Bible Fake?

[AlHoda]

Since when has the bible been changed. Also from a christian point of vieuw, do christians even care that there bible has been changed?!:hmm:

[Uthman]

[Al-manar]

Since when has the bible been changed.

Since the man (who has free will) started to

- believe in a part of the work as fine for his desires , and do reject the rest as against his desires...

- follow the vain desires of people who went wrong in times gone by,- who misled many, and strayed from the even way.

- write the Book with their his own hand to traffic with it for miserable price.

- believe that a forged scripture ,as long as,from his point of view, would improve faith in God is acceptable.


Regards

[Supreme]

Since when has the bible been changed. Also from a christian point of vieuw, do christians even care that there bible has been changed?!:hmm:

We do care, sister. Well, at least I do.

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

[glo]

Greetings, AlHoda

What makes you think that the Bible is a fake? In what way do you think has it been changed?

We have had several interesting threads on the Bible and Bible authenticity. You might try to look there.
Grace Seeker is a great one to answer questions on Bible history. (Hope you don't mind me saying, Grace Seeker :))

Try these threads for previous discussions:

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ible-what.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ely-bible.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ote-bible.html
The topic is also almost certainly covered in the 'Questions about Christians. Requesting answers from Christians' thread ... but that is so long now, it might take you a while to find the right places.

Have fun! :)

[Grace Seeker]

Glo, I don't mind you saying so, but he's right. The Bible has been changed, many times as a matter of fact. But I don't believe it's ever been faked. There is a difference.

The Bible is not a single book. Never has been. Rather, it is a collection of many different books, composed over an extended period of time, by the hand of many different (inspired, I believe) human authors. As such, the collection known today as the Bible is not what it originally was, nor would I want it to be, for then it would not contain the full revelation of God.

I'm not so much worried about those who question if the Bible has ever changed -- of course it has. I'm much more concerned about the question as to why we consider the canon of scripture closed and no longer open to change. After all, doesn't God continue to reveal himself to us, even to this day. Why then has the Church declared that there no more to be added to the Bible? And just quoting Revelation 22:18-19 is not good enough, for that line refers only to the book of Revelation, not the whole of scripture.

[Humbler_359]

:sl:

What people fail to realize for bible is a combination of many books written over a long time with mistranslations, additions, doctrines, and revisions that destroyed the Truth. Many things could have been changed from the original til today. It was written by over 40 authors (Peter, King, Mark, Job, John, Luke, Mathew, unknown authors........).

Unfortunately, the bible is a collection of books, stories, personal letters, songs, and poetry. New Testament was written by Paul combined with the apostles. :hmm:

Christanity is Paulism. Do Christians follow Jesus? DO they keep the commandments and the Law? DO they pray to Allah (God)? What do they do that Jesus did?

[Woodrow]

Since when has the bible been changed. Also from a christian point of vieuw, do christians even care that there bible has been changed?!:hmm:

:sl: Ukhti,

As Muslims we need have no concern about the Christian Bible. This is a moot point. Our concern is to show that the Qur'an is the truth and that Islam is the way to serve Allaah(swt).

To show that the bible is in error or that it is not what was actually written serves no purpose in proving Islam is correct. In fact I suspect if a Christian were to have the Bible to be proven false, he would most likely become an atheist. This approach to Da'wah seldom works and can very well alienate people who were on the edge of understanding Islam. It also can backfire in a debate as a good debater will use this as an opportunity to push a novice debater into trying to prove a negative.

Learn first to show that Islam is the truth and there will never be a need to show any other belief is wrong.

I accepted Islam because the Bible did contain enough truth to lead me onto the path that eventually brought me to Islam. If in my younger years when I was a very devout Christian and somebody proved to me the Bible was false I very well might have become an atheist, but since that was never done to me, I became a seeker and sought to fulfill my life, instead of thinking I had already reached my limits. I came to Islam, because it was the truth, not because my previous beliefs were false.

[glo]

I'm not so much worried about those who question if the Bible has ever changed -- of course it has. I'm much more concerned about the question as to why we consider the canon of scripture closed and no longer open to change. After all, doesn't God continue to reveal himself to us, even to this day. Why then has the Church declared that there no more to be added to the Bible? And just quoting Revelation 22:18-19 is not good enough, for that line refers only to the book of Revelation, not the whole of scripture.

Interesting thoughts, Grace Seeker. I would love to hear your own views on this - publicly or privately, whichever seems best.

