Solomon 965 B.C.
Isaiah Isaiah 740 - 680 B.C.
Jeremiah Jeremiah 627 - 585 B.C.
Lamentations Jeremiah 586 B.C.
Ezekiel Ezekiel 593-560 B.C.
Daniel Daniel 605-536 B.C.
Hosea Hosea 710 B.C.
Joel Joel 835 B.C.
Amos Amos 755 B.C.
Obadiah Obadiah 840 or 586 B.C.
Jonah Jonah 760 B.C.
Micah Micah 700 B.C.
Nahum Nahum 663 - 612 B.C.
Habakkuk Habakkuk 607 B.C.
Zephaniah Zephaniah 625 B.C.
Haggai Haggai 520 B.C.
Zechariah Zechariah 520 - 518 B.C.
Malachi Malachi 450 - 600 B.C.

New Testament

Matthew Matthew 60's
Mark John Mark late 50's
early 60's
Luke Luke 60
John John late 80's
early 90's
Acts Luke 61
Romans Paul 55
1 Corinthians Paul 54
2 Corinthians Paul 55
Galatians Paul 49
Ephesians Paul 60
Philippians Paul 61
Colossians Paul 60
1 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
2 Thessalonians Paul 50 - 51
1 Timothy Paul 62
2 Timothy Paul 63
Titus Paul 62
Philemon Paul 60
Hebrews (Paul, Apollos, Barnabas...?) 60's
James James, half brother of Jesus 40's or 50's
1 Peter Peter 63
2 Peter Peter 63 - 64
1 John John late 80's
early 90's
2 John John late 80's
early 90's
3 John John late 80's
early 90's
Jude Jude, half brother of Jesus 60's or 70's
Revelation John late 80's
early 90's

Although it is a book concerning the relationship between GOD and man - all scientific and historical facts are correct in terms of how people of long ago would understand them.

When did man learn about germs? Ashes from the red heifer contain lye which kills germs and hyssop contains antibacterial agents.
Numbers 19
17 "For the unclean person, put some ashes from the burned purification offering into a jar and pour fresh water over them. 18 Then a man who is ceremonially clean is to take some hyssop, dip it in the water and sprinkle the tent and all the furnishings and the people who were there. He must also sprinkle anyone who has touched a human bone or a grave or someone who has been killed or someone who has died a natural death

Wait to circumcise until the 8th day when there is Vitamin K and prothrombin present in the blood. When did man learn this?
Genesis 17
12 For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring.

When did people know that unavailable energy was increasing? Around 1850.
Psalm 102
25 In the beginning you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
26 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
Like clothing you will change them
and they will be discarded.
Romans 8
21that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.

[Follower]

The people of the time believed many strange things about how the earth was held up on the backs of animals, etc. When did people learn about the earth’s atmosphere?
Job 26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Isaiah 40
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

[Muhaba]

The bible is like a jungle. you can't find your way through it. who here has read the bible (all of it)?

[GreyKode]

About the bible being a love letter, I've heard a lot of christians emphasizing that God is a god of love, and loves everybody unconditionally.
But then they argue about how his holiness requires a payment for every single sin, and that's why there is punishment.
Now my question is, how can a holy god love a sinning person who insists on sinning?

[Woodrow]

The bible is like a jungle. you can't find your way through it. who here has read the bible (all of it)?

:sl:

I have. I believe you will find that many if not most of us reverts were quite religious when we were Christians and read the bible frequently and completely.

[SistaSista]

My belief on the Bible as we know it, in this day and age, contains parts of the gospel and the torah, which have been corrupted by mankind (how many editions are there?), resulting in it not being a true and pure reflection of the word of God, and it leads to polythesism, ie thinking Jesus (pbuh) is the Son of God, and generally straying from the straight path.

This is why God, sent down the Noble Qur'an, which has been memorised, in original language, word for word by so many people, so that it can never be corrupted or forgotton. Even if all the copies disappeared.

Bible is not a true dipiction of what God wanted from us, so we were given the last chance for salvation by accepting Mohammad (saw) as the last prophet and believing in the Oneness of Allah (swt), ascribing no partners to Allah.

So I am thinking the bible is a folktale, pertaining to blasphemy :X

[Muhaba]

:

I have. I believe you will find that many if not most of us reverts were quite religious when we were Christians and read the bible frequently and completely.

oh really? and you didn't find it confusing? what were your feelings? did you feel that some parts couldn't be from God?

[Muhaba]

The people of the time believed many strange things about how the earth was held up on the backs of animals, etc. When did people learn about the earth’s atmosphere?
Job 26
7 He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.

Isaiah 40
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

It is true that some parts of the bible are from God, but not all of it is from God. people have corrupted it. Have you read all of the bible? what are your feelings about those parts that have contradictions or are confusing? what about the very bad words written about some of the Prophets (like Prophet Lot or Prophet Job?)

[Hafswa]

About the bible being a love letter, I've heard a lot of christians emphasizing that God is a god of love, and loves everybody unconditionally.
But then they argue about how his holiness requires a payment for every single sin, and that's why there is punishment.
Now my question is, how can a holy god love a sinning person who insists on sinning?

I beg to differ with you opinion of Christianity or it could be that you were misinformed. We are not required to pay for any sin we have committed. Christ paid it all for us.
That sacrifice is sufficient for us to receive pardon from God. This has also been used by others to say that Christians are therefore encouraged to sin because of this. No, we are required to live lives that demonstrate that we are reedeemed, pray, fast, read the Bible and apply these teachings to our day to day lives.
As humans, we do sin and fall astray and that's where God's mercy and grace are demonstrated ONLY if you repent and seek forgiveness .
You ask how can God love a person who sins and I ask, do you disown your or a child because he/she went against your instruction? Naturally, we would all try to steer them back to the right path(according to your beliefs and principles) .

[Grace Seeker]

About the bible being a love letter, I've heard a lot of christians emphasizing that God is a god of love, and loves everybody unconditionally.
But then they argue about how his holiness requires a payment for every single sin, and that's why there is punishment.
Now my question is, how can a holy god love a sinning person who insists on sinning?

GreyKode, there is a beautiful analogy posted on another thread that many Muslims find endearing, I share it with you here:

A BEAUTIFUL ANALOGY!

A man went to a barbershop to have his hair cut and his beard trimmed.
As the barber began to work, they began to have a good conversation.
They talked about so many things and various subjects. When they
eventually touched on the subject of God, the barber said: "I don't
believe that God exists."

"Why do you say that?" asked the customer.

"Well, you just have to go out in the street to realize that God
doesn't exist. Tell me, if God exists, would there be so many sick
people? Would there be abandoned children? If God existed, there would
be neither suffering nor pain. I can't imagine a loving God who would
allow all of these things."

The customer thought for a moment, but didn't respond because he
didn't want to start an argument.

The barber finished his job and the customer left the shop. Just after
he left the barbershop, he saw a man in the street with long, stringy,
dirty hair and an untrimmed beard. He looked dirty and unkempt.

The customer turned back and entered the barber shop again and he said
to the barber: "You know what? Barbers do not exist."

"How can you say that?" asked the surprised barber. "I am here, and I
am a barber. And I just worked on you!"

"No!" the customer exclaimed. "Barbers don't exist because if they
did, there would be no people with dirty long hair and untrimmed
beards, like that man outside."

"Ah, but barbers DO exist! " answered the barber. "What happens, is,
people do not come to me."

"Exactly!"- affirmed the customer. "That's the point! God, too, DOES
exist! What happens, is, people don't go to Him and do not look for
Him. That's why there's so much pain and suffering in the world."

Not only does God exist, but he is also both loving and holy. It is people who are not. But that doesn't keep God from himself being holy and loving them despite their unholiness. His love is not conditioned by our behavior any more than a mother's love is conditioned by her children always being good and obedient.

[glo]

The bible is like a jungle. you can't find your way through it. who here has read the bible (all of it)?

I have - several times.
I continue to read the Bible every day, and it continues to reveal new truths and insights to me ...

Salaam :)

[GreyKode]

I beg to differ with you opinion of Christianity or it could be that you were misinformed. We are not required to pay for any sin we have committed. Christ paid it all for us.
That sacrifice is sufficient for us to receive pardon from God. This has also been used by others to say that Christians are therefore encouraged to sin because of this. No, we are required to live lives that demonstrate that we are reedeemed, pray, fast, read the Bible and apply these teachings to our day to day lives.
As humans, we do sin and fall astray and that's where God's mercy and grace are demonstrated ONLY if you repent and seek forgiveness .
You ask how can God love a person who sins and I ask, do you disown your or a child because he/she went against your instruction? Naturally, we would all try to steer them back to the right path(according to your beliefs and principles) .

We are not required to pay for any sin we have committed. Christ paid it all for us.

Exactly. But why death of someone to take away sins, can't god just forgive.
The reason is, as I was told, is that in christianity the payment for every single sin is death, why?.. because God is holy, therefore to balance the equation someone must die and ofcourse the sacrifice must be big enough to take away all sins of humanity and thus the sacrifice must be no other than god/son of god etc.

do you disown your or a child because he/she went against your instruction?

I guess not, but would I ever send him to hell? I mean, in christianity you believe in hell, then how can GOD love the ones whom he sends to hell?

I can accept God being loving but not unconditionally.

In Islam we believe that we are not children of GOD, in the sense that as we can attain god's mercy and grace, we have to fulfill our responsibilities towards him or suffer the consequences.

