When was the Bible corrupted?

[Grace Seeker]

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

Now, one other issue that I don't see as relevant to this discussion, and I hope to head off here at the beginnng. I don't think it is germain to a discussion of when the Bible was corrupted to speak of the many different English translations of it that one can find today. The Qur'an made its statements about the Bible being corrupted before English even existed as a langauge, so even getting the Pope and every priest/preacher in the world to confess that English Bibles were corrupted would have no relevance to the Bible that Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of.

Obviously Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupted by his time. But was it corrupted from the very beginning, where the first writings themselves corrupted? Was it corrupted when the first copies were made? Some centuries later? When was the Bible corrupted?

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi grace seeker
First of all, Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, and we don't have certainty of exactly when it got corrupted. But I think the problem here is with the term bible. If I understand correctly, the bible was never considered a holy book, but a compilation of books, of which some were holy. So in that sense, the first bible was already a corruption of the holy text (by putting non-holy next to holy as equal). Next there is the question of their being altered upon compiling the bible, some of these scriptures are not available to the public and kept in the Vatican. So there's no way to check if what was compiled in the Bible was actually the genuine text, or an alteration of it. Thirdly, the Vatican publicized an open letter of the pope a couple years ago (this was still the previous one then) where they openly admitted to have added (fabricated) text into the bible
(I tried looking for the link, I remember reading it on bbc-news website, but sadly can't find it anymore). Next to that we have the issue of interpretations there's hundreds of different bibles each laying their own specific accents and interpretations of the origenal text.

[Grace Seeker]

Next to that we have the issue of interpretations there's hundreds of different bibles each laying their own specific accents and interpretations of the origenal text.

As I said in my opening post, the issue of interpretation isn't something with which I am concerned here. Certainly, there are those who would take issue with many of the various interpretations, but that is for some other thread(s) -- or at least I hope it will not be allowed to side-track us here.

Hi grace seeker
First of all, Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, and we don't have certainty of exactly when it got corrupted. But I think the problem here is with the term bible. If I understand correctly, the bible was never considered a holy book, but a compilation of books, of which some were holy. So in that sense, the first bible was already a corruption of the holy text (by putting non-holy next to holy as equal). Next there is the question of their being altered upon compiling the bible, some of these scriptures are not available to the public and kept in the Vatican. So there's no way to check if what was compiled in the Bible was actually the genuine text, or an alteration of it. Thirdly, the Vatican publicized an open letter of the pope a couple years ago (this was still the previous one then) where they openly admitted to have added (fabricated) text into the bible

So, it sounds as if your concern is with the issue of how the compilation was achieved. Is that what was meant by corruption in the Qur'an, or is there another issue that causes it to say the Bible was corrupted. If the compilation process is the issue, then does Islam grant that the original autographs, prior to their compilation, may have carried the true Injil? The problem of corruption then takes place sometime between the writing of the various texts and their amalgamation into a book called the Bible, but (if recoverable) at least some of the actual books that later came to make up the Bible were not corrupted in their original forms?

[Abdul Fattah]

Isn't false interpretation a corruption in itself?

So, it sounds as if your concern is with the issue of how the compilation was achieved. Is that what was meant by corruption in the Qur'an,

No, that's not certain. Like I said only Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows where and when the scriptures got corrupted. Since it wasn't revealed, the best we can do is look at the history of the bible. I just listed some problems when looking at that history, but that doesn't mean that one of these is the corruption Allah subhana wa ta'ala spoke of. And Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best.

If the compilation process is the issue, then does Islam grant that the original autographs, prior to their compilation, may have carried the true Injil? The problem of corruption then takes place sometime between the writing of the various texts and their amalgamation into a book called the Bible, but (if recoverable) at least some of the actual books that later came to make up the Bible were not corrupted in their original forms?

Perhaps, the problem is, we simply can't know which parts are accurate and which are corrupted, or even fabricated altogether, since not all of the sources of the bible are publicly available.

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]

Isn't false interpretation a corruption in itself?

No, because by that standard I can go to some of the many English interpretations of the Qur'an, find a few that disagree with each other, declare one of them false, and suddenly we have a corrupted Qur'an. Now, neither of us believes that is valid. You based on faith, and both of us based on logic. Now what makes it invalid logically is that a false interpretation of an original does nothing to the integrity of the original, only to the interpretation. And I am specifically elminating the various translations and interpretations from the issue under discussion in this thread and leaving that for others at another time to discuss if they wish to in another thread.

Perhaps, the problem is, we simply can't know which parts are accurate and which are corrupted, or even fabricated altogether, since not all of the sources of the bible are publicly available.

Why do you say that? I don't think that is actually the case. True, you and I couldn't walk up and present our library card to check out the oldest extant copies, but we couldn't do that with any old books or documents. It is my understanding that legitimate scholars working on these documents do indeed have access to them. The story you relate above of no access to the Vaticanus does not ring true with what I have understood from those who work with these ancient texts. In fact, the only ones I know of that people have had trouble access have been the "Dead Sea Scrolls". The curators of those scrolls did keep them out of the public for about the first 30 years into they had examined them thoroughly themselves. I don't know if you are into biblical archeology (no reason for you to be) but there were some major articles on this in the late 1990s as we approached the 50th annivesary of their discovery. But the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the Bible are different issues. No one in my reading has ever raised concerns with regard to access to any of the ancient Biblical texts.

[queefer]

Isn't false interpretation a corruption in itself?

Then you'd better tell the Taliban, Al Qada and the like that they're messing up the Quran, big time.:uuh:

[Joe98]

the best we can do is look at the history of the bible. I just listed some problems when looking at that history,……….

Graceseeker has asked you keep the discussion to the era before the year 700AD

-

[Abdul-Raouf]

Can u please tell me about King James... when did he live.. was he
roman king.. how did he do the collection... i heard that the romans changed the holy day of the week from saturday to sunday..... DID THE ROMANS MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES AS THEY WISH ?

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions
about Sunday and the Bible Sabbath

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
In the second portion of this article are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CONFESSIONS

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

[Malaikah]

:sl:

The bible that Christians use today is not that Book that was given to Jesus (pbuh). It is something else. Therefore we don't need to prove that it has been corrupted because it was never authoritative in the first place (from an Islamic perspective).

The bible is not the 'injeel' that is referred to in the Quran.