I agree that God reveals himself to us today - to 'big' influential people as well as to 'little' people who may never change the course of history.
Presumably God's revelations would always sit clearly within the teaching of the Bible as we know it?
I am asking, because it could be argued (indeed it has been argued in this very forum) that the NT teachings, even Jesus' own teachings, seemed sometimes clearly at odds with the teaching of the OT ... and yet Christians continue to believe it to be the Word of God.

I am reminded of the three elements of the Episcopal Church - Scripture, Tradition and Reason - which always allows for the expression of a new understanding of the old through the introduction of the new.
What do you think?

[Grace Seeker]

Sorry, Glo, I don't really have any deep thoughts in this area. Ask some Catholic apologist. They love to claim that the Bible is the product of the Church, not the Church the product of the Bible. (And of course they are correct in so far as that statement goes.) So, in making that statement, they've had to deal with the question as to why is the Canon open to this point in time and not beyond. But, my synapses aren't prepared to tackle that, at least not today.

[Seeker1066]

Sorry, Glo, I don't really have any deep thoughts in this area. Ask some Catholic apologist. They love to claim that the Bible is the product of the Church, not the Church the product of the Bible. (And of course they are correct in so far as that statement goes._ So, in making that statement, they've had to deal with the question as to why is the Canon open to this point in time and not beyond. But, my synapses aren't prepared to tackle that, at least not today.

As a Catholic allow me. Once the Cannon of scripture was declared closed it was done so under the authority of the Church. Since the Church when acting in union with the Pontiff speaks on issues of faith or morals those decisions are than considered binding and infallible. Catholic Theology believes that it is the holy Ghost who protects the Church in such decisions.

[glo]

As a Catholic allow me. Once the Cannon of scripture was declared closed it was done so under the authority of the Church. Since the Church when acting in union with the Pontiff speaks on issues of faith or morals those decisions are than considered binding and infallible. Catholic Theology believes that it is the holy Ghost who protects the Church in such decisions.

Thank you Seeker (now there are two Seekers in this thread ... how confusing! :D)
Could there ever be a situation where the Pope declared that anything was right to be added to the Bible?
Or is he bound by the decision which the Church made in the past?

[glo]

Greetings, AlHoda

What makes you think that the Bible is a fake? In what way do you think has it been changed?

Glo, I don't mind you saying so, but he's right. The Bible has been changed, many times as a matter of fact. But I don't believe it's ever been faked. There is a difference.

To be honest, the reason for asking the question was to understand more about AlHoda's knowledge and understanding of how the Bible has been changed.

My guess is her perception of the way in which the Bible has been changed is different from ours ...

Sorry, Glo, I don't really have any deep thoughts in this area.

Now you are disappointing me, Grace! :D

[Woodrow]

Not to stray too far off course here. But, here in the USA there are some(Not Many) Christian groups that believe the KJV came directly from heaven, sent down printed and bound in today's form. They actually believe Jesus(as) and his disciples spoke Elizabethan English.

A classic example is Ann Richards of Texas. When she was elected Governor of Texas she was Asked what book she wanted to take the oath of office on. Her Answer shocked even some of the reporters. Her answer was :"The KJV of course, if it was good enough for Jesus(as) it is good enough for me."( Might Not be exact quote, best I remember hearing her say)

[Supreme]

Not to stray too far off course here. But, here in the USA there are some(Not Many) Christian groups that believe the KJV came directly from heaven, sent down printed and bound in today's form. They actually believe Jesus(as) and his disciples spoke Elizabethan English.

A classic example is Ann Richards of Texas. When she was elected Governor of Texas she was Asked what book she wanted to take the oath of office on. Her Answer shocked even some of the reporters. Her answer was :"The KJV of course, if it was good enough for Jesus(as) it is good enough for me."( Might Not be exact quote, best I remember hearing her say)

By 'some', do you mean one?

[Woodrow]

By 'some', do you mean one?

No there are a few "Bible" based churches in Texas that actually preach that. Two of which I used to attend. I also know of at least one church in Shreveport, Louisiana that preaches the same.

I won't put their names in a post as I doubt if that is the practice of many Christians. But check your PMs

[Grace Seeker]

By 'some', do you mean one?

No. I've known a "few" of this persuasion in other parts of the country as well. They don't necessarily believe that Jesus and his disciples spoke English, but they do seriously believe that the KJV was a completely and wholly inspired translation with no errors in it. And that includes the insertion of the doxological ending to the Lord's Prayer in Matthew's Gospel, even though it can't be found in any Greek manuscript prior to the 11th century.