[Hafswa]

Exactly. But why death of someone to take away sins, can't god just forgive.
The reason is, as I was told, is that in christianity the payment for every single sin is death, why?.. because God is holy, therefore to balance the equation someone must die and ofcourse the sacrifice must be big enough to take away all sins of humanity and thus the sacrifice must be no other than god/son of god etc.



I guess not, but would I ever send him to hell? I mean, in christianity you believe in hell, then how can GOD love the ones whom he sends to hell?

I can accept God being loving but not unconditionally.

In Islam we believe that we are not children of GOD, in the sense that as we can attain god's mercy and grace, we have to fulfill our responsibilities towards him or suffer the consequences.

The issues raised in your post have been debated in several previous threads.
To avoid derailing this thread, I'd be more than glad to clarify on these questions in a separate thread or on PM.

[Zico]

The Bible -- What is it?

The word "Bible" is derived from the Greek word biblia, meaning "books." The earliest sacred Judeo-Christian writings were set down separately, at different times, on scrolls of papyrus or vellum. When these independent elements were bound together, they were called "Bibles."

Source

You welcome! :D :p

[alcurad]

I'd say it is indeed Man's personal interpretation as you have quoted in the first post, but would add that it isn't historically accurate at that.
should indeed be valued as one values Chaucer's, Shakespeare, Wordsworth, Whitman etc.

second

[Grace Seeker]

But why death of someone to take away sins, can't god just forgive.
The reason is, as I was told, is that in christianity the payment for every single sin is death, why?.. because God is holy, therefore to balance the equation someone must die and ofcourse the sacrifice must be big enough to take away all sins of humanity and thus the sacrifice must be no other than god/son of god etc.

I wonder if the highlighted portion of what you were told you may not have quite understood. (Or maybe you do.) But as Hafswa has said, detailing this here would derail this thread. However, there are plenty of other threads in which a fuller discussion of such a topic would be appropriate. Please ask in one of then if you seek to better understand what it is that Christians believe regarding this. We'll be more than happy to do our best to explain there.

[Follower]

I have read all of the Holy Bible as a Book from GOD and as a high school student [public high school!] as a an example of exceptional literary work.

I have also been to read the Holy Bible for many Bible study classes.

Why would GOD allow part of the Gospel or Torah to become corrupt? Which part? When?

On another thread I was trying to show how there were actually false "gospels" written around the 2nd century, after the time of the original Gospel. Christians all know these were false it was obvous to the followers of the True Gospel.

The false "gospels" were written to further the cause of the heretical cults.

In fact GOD did protect the true Gospel.

[Woodrow]

I have read all of the Holy Bible as a Book from GOD and as a high school student [public high school!] as a an example of exceptional literary work.

I have also been to read the Holy Bible for many Bible study classes.

Why would GOD allow part of the Gospel or Torah to become corrupt? Which part? When?

On another thread I was trying to show how there were actually false "gospels" written around the 2nd century, after the time of the original Gospel. Christians all know these were false it was obvous to the followers of the True Gospel.

The false "gospels" were written to further the cause of the heretical cults.

In fact GOD did protect the true Gospel.

I have no doubt Allaah(swt) did protect the True Gospel, for as long as it was needed. It was for specific people at a specific time. After, serving it's purpose it was no longer needed. However, I believe books mistaken for the injeel came into being. It does seem that there are quotes from the Injeel in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. But, that is probably all that remains of the Injeel and we have no original to verify if even those are correctly quoted.

[Wyatt]

How is the Bible The Word of God if:

1. Christians pick and choose what they want to practice from it. (Head coverings, women speaking in church, etc...)

2. It's been translated and I have never seen anything in a Christian church with Hebrew, Greek, Aramaic, etc... to protect or even recognize any originality. (I have asked many Christians which language Jesus spoke, and I got blank stares, and even English as one response.)

3. It was written by different men, who are imperfect.

I would trust a book from God, such as the Qur'an, rather than a book written by men in the inspiration of God.

To Christians, it seems like they love it because they are told to. It does collect dust in many homes, doesn't it. And, in church (when I was young), it seemed like no one actually read the Bible, but chose random verses they thought were T-Shirt worthy.

If I were a Christian, I think I would put more emphasis on studying the Bible as a historical book from which to pull certain aspects of what/who God is, studying as closely as possible to get the "original" Bible. In no way would I call it The Holy Bible.

Do most Christians interpret it very literally, though?

I don't mean to offend anyone. I'm scared that I might, so I apologize in advance. I don't mean to negatively critisize the Bible like that, but it is my interpretation as to what it is (and I would not call myself an expert on it at all).

[Follower]

Podrak- - #1 -some follow some don't,Christians are just like every sinful man and their interpretations play a role; #3 -the only thing actually physically written by the finger of GOD were the 10 comandments

#2 -the originality of the Holy Bible:
Does the fact that there are over 5,000 known ancient Greek manuscript copies (MSS) and fragments of the New Testament in Greek surviving today make the Gospels any more reliable?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/...ter_friendly=1

"What that goes to prove is that the text of the New Testament that we have today is almost exactly the same as the text as it was originally written. Of the approximately 138,000 words in the New Testament only about 1,400 remain in doubt. The text of the New Testament is thus about 99.9% established. That means that when you pick up a (Greek) New Testament today, you can be confident that you are reading the text as it was originally written. Moreover, that .1% that remains uncertain has to do with trivial words on which nothing of importance hangs. This conclusion is important because it explodes the claims of Muslims, Mormons, and others that the text of the New Testament has been corrupted, so that we can no longer read the original text. It’s awe-inspiring to think that we can know with confidence that when we pick Paul’s letter to the church in Rome, for example, we are reading the very words he wrote almost 2,000 years ago."

[Grace Seeker]

I have no doubt Allaah(swt) did protect the True Gospel, for as long as it was needed. It was for specific people at a specific time. After, serving it's purpose it was no longer needed. However, I believe books mistaken for the injeel came into being. It does seem that there are quotes from the Injeel in Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. But, that is probably all that remains of the Injeel and we have no original to verify if even those are correctly quoted.

Woodrow, seems like quite a number of assumption you are making:

1) That Allah did protect the True Gospel.
2) That the True Gospel is no longer needed.
3) That other books replaced the True Gospel.

Just to name a few.

Outside of Islamic sources, what other basis would you have for any of these statements?

[Tony]

Woodrow, seems like quite a number of assumption you are making:

1) That Allah did protect the True Gospel.
2) That the True Gospel is no longer needed.
3) That other books replaced the True Gospel.

Just to name a few.

Outside of Islamic sources, what other basis would you have for any of these statements?

We have Glorious Qur'an, all above points...see Qur'an. Outside of Islamic sources are not worthy to discuss Allahs word, with respect.

[Grace Seeker]

If I were a Christian, I think I would put more emphasis on studying the Bible as a historical book from which to pull certain aspects of what/who God is, studying as closely as possible to get the "original" Bible. In no way would I call it The Holy Bible.

This is indeed the first step in any Bible study, and we do exactly what you have said. For most people however, we depend on scholars who have gone before us and are more capable of doing the research to produce an accurate text and translation of the Bible than the average person is to do this sort of research (called textual criticism -- see articles: An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, New Advent Encyclopedia article "Biblical Criticism", and TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism) Then, having established a considerably higher degree of confidence in the Bible than scholars of any other text as old as the Bible are able to establish, people are still free to read it for themselves and may, in fact history tells us often do, differ as to the meaning and significance of what they read there. I do not find this particular development of differences in understanding unique to the either the Bible or to Christianity, but common among all religious communities except those closed to outsiders and ruled by some totalitarian individual or oligarchy.

[Grace Seeker]

We have Glorious Qur'an, all above points...see Qur'an. Outside of Islamic sources are not worthy to discuss Allahs word, with respect.

I asked the question, because any individual can say "I have the truth and you don't." (I could, and often do, say that with regard to the Bible just as you have for the Qur'an.) However, in the spirit of tolerance and better understanding of where others are coming from I was hoping for a more thoughtful response that would not stoop to just calling one another and their sources unworthy.

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, seems like quite a number of assumption you are making:

1) That Allah did protect the True Gospel.
2) That the True Gospel is no longer needed.
3) That other books replaced the True Gospel.

Just to name a few.

Outside of Islamic sources, what other basis would you have for any of these statements?

Peace Gene,

My "Reader's Digest" condensed version before I got into one of my long winded speeches.

to simplify things and keep it short, you are correct my sources are Islamic.

[Follower]

In the 50's AD the Council of Jerusalem was called because there was an attempt by some to bring in a "new gospel" of legalism into the teaching, reguiring Gentiles to be circumsized in order to share the Eucharist with the Jewish circumsized. Read Acts 15.

After this council met gnostism started taking hold. There had already been Jewish gnostics. They believed that knowledge gives salvation, the flesh is evil and the spirit is pure. They also practiced hedonism and asceticism. They wrote false gospels in the 2nd-4th century promoting their ideas.

There were other false "gospels" written, one to promote the worship of Mary.

The false "gospels" were written too long after the time of Jesus, taught things that Jesus did not teach, and basically just don't stand up to the textual Biblical Criticism the way the true Gospels dd.

Did Mohammad know about these false "gospels"?

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

My "Reader's Digest" condensed version before I got into one of my long winded speeches.

to simplify things and keep it short, you are correct my sources are Islamic.