This should help clarify what I mean:

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal

Question:
It is well known among us Muslims that Allaah revealed the Gospel (Injeel) to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), but when I studied some things about Christianity, they told me that the Gospel was not brought by the Messiah, rather it was written by the disciples of the Messiah after the crucifixion (or after Allaah raised him up to Him, as it says in the Qur’aan). How can we reconcile between the two views?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

There is no contradiction between the two views such that we would need to ask how they can be reconciled. Rather the reason why the questioner is confused is that he is mixing up two things that we must believe in and that are both true, praise be to Allaah.

The first issue is the Gospel that was revealed from the Lord of the Worlds to the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). Belief that Allaah revealed a Book to His Prophet ‘Eesa and that the name of this book was the Gospel (Injeel), are basic principles of faith that we must believe in. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say,) ‘We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers’ — and they say, ‘We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)’”

[al-Baqarah 2:285]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Jibreel, when he asked him about faith, as mentioned in the well-known hadeeth: “Faith means to believe in Allaah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and to believe in His divine will and decree, both good and bad.” (Agreed upon).

Disbelieving in that or doubting it is misguidance and kufr or disbelief in Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Believe in Allaah, and His Messenger (Muhammad), and the Book (the Qur’aan) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.

137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way”

[al-Nisa’ 4:136-137]

“Verily, those who disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allaah and His Messengers (by believing in Allaah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, “We believe in some but reject others,” and wish to adopt a way in between.

151. They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment”

[al-Nisa’ 4:150-151]

The second issue is the Gospel or, more precisely, the Gospels that the Christians have today. Although one of the basic principles of our faith is to believe in the Gospel that was revealed to ‘Eesa, we also believe that there is no longer any book that remained as it was revealed by Allaah, neither the Gospel nor anything else, apart from the Qur’aan. Even the Christians themselves do not believe that the books that they have before them were revealed in that form from God, nor do they claim that the Messiah wrote the Gospel or at least that it was written during his lifetime. Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) says in al-Fasl fi’l-Milal (2/2):

We do not need to try hard to prove that the Gospels and all the books of the Christians did not come from God or from the Messiah (peace be upon him), as we needed to do with regard to the Torah and the books attributed to the Prophets that the Jews have, because the Jews claim that the Torah that they have was revealed from God to Moosa, so we needed to establish proof that this claim of theirs is false. With regard to the Christians, they have taken care of the issue themselves, because they do not believe that the Gospels were revealed from God to the Messiah, or that the Messiah brought them, rather all of them from first to last, peasants and kings, Nestorians, Jacobites, Maronites and Orthodox are all agreed that there are four historical accounts written by four known men at different times. The first of them is the account written by Matthew the Levite who was a disciple of the Messiah, nine years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Hebrew in Judaea in Palestine, and it filled approximately twenty-eight pages in a medium-sized script. The next account was written by Mark, a disciple of Simon ben Yuna, who was called Peter, twenty-two years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek in Antioch in the land of the Byzantines. They say that the Simon mentioned is the one who wrote it, then he erased his name from the beginning of it and attributed it to his disciple Mark. It filled twenty-four pages written in a medium-sized script. This Simon was a disciple of the Messiah. The third account written was that of Luke, a physician of Antioch who was also a disciple of Simon Peter. He wrote it in Greek after Mark had written his account, and is similar in length to the Gospel of Matthew. The fourth account was written by John the son of Zebedee, another disciple of the Messiah, sixty-odd years after the Messiah has been taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek, and it filled twenty-four pages in a medium-sized script. End quote.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Jawaab al-Saheeh (3:21):

With regard to the Gospels that the Christians have, there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are agreed that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four accounts which they call the Gospel, and they call each one of them a Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up into heaven. They did not say that they are the word of God or that the Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles. End quote.

Moreover, these books which were written after the time of the Messiah did not remain in their original form. The original versions were lost long ago. Ibn Hazm said:

With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime… and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.

They continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven.

During this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared, apart from a few verses which Allaah preserved as proof against them and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.

If a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted.

End quote. Al-Fasl, 2/4-5.

In addition to this huge disruption in the chain of transmission of their books, which lasted for two centuries, these books did not remain in the languages in which they were originally written, rather they were translated, more than once, by people whose level of knowledge and honesty is unknown. The contradictions in these books and their shortcomings are among the strongest evidence that they have been distorted and that they are not the Gospel (Injeel) that Allaah revealed to His slave and Messenger ‘Eesa (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah indeed spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning):

“Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisa’ 4:82].

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=47516&ln=eng

[north_malaysian]

Can u please tell me about King James... when did he live.. was he
roman king..

King James was the King of England (1566 - 1625)

[Redeemed]

:sl:

The bible that Christians use today is not that Book that was given to Jesus (pbuh). It is something else. Therefore we don't need to prove that it has been corrupted because it was never authoritative in the first place (from an Islamic perspective).

The bible is not the 'injeel' that is referred to in the Quran.

This should help clarify what I mean:

The Gospels that are extant nowadays were written after the time of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) and have been tampered with a great deal

Question:
It is well known among us Muslims that Allaah revealed the Gospel (Injeel) to ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), but when I studied some things about Christianity, they told me that the Gospel was not brought by the Messiah, rather it was written by the disciples of the Messiah after the crucifixion (or after Allaah raised him up to Him, as it says in the Qur’aan). How can we reconcile between the two views?.

Answer:
Praise be to Allaah.

There is no contradiction between the two views such that we would need to ask how they can be reconciled. Rather the reason why the questioner is confused is that he is mixing up two things that we must believe in and that are both true, praise be to Allaah.

The first issue is the Gospel that was revealed from the Lord of the Worlds to the Prophet of Allaah ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). Belief that Allaah revealed a Book to His Prophet ‘Eesa and that the name of this book was the Gospel (Injeel), are basic principles of faith that we must believe in. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“The Messenger (Muhammad) believes in what has been sent down to him from his Lord, and (so do) the believers. Each one believes in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, and His Messengers. (They say,) ‘We make no distinction between one another of His Messengers’ — and they say, ‘We hear, and we obey. (We seek) Your forgiveness, our Lord, and to You is the return (of all)’”

[al-Baqarah 2:285]

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to Jibreel, when he asked him about faith, as mentioned in the well-known hadeeth: “Faith means to believe in Allaah, His angels, His books, His messengers, the Last Day, and to believe in His divine will and decree, both good and bad.” (Agreed upon).

Disbelieving in that or doubting it is misguidance and kufr or disbelief in Allaah. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“O you who believe! Believe in Allaah, and His Messenger (Muhammad), and the Book (the Qur’aan) which He has sent down to His Messenger, and the Scripture which He sent down to those before (him); and whosoever disbelieves in Allaah, His Angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Last Day, then indeed he has strayed far away.