[Grace Seeker]

And here's a wierd one I just heard of today:

Marc Grizzard, the pastor of achurch in North Carolina, wants to "light a fire" under the faithful --by having a good old-fashioned book burning. On top of his list ofbooks to burn: the Bible. According to Grizzard, every version except the King James translation is "satanic" and a "perversion" of God'sword. His church is the Amazing Grace Baptist Church in Canton, N.C.(AP)

Even stranger stuff can be found here. Sorry, this stuff is so far out there that I won't even quote from it, lest someone think I actually believe or endorse it.

[Woodrow]

And here's a wierd one I just heard of today:




Even stranger stuff can be found here. Sorry, this stuff is so far out there that I won't even quote from it, lest someone think I actually believe or endorse it.

Peace Gene,

Good point I think it is good for all of us to know that when we see/hear something we believe is repesentative of any religion, it may just be the views of a fringe group sharing nothing except the name,

For us Muslims it is best we stick to proving Islam is the truth and understand that the best arguments we use to disprove another religion may not be applicable to the particular denomination/sect we are addressing. It wouldn't help to prove the KJV is wrong to a Catholic, as most Catholics would agree and say the only true Bible is the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims

[Grace Seeker]

Peace Gene,

Good point I think it is good for all of us to know that when we see/hear something we believe is repesentative of any religion, it may just be the views of a fringe group sharing nothing except the name,

For us Muslims it is best we stick to proving Islam is the truth and understand that the best arguments we use to disprove another religion may not be applicable to the particular denomination/sect we are addressing. It wouldn't help to prove the KJV is wrong to a Catholic, as most Catholics would agree and say the only true Bible is the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims

And as you (out of your own experience) correctly said earlier, if someone were to convince me that the Bible was so totally in error as to be simply tossed as rubbish, I would not suddenly become a Muslim but more likely some alturistic atheist. And maybe not even an alturistic one, but perhaps a hedonist if you had knocked out the most significant of my present beliefs and hence also my core values as well.

[Seeker1066]

Thank you Seeker (now there are two Seekers in this thread ... how confusing! :D)
Could there ever be a situation where the Pope declared that anything was right to be added to the Bible?
Or is he bound by the decision which the Church made in the past?

He is bound by the Prior Tradition. Nothing New may be added but a fuller understanding may be discovered. Such as the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was always part of the beliefs of the Church but was further defined.

[Grace Seeker]

What I find interesting, confusing, and even slightly distressing about Catholicism, is not the idea that dogmas can be developed over time, but that apparently they can be received with the full weight of revelation, even though the canon itself is closed. To me those two concepts are diametrical opposites so that one seems to exclude the other. Maybe I don't fully understand the way in which new dogmas are considered authoritative in the Catholic Church?

[Seeker1066]

Peace Gene,

Good point I think it is good for all of us to know that when we see/hear something we believe is repesentative of any religion, it may just be the views of a fringe group sharing nothing except the name,

For us Muslims it is best we stick to proving Islam is the truth and understand that the best arguments we use to disprove another religion may not be applicable to the particular denomination/sect we are addressing. It wouldn't help to prove the KJV is wrong to a Catholic, as most Catholics would agree and say the only true Bible is the Latin Vulgate or the Douay-Rheims

No the Church only insists that the translations be in keeping with the Original tounges. The Church in America uses the New American Bible, RSV catholic edition and we cultists the Douay-Rheims. All are acceptable. Now I have a question for you? Which english translation of the Qu'ran should I read??

Thanks in advance,
Troy

[Woodrow]

And as you (out of your own experience) correctly said earlier, if someone were to convince me that the Bible was so totally in error as to be simply tossed as rubbish, I would not suddenly become a Muslim but more likely some alturistic atheist. And maybe not even an alturistic one, but perhaps a hedonist if you had knocked out the most significant of my present beliefs and hence also my core values as well.

There are a very large number of Atheists in the world today. I believe it is safe to say that each has proven to himself that the Bible is false. But, that did not entice them to accept Islam. For a oerson to accept Islam, it needs to be proven to them that the Qur'an is true. If a person believes the Qur'an is truethey will become Muslim with no need to prove anything is false.

[Rabi Mansur]

Now I have a question for you? Which english translation of the Qu'ran should I read??

:sl:
I have three english translations of the Qu'ran that I have been reading. For me, the best is the one by Muhammad Asad. I love that book (The Message of The Quran). :bravo:
I managed to pick it up from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

It has the Arabic text, a transliteration of the Arabic text, an English interpretation and extensive footnotes and commentary.