Well, on point #1 above

1) That Allah did protect the True Gospel.

you have much company among many Christians. The prevailing view with regard to the scriptures that you will find taught in many churches is that God would protect and preserve his scriptures from corruption of the basic message they contain, even if there are certain anominallies in the copying process. Thus the view is that whatever we have today, it is exactly what God wants us to have.

Of course you would disagree with them as to whether that has in fact happened and what is and is not "the True Gospel", but at least there is agreement that God/Allah is in control of preserving it, not humankind.

[alcurad]

no, I'd say mankind has a duty to preserve it, Allah presides over all things, but we still have to do the actions that lead to it's preservation, if no one wrote it or passed it down, would it still be preserved?

[Follower]

"no, I'd say mankind has a duty to preserve it, Allah presides over all things, but we still have to do the actions that lead to it's preservation, if no one wrote it or passed it down, would it still be preserved?"

I am sure that the disciples who walked with Jesus felt very responsible to pass on, record, save the message from GOD's WORD incarnate - Jesus.

They did protect the message with the help of the Holy Spirit.

[Grace Seeker]

no, I'd say mankind has a duty to preserve it, Allah presides over all things, but we still have to do the actions that lead to it's preservation, if no one wrote it or passed it down, would it still be preserved?

I agree that mankind has a responsibility with regard to passing on God's word, and to do so in a way that preserves its integrity. However, I don't think that we humans can corrupt something that God want's uncorrupted, even if we were to try. God is sovereign and in ultimate control of this world. Though he gives us freedom to cooperate or resist him, and even to make bad chocies that have impact on other peoples lives, I believe if God wants something to be a certain way, he has the ability to move in the hearts and minds of men to bring those things to pass. I especially believe that we will find this to be true with regard to the preservation of God's word.

So, the question is not about could he, but did he?

[Pygoscelis]

The bible is a collection of ancient texts or varying origins purposefully selected by a council of men. That is really all one can know for certain.

[Grace Seeker]

The bible is a collection of ancient texts or varying origins purposefully selected by a council of men. That is really all one can know for certain.

Which council are you referring to? And do you actually mean "selected", as in they choose the books? Or do you mean more like ratified what had come to be accepted?

[Follower]

Woodrow:I have no doubt Allaah(swt) did protect the True Gospel, for as long as it was needed

According to verse:
5:47
And the New Testament's/Bible's people should judge/rule with what God descended in it, and who does not judge/rule with what God descended, so those, they are the debauchers .

Was the Gospel needed in Mohammad's time?

[Clover]

The bible is a book. The End.

I personally, would rather read 1 page of the Tao Te Ching, then a chapter of the bible.

[Oleander]

First we should know which translation, and which book like (Mormon, catholic, JW, OT, Jewish, protestant...)

They all claim have translated thier books from the original copies which

doesn't exist!!

1 billion Catholic add 7 books to thiers, and the rest trash 7 books, and the Jews do not believe a word of the second half of the Bible, and disagree with the OT Christians translation!!

BTW, All claim the holy ghost inspired them to write and translate.

[malayloveislam]

I also had heard about fragments of Himyarite gospels from a Muslim Indonesian scholar. The gospel is in Southern Arabic found by an English man in Vatican Library, I guess around 18th C. I don't know whether it is translated into English or any other EU languages.

@Follower,

I think gospel is not needed by Muslims in Muhammad time. Psalm, Torah, and Gospels are in Quran. They are all from the same Guarded Tablet in a Holiest Place somewhere only He knows.

But there are certain scholars who are well-versed in Torah like the old cousin of Khadeeja, our honorable prophet's wife. His name is Waraqa Ben Naufal Ben As'ab Ben 'Abdul 'Uzza. When prophet and his wife met him after the Hiraa' event, he's already very old and blind. Waraqa is not considered as a Jew because he believes in Muhammad prophethood through the sign from his scripture. He had also proclaimed loyalty to Muhammad, but he died not long after they met. The revelation stop a while for about three years.

Sorry, this is in Malay:

http://rindu-akan-surga.blogspot.com...m-bukhari.html

Also Abdullah Ben Salam, the Madinah Jewish Rabbi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdullah_ibn_Sailam

http://uiforum.uaeforum.org/showthread.php?t=1085

http://www.sacred-texts.com/isl/bukhari/bh4/bh4_549.htm

Also Buhaira, I know certain Christian scholars may say that the Quran had some portion from New Testament because of this hermit. He had nothing to do with Quran. Prophet Muhammad was only 13 when he and his uncle caravan stopped by at the church in their way to Syria before the hermit had invited the uncle of that boy to bring him inside as he had saw the white cloud covering over the boy. He wants to see other signs of prophethood as what had been stated in his scripture and he never speak to the prophet but to the boy's pagan uncle (we don't know about how many version of gospels used at that time, so we just talk about what we know). Like we believe, and Christians in the forum or elsewhere say, we just believe in the Gospel that is revealed to the prophet Jesus (pbuh) and it is not exist anymore now. The various versions of gospels used by present day Christians contains fragments of Jesus speech. We Muslims can't differentiate which one is the specific revelation of G-d to him and which one is his speech based from the revelation and also the epistles of the Church Fathers being included together as Holy Scripture.

This is the place of the event and the place is called Bosra:

Prophet Muhammad is already a Monotheist before Islam was revealed again. He is the follower of Abraham and Ismael and also their descendant. He never join his pagan people worshiping idols or celebrating any pagan celebrations. Muhammad was ordained a prophet and His messenger while he is meditating in the Hiraa Cave when he is 40 in 17th of Ramadhan or August 6th, 610 AD.

Hiraa cave where prophet Muhammad (pbuh) meditates according to the teaching of Abraham before he was ordained a prophet and a messenger of Islam:

I hope Saudi government could preserve the historical places but tightly guarding it from being the place of veneration by certain ignorant Muslims. We pity other people who wants to learn about Islamic History.

[Grace Seeker]

First we should know which translation, and which book like (Mormon, catholic, JW, OT, Jewish, protestant...)

They all claim have translated thier books from the original copies which

doesn't exist!!

Are you saying that there never was an original to begin with? Or, are you saying that the original no longer exists?

1 billion Catholic add 7 books to thiers, and the rest trash 7 books, and the Jews do not believe a word of the second half of the Bible, and disagree with the OT Christians translation!!

BTW, All claim the holy ghost inspired them to write and translate.

While all translators would pray for the Holy Spirit's help in the process of translation, only a very small percent of Christians would ever suggest that the work of translation is something that has been done through the protection of the Holy Spirit. We generally recognize that however perfect one might hold the text of the Bible to have been in its original forms that it is not so perfect when one is referring to the copied and translated versions that are available for us today.

[Grace Seeker]

I think gospel is not needed by Muslims in Muhammad time. Psalm, Torah, and Gospels are in Quran. They are all from the same Guarded Tablet in a Holiest Place somewhere only He knows.

Are you suggesting that Allah has produced a record of revelation for mankind that he at the same time keeps hidden from mankind?????

[malayloveislam]

Are you suggesting that Allah has produced a record of revelation for mankind that he at the same time keeps hidden from mankind?????

The Guarded Tablet is in the place only He knows, but we get to know about the revelation when it's revealed to His prophets and messengers. We have no idea about the Holy Place, so we only talk based from what we learn in our scripture as I don't want to bear the burden in the hereafter, it will return back to me as a responsibility when I exceed the limit :X.

As for Psalm, Torah, and Gospel are comprised in Quran, it is because it came from the same G-d and Quran is the final revelation that canceling all of the previous revelation because it is renewed for the near dooms day period.

We don't have the creed that Jesus and G-d is the same person or any honorable prophets are the same person with G-d so we only believing in the Gospels revealed to him but not the Church Fathers' gospels. Prophets are all special in our eyes but not equate to Him because they are human and also we differentiate the revelation and inspiration. Revelation is only from G-d, while inspiration may both come from G-d and from demon. Revelation was only revealed to prophets and not ordinary human-being. Only ordinary human-being is inspired.

This is a narration about inspiration but it is not a Hadith, rather than a historical account about an event between prophet's companions, who is Ibnu Abbas and another companion. Ibnu Abbas is the son of Abbas Ben Abdul Mutallib, the uncle of prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He is among the closest companion of the prophet too.

One of a prophet companion had met Ibnu Abbas and said, "O Ibnu Abbas, Abu Ishaq claimed that he was inspired yesterday. And Ibnu Abbas repiled, "is that because you are believing him that made you rushing here in hurry?" and the prophet companion said: "are you saying believe?" Ibnu Abbas continued: "there is two kind of inspirations, one is from G-d and the other is from demon. The inspiration to the prophet is revelation from G-d, but the inspiration to his followers is from demon. Ibnu Abbas then recited the holy verse:

Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans.

(the meaning of Surah al-An'am 6:121)

Demons are the ones who inspired people to debate with each other and refusing the Truth from the group who follow the straight path and shaking their creed and fidelity to G-d.

Eat not of (meats) on which Allah's name hath not been pronounced: That would be impiety. But the evil ones ever inspire their friends to contend with you if ye were to obey them, ye would indeed be Pagans.

(the meaning of Surah al-An'am 6:121)

Islam detest debating and arguments except those related to the calling to Islam as long as it is still consistent with the Islamic norms and not exceeding what had been stressed in the Quran and the prophet tradition.

Invite (all) to the Way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth best, who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance.

(the meaning of Surah an-Nahl 16:125)

Other arguments than stated as above are detested in Islam because most of them will bring bad implications.