137. Verily, those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe (again), and (again) disbelieve, and go on increasing in disbelief; Allaah will not forgive them, nor guide them on the (right) way”

[al-Nisa’ 4:136-137]

“Verily, those who disbelieve in Allaah and His Messengers and wish to make distinction between Allaah and His Messengers (by believing in Allaah and disbelieving in His Messengers) saying, “We believe in some but reject others,” and wish to adopt a way in between.

151. They are in truth disbelievers. And We have prepared for the disbelievers a humiliating torment”

[al-Nisa’ 4:150-151]

The second issue is the Gospel or, more precisely, the Gospels that the Christians have today. Although one of the basic principles of our faith is to believe in the Gospel that was revealed to ‘Eesa, we also believe that there is no longer any book that remained as it was revealed by Allaah, neither the Gospel nor anything else, apart from the Qur’aan. Even the Christians themselves do not believe that the books that they have before them were revealed in that form from God, nor do they claim that the Messiah wrote the Gospel or at least that it was written during his lifetime. Imam Ibn Hazm (may Allaah have mercy on him) says in al-Fasl fi’l-Milal (2/2):

We do not need to try hard to prove that the Gospels and all the books of the Christians did not come from God or from the Messiah (peace be upon him), as we needed to do with regard to the Torah and the books attributed to the Prophets that the Jews have, because the Jews claim that the Torah that they have was revealed from God to Moosa, so we needed to establish proof that this claim of theirs is false. With regard to the Christians, they have taken care of the issue themselves, because they do not believe that the Gospels were revealed from God to the Messiah, or that the Messiah brought them, rather all of them from first to last, peasants and kings, Nestorians, Jacobites, Maronites and Orthodox are all agreed that there are four historical accounts written by four known men at different times. The first of them is the account written by Matthew the Levite who was a disciple of the Messiah, nine years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Hebrew in Judaea in Palestine, and it filled approximately twenty-eight pages in a medium-sized script. The next account was written by Mark, a disciple of Simon ben Yuna, who was called Peter, twenty-two years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek in Antioch in the land of the Byzantines. They say that the Simon mentioned is the one who wrote it, then he erased his name from the beginning of it and attributed it to his disciple Mark. It filled twenty-four pages written in a medium-sized script. This Simon was a disciple of the Messiah. The third account written was that of Luke, a physician of Antioch who was also a disciple of Simon Peter. He wrote it in Greek after Mark had written his account, and is similar in length to the Gospel of Matthew. The fourth account was written by John the son of Zebedee, another disciple of the Messiah, sixty-odd years after the Messiah has been taken up into heaven. He wrote it in Greek, and it filled twenty-four pages in a medium-sized script. End quote.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Jawaab al-Saheeh (3:21):

With regard to the Gospels that the Christians have, there are four Gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They are agreed that Luke and Mark did not see the Messiah, rather he was seen by Matthew and John. These four accounts which they call the Gospel, and they call each one of them a Gospel, were written by these men after the Messiah had been taken up into heaven. They did not say that they are the word of God or that the Messiah conveyed them from God, rather they narrated some of the words of the Messiah and some of his deeds and miracles. End quote.

Moreover, these books which were written after the time of the Messiah did not remain in their original form. The original versions were lost long ago. Ibn Hazm said:

With regard to the Christians, there is no dispute among them or anyone else that only one hundred and twenty men believed in the Messiah during his lifetime… and all of those who believed in him concealed themselves and were afraid during his lifetime and afterwards; they called people to his religion in secret and none of them disclosed himself or practised his religion openly, because any of them who was caught was executed.

They continued in this manner, not showing themselves at all, and they had no place where they were safe for three hundred years after the Messiah was taken up into heaven.

During this time, the Gospel that had been revealed from Allaah disappeared, apart from a few verses which Allaah preserved as proof against them and as a rebuke to them, as we have mentioned. Then when the Emperor Constantine became a Christian, then the Christians prevailed and started to practise their religion openly and assemble in safety.

If a religion is like this, with its followers practicing it in secret and living in constant fear of the sword, it is impossible for things to be transmitted soundly via a continuous chain of narrators and its followers cannot protect it or prevent it from being distorted.

End quote. Al-Fasl, 2/4-5.

In addition to this huge disruption in the chain of transmission of their books, which lasted for two centuries, these books did not remain in the languages in which they were originally written, rather they were translated, more than once, by people whose level of knowledge and honesty is unknown. The contradictions in these books and their shortcomings are among the strongest evidence that they have been distorted and that they are not the Gospel (Injeel) that Allaah revealed to His slave and Messenger ‘Eesa (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Allaah indeed spoke the truth when He said (interpretation of the meaning):

“Had it been from other than Allaah, they would surely, have found therein many a contradiction”

[al-Nisa’ 4:82].

Islam Q&A

http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=47516&ln=eng

But how can we be sure that the Qur'an is not corrupt like you say the Bible is. There are cults that have started today and in the recent past that say that there leader is really god and has the last message. People or misguided souls follow believing them true. When I think about Jesus and His works, I see no one who can compare to what he has done. His disciples were just witnesses of what they heard Jesus say and what they saw him do including his rising from the dead. It is written; “Receive not an accusation unless it be in the mouth of two or three witnesses”. Jesus has had many witnesses of all he has done that have more clout than anyone in history. Hitler once said that if you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one. The bigger the lie, the more apt people are to believe it. To say that the Bible is corrupted is the biggest lie next to the theory of evolution I have ever heard. Are you saying I should just blindly believe the Bible corrupt when that goes against all the logic and reasoning Muslims have been telling me I should use? :hmm:

[Abdul-Raouf]

Can u please tell me about King James... when did he live.. was he
roman king.. how did he do the collection... i heard that the romans changed the holy day of the week from saturday to sunday..... DID THE ROMANS MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES AS THEY WISH ?

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions
about Sunday and the Bible Sabbath

History reveals that it was decades after the death of the apostles that a politico-religious system repudiated the Sabbath of Scripture and substituted the observance of the first day of the week. The following quotations, all from Roman Catholic sources, freely acknowledge that there is no Biblical authority for the observance of Sunday, that it was the Roman Church that changed the Sabbath to the first day of the week.
In the second portion of this article are quotations from Protestants. Undoubtedly all of these noted clergymen, scholars, and writers kept Sunday, but they all frankly admit that there is no Biblical authority for a first-day sabbath.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CONFESSIONS

James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, 88th ed., pp. 89.