It far surpasses anything else I have seen.

:wa:

[Grace Seeker]

It has the Arabic text, a transliteration of the Arabic text, an English interpretation and extensive footnotes and commentary.

It far surpasses anything else I have seen.

:wa:

I've seen many translations which have commentary inserted into the English text itself.

Example: Surah 4:139 "Those who take disbelievers for Auliya' (protectors or helpers or friends) instead of believers, do they seek honour, power and glory with them? Verily, then to Allah belongs all honour, power and glory."

I wonder if the insertion of the commentary directly into the text is really wise? I often wonder if rather than serving to explain the text, it doesn't sometimes cause people to actually misunderstand the text, by giving them a false sense of what it was that was originally said in the Qur'an. As in this instance, the best Islamic scholars on this particular text seem to indicate that the verse is cautioning against entering into business relationships and other sorts of enterprises with non-Muslims where the Muslim becomes dependent on a non-Muslim, but it isn't trying to say that Muslims and non-Muslims cannot be friends with one another. And yet I have seen a few people on this very forum quote this and other similar verses to say exactly the opposite and everytime they have done so by inserting the commentary as if it was also a part of the Qur'an itself.

[Woodrow]

No the Church only insists that the translations be in keeping with the Original tounges. The Church in America uses the New American Bible, RSV catholic edition and we cultists the Douay-Rheims. All are acceptable. Now I have a question for you? Which english translation of the Qu'ran should I read??

Thanks in advance,
Troy

Peace Troy,

Just thinking back to my old Catholic days in the 1940s. At that time we were forbidden to read the KJV and it as considered a sin, to do so. I was in the Diocise of Hartford and that was the ruling by the Bishop. I seem to recall Cardinal Spelman also had that view. The Mass was in Latin in those good old days and the Bible of Choice was the Latin Vulgate. Although the Douay Rheims was acceptable for home use, it was not preferred or encouraged

As for the English translation of the Qur'an. We do not consider any Translation to be the Qur'an. However a rough idea of the Qur'an can be found in the Translations by Pickthal and Ali. I tell people to read at least 2 different translations. A good 2 would be Ali and Moshin. When using the translations it is also good to have a Tafsir to read along with it. Ali has some good commentaries but they are not Tafsir and should not be considered to be agreed upon by all scholars.

All translations of the Qur'an are inaccurate and contain some error. However by reading several translations you can get a reasonable approximation of the Qur'an. but, it can not be fully understood except in Arabic.

[kamran javed]

Not to stray too far off course here. But, here in the USA there are some(Not Many) Christian groups that believe the KJV came directly from heaven, sent down printed and bound in today's form. They actually believe Jesus(as) and his disciples spoke Elizabethan English.

A classic example is Ann Richards of Texas. When she was elected Governor of Texas she was Asked what book she wanted to take the oath of office on. Her Answer shocked even some of the reporters. Her answer was :"The KJV of course, if it was good enough for Jesus(as) it is good enough for me."( Might Not be exact quote, best I remember hearing her say)

any body can tellme about earth quick .

[Supreme]

Peace Troy,

Just thinking back to my old Catholic days in the 1940s. At that time we were forbidden to read the KJV and it as considered a sin, to do so. I was in the Diocise of Hartford and that was the ruling by the Bishop. I seem to recall Cardinal Spelman also had that view. The Mass was in Latin in those good old days and the Bible of Choice was the Latin Vulgate. Although the Douay Rheims was acceptable for home use, it was not preferred or encouraged

As for the English translation of the Qur'an. We do not consider any Translation to be the Qur'an. However a rough idea of the Qur'an can be found in the Translations by Pickthal and Ali. I tell people to read at least 2 different translations. A good 2 would be Ali and Moshin. When using the translations it is also good to have a Tafsir to read along with it. Ali has some good commentaries but they are not Tafsir and should not be considered to be agreed upon by all scholars.

All translations of the Qur'an are inaccurate and contain some error. However by reading several translations you can get a reasonable approximation of the Qur'an. but, it can not be fully understood except in Arabic.

That's something I've never understood about Islam. Did God, when giving the Quran, assume that all peoples spoke Arabic as their mother tongue? Islam, like Christianity, is a 'evanglizing'- in short, it seeks converts. I think the 'only in Arabic' sentiment towards the Quran that most Muslims feel (even those who don't know any Arabic) is really rather odd. Surely God doesn't care what language His word is preached in? So wait, all people in the world can convert, so long as they learn Arabic? It seems like a heavy, unnecessary baggage to any new convert to Islam, and it really seems rather unfair on those Muslims who do not speak Arabic and have a difficulty learning languages. In that way, it does seem pretty inclusive.