[Follower]

Islam detest debating and arguments except those related to the calling to Islam as long as it is still consistent with the Islamic norms and not exceeding what had been stressed in the Quran and the prophet tradition.

Yes I have seen this- A Muslim is not to question anything in the Quran, some even guard hadith in such a way. It is not allowed that someone outside of Islam understand something different then what the Muslim, imam, tasfir says. I believe this is part of our misunderstanding.

Christians are to test are to test and question every scripture. Christians do and have tested the text of the Holy Bible through much criticism and textual alnalyzes. We have allowed the Holy Bible to be ripped apart- because we know it can withstand the test, it is from GOD.

1 Thessalonians 5
21Test everything. Hold on to the good.

We are to beware of false prophets- How do you know that a prophet is false? He must pass the test- his revelations must pass the test.

Matthew 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.

[malayloveislam]

Yes I have seen this- A Muslim is not to question anything in the Quran, some even guard hadith in such a way. It is not allowed that someone outside of Islam understand something different then what the Muslim, imam, tasfir says. I believe this is part of our misunderstanding.

Of course, we Muslims do not have to question the Quran. It is the Word of G-d cast to us through the tongue of the prophet, and we had already having our faith to previous revelation through Quran. We may think about Theology but it should not crossing the line of Quran and Sunnah (prophet tradition). If not, we are creating our own religion.

As you understand, we have the science of interpreting the Quranic verses. We have methods regarding the style of the language used in Quran and we can't simply take it as we desired, because we need to analyze it according to what He wants us to understand. We learned about why certain verses being revealed to the prophet, emaning of the words, and the moral of the verses.

This is different from the translation of KJV Bible in 16th C English. We still use the Quran that is in the language of our prophet as it is being revealed in it. Arabic is an ancient language just as ancient as other ancient languages, but since Arabs are not living in established environment, their language is not properly documented like after our prophet time.

As for Christians today, language is not important as the Bible is translated earlier into Greek and later to Latin. But for us, G-d had revealed the prophet in Arabic, and He had emphasized it Himself in the Revelation to the prophet. There are several verses about the revelation is in Arabic, that Muslims should take heed about it, one of them is as follows:

Thus have We sent this down - an arabic Qur'an - and explained therein in detail some of the warnings, in order that they may fear Allah, or that it may cause their remembrance (of Him).

(the meaning of Surah Tha-Ha 20:113)

Christians are to test are to test and question every scripture. Christians do and have tested the text of the Holy Bible through much criticism and textual alnalyzes. We have allowed the Holy Bible to be ripped apart- because we know it can withstand the test, it is from GOD.

Actually this had already happened since the time of our prophet lifetime. Not only Christians testing him, but also the Jews.

Like in these verses,

Say (O, Muhammad!): He is Allah, the One and Only 1 Allah, the Eternal, Absolute 2 He begetteth not, nor is He begotten 3 And there is none like unto Him 4

(the meaning of Surah al-Ikhlas 112:1-4)

The reason why the verses was revealed:

In a narration from Abu Syaikh from Aban with the source from Anas Ben Malek, it is reported that a group of Jews from Khaibar had met the messenger of G-d and said: "O father of Qasim! G-d had created the angels from the light of His Veil, Adam from the clay, Devil from the Fire rising up high, sky from the smoke/wasp, and earth from the bubbles of water. Now, explain to us about your G-d." Thus, these verses were revealed to the prophet as to answer their questions.

This is how Jews had also tested other previous prophets. The prophet Jesus (pbuh) too was tested with questions by the Jews. Some of the Jews had entered Arabian Peninsula and lived there after they heard the prophecy about the final prophet. They waited there from generations to generations and hoping that the prophet will be from among the children of Israel who live in Arabian Peninsula. However, they were disappointed due to that G-d did not fulfill their desire. They thought that they are Greatest than G-d to ask G-d to fulfill everything as they like as He is some kind of Genie of the Lamp. The final prophet had been pre-destined to be raised from the Children of Ishmael among the descendants of Kedar.

According to other narrations based from the source of Abdullah Ben Abbas Ben Hatim, among those Jews who asked the prophet about G-d in Islam is Ka'ab Ben Asyraf Ben Hayy Ben Akhtob. This is stated by Ibnu Jabir from the source that he got from Qatadah and Ibnu Mundzir from the earlier source of Said Ben Jubir.

Also in another narration, it is reported that this Surah al-Ikhlas was revealed due to the questions of the pagans about the nature of G-d. The main content of this Sura is to answer the questions of the people in denial (Jews or the Pagan Arabs of Mecca) about the nature of G-d.

This is also the source of our Creed as Muslims, believing in Allah the Holy G-d. Worships (enslavement) of ourselves only to Him.

Say (O, Muhammad!): He is Allah, the One and Only

The word (Say!) is in imperative mood. This is an order from Him, to Muhammad and the Muslims to answer to the others when they are questioned about the nature of G-d. To say that He is only One (Ahad/Ekhud), not divided into several persons or personality. He tells us that He has no associations with anyone, solely Him.

Allah, the Eternal, Absolute

Allah needs not his creatures. He is independent. Creatures are those who need Him. From where is our force? From where is our souls (including the soul of Moses, Jesus and Muhammad)? From where we've got our food? Every force, life, and blessing are coming from Him. we have this phrase that we recite whenever we face hardships and trials, "Indeed, that we belong to G-d, and to Him we will return."

Allah needs not His creatures to live. He is already there, because His life is not from others. He is since before the beginning, and will continue in existence forever. We are those who will not last long whether we deny it or not.

He begetteth not, nor is He begotten

Adam, the first human created without a father and a mother and was not born like ordinary human-being. But he experienced normal death. Human continue to exist in the earth through reproduction system. Human being born since Adam an Eve till today.

Allah is Independent (QiyamuHu Ta’ala bi nafsiHi). He is already exist without anyone creating Him and He is not begotten He never dies, and will never dies. Allah is Eternal. He doesn't have to have children or descendants to keep existence continue like human. Thus, anything that experienced death or destruction, are disqualified from being assumed r worshiped as G-d.

And there is none like unto Him.

There is no one who is equal to him. No one is the same like him. He is Unique. He has no parents that giving birth to Him and no one had created Him. He never goes to the market, nor need food to continue living. He never exhausted or sleeping. Allah always Live, never dies. The verse ordered us to: "Say to Me! Is there any substance like this other than Allah? Bear witness that you had chosen Allah as G-d. Bear witness that n One should be worshiped except Allah!

This is and example on how the Quranic verses being interpreted by Muslims. We checked everything including the words used, the structure of the verse, the mode, the tone, the reasons behind the revelation, conjunction to historical events, and etc. Every Muslim who wants to interprete the Quran must first being well versed with the Science of Quran which has various sub-branches and understanding the importance of Quraisy Arabic.

This is in Malay, for documentation

http://manhaj-salaf.net46.net/surat-...rnikan-tauhid/

[Grace Seeker]

As for Christians today, language is not important as the Bible is translated earlier into Greek and later to Latin.

I hope you are aware that while none of the Bible was originally written in Latin so that any Latin verision is a complete translation, that some parts of the Bible were actually composed in Greek when originally written down. Thus it is possible when dealing with a particular book of the Bible -- like say Paul's letters to the churches in Corinth, Philippi, or Thessalonica -- that it was actually originally written in Greek and is therefore not a translation out of any prior tongue.

[malayloveislam]

I hope you are aware that while none of the Bible was originally written in Latin so that any Latin verision is a complete translation, that some parts of the Bible were actually composed in Greek when originally written down. Thus it is possible when dealing with a particular book of the Bible -- like say Paul's letters to the churches in Corinth, Philippi, or Thessalonica -- that it was actually originally written in Greek and is therefore not a translation out of any prior tongue.

Oh yeah, the epistles are written in Greek and several languages too. What I mean there is the Gospel that comes out from the tongue of the honorable prophet, Jesus (pbuh) according to Islamic tradition :).

In what I can see, the epistles seem like the interpretation of the speeches from god Jesus. Is that correct in Christians view too? This is a question requiring Christians view :statisfie, thanks.

[Grace Seeker]

In what I can see, the epistles seem like the interpretation of the speeches from god Jesus. Is that correct in Christians view too? This is a question requiring Christians view :statisfie, thanks.

No. I don't think of the epistles as an interpretation of any of Jesus' speeches. I see most of them as instructions on how to put into practice daily Christian living in light of what they believe God has done for them in and through the work of Jesus.

[Follower]

malayloveislam
You are correct the language of message from GOD in the Holy Bible is not as important as the message. The message of the Holy Bible is available in every language spoken in the world. The beauty of the Holy Bible, it is for everyone to read and understand in their own language.

Hebrews 4
12For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-God-Word.html

"In what I can see, the epistles seem like the interpretation of the speeches from god Jesus. Is that correct in Christians view too? This is a question requiring Christians view , thanks"

2 Timothy 3
16All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,

The Epistles are also considered to be the inspired Word of GOD. GOD gave "thoughts" to Paul and he put those thoughts from GOD into his own words, language.

2 Peter 3
15Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him.

[Great I am not]

The Bible is Constantine's paid for tool for social manipulation and control.
It is basically a consolidation of all the older religios.

He basically bought Christianity for a few pounds of gold and military support to crush pagan resistance. He and the Orthodox Church he bought burnt unwanted scriptures and killed those that did not tow the new line.
Gnostic history seems to prove this as well as all the surviving scriptures that they could not burn. They also took a reasonable Jewish philosophy and corrupted it to suit their wants. A study of the old history of Satan shows this.