"But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify."

Stephen Keenan, A Doctrinal Catechism 3rd ed., p. 174.

"Question: Have you any other way of proving that the Church has power to institute festivals of precept? "Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her-she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday, the first day of the week, for the observance of Saturday, the seventh day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority."

King James was the King of England (1566 - 1625)

So.. Is King James the one who released the first full collection ?...(which is just in the 16th century) ....

did anyone release any other version before him...?

[Basirah]

So.. Is King James the one who released the first full collection ?...(which is just in the 16th century) ....

did anyone release any other version before him...?

I really don't want to offend you my friend, but if you do not know this basic information, and you thought that King James was a Roman King, than I would advise you to not participate in this discussion on the Bible, because to be honest, you do not posess the backround knowledge to understand many of the concepts that may be discussed. Your limited to copy and pasting others observations. Therefore, my friend, I would advise you look up a lot of information and do some reading or learn from the people posting in thsi thread who have researched more about the Bible and its origins. Again, I hope I did not hurt your feelings, and warmest regards!

[Joe98]

The bible that Christians use today is not that Book that was given to Jesus (pbuh).

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

-

[doorster]

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

-

are you just another lying troll or a Christian?

reason I ask is that you claim to be an athiest yet keep trolling here!

Atheist >> NO God, which for a Christian is Jesus. Since Jesus is God, there is no need for him to give himself a book because he would be giver of torah and books before that.

on the other hand there is NO God called Jesus in Islam.

The God in Islam is known as Allah and one of his Messengers was and is known as Hazrat Easa Alaisalam, who was given a book called Injeel by The God (Allah)

[Trumble]

So.. Is King James the one who released the first full collection ?...(which is just in the 16th century) ....

did anyone release any other version before him...?

The 'only' significance of the King James version in this context (it has had a massive cultural influence) is that is was the first generally accepted (but not the first) English translation of the Bible... the translation being from Hebrew and Greek for the Old and New Testaments respectively. Prior to that (and for some time after in non-Protestant traditions) most Bibles would have been in Latin, the most famous text being the 5th century 'Vulgate'.

[Pynthanomai]

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

Now, one other issue that I don't see as relevant to this discussion, and I hope to head off here at the beginnng. I don't think it is germain to a discussion of when the Bible was corrupted to speak of the many different English translations of it that one can find today. The Qur'an made its statements about the Bible being corrupted before English even existed as a langauge, so even getting the Pope and every priest/preacher in the world to confess that English Bibles were corrupted would have no relevance to the Bible that Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of.

Obviously Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupted by his time. But was it corrupted from the very beginning, where the first writings themselves corrupted? Was it corrupted when the first copies were made? Some centuries later? When was the Bible corrupted?

It's a very interesting question you pose, my friend, and one to which I am also very keen to receive an answer, if only to increase my knowledge of Islam. One point, however, I fear may reduce its coherence: when you or I speak of the "Bible", I am almost assured in my mind that that to which we make reference is utterly foreign to that to which Muslims make reference when they use the same English word. Indeed, from what I have gleaned from other posts and threads, there seems to be very little agreement about the very composition of the Bible, or what books are supposed or believed to constitute it. But if we have no common point of reference, then any conclusions that either Christians or Muslims may draw from the purported corruption of the Bible will not, so far as I can see, have any direct relevance to the doctrines or teachings of their respective religions - inasmuch as they are predicated upon entirely different foundations, i.e. different "Bibles".

It is also worth considering the (quite glaring) disparities that exist between Protestant and Roman Catholic considerations of the constitution of the Christian canon: viz., that the Catholic Bible includes several books deemed apocryphal by Protestants. We can only assume that such discrepancies reduce the strength of Christians' claims of unity about matters of their faith in the eyes of Muslims.

[Malaikah]

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

If you actually bothers to read the post, you will see that it doesn't matter to Muslims what the Christians claim.

[Malaikah]

The bigger the lie, the more apt people are to believe it. To say that the Bible is corrupted is the biggest lie next to the theory of evolution I have ever heard. Are you saying I should just blindly believe the Bible corrupt when that goes against all the logic and reasoning Muslims have been telling me I should use? :hmm:

Biggest lie? You first need to prove (If not to us, then to yourself, because your faith is baseless without it) that the book you call the bible was written by people who had the authority to write it.

The point of my post was that we Muslim do not believe that the bible is as authoritative as Christians like to think it.

So when the Quran says the books have been changed, it is not referring to the bible used today, therefore asking us to show where and when it was changed from the original is pointless because we aren't even talking about the same book.

[Umar001]

Great thread,

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

If you are asking when do the Islamic teachings say the Bible was curropted then I don't think they do mention dates or names. If you ask when can starting from the point of Islam, then look back at history and say 'It is possible that changes happend here here and here' then that's a different matter.

I can't give you the Islamic teachings on what dates the Bible were curropted or by whom, but I can give you what I found outside the realms of Islamic sources about the 'Corruption' of the Bible.

Obviously Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupted by his time. But was it corrupted from the very beginning, where the first writings themselves corrupted? Was it corrupted when the first copies were made? Some centuries later? When was the Bible corrupted?

Well if you want the answer from islamic sources, then what we know is that it would have been from Jesus time to Muhammad's time. I have yet to find dates of the instances.

If we speak outside the realms of Islam, then I personally think it would have been possibly curropted at the sources, through the time of its begging from pen to paper, and in the copies and also centuries later.

As I said in my opening post, the issue of interpretation isn't something with which I am concerned here. Certainly, there are those who would take issue with many of the various interpretations, but that is for some other thread(s) -- or at least I hope it will not be allowed to side-track us here.

But what if the interpretation lead to textual curroption. Example,

Original Text - 'Then forth, Jesus took Simon Peter to the peak of the Hill'

Copy of Scribe - 'Then forth, Jesus took Simon Peter to the highest level of understanding amongst the disciples'

Someone might think it's rediculous but, I beg to differ, maybe you can enlighten me but I do think there have been 'exegis' and scribal addition to 'clarify' the text at times.

So, it sounds as if your concern is with the issue of how the compilation was achieved. Is that what was meant by corruption in the Qur'an, or is there another issue that causes it to say the Bible was corrupted. If the compilation process is the issue, then does Islam grant that the original autographs, prior to their compilation, may have carried the true Injil? The problem of corruption then takes place sometime between the writing of the various texts and their amalgamation into a book called the Bible, but (if recoverable) at least some of the actual books that later came to make up the Bible were not corrupted in their original forms?