[Grace Seeker]

As for the English translation of the Qur'an. We do not consider any Translation to be the Qur'an. However a rough idea of the Qur'an can be found in the Translations by Pickthal and Ali. I tell people to read at least 2 different translations. A good 2 would be Ali and Moshin. When using the translations it is also good to have a Tafsir to read along with it. Ali has some good commentaries but they are not Tafsir and should not be considered to be agreed upon by all scholars.

All translations of the Qur'an are inaccurate and contain some error. However by reading several translations you can get a reasonable approximation of the Qur'an. but, it can not be fully understood except in Arabic.

That's something I've never understood about Islam. Did God, when giving the Quran, assume that all peoples spoke Arabic as their mother tongue? Islam, like Christianity, is a 'evanglizing'- in short, it seeks converts. I think the 'only in Arabic' sentiment towards the Quran that most Muslims feel (even those who don't know any Arabic) is really rather odd. Surely God doesn't care what language His word is preached in? So wait, all people in the world can convert, so long as they learn Arabic? It seems like a heavy, unnecessary baggage to any new convert to Islam, and it really seems rather unfair on those Muslims who do not speak Arabic and have a difficulty learning languages. In that way, it does seem pretty inclusive.

Curiously, that is one of the things I DO understand. As an English speaking pastor, I generally trust and use the various English translations of the Bible and encourage my people to do the same. But I absolutely hate it when someone begins to dissect the text and comes up with some sort of strange meaning based on the English word chosen by a translator and totally misses the actual idea of the Biblical author as expressed in the original language.

I don't blame the translator either. With only a handful of exceptions the translations are usually spot on. But words carry all sorts of different connotations. And sometimes people see in them things one would never expect, and then orchstrate whole new theologies around isolated passages. So, I can understand why a religion, in this case Islam, might say that the translation is just that -- a translation. It isn't the actual text. Read the translation if you don't speak the original language. But if you really want to understand what is being said, you will want to learn as much of the text in its original language as possible.

Personally, I would encourage Christians who are able to do the same, and I don't mean just using the back of a Strong's Concordance or an interlinear Bible and think that because you have access to those sorts of tools that you really understand the original language until you can actually read in it. (Honesty in advertising disclaimer: even having said that, I've personally only learned Greek and not Hebrew.)

[kamran javed]

salam . any one want to tell me about the real mean of bible fake

[Supreme]

Curiously, that is one of the things I DO understand. As an English speaking pastor, I generally trust and use the various English translations of the Bible and encourage my people to do the same. But I absolutely hate it when someone begins to dissect the text and comes up with some sort of strange meaning based on the English word chosen by a translator and totally misses the actual idea of the Biblical author as expressed in the original language.

I don't blame the translator either. With only a handful of exceptions the translations are usually spot on. But words carry all sorts of different connotations. And sometimes people see in them things one would never expect, and then orchstrate whole new theologies around isolated passages. So, I can understand why a religion, in this case Islam, might say that the translation is just that -- a translation. It isn't the actual text. Read the translation if you don't speak the original language. But if you really want to understand what is being said, you will want to learn as much of the text in its original language as possible.

Personally, I would encourage Christians who are able to do the same, and I don't mean just using the back of a Strong's Concordance or an interlinear Bible and think that because you have access to those sorts of tools that you really understand the original language until you can actually read in it. (Honesty in advertising disclaimer: even having said that, I've personally only learned Greek and not Hebrew.)

If I were as good as languages as I was science, I might give Greek a try. Some of the ancient Biblical manuscripts in Greek are absoloutely beautiful. However, Greek is not just another language, it has an entirely different alphabet too.

Now, I understand that translations can change word meaning and everything, and I also understand that in some incidences, such an occurrence is unavoidable. What I do not understand is why (some) Muslims feel that Arabic is the language of God and that God only preaches in Arabic and if you don't like it than your language translation is inferior. Surely such a view, even if true, is rather contradictory for a religion that seeks converts of all languages, cultures and races? That's a major difference between Christianity and Islam: Christianity adapts to cultures, whereas cultures adapt to Islam.

[anatolian]

...That's a major difference between Christianity and Islam: Christianity adapts to cultures, whereas cultures adapt to Islam.