Just my view of course.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

And you are entitled to your view. But I am curious about one thing that you mention:

A study of the old history of Satan shows this.

Where does one find a copy of this "history of Satan" that you mention to study it?

[Great I am not]

And you are entitled to your view. But I am curious about one thing that you mention:
Where does one find a copy of this "history of Satan" that you mention to study it?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_sat2.htm

And

Prince of Darkness Is Misunderstood

He's not the enemy of God, his name really isn't Lucifer and he isn't even evil. And as far as leading Adam and Eve astray, that was a bad rap stemming from a case of mistaken identity. "There's little or no evidence in the Bible for most of the characteristics and deeds commonly attributed to Satan," insists a UCLA professor with four decades in what he describes as "the devil business." In "Satan: A Biography" (Cambridge Press), Henry Ansgar Kelly puts forth the most comprehensive case ever made for sympathy for the devil, arguing that the Bible actually provides a kinder, gentler version of the infamous antagonist than typically thought.

"A strict reading of the Bible shows Satan to be less like Darth Vader and more and more like an overzealous prosecutor," said Kelly, a UCLA professor emeritus of English and the former director of the university's Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies. "He's not so much the proud and angry figure who turns away from God as [he is] a Joseph McCarthy or J. Edgar Hoover. Satan's basic intention is to uncover wrongdoing and treachery, however overzealous and unscrupulous the means. But he's still part of God's administration."

The view runs in opposition to the beliefs held by many Christians and others about key religious concepts like original sin and the nature of good and evil. "If Satan isn't really in opposition to God and he isn't really evil, then that means the fight between good and evil isn't an authentic part of Christianity," Kelly said. "What I'm saying will be scandalous to some people." But what would you expect of someone's whose 72nd birthday fell this year on June 6 (06-06-06) and who felt disappointed when nothing momentous occurred that day? Actually, Kelly is no stranger to bubble-bursting. After digging deep into the history of Valentine's Day, he pronounced 20 years ago that he had not only uncovered the holiday's origins but that it should be celebrated in May, not February.

Still, if Kelly could be considered scandalous, it's not because he doesn't know any better. Kelly started his academic career at a Jesuit seminary and was ordained in four of the seven holy orders on the way to the priesthood, including the order of exorcist. "It was at that time that I started my campaign to rehabilitate the devil - to deliver him from evil, as it were," Kelly said. "Satan: A Biography" is the culmination of more than 40 years of research into the devil and religious and cultural traditions that have grown up around him. The book is Kelly's third on the topic.

When it comes to the Old Testament, Kelly insists that Satan's profile is considerably lower than commonly thought and significantly less menacing. By Kelly's count, Satan only appears three times in the 45 books that make up the pre-Christian scriptures, the best known being in the Book of Job. On each occasion, Satan is still firmly part of what Kelly calls "God's administration," and his activities are done at the behest of "the Big Guy." But his actions aren't evil so much as consistent with the translation of "devil" and "satan," which literally mean "adversary" in Greek and Hebrew, respectively. "His job is to test people's virtue and to report their failures," Kelly said.

Perhaps most surprising is not the figure Satan cuts, but his notable absences in the Old Testament. In the Bible's first reference to Lucifer, for instance, Satan doesn't appear - even by implication, Kelly points out. "'Lucifer' is Latin for light-bearer," he said, and was the name given to the morning star, or the planet Venus. Originally written in ancient Hebrew, the passage, on face value, refers to the tyrannical Babylonian king who boasts of his conquests but who is "about to be cast to the ground." Kelly insists there's nothing more to the reference than an apt use of metaphor, but the third-century Christian philosopher Origen of Alexandria argued in his best known work, "On First Things," that the reference applied to Satan. "Origen says, 'Lucifer is said to have fallen from Heaven,'" Kelly explained. "'This can't refer to a human being, so it must refer to Satan.' Subsequent church fathers found this reasoning persuasive, and so did everyone who followed them."

Ironically, the only mentions of Lucifer in the New Testament - and there are three of them - refer to Jesus, Kelly said. "Jesus is called 'Lucifer' or 'the morning star' because he represents a new beginning." Another prominent omission in the Old Testament, Kelly said, can be found in Genesis. "Nobody in the Old Testament - or, for that matter, in the New Testament either - ever identifies the serpent of Eden with Satan," Kelly said. "The serpent is just the smartest animal, and he's motivated by envy after being jilted by Adam for Eve."

Kelly traces the correlation of Satan and the serpent to not long after the New Testament was completed. In his "Dialogue With Trypho," the second-century Christian martyr Justin of Samaria first argued that Satan appeared as a serpent to tempt Adam and Eve to disobey God, according to Kelly. "This is what I call 'The New Biography,'" Kelly said. "It starts with Justin Martyr, who implicates Satan in the fall of Adam and Eve. By causing Adam and Eve to fall, Satan caused his own fall. "The second step in this new and phony biography comes with Origen, who said, 'No, Satan's first sin was not deceiving Adam and Eve or refusing to go along with God's plan of creating Adam in his own image,'" Kelly said. "'It was to sin out of pride like the morning star, like Lucifer in the passage from Isaiah.' Turning Satan into God's enemy is a two-step process."

Meanwhile, in passages in Luke, Matthew, Corinthians and elsewhere in the New Testament, Satan continues to act as a tester, enforcer and prosecutor but not as God's enemy, Kelly points out. "Everyone else has said that by the time Satan gets to the New Testament, he is evil, he's an enemy of God, but that's not so," Kelly said. "The whole biblical picture of Satan is that of a bad cop to Yaweh's good cop in the Old Testament, and to Jesus' good cop in the New Testament. Throughout, Satan is someone who works for God."

A scene in the New Testament's Book of Revelation is often cited today as evidence that Satan was the deceiver of Adam and Eve, but the interpretation stems from a fundamental misunderstanding, Kelly argues. "'That ancient serpent' refers to the giant sea serpent Leviathan, not the garden snake of Eden," he said. "In Revelation, Leviathan has morphed into a dragon, or large serpent, with the seven heads and 10 horns, which is still further removed from the seductive serpent who deceived Eve." In addition to linking Satan with the Garden of Eden, the passage from Revelation also has been used to prove that Satan fell early on in the Bible, but Kelly insists that is not accurate. "Satan's ouster from heaven in Revelation is explained as taking place in the future," Kelly said. "In Revelation 12:10, a voice says that 'the accuser of our brothers is cast out, overcome by the testimony of martyrs.' Since there were no martyrs until Christ died, that has to be in the future."

Similarly, a passage in the Gospel of Luke, when Jesus reports having seen "Satan fall like lightning," has been misinterpreted, according to Kelly. "Jesus saw the fall in the past because he had the vision the day before he describes it to the apostles," Kelly said. "But Jesus is referring to a future fall [of Satan] from his position as God's attorney general." This is not to say, however, that Kelly contends that Satan is likeable. "Jesus doesn't like him, and Paul doesn't like him," Kelly explained. "He represents the old guard in the heavenly bureaucracy, and everyone longs for him to be disbarred as the chief accuser of humankind."




If you know any of the old Hebrew customs you will know that they never considered Satan as evil. Christianity corrupted it.

Regards
DL

[Follower]

LOL!! So the devil didn't make Geraldine do it, man is just plain evil on his own!!

How does this jive with Islam where man is basically sinless and pure? Where does all the evil come from?

[Grace Seeker]

If you know any of the old Hebrew customs you will know that they never considered Satan as evil. Christianity corrupted it.

Regards
DL

I do know the Jewish view of Satan. It happended to change and evolve over time. What we see in the OT is that Satan is simply an advesary. But the OT is not all there is to the Jewish understanding of Satan. There are 400 years of history between the end of the OT and the time of Jesus. It was during this time that the idea of the devil developed. Thus the picture of the devil one finds in the NT is not a picture developed by Christians, but that which was developed as part of those Hebrew customes in which you claim that Satan is never considered evil. You just don't know as much as you think you do about them is all.

Samael is well known from Jewish sources as a designation of Satan, the chief of the angels who rebelled against God, and who was cast out of heaven.

(source: Jewish Elements in Gnosticism; William David Davies, Louis Finkelstein, William Horbury, and John Sturdy; Cambridge University Press; c. 2009; p. 1059.)

In some works some rabbis hold that Satan is the incarnation of all evil, and his thoughts are devoted to the destruction of man. In this view, Satan, the impulse to evil and the angel of death are one and the same personality. Satan seizes upon even a single word which may be prejudicial to man; so that "one should not open his mouth unto evil," i.e., "unto Satan" (source: Talmud Berachot 19a).

One rabbi notes that Satan was an active agent in the fall of man. (source: Midrash Pirke de-Rabbi Eliezer 13)

Then the Christians too developed that idea of the Devil being evil incarnate even more than the Rabbis had. You see it in the writings of people like Bunyan and especially Dante. But to say that the old Hebrew customs never considered Satan as evil is simply false. There was a time that they didn't and a time that they did.

So, the study of the history of Satan does not show Christianity corrupting a Jewish philosophy. Rather the Jews themselves had already corrupted it and the Christians adopted that corruption which the Jews had already managed to do on their own. Christians would indeed corrupt it more, but not in their scriptures, and not in the beginning of Christianity, not in the time period you are mention. Not till many years later, nearly 1000 years after Constantine, and then they would do it only in works of fiction.

[Great I am not]

LOL!! So the devil didn't make Geraldine do it, man is just plain evil on his own!!