Original autographs of the Four Gospels? I wouldn't have thought so, the Injil is the word of God delivered to Jesus. The Four Gospels in their Original would have been Oral traditions, used by the authors to reflect their communities understanding or theological ideas about Jesus and so on. So I don't think even at the first autographs we would have that which Islam speaks of. The sources of the autographs are probably closer to it.

Why do you say that? I don't think that is actually the case. True, you and I couldn't walk up and present our library card to check out the oldest extant copies, but we couldn't do that with any old books or documents. It is my understanding that legitimate scholars working on these documents do indeed have access to them. The story you relate above of no access to the Vaticanus does not ring true with what I have understood from those who work with these ancient texts. In fact, the only ones I know of that people have had trouble access have been the "Dead Sea Scrolls". The curators of those scrolls did keep them out of the public for about the first 30 years into they had examined them thoroughly themselves. I don't know if you are into biblical archeology (no reason for you to be) but there were some major articles on this in the late 1990s as we approached the 50th annivesary of their discovery. But the "Dead Sea Scrolls" and the Bible are different issues. No one in my reading has ever raised concerns with regard to access to any of the ancient Biblical texts.

Whilst I don't agree with Abdul Fatah's whole statement, I namely disagree with, the 'since not all of the sources of the bible are publicly available.' since I think some might be, and since I dont think public availability would improve anything much.

But I do think that it is true that we are hardpressed to know now what is true and what is not. What originally was in the original writings and what was not. With the discovery of earlier and more accurate manuscripts which caused a need for revision of earlier editions, which had 'grave defects' I do wonder if any manuscripts would be found in the future which would do the same. There is only so much comparison between manuscripts can do, and also comparison between the four Gospels themselves can do.

But how can we be sure that the Qur'an is not corrupt like you say the Bible is.

Maybe we shouldn't diviate, there is a thread speaking on the validity of the Qur'ans retention. I do personally think that the social circumstances of the believers of each faith played a big part in its preservation. I believed that even as a non Muslim.

When I think about Jesus and His works, I see no one who can compare to what he has done.

Well when you think about what you read in the Gospels, and that'd be an assumption that those records are accurate. The whole point of this thread. :) Although one of the most amazing changes is about the resurection in Mark's Gospel, where the author leaves the Gospel abpruptly and someone else then later comes and adds the whole resurrection story. Scholars have wondered who done that and why the original author stopped earlier.

His disciples were just witnesses of what they heard Jesus say and what they saw him do including his rising from the dead.

I think it would be healthy to speak on the problems which I percieve with the resurrection stories. But we are here to speak of the 'changes' to the Bible, not on other such topics.

It is written; “Receive not an accusation unless it be in the mouth of two or three witnesses”. Jesus has had many witnesses of all he has done that have more clout than anyone in history. Hitler once said that if you are going to tell a lie, make it a big one. The bigger the lie, the more apt people are to believe it.

Yes, I think to say God is three is the Biggest lie. What's you point, to say that BIble is curropted is the Biggest lie, maybe we should take it more academically then namely preaching.

Are you saying I should just blindly believe the Bible corrupt when that goes against all the logic and reasoning Muslims have been telling me I should use? :hmm:

Well maybe you aint been using you logic or reasoning. You have yet to show why you believe it is an accurate account. We are here to discuss whether the Bible was curropted and share experiences on it. To simply come here and say 'Am I to believe it is curropted....Oh thats the Biggest lie and Hitler said something about making big lies....Jesus had witnesses (according to the same text we are sayin is curropt)...'

Noone is asking you to blindly believe the Bible has been changed. Get an NIV Bible, look at the footnotes, when they say that the 'earliest and most reliabile manuscripts do not contain these verses' [something to that effect] then you're on the first step of your journey. :)

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

-

On what basis do you rank the presumption of Muslims wrong? On the Basis that the Christians never claimed Jesus was given one? If so then what makes you think that the Christian position is right?

[thirdwatch512]

Although I hear many muslims say the Bible is corrupt, I know of a muslim who does NOT think it is corrupt. Actually I know of two. They believe that it's not corrupt, but that our INTERPETATION is.

In a sense, they make sense from what the quran says. Just read any early islamic writings. They almost all say that the Bible is not corrupt, just the understanding.

Also, it was an early belief that Jesus WAS crucified, but he arose in a few hours. It is an interesting view. I have several videos on my computer if someone wants to watch about what some early muslims believed on the crucifixion and corruption of the Bible. It is amazing how different the views are today. But the site is a skeptical islamic site, although these videos aren't really skeptical.. They just show what some early muslims believed. They cite proof and all too. If you were to watch all the videos (there are 4 I think) it would take about 2 hours. PM me if you would like to see them :)

Also, there is a muslim from dubai on youtube.. Very interesting guy. Very smart. Can read 150 pages an hour lol. And he believes that the Bible is not corrupt, but our understanding is.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=obaidkarki

So, just some nteresting view that I have seen from some muslims. But, since I am not muslim, I obviously can not judge whether or not it is a popular beleif or not.

So.. Is King James the one who released the first full collection ?...(which is just in the 16th century) ....

did anyone release any other version before him...?

The KJV(King James Version) was the first ENGLISH translation of the Bible. However, some have speculated(and I believe it to be true) that the New Testament and Torah had been translated in English even before that.

The Bible we have today, whether people want to admit it or not, was ready by 150ad. Just read any early Church documents. They mentioned the 4 Gospels, etc. By 325 it was officially established. I know that sounds late. However, when I mean officially established, I mean all agreed on it. It had been agreed by the vast majority of people even before 325, but there were some heretical sects and such that did not agree. One would be coptic Christians. They did not join the Catholic Church because of a disagreement. Now the Copts and Catholic's are in unity, but still. So yeah.. The Bible was canonized much earleir then 325, but 325 is when it became official.

The Catholic Church used to be how islam is. In islam most mosques preach in one language.. arabic. Well, the Catholic Church used to speak Latin no matter where you were. This is why it took so long to get an English translation of the Bible.. Because everyone read the Bible in Latin!

[thirdwatch512]

Now if a muslim were to accept that the Bible is corrupt, then it would have to be after the time of Jesus, am I wrong?

The quran says (not sure the exact verse) but it "quotes" "Jesus" as saying "I am here to confirm the Torah." So if Jesus was confirming the Torah.. Well, why would He confirm a corrupted book?

At the same time though, the quran also shows mohammad saying to hold fast to the quran, and to what was "revealed previously." Now how can one do that if it is corrupt? It is very illogical to hold fast to something that is corrupted, am I wrong?