That is why Christianity has been changed or say transformed over time but Islam stands as it was.

[tango92]

If I were as good as languages as I was science, I might give Greek a try. Some of the ancient Biblical manuscripts in Greek are absoloutely beautiful. However, Greek is not just another language, it has an entirely different alphabet too.

Now, I understand that translations can change word meaning and everything, and I also understand that in some incidences, such an occurrence is unavoidable. What I do not understand is why (some) Muslims feel that Arabic is the language of God and that God only preaches in Arabic and if you don't like it than your language translation is inferior. Surely such a view, even if true, is rather contradictory for a religion that seeks converts of all languages, cultures and races? That's a major difference between Christianity and Islam: Christianity adapts to cultures, whereas cultures adapt to Islam.

we dont believe that at all, we believe that each nation recieved their revelation in their mother tongue, eg we belive in the torah and the bible revealed to Moses as. and Jesus as. as words of God, God has no "language" per se. I hope someone can correct me if im wrong.

lastly the quran had to be written in A language, the arabic language was chosen because the prophet muhammad (to whom revealed) lived in makkah, also it can convey a large range of meanings so it gives depth. and god knows best.

"Christianity adapts to cultures, whereas cultures adapt to Islam"

this is (almost) the very definition of islam. you cannot allow what is forbidden and forbid what is allowed, it is complete submission to God. it is easy to follow. I urge you to look at the teachings of islam, their is no need to change it as it is a perfect way of life.

im a muslim and I do not understand arabic, yet i try my best to study quran. and im sure a good christian does not need to know hebrew or greek to follow the bibles teachings.

[Supreme]

That is why Christianity has been changed or say transformed over time but Islam stands as it was.

Not really. The letters from early church fathers confirm to us that Christianity as it is practised today is still essentially the same Christianity that was preached 2,000 years ago. However, 2,000 years ago, there was only one Apostolistic Church. That church split into the Catholic church in the West and Eastern Orthodox Church in the East. Those churches faced a reformation for Protestants, and now Protestants are completely divided. The point is, Christianity has changed its shell, but not its inside. I suppose the adaptation of Christianity is like me moving to the North Pole and adapting to the lifestyle- I'd have to make lifestyle changes, but I'd be the same person.

[Ramadhan]

Does anyone even know for certainty in which language was the gospel revealed to Jesus (as)?

[Woodrow]

Does anyone even know for certainty in which language was the gospel revealed to Jesus (as)?

Not for certain. However the comon language spoken in the region was Aramaic and even from the Bible in which it is alleged Jesus(as) said (in Aramaic):"Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" it is a point of curiosity as to why every other word he allegedly spoke was preserved in Greek.

While it is true that Latin was used in governmental rulings and Greek was used by the wealthy and highly educated, Aramaic should/would have been used by the common people and the language most certain to be understood by the majority of the people.

[Supreme]

Does anyone even know for certainty in which language was the gospel revealed to Jesus (as)?

Aramaic, which is closely related to Arabic, would be the language Jesus spoke. There are some (albeit small) packs of Aramaic speakers in Syria, who are almost exclusively Eastern Orthodox Christians and fiercely proud that their language is the one spoken by Jesus.

[Grace Seeker]

Not for certain. However the comon language spoken in the region was Aramaic and even from the Bible in which it is alleged Jesus(as) said (in Aramaic):"Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani" it is a point of curiosity as to why every other word he allegedly spoke was preserved in Greek.

While it is true that Latin was used in governmental rulings and Greek was used by the wealthy and highly educated, Aramaic should/would have been used by the common people and the language most certain to be understood by the majority of the people.

Greek was used by much more than just the wealthy and highly educated, it was common in the Galillee in which Jesus lived as English is on these boards. Of course, not everyone was a native speaker, Jesus' first language was probably Aramaic. But he was educated enough to read from the Hebrew scriptures and even as a lad discuss them with the teachers in the temple. He journeyed frequenlty into the Greek and Latin speaking communities that were near him. I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that Jesus spoke four languages: Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin.


As to why Jesus' words are preserved in Greek? That's a completely different issue. The writers were writing for their audience, an audience which was very likely multi-lingual speaking at least their native tongue (Aramaic, Latin, Parthian, Arabic, or Cretan among countless other possibilities) and the lingua franca of their age Koine Greek (Koine meaning common). Even the majority of Jewish synagogues used Greek, not Hebrew, to tell the story of the people of Israel. In such an enviroment it makes perfect sense to me for these writers to have composed their message in the language that would have been readily understood by the largest number of people.