How does this jive with Islam where man is basically sinless and pure? Where does all the evil come from?

Isaiah 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

If God creates our natures and souls and gives us sinning natures then it can be said that God does create evil.

If this quote is true and it is His will that all repent then all must sin. If our nature is a sinning one then we all will.

Strange perhaps that we should all embrace, in a sense, sin.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Grace Seeker

First, Jews saw the fall more as a fall upward to a moral sense. Think about this. Can a person have moral sense without having knowledge of good and evil? No.
Would any God want His followers to have moral sense? Yes. Would you give up your and be blissfully ignorant of almost any topic or issue? Almost any issue you can think of has good or evil implications.

Second, my view of them thinking was not evil is current as it comes from talking with Jews of today.

Third,
The Christian way of seeing God is to see Him screwing up heaven with evil.
Strike one.
They then see God screwing up man's beginning in Eden.
Strike two.
They then see God cleaning house in Noah's day with Genocide and starting over.
Strike three.
They now wait for His return at end time to clean house yet again.
Strike four.

Strike four?

God plays by His own rules I guess.

You and I both know that this view must be false.

God gets things right the first time and every time.
This is why He has not and will not return. His perfect systems are here today the same way that they were here in the beginning. It is just to us to see it. I do. Even with sin and evil and woes, all is perfect and humming along exactly as God wants it to. I call it perfection in evolution.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker

First, Jews saw the fall more as a fall upward to a moral sense. Think about this. Can a person have moral sense without having knowledge of good and evil? No.


Third,
The Christian way of seeing God is to see Him screwing up heaven with evil.
Strike one.
They then see God screwing up man's beginning in Eden.
Strike two.
They then see God cleaning house in Noah's day with Genocide and starting over.
Strike three.
They now wait for His return at end time to clean house yet again.
Strike four.

I didn't even understand what you were saying in your second point, so I'll not attempt to address it. But with regard to your first and third points, I suggest that you have incorrectly given the view of both Jews and Christains.

I don't know if you simply giving your own view of what Jews and Christians think and thus are basically just (erroneous) putting words in our respective mouths. Or if you have found this somewhere, but it does not represent what I, a Christian, understand to be taught by either Jews or Christians.

[Great I am not]

Grace Seeker

Correction to my hasty writing of the point.

Second, my view of Jewish thinking that Satan was not evil is current as it comes from talking with Jews of today.

I have invited one of these to speak to the issue. Coming from the horses mouth, so to speak may help you believe what I said.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

Grace Seeker

You are wrong not I.

If you are right and Christians think of God as a God of success then how do you explain that they await His return to fix what should not and cannot be broken.

The God I know gets things right the first time and does not have to return to FIX things.

The Christians and others see a god who must return, red faced, to fix His perfect works.

Believe in a God of imperfect works if you like.
I prefer a winner, not a loser.

Deuteronomy 32:4
He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

I do understand if you are not astute enough to recognize the perfection that God has created. Most do not.

Regards
DL

[gang4]

I know little about Islam even less about Christianity. What I know a bit is objectivity (being subjective of course :)

The bible is a peculiar book. In it,
- one may find unitarian verses (verses often quoted by Mr. Deedat)
- one may find trinitarian verses (verses often quoted by James White, Jay Smith etc)

- contains verses I believe from original Gospel ("Our Lord is One...." etc.)
- also contains verses I believe from human handy work (Ezekiel 23 about the *****dom, or about incest etc)

- contains ambiguity words that hit the core teaching of Christianity. For example: the word "worshiped" implies what the usual trinitarian believe, but also it has a meaning "kissed on the hand" (according to Gary Miller)

- The ascension, Mr.Deedat brings a peculiar point, Each of 4 gospels mentions about Jesus riding a donkey yet only two verses mentions about the ascension n some bible have them, some do not.

- has no self-reference

- Contains interesting stories

- Many words are derived from bible... like "juda->judaism;onan->onani" etc

- translated into 2000 different languages... that is impressive!

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker

You are wrong not I.

Do realize what you are suggesting when you, a non-Christian, tells me a Christian pastor that you know the Christian faith and what we believe better than I do?

I find it ironic that you have invited some Jewish folk here to reiterate what you have said so that I might believe it "coming from the horses mouth", yet to this particular Christian horse you merely tell me: "Grace Seeker, You are wrong not I." I find you a tad confused with regard to your consistency in applying your own logic.



BTW your revised way of trying to state what you think it must be that we Christians believe if we don't believe what you posted in the previous post is not any closer to what we actually believe than the prior one. In short none of your posts thus far correctly representative the Christian faith. As to how close I am or how much I err in present the Jewish point of view, I've posted Jewish sources for all I have said. But that doesn't they represent all Jews in the world today, for they were with regard to the historical issue that I was writing. As for present Jewish beliefs, I'll let your Jewish friends speak for themselves.

[Great I am not]

Do realize what you are suggesting when you, a non-Christian, tells me a Christian pastor that you know the Christian faith and what we believe better than I do?

I find it ironic that you have invited some Jewish folk here to reiterate what you have said so that I might believe it "coming from the horses mouth", yet to this particular Christian horse you merely tell me: "Grace Seeker, You are wrong not I." I find you a tad confused with regard to your consistency in applying your own logic.



BTW your revised way of trying to state what you think it must be that we Christians believe if we don't believe what you posted in the previous post is not any closer to what we actually believe than the prior one. In short none of your posts thus far correctly representative the Christian faith. As to how close I am or how much I err in present the Jewish point of view, I've posted Jewish sources for all I have said. But that doesn't they represent all Jews in the world today, for they were with regard to the historical issue that I was writing. As for present Jewish beliefs, I'll let your Jewish friends speak for themselves.

I have asked two to come by but both refused. They think that Islam does not like or believe anything they have to say. too bad for that.

You speak of what Christians believe.

What Christians, the ones with one wife or the ones with as many as they can afford?

The ones that venerate Mary or the ones that don't?

Which of the four gospels do you follow on divorce. they do not agree with each other.

As to you being a pastor, big deal.

I have put more than one to mental flight and find that most do not believe their own bible.

If you like I will debate you on the existence of hell. I say it does not exist and if it did it would be immoral of God to use it.

Refute this claim if you can.

I will begin with one quote.

2 Peter 3:9 KJ
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

If God's will is supreme and He is not willing that any should perish, go to hell, and that all should repent, then all will if His will cannot be thwarted.

If all repent then no hell is required.

It may be respectful to this thread if we move elsewhere. You decide padre.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

You are seeking to change the focus of this thread even more than it already is off center. I will not participate in that. I will assert again that what you have presented as being representative of the Christian is in fact NOT.

[Great I am not]

You are seeking to change the focus of this thread even more than it already is off center. I will not participate in that. I will assert again that what you have presented as being representative of the Christian is in fact NOT.

You ignore that I had that in mind when I wrote this.

"It may be respectful to this thread if we move elsewhere. You decide padre."

Run away child but do not use me as your excuse.
It is telling though that I can make you run with one little phrase.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

You ignore that I had that in mind when I wrote this.

"It may be respectful to this thread if we move elsewhere. You decide padre."

Run away child but do not use me as your excuse.
It is telling though that I can make you run with one little phrase.

Regards
DL

Who is running? I'm quite willing to continue discussing what the Bible is here. I''l also continue to correct the disinformation you provide with regard to Christian beliefs. (And I suspect with regard to Jewish beliefs as well.) If you want to start one of those other threads to discuss what doesn't belong discussed in this thread there is a good chance, as time permits, that I'll join you in it. But if I ignore you it means nothing more than I don't have the time for needless debate. There actually are more important things in life than this. I've had these discussions with many before you. I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else.

[Great I am not]

Who is running? I'm quite willing to continue discussing what the Bible is here. I''l also continue to correct the disinformation you provide with regard to Christian beliefs. (And I suspect with regard to Jewish beliefs as well.) If you want to start one of those other threads to discuss what doesn't belong discussed in this thread there is a good chance, as time permits, that I'll join you in it. But if I ignore you it means nothing more than I don't have the time for needless debate. There actually are more important things in life than this. I've had these discussions with many before you. I don't need to prove anything to you or anyone else.

This is true. It does not take away the fact that you run and hide. I do not blame you. You believe in God by faith and I believe in God by logical deduction and have proven my faith. Yours is not based on fact where mine is. You just cannot understand these facts.

You already have shown how little faith you have in the supremacy of God's will so I will let you see god as a loser and not a winner.

Your indoctrination is complete and would rather think that God need your Church.


You have the usual Christian way of seeing God, that is to see Him screwing up heaven with evil.
Strike one.
They then see God screwing up man's beginning in Eden.
Strike two.
They then see God cleaning house in Noah's day with Genocide and starting over.
Strike three.
They now wait for His return at end time to clean house yet again.
Strike four.

Strike four?

God plays by His own rules I guess.

You and I both know that this view must be false.

God gets things right the first time and every time.
This is why He has not and will not return. His perfect systems are here today the same way that they were here in the beginning. It is just to us to see it. I do. Even with sin and evil and woes, all is perfect and humming along exactly as God wants it to. I call it perfection in evolution.

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

This is true. It does not take away the fact that you run and hide. I do not blame you. You believe in God by faith and I believe in God by logical deduction and have proven my faith. Yours is not based on fact where mine is. You just cannot understand these facts.

You already have shown how little faith you have in the supremacy of God's will so I will let you see god as a loser and not a winner.

Your indoctrination is complete and would rather think that God need your Church.