"We gave Moses the Book and followed him up with a succession of messengers," (Sura 2:87).

"We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him: we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms," (4:163). -- Now there is a major problem here! Because Christians and Jews have NEVER claimed the Psalms to be just by David. Psalms are merely poetic writings. There are psalms from the Korah, from Adam, Abraham, etc. So this verse is questioning.

"It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong)," (3:3).


Also, "And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah," (5:46).

Rejected were the messengers before thee: with patience and constancy they bore their rejection and their wrongs, until Our aid did reach them: there is none that can alter the words (and decrees) of Allah. Already hast thou received some account of those messengers," (6:34).

"The word of thy Lord doth find its fulfillment in truth and in justice: None can change His words: for He is the one who heareth and knoweth all," (6:115).

"For them are glad tidings, in the life of the present and in the Hereafter; no change can there be in the words of Allah. This is indeed the supreme felicity," (10:64).

You see the problem there? It never says none can change the QURAN, it says non can change THE WORDS OF "ALLAH." 6:34 s even speaking of former Prophets!

Who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah?' 2:140 - This is probably the verse that some muslims use to show that the Bible is not corrupt. the reason is because it says that they(Jews and Christians) HAVE the stuff.. but they conceal it(as in lie or misinterpret perhaps.)

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Apostle, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Apostle and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His Angels, His Books, His Apostles, and the Day of Judgement, hath gone far, far astray 4:136

Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers. 5:47

Say: "O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon unless ye stand fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that has come to you from your Lord" 5:71

"They corrupt the word" means "they alter or change its meaning." Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly - [Ibn abbas, commentary on al quran]

Al-Rabia said: This verse refers to the people of the book at the time of Muhammad. In interpreting this verse, he said: Allah revealed this to the Muslim believers to let them know that both Christians and Jews ignored the commandments of Allah in their books which clearly testify to the authenticity of these books, that they were revealed by Allah. The Injil, which the Christians believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Torah regarding Moses’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments to the Children of Israel. And the Torah, which the Jews believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Injil of Jesus’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments… yet both sides told each other that each one of them has nothing to stand on despite the testimony of their books. So the most high (Allah) revealed this verse because what they claimed against each is not true. - Al Tabari

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 -

Question of thought - If the Torah were corrupt, why would quran say to bring something like it!!

[Umar001]

thirdwatch512, do you understand that in this thread, Grace has said that he aint looking to discuss whether Islam teaches the Bible Is curropt.

You have some Muslim who believes the Bible is not curropt, well amazing. This thread is not about tha, if you want please move that info to the Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible thread or create a thread or something.

We can still discuss whether the BIble has been changed at all here.

[Pynthanomai]

[...]
The KJV(King James Version) was the first ENGLISH translation of the Bible. However, some have speculated(and I believe it to be true) that the New Testament and Torah had been translated in English even before that.
[...]

Indeed, Wyclif's translation of the Bible into English was published in the late fourteenth century. To my knowledge there are exstant manuscripts of earlier portions of the Bible translated into Middle and Old English. It's probably fairer to say that the King James Version was the first "official" English version, in that it didn't suffer censure or blacklisting to the same extent (if at all) as Wyclif's and other translation efforts did before it.

[thirdwatch512]

thirdwatch512, do you understand that in this thread, Grace has said that he aint looking to discuss whether Islam teaches the Bible Is curropt.

You have some Muslim who believes the Bible is not curropt, well amazing. This thread is not about tha, if you want please move that info to the Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible thread or create a thread or something.

We can still discuss whether the BIble has been changed at all here.

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

[back_to_faith]

Those who wonder,when was the Bible corrupted'and it is illogical to say the that Bible is corrupted ,remind me of someone who stare at the

The Leaning Tower of Pisa

and says (but there is no reason for such leaning!!)

What matters not ,when or where or by whom the Bible was corrupted,
it is :

What we have in our hands today ,it is corrupted?

If we approach the topic such way we can easily find overwhelming proofs of corruption

historical, mathematical, ethical, geographical, and chronological difficulties ,tens of false prophecies ,absurdities contained therein.

[Umar001]

The Bible we have today, whether people want to admit it or not, was ready by 150ad. Just read any early Church documents.

Care to provide sources?

They mentioned the 4 Gospels, etc. By 325 it was officially established. I know that sounds late. However, when I mean officially established, I mean all agreed on it. It had been agreed by the vast majority of people even before 325, but there were some heretical sects and such that did not agree. One would be coptic Christians. They did not join the Catholic Church because of a disagreement. Now the Copts and Catholic's are in unity, but still. So yeah.. The Bible was canonized much earleir then 325, but 325 is when it became official.

This is what amazes me, agreed upon by which sects? Rather is it true that other sects died out or were driven out? Furthermore, who were these people who chose the canon.

The Catholic Church used to be how islam is. In islam most mosques preach in one language.. arabic. Well, the Catholic Church used to speak Latin no matter where you were. This is why it took so long to get an English translation of the Bible.. Because everyone read the Bible in Latin!

With regards to the Catholic Church being how Islam is, well the similarities you have shown are sown into this topic how? Are you saying that the fact that people spoke in only one language and regarded their holy scripture as only holy in that language is what happend in Catholisism? And that this helped preserve the text?

The whole of the above has yet to deal with changes which are the more evident in the scriptures.

I will relate the words of Grace Seeker for your benefit;

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

So in this thread we have chosen to beging with the presumption that Islam says the Bible is curropt. The job of anyone here is not to show that the Qur'an says the Bible is not curoppt, or to show that if the Qur'an says the Bible is curopt then the Qur'an is contradicting its commands of following it.

...

Al-Rabia said: This verse refers to the people of the book at the time of Muhammad. In interpreting this verse, he said: Allah revealed this to the Muslim believers to let them know that both Christians and Jews ignored the commandments of Allah in their books which clearly testify to the authenticity of these books, that they were revealed by Allah. The Injil, which the Christians believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Torah regarding Moses’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments to the Children of Israel. And the Torah, which the Jews believe in its authenticity, testifies to the truth which was revealed in the Injil of Jesus’ prophethood, and Allah’s commandments… yet both sides told each other that each one of them has nothing to stand on despite the testimony of their books. So the most high (Allah) revealed this verse because what they claimed against each is not true. - Al Tabari

Now that the Truth has come to them from Us, they are saying: "Why is he (Muhammad) not given the like of what was given to Musa?" Have they not rejected that which was given to Musa before? They claim: "These (Torah and Qur'an) are the two works of sorcery complementing each other!" And they say: "We believe in neither." Ask them: "Bring a Book from Allah which is a better guide THAN THESE TWO, I will follow it, if what you say be true!" S. 28:48-49 -

Question of thought - If the Torah were corrupt, why would quran say to bring something like it!!