[Grace Seeker]

Does anyone even know for certainty in which language was the gospel revealed to Jesus (as)?

It is a wholly Muslim concept that a gospel would have been revealed to Jesus at all. The Christian do not claim that Jesus received a special revealtion that he was sent to deliver as a word from God -- such a thing is the Muslim concept of an Injil.

Rather, the Christian Gospel is a proclamation about what Jesus did whereby he reconciled estranged humankind back to God.

[Grace Seeker]

The Bible is not a single book. Never has been. Rather, it is a collection of many different books, composed over an extended period of time, by the hand of many different (inspired, I believe) human authors. As such, the collection known today as the Bible is not what it originally was, nor would I want it to be, for then it would not contain the full revelation of God.

I'm not so much worried about those who question if the Bible has ever changed -- of course it has. I'm much more concerned about the question as to why we consider the canon of scripture closed and no longer open to change. After all, doesn't God continue to reveal himself to us, even to this day. Why then has the Church declared that there no more to be added to the Bible? And just quoting Revelation 22:18-19 is not good enough, for that line refers only to the book of Revelation, not the whole of scripture.

Interesting thoughts, Grace Seeker. I would love to hear your own views on this - publicly or privately, whichever seems best.

I agree that God reveals himself to us today - to 'big' influential people as well as to 'little' people who may never change the course of history.
Presumably God's revelations would always sit clearly within the teaching of the Bible as we know it?
I am asking, because it could be argued (indeed it has been argued in this very forum) that the NT teachings, even Jesus' own teachings, seemed sometimes clearly at odds with the teaching of the OT ... and yet Christians continue to believe it to be the Word of God.

I am reminded of the three elements of the Episcopal Church - Scripture, Tradition and Reason - which always allows for the expression of a new understanding of the old through the introduction of the new.
What do you think?

Sorry, Glo, I don't really have any deep thoughts in this area.

Now you are disappointing me, Grace! :D

Alas! We can't have you so disappointed. So, let's investigate it. And as we are talking about a decision of the Church I'm going to begin our investigation with the early church, prior to any NT writings.

We don't know near as much about them as we would like, but we do know some things. And chief among those things we know the basic message of the apostolic Church. If the accounting in the book of Acts is to believed, the early church was heavily influenced by the teaching of the apostles. And what was their message? Well, despite deference to those who think the place to find the content of the apostles' teaching is in the Qur'an, I suggest we look at the record of their sermons and other Christian literature of that day. When we do this, we find frequent references to the death and resurrection of Jesus. One might presume that those sermons which later appeared in the book of Acts were recorded by Luke as representative of typical gospel preaching of that period of time. That assertions of the resurrection should be particularly frequent and emphatic is understandable given that so many of the first sermons of the Church were delivered in Jerusalem, outside whose very gates Jesus had been crucified. The testimony of Jesus' resurrection not only was testimony that Jewish authorities had no power over neither Jesus nor his message, but was vindication of Jesus and the disciples and a judgment on the wrongfulness of those who had rejected Jesus and conspired to accomplish or condoned Jesus' death. The first message then is that God had given Jesus a decisive vindication.

Yet, Peter's references to the manner of Jesus' death -- "whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree" (Acts 5:30) and "they killed him by hanging him on a tree" (Acts 10:39) -- would immediately bring to mind the judgment "anyone who is hung on a tree is under God's curse" (Deuteronomy 21:23). Surely Peter knew this. So, why would he have been so explicit? What is the significance of mentiong that Jesus died on a "tree"?

Peter himself gives us the answer in his later writing:

1 Peter 2

23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. 25For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

Peter interprets the cross in terms of sin-bearing. Note also the allusion to the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53. Peter sees in the cross (and Paul would later follow him in this interpretation) the divine purpose of atonement. Post-resurrection, Peter takes ideas that were once abhorent to him -- the idea that the Messiah would have to suffer (see Mark 8:29-32) -- and proclaims that in them is the answer to the problem of sin, evil, and the human condition. Jesus' death become the archtype of the sacrificial system of the Old Testament. What it sought to do -- provide forgiveness and reconcilition -- was now not only accomplished but accomplished for all people in the events of Jesus' life.