You have the usual Christian way of seeing God, that is to see Him screwing up heaven with evil.
Strike one.
They then see God screwing up man's beginning in Eden.
Strike two.
They then see God cleaning house in Noah's day with Genocide and starting over.
Strike three.
They now wait for His return at end time to clean house yet again.
Strike four.

Strike four?

God plays by His own rules I guess.

You and I both know that this view must be false.

God gets things right the first time and every time.
This is why He has not and will not return. His perfect systems are here today the same way that they were here in the beginning. It is just to us to see it. I do. Even with sin and evil and woes, all is perfect and humming along exactly as God wants it to. I call it perfection in evolution.

Regards
DL

You see this is where you are screwed up in your thinking. What you project as my ways of thinking are in fact not my ways of thinking. We can't have a productive conversation when you are going to project on to me or on to the Christian faith views that we do not in fact actually believe. You don't get to tell me what I believe.

But I should have known you would, for all Muslims believe that they are the only ones who know anything truth whatsoever, and thuse they are free to make up things for regarding other's beliefs with impunity. And since Muslims can never be wrong, well, then they are never wrong. Case closed, we've solved everything just by knowing that you're a Muslim and therefore cannot make any mistakes.


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

(For those who actually take the time to think while reading, you probably already know I wrote that last paragraph with tongue firmly planted in my cheek. :X )

[YusufNoor]

That was the title of a thread on a Christian forum I frequent. There were a number of interesting answers posted. But there was one that I found I really liked after I read it.

It wasn't the more technical answer that I had chosen to give, but I think it captured the essence of how Christians feel about the Bible better than any of the rest of us did.

To me, it's 2 different things.

First, it's a love letter from God to the world. It's the writers telling us "this is how much God loves you, this is why he loves you, & this is why he'll never stop loving you."

Second, it's man's religious interpretation of historical events, how he explained (or believed God explained to him) what had happened & was happening around him.

Third, it's what Schnerples described in the first reply: a very long book that gathers dust in most homes, but is well-worn & beloved in others.

Comments? Questions? Reflections?

well, in order to answer the question, the bible what is it?, it seems that some background info may help us decide just what the Bible really is.

so i ask the original poster the following questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]?

2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE?

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE?

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE?

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE?

6) leaving the Tanakh (OT) aside, are there any "books" that were once considered part of the New Testament, such as 1 or II Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter or maybe the Shepard of Hermas, that were eventually removed?

7) how about "books" now considered "holy" or part of the New Testament that weren't considered part of it, such as II Peter, James, Timothy, Titus or the Apocalypse of John?

8) when Constantine ordered 50 copies of the bible to be made, what books were included in THOSE copies?

answering those questions just might get us started in figuring out "what is the bible?", In Sha'a Allah!

:w:

[ragdollcat1982]

I hear Muslims speak of the Injil as what was revealed to Jesus, yet the claim is the NT as it exists now is corrupt. Where is the pure form of the Gospel that is talked about in the Quran and among Muslims?

[Grace Seeker]

well, in order to answer the question, the bible what is it?, it seems that some background info may help us decide just what the Bible really is.

so i ask the original poster the following questions:

My intent in the opening post was to find out what some of the various views with regard to the Bible that are held by people here. I have no allusions that we will reach any agreement. Even if we did it wouldn't change the nature of what the Bible is or is not. And unless you can explain to me how my answers to your questions would make any difference with regard to your view as to what the Bible is, then I don't see how answering them helps in addressing the question that was originally asked.




Now leaving all of that aside, I'm happy to discuss my views of what the Bible is and isn't. So, in case that is what you are after here are how I would answer your questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]? NO



2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE? Yes, roughly.

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE? Yes, roughly.

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE? Yes, roughly.

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE? Yes, roughly.

6) leaving the Tanakh (OT) aside, are there any "books" that were once considered part of the New Testament, such as 1 or II Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter or maybe the Shepard of Hermas, that were eventually removed? Not"removed", for that term would imply that there was an established set canon that was then changed. There were books such as those mentioned that were for a time disputed but accepted and then later not accepted.

7) how about "books" now considered "holy" or part of the New Testament that weren't considered part of it, such as II Peter, James, Timothy, Titus or the Apocalypse of John? All 27 if them, for there was a time when there was no New Testament.

8) when Constantine ordered 50 copies of the bible to be made, what books were included in THOSE copies? I honestly don't know. I haven't checked out Constantine's canon.

answering those questions just might get us started in figuring out "what is the bible?", In Sha'a Allah!

:w:

I agree those questions might help us if we were in the process of trying to establish what was or was not the canon. But that wasn't the essence of my question. I was more interested in what you think of when you use the term "the Bible"?

[YusufNoor]

My intent in the opening post was to find out what some of the various views with regard to the Bible that are held by people here. I have no allusions that we will reach any agreement. Even if we did it wouldn't change the nature of what the Bible is or is not. And unless you can explain to me how my answers to your questions would make any difference with regard to your view as to what the Bible is, then I don't see how answering them helps in addressing the question that was originally asked.

Now leaving all of that aside, I'm happy to discuss my views of what the Bible is and isn't. So, in case that is what you are after here are how I would answer your questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]? NO

2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

6) leaving the Tanakh (OT) aside, are there any "books" that were once considered part of the New Testament, such as 1 or II Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter or maybe the Shepard of Hermas, that were eventually removed? Not"removed", for that term would imply that there was an established set canon that was then changed. There were books such as those mentioned that were for a time disputed but accepted and then later not accepted.

that is confusing! do you mean something was once considered "Holy" and then later it wasn't, while other things WEREN'T considered "Holy" and then later they were?

7) how about "books" now considered "holy" or part of the New Testament that weren't considered part of it, such as II Peter, James, Timothy, Titus or the Apocalypse of John? All 27 if them, for there was a time when there was no New Testament.

8) when Constantine ordered 50 copies of the bible to be made, what books were included in THOSE copies? I honestly don't know. I haven't checked out Constantine's canon.

I agree those questions might help us if we were in the process of trying to establish what was or was not the canon. But that wasn't the essence of my question. I was more interested in what you think of when you use the term "the Bible"?

is not "the Bible" what is considered canon?

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

is not "the Bible" what is considered canon?

:w:

That might be one answer, but I've learned that it isn't everyone's. Is it yours?

[YusufNoor]

That might be one answer, but I've learned that it isn't everyone's. Is it yours?

i did not start the thread. how can we possibly discuss "what is the bible" in YOUR thread if you do not know, or are unprepared to discuss or are unwilling to discuss what it is that constitutes "the bible"?

perhaps you would do better on a forum of mind readers, we cannot dialogue with you if you are incapable of answering the most simple of questions without the aid of a dentist.

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

i did not start the thread. how can we possibly discuss "what is the bible" in YOUR thread if you do not know, or are unprepared to discuss or are unwilling to discuss what it is that constitutes "the bible"?

:w:

Why do you imply that I am unwlling to discuss?

I began by posting a comment that I said I really liked. I've also carried on perfectly pleasant conversations with 'Abd-al Latif, GreyKode, TKTony, Podarok and Woodrow, among others. I even answered 8 specific questions that you asked. But now when I ask if something you have written reflects your opinion you seem to accuse me of being unwilling to discuss. Unless you share your views it is going to be hard to do discuss anything with you. For this is not a thread about attacking others having a right or wrong view of the Bible, it is about disclosing how one personally views it. I've already done that by sharing a comment that I liked in the opening post. You've said that to answer it you needed some questions answered; I've done that as well.

[Follower]

so i ask the original poster the following questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]?

2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE?

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE?

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE?

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE?


The Torah always was considered scripture- by Jesus and your quran.

The original 4 GOSPELS were always considered scripture, by the early church fathers and your quran.

[GreyKode]

so i ask the original poster the following questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]?

2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE?

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE?

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE?

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE?


The Torah always was considered scripture- by Jesus and your quran.

The original 4 GOSPELS were always considered scripture, by the early church fathers and your quran.

@Follower
When professionals talk, amateurs should keep quiet.


And to Grace, who told you Greatest I am is a muslim, his profile says nothing, so please stop attacking the character of muslims with your strawmen.

[Grace Seeker]

And to Grace, who told you Greatest I am is a muslim, his profile says nothing, so please stop attacking the character of muslims with your strawmen.

My mistake. I got that idea from some of his prior comments, especially post #73 earlier in this thread. But you're correct he is "undisclosed" and I surely shouldn't use him as an example of Islamic thinking. I know you have much better scholars in Islam than he.

[Follower]

Who is the professional and in what?

[Follower]

here are some of the disputed books-

Disputed books -Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews

Considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

These were disputed because they were either written at a later date, not referenced by early church fathers, or made weird claims, etc.

[YusufNoor]

Why do you imply that I am unwlling to discuss?

I began by posting a comment that I said I really liked. I've also carried on perfectly pleasant conversations with 'Abd-al Latif, GreyKode, TKTony, Podarok and Woodrow, among others.

do you no longer find answering questions about "the Bible" pleasant?

I even answered 8 specific questions that you asked.

thank you for answering those questions, but i wasn't aware of any limitations on the number of questions we might ask. just for the record, what is the limit?

But now when I ask if something you have written reflects your opinion you seem to accuse me of being unwilling to discuss.

i would prefer to make informed comments, here i am seen as an ignorant Muslim who can't possibly no anything about "The Bible" or Christianity. therefore, BEFORE i form these "opinions" i thought i might be better to ask questions of an informed "Christian." AFTER i have gained some knowledge, we might be able to discuss these items.