Now, in the light of the above background of this thread, your pastin of various verses, although amazing, is useless, since we are not here to debate whether the Qur'an teaches the Bible has been changed, we have started for the sake of arguement with the presumption that it does!!

If that's difficult to comprehend then I do have little faith that you also brought the above in true understanding.

[Umar001]

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

Well then we would have to look at what the confirmation meant, and such confirmation would mean that we would have to look at it from a contex of the scripture.

As I said I can cofirm something is originally from God, but that confirmation alone does not constitute, neccesarily, its retention.

Example,

I cofirm today that I did send a letter to my mother. At the same time I tell you that poeple have made changes to this letter with their own hands and said this is from Al Habeshi from LI to his Mother

If we take the first sentence, one can say 'Look he is confirming it, so look this means it is with us intact' but if someone looks at the context, he sees, yes he confirmed it, but at the same time he has said in context that some have changed it and forged letters.

But anyhow, whether the Qur'an teaches that the Bible is changed or not is not the topic of the thread.

[back_to_faith]

Hah yeah, when I relook at the thread title, I see that lol.

Just a memo though - I did put my input. I said that it had to have been after the time of Jesus, because Christ said He was confirming the torah. So why would He confirm something corrupted!

At the same time though, mohammad said the same about the Bible. You know, so it would (seem) logical that the Bible was not corrupted.

yes Jesus peace be upon him confirmed the torah,just as Mohamed peace be upon him did.

you failed to realize that the Torah and the Old Testament are not Synonym,according to the Quran.


"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"



"Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what God hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!" (The Noble Quran, 6:93)"


"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places

[Grace Seeker]

[B]Can u please tell me about King James...

Roman Catholic and Protestant Confessions
about Sunday and the Bible Sabbath....

None of this has anything to do with this thread.

[Grace Seeker]

It's a very interesting question you pose, my friend, and one to which I am also very keen to receive an answer, if only to increase my knowledge of Islam. One point, however, I fear may reduce its coherence: when you or I speak of the "Bible", I am almost assured in my mind that that to which we make reference is utterly foreign to that to which Muslims make reference when they use the same English word. Indeed, from what I have gleaned from other posts and threads, there seems to be very little agreement about the very composition of the Bible, or what books are supposed or believed to constitute it. But if we have no common point of reference, then any conclusions that either Christians or Muslims may draw from the purported corruption of the Bible will not, so far as I can see, have any direct relevance to the doctrines or teachings of their respective religions - inasmuch as they are predicated upon entirely different foundations, i.e. different "Bibles".

It is also worth considering the (quite glaring) disparities that exist between Protestant and Roman Catholic considerations of the constitution of the Christian canon: viz., that the Catholic Bible includes several books deemed apocryphal by Protestants. We can only assume that such discrepancies reduce the strength of Christians' claims of unity about matters of their faith in the eyes of Muslims.

If you actually bothers to read the post, you will see that it doesn't matter to Muslims what the Christians claim.

(Note: Malaikah's post was not in response to Pynthanomai, but my reply is to both.)

I recognize that Muslims and Christians have different views as to what constitutes the Bible. But as I don't speak Arabic, I have to use the English translations that are available to me. Now, I have used search engines for them looking for the words "bible" or "corrupted" in the Quran and Hadith, but have found no phrase where it says that "the Bible is corrupted". But I have been around here long enough to know that this is a frequent statement by Muslims (as evidenced by this thread: Proof The Bible Was Corrupted . So, given that Muslims make this claim, I am asking for when, whatever it is that Muslims refer to as the Bible was actually corrupted. If we find out that the Muslim and Christian definition of the term "Bible" is so different in examining that question that we are actually speaking of two different things, then at least we will have made progress in understanding each other.

originally posted by Malaikah
The point of my post was that we Muslim do not believe that the bible is as authoritative as Christians like to think it.

Granted. I still want to know when it was that Muslims believe our unauthoritative book, compliation, whatever you want to call it, became "corrupted"? If it became corrupted, then at sometime it was something other than corrupt because the word "corruption" itself implies that some type of deterioration of its integrity has befallen it. So, when did this happen? Was it in the copying process? In the compiling process? In the writing process?

If Jesus actually delivered the a true Injil, and yet what we have today is a corrupted message, I want to know with whom in the handling of this message that Muslims think fault lays for its corruption? Thus, like Malaikah, it doesn't matter to me what Christians claim, I'm interested in what Muslims claim.

Some, such as Abdul Fattah, have said that one doesn't know, only that Allah declares that it is corrupted, so this would be a matter of faith, then, no proof required (nor submitted) other than the testimony of the Qur'an itself -- a testimony I have not been able to find for myself. (I'm sure someone will quickly supply it given that opening.)

Others, such as Malaikah, assert that the book which was given to Jesus is not the same which Christians claim is the Bible, and so Muslims need to prove nothing about the present Bible at all. Accept that this is my very question. If there was a book given to Jesus, but we do not have it now, when did we lose it? Did Jesus himself fail in his mission as a prophet, since he apparently never actually wrote any of his message down himself and only entrusted it orally to others? Did Jesus' companions fail because they did not restirct their message to just Jesus' words, but also told about what he did? Did later copyists take this message recorded by Jesus companions and rewrite it for their own purposes, creating stories that were never true?

Al Habeshi says that there is no actual answer to my question from Islamic sources (fair enough, thus it is a point of faith, as Abdul Fattah suggested), but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper. Of course, this would imply that if any of the works were by those who actually knew any of Jesus' story first-hand that they intentionally created something that was contrary to the message of Jesus. And if they were not by those people and that the original message had been preserved until this point of writing it down, that those that knew the true message either cared not enough to correct the errors or were somehow effectively silenced from speaking against them. I find these last ideas to be rather incredulous.

To those such as back_to_faith who say: "What matters not ,when or where or by whom the Bible was corrupted, it is :", then I guess you will have little interest in this thread. But I am nonetheless interested. You are free to go elsewhere.

And to those who want to attack the integrity of the Qur'an as a way to defend the Bible, you also are free to go elsewhere. I already know what I as a Christian think, and most Muslims on this forum do as well. But what I am interested in learning more is what Muslims think and why they think what they do. I don't believe point/counter-point exchanges will help me to achieve that.