The message of God's will for humanity, his chosing of a people and desire for them to life out a covenantal relationship with God faithfully is the essence of the story of the Old Testament. The failure of that covenant (on the people's not on God's part) and the institution of a new that was successful and could be applied to reconcile any who would enter into it is the message of the New Testament whether one is reading from the Gospels, the letters, or the apocalypse. The purpose of the Church is to continue to tell that story and invite people to live in this newly available reconciled relationship. As the writings of the OT and NT as the church has and uses them in the 4th century are all that is necessary for telling that story and wholly sufficient to that purpose, there is no need to add to it. And so the canon, the standard of what is necessary and sufficient for faith and practice, can be closed. Much more valuable inspiration might come to us from God. But the scriptures as they exist already contain all that is needed and are entirely sufficient to the task of communicating the activity of God who seeks to reconcile us to himself and, as a corrollary to that, with one another.

[Seeker1066]

:sl:
I have three english translations of the Qu'ran that I have been reading. For me, the best is the one by Muhammad Asad. I love that book (The Message of The Quran). :bravo:
I managed to pick it up from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).

It has the Arabic text, a transliteration of the Arabic text, an English interpretation and extensive footnotes and commentary.

It far surpasses anything else I have seen.

:wa:

Thank you for the advice.
Troy

[Seeker1066]

Peace Troy,

Just thinking back to my old Catholic days in the 1940s. At that time we were forbidden to read the KJV and it as considered a sin, to do so. I was in the Diocise of Hartford and that was the ruling by the Bishop. I seem to recall Cardinal Spelman also had that view. The Mass was in Latin in those good old days and the Bible of Choice was the Latin Vulgate. Although the Douay Rheims was acceptable for home use, it was not preferred or encouraged

As for the English translation of the Qur'an. We do not consider any Translation to be the Qur'an. However a rough idea of the Qur'an can be found in the Translations by Pickthal and Ali. I tell people to read at least 2 different translations. A good 2 would be Ali and Moshin. When using the translations it is also good to have a Tafsir to read along with it. Ali has some good commentaries but they are not Tafsir and should not be considered to be agreed upon by all scholars.

All translations of the Qur'an are inaccurate and contain some error. However by reading several translations you can get a reasonable approximation of the Qur'an. but, it can not be fully understood except in Arabic.

Thank you for your answer. I do understand that the Qu'ran can only be truly read in the language that it was given. This would seem to be an area where if one were not a native speaker of Arabic they would depend upon the local Muslim community for help in the meanings of the verses. Which brings up another point. In non-Arabic speaking nations of the west how is Arabic fluency passed on? I'm not a spring chicken 42 and learning a whole new language is a wee bit intimidating. Also could you elaberate on the Tafsir??

Thank you in advance for helping with this.
Troy

[Woodrow]

Thank you for your answer. I do understand that the Qu'ran can only be truly read in the language that it was given. This would seem to be an area where if one were not a native speaker of Arabic they would depend upon the local Muslim community for help in the meanings of the verses. Which brings up another point. In non-Arabic speaking nations of the west how is Arabic fluency passed on? I'm not a spring chicken 42 and learning a whole new language is a wee bit intimidating. Also could you elaberate on the Tafsir??

Thank you in advance for helping with this.
Troy

Peace Seeker,

Tafsir can best be described as being a commentary or explanation of Qur'an. To be considered Tasir it must be written by a person well schooled in Qur'anic studies, is verified by other scholars and is as free from personal opinion as possible. There are some books of Tafsir written in English. They are good for a non-Arabic Speaker to have as a companion book when reading an English translation.

I will try to find some accepted sources for Tafsir in English. It may take me some time as I will not have much time on the internet for the next day or 2.

[Uthman]

Tafeer ibn Katheer is considered to be one of the best. It has been translated into English and can be found online here: http://qtafsir.com/

[Woodrow]

Tafeer ibn Katheer is considered to be one of the best. It has been translated into English and can be found online here: http://qtafsir.com/

:wa:

That is an excellent choice. You are fast. I believe that will be exactly what Troy is looking for

[Seeker1066]

Tafeer ibn Katheer is considered to be one of the best. It has been translated into English and can be found online here: http://qtafsir.com/

Thanks I'll look at this.

[glo]

And so the canon, the standard of what is necessary and sufficient for faith and practice, can be closed. Much more valuable inspiration might come to us from God. But the scriptures as they exist already contain all that is needed and are entirely sufficient to the task of communicating the activity of God who seeks to reconcile us to himself and, as a corollary to that, with one another.

That's very powerful, Grace.
Thank you for your lengthy and informative post.

I was quite prepared to forgive you for not contributing to my earlier question, you know ... ;D