Unless you share your views it is going to be hard to do discuss anything with you.

i am not yet at the "discussion" phase. my ignorance on 'the Bible" is immense. i only ask you to answer my questions, is that understandable?

For this is not a thread about attacking others having a right or wrong view of the Bible, it is about disclosing how one personally views it.

please forgive me if you think i have attacked "the Bible" in this thread. please point out the offending comment and i will remove it!

I've already done that by sharing a comment that I liked in the opening post. You've said that to answer it you needed some questions answered; I've done that as well.

in order to be well informed and to make comments that aren't ignorant, i am still in need of some answers. if you find this too difficult, perhaps you can tell me which of the areas of questions that i have it is that you lack knowledge in.

you opened the thread by making comments about "The Bible" and asked us our opinion AND if we had any questions. we are Muslims, how are we comment on a book that most of the Christians here claim we are ignorant about? AND we are told we are ignorant JUST because we are Muslims! therefore, i would REALLY like to know more about "The Bible" in order to give you my own opinion as well as evaluate yours. we try to obtain useful information and and the answers become evasive and they even become questions. the more evasive that the answer become, the more questions that i have!

let me quote the original post:

Comments? Questions? Reflections?

to which i respond, WHY YES, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS! answer them and THEN, In Sha'a Allah, i will post some comments and give you some of my reflections. is this understandable?

Originally Posted by Grace Seeker View Post
My intent in the opening post was to find out what some of the various views with regard to the Bible that are held by people here. I have no allusions that we will reach any agreement. Even if we did it wouldn't change the nature of what the Bible is or is not. And unless you can explain to me how my answers to your questions would make any difference with regard to your view as to what the Bible is, then I don't see how answering them helps in addressing the question that was originally asked.

Now leaving all of that aside, I'm happy to discuss my views of what the Bible is and isn't. So, in case that is what you are after here are how I would answer your questions:

1) has the bible as we know it now always existed since the time of Jesus[as]? NO

then when was "the Bible" written?

2) do we know what was considered the Bible in 170 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

3) do we know what was considered the Bible in 240 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

4) do we know what was considered the Bible in 350 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

5) do we know what was considered the Bible in 367 CE? Yes, roughly.

would you elaborate, and tell what was considered canonical then?

6) leaving the Tanakh (OT) aside, are there any "books" that were once considered part of the New Testament, such as 1 or II Clement, the Apocalypse of Peter or maybe the Shepard of Hermas, that were eventually removed? Not"removed", for that term would imply that there was an established set canon that was then changed. There were books such as those mentioned that were for a time disputed but accepted and then later not accepted.

that is confusing! do you mean something was once considered "Holy" and then later it wasn't, while other things WEREN'T considered "Holy" and then later they were?

please explain the term "established set canon" and can you provide a date on when there WAS and established set canon?

7) how about "books" now considered "holy" or part of the New Testament that weren't considered part of it, such as II Peter, James, Timothy, Titus or the Apocalypse of John? All 27 if them, for there was a time when there was no New Testament.

perhaps you misunderstood my question, let me rephrase it: are ther any books in what YOU call the "Bible" CURRENTLY, that were once considered NOT to be inspired books?

and is it true that Martin Luther consider the book of James NOT to be "inspired?" do you have any comments on that?

8) when Constantine ordered 50 copies of the bible to be made, what books were included in THOSE copies? I honestly don't know. I haven't checked out Constantine's canon.

really, as a professional Preacher you do not know what was in those books? and i didn't know that it was Constantine's canon! can anyone establish canon? i just assumed that when Constantine ordered those books, that he was in fact "ordering 50 copies of the Bible" and NOT making canon! as Muslims, we make the accusation that Constantine decided what was to be put in "the Bible," WHICH i was read somewhere was untrue! I DID NOT KNOW UNTIL NOW THAT HE DID! why did the church leaders let him do that? why didn't they just give him copies of what THEY considered to be "the Bible?" so, in 325 CE, what did the Church consider the bible to be?

I agree those questions might help us if we were in the process of trying to establish what was or was not the canon. But that wasn't the essence of my question. I was more interested in what you think of when you use the term "the Bible"?

what is the 1st date that there was a book that was considered the Bible, and can we establish how this differed from "Constantine's Bible?"

:w:

[YusufNoor]

you opened the thread by making comments about "The Bible" and asked us our opinion AND if we had any questions. we are Muslims, how are we comment on a book that most of the Christians here claim we are ignorant about? AND we are told we are ignorant JUST because we are Muslims! therefore, i would REALLY like to know more about "The Bible" in order to give you my own opinion as well as evaluate yours. we try to obtain useful information and and the answers become evasive and they even become questions. the more evasive that the answer become, the more questions that i have!

let me quote the original post:



to which i respond, WHY YES, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS! answer them and THEN, In Sha'a Allah, i will post some comments and give you some of my reflections. is this understandable?



what is the 1st date that there was a book that was considered the Bible, and can we establish how this differed from "Constantine's Bible?"

:w:

apparently, someone is none too keen on discussing his Holy Book.

i wonder why?

must be trying to hide something....

[Great I am not]

You see this is where you are screwed up in your thinking. What you project as my ways of thinking are in fact not my ways of thinking. We can't have a productive conversation when you are going to project on to me or on to the Christian faith views that we do not in fact actually believe. You don't get to tell me what I believe.

But I should have known you would, for all Muslims believe that they are the only ones who know anything truth whatsoever, and thuse they are free to make up things for regarding other's beliefs with impunity. And since Muslims can never be wrong, well, then they are never wrong. Case closed, we've solved everything just by knowing that you're a Muslim and therefore cannot make any mistakes.


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

(For those who actually take the time to think while reading, you probably already know I wrote that last paragraph with tongue firmly planted in my cheek. :X )

Just so you know, I am not a Muslim. I was born R C but do not quite see things the wrong way that they do.

You say I am wrong about your views. Lets check your view of Genesis.

Most see Genesis as the fall of man and a failure of God to start us off properly.

Is this also your view? If not please show it.

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

here are some of the disputed books-

Disputed books -Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of Hebrews

Considered heretical—Gospels of Peter, Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Andrew, John, etc.

These were disputed because they were either written at a later date, not referenced by early church fathers, or made weird claims, etc.

Banned From the Bible
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EPOs...eature=related

Regards
DL

[Great I am not]

The Lost Gospels 1/9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L7cQ3BrD5U

regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

Just so you know, I am not a Muslim. I was born R C but do not quite see things the wrong way that they do.

You say I am wrong about your views. Lets check your view of Genesis.

Most see Genesis as the fall of man and a failure of God to start us off properly.

Is this also your view? If not please show it.

Regards
DL

No. It is not my view that God failed in any respect. And I disagree with your assumption that most see Genesis as a failure of God to start us off right. The fall of man is man's failure, not God's. In fact, God did start us off right, and then we took a left turn.

[suffiyan007]

OT is for jews i know...but everything written in Torah and Zabur(psalm) are recite in Quran...and the Bani ishmael(ismail) and Ibrahim(Abraham)are the same religion of Muhammad SAW...peace be upon him...isLam...but the JewS and Christianity in NT...always verse by verse changing the book of Torah,Zabur,The Scrolls and injeel(bible)...Jesus told that there is a comforter name Ahmad...after him is the Closing prophethood after Jesus....The Quran is the Book oF God that forevER live and everlasting that never change till the End of the world.

[Grace Seeker]

...but the JewS and Christianity in NT...always verse by verse changing the book of Torah,Zabur,The Scrolls and injeel(bible

The Bible used by Christians contains more than the Torah, Zabur, the Scrolls and injeel. Why do you limit it to these alone?

Could you be specific as to what books you believe were included in the Scrolls?

[suffiyan007]

The Scrolls- ibrahim A.S
Torah- Musa A.S
Zaboor- Dawud A.S
InJeel- Isa A.S. a.k.a Holy Bible.
Quran- Muhammad SAW.

We believe the 5 books of Allah Taala who he sent.
When Quran came down to Muhammad SAW. last 4 books of God is banished.
We live in last century that we must believe Allah the Creator, The Angels, The Prophets, The Books of allah(The scrolls,Torah,Zabur,Injeel and Quran), and The Qadar and Qadha of allah(The Good and Bad things whom God sent) to anyone that we face lotsa problems of the world...insyaallah.:thumbs_up

[Great I am not]

No. It is not my view that God failed in any respect. And I disagree with your assumption that most see Genesis as a failure of God to start us off right. The fall of man is man's failure, not God's. In fact, God did start us off right, and then we took a left turn.

So you would prefer to see Eve as dumb as a cow without the moral sense that comes with the knowledge of good and evil?

Would you then give up your moral sense?
Would you chose to not be as God, knowing good and evil even as scripture urges us to.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

Regards
DL

[Grace Seeker]

So you would prefer to see Eve as dumb as a cow without the moral sense that comes with the knowledge of good and evil?

Prior to the fall Adam and Eve only knew good. They only knew righteousness. Of what value is there in learning about evil? That doesn't sound like the ideals of a true Muslim.

Matthew 5:48
Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect

Indeed, and Adam and Eve gave that up when they listened to the serpent. Wouldn't it be nice if we could be restored to that relationship with God that we were created to have with him? Being perfect doesn't come from knowing good AND evil -- this would be subtraction by addition. Perfection comes from knowing (i.e. walking with) God who is good and good alone.