[don532]

Thank you for asking this question, Grace Seeker. This is a question I also have had. In the Muslim view, when did the corruption take place?

[Amadeus85]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

After the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- in those times, Bibles were already in North Africa, Middle East, Minor Asia, parts of Europe. All were placed in churches and monasteries and protected by monks and priests. So the only persons who could change Bible then , would be christian monks and priests. But why would they try to destroy the fundaments of their faith?

Before the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- first of all as some people here proved there are verses in the Quaran saying that Torah and Injil were not corrupted. And we also have the dead sea scroll -According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

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

[queefer]

are you just another lying troll or a Christian?

reason I ask is that you claim to be an athiest yet keep trolling here!

Atheist >> NO God, which for a Christian is Jesus. Since Jesus is God, there is no need for him to give himself a book because he would be giver of torah ...

Jesus is NOT God. He's the son of God, you lying troll.

[Grace Seeker]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

That might be your question, but it certainly isn't mine. I'm told that Muhammad (pbuh) said the Bible was corrupted, so it follows that it is asserting that it was corrupted before. Thus question is NOT "before or after Muhammad", but when before?

And with respect, the Dead Sea Scrolls really don't add much to this discussion one way or the other.



As far as this type of off topic post goes:

Jesus is NOT God. He's the son of God, you lying troll.

Take it somewhere else. Please.

[doorster]

people! forgive me as I am going to be a fly in your ointment or disrupt your non-debate as God, which for a Christian is Jesus.

Since Jesus is God, there is no need for him to give himself a book because he would be giver of torah ... and th book or collection thereof that is Christian NT Bible is an account of that god while he was in human form by some 4 or 5 persons who may or may not have seen/known him personally, namely Mathew, Mark, Luke, John and Paul.

On the other hand there is NO God called Jesus in Islam.

The God in Islam is known as Allah and one of his Messengers was and is known as Hazrat Easa Alaisalam, who was given a book called Injeel by The God (Allah)

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

Unless off course I've got it completely wrong and the thread is about Psalms and Tenach, then carry on!

[queefer]

...As far as this type of off topic post goes:
Take it somewhere else. Please.

The 'lying troll' quote was 'Doorsters'. Let him 'take it somewhere else'. And Jesus STILL isn't God.

[Grace Seeker]

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

Unless off course I've got it completely wrong and the thread is about Psalms and Tenach, then carry on!

the thread is about the Bible which includes all of the above.
Again, I am not making the claim that the Bible is corrupted, I am accepting that Islam makes this claim and asking for more clarification about it.

It now seems to me that many Muslims wish to back off from saying that the Bible is corrupted to talking about particular books within the Bible. That might be a good idea as, has been pointed out from the beginning, the Bible is really a compliation of many books. It might be that one could prove that Isaiah or Hebrews was corrupted and Genesis, Psalms or the Gospel of John could still be completely uncorrupted.


Though this is not the title of the thread, I would still like to ask:
Which books of the Bible does Islam hold are corrupted?


Doorster, when you say "our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles" are you speaking as a Muslim? Your "way of life" is undisclosed.

[doorster]

Doorster, when you say "our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles" are you speaking as a Muslim? Your "way of life" is undisclosed.

I'm sorry! I'll change that in a minute

yes I am a Muslim

wasalam

[don532]

my conclusion is that our Injeel is not the one authored by the 5 Christian Saints/apostles (call them what you will)

What injeel do you have and how does it differ from the new testament? Is the message different?

[Umar001]

I think that the main question here is was Bible changed before or after Muhammad times.

I think if you look at manuscripts you will find changes before and after the time of Muhammad. The ones after being more notable probably due to the fact that the variant would have less time, generally, to spread.

After the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- in those times, Bibles were already in North Africa, Middle East, Minor Asia, parts of Europe. All were placed in churches and monasteries and protected by monks and priests. So the only persons who could change Bible then , would be christian monks and priests. But why would they try to destroy the fundaments of their faith?

Why would they? Let me give you a couple of examples,

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

Some would write alongside it to explain it, where once it read The beggining of the gospel about Jesus Christ someone felt the need to add, The Son of God. Instances like this are not rare. Anyhow, so yes, some of those people might feel 'moved' by the spirit to write or explain passages, othres might feel there is something wrong with the current passage for example,

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.

The above might have been a passage which indicates the lack of knowledge of Jesus, some thought it best left out. The list is ongoing.

Before the times of muslim prophet Muhammad- first of all as some people here proved there are verses in the Quaran saying that Torah and Injil were not corrupted.

Proved? Please show where anyone has proved that Islam teaches that the Torah or Injeel has not been corrupted.

And we also have the dead sea scroll -According to carbon dating, textual analysis, and handwriting analysis the documents were written at various times between the middle of the 2nd century BC and the 1st century AD. At least one document has a carbon date range of 21 BC–61 AD.

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

What do the dead sea scrolls contain? As for the dating, this is something I have heard alot about, again I don't know alot about it, still gotta read. :)

I recognize that Muslims and Christians have different views as to what constitutes the Bible. But as I don't speak Arabic, I have to use the English translations that are available to me. Now, I have used search engines for them looking for the words "bible" or "corrupted" in the Quran and Hadith, but have found no phrase where it says that "the Bible is corrupted".

Try, Book and Distorted or Changed.

So, given that Muslims make this claim, I am asking for when, whatever it is that Muslims refer to as the Bible was actually corrupted. If we find out that the Muslim and Christian definition of the term "Bible" is so different in examining that question that we are actually speaking of two different things, then at least we will have made progress in understanding each other.

Well the Bible you speak of, i.e. the one including the NT, the one of the Protestant. Has also undergone changes. Do you feel it has not?

As for what Muslims refer to as the Injeel, then that has undergone in my view changes if not totally lost.

(I'm sure someone will quickly supply it given that opening.)

Have you not read the 'Obligated to read...' thread?

Others, such as Malaikah, assert that the book which was given to Jesus is not the same which Christians claim is the Bible, and so Muslims need to prove nothing about the present Bible at all. Accept that this is my very question. If there was a book given to Jesus, but we do not have it now, when did we lose it? Did Jesus himself fail in his mission as a prophet, since he apparently never actually wrote any of his message down himself and only entrusted it orally to others? Did Jesus' companions fail because they did not restirct their message to just Jesus' words, but also told about what he did? Did later copyists take this message recorded by Jesus companions and rewrite it for their own purposes, creating stories that were never true?

Do you hold the view that by Book it must indicate writing contained between two covers? I'd find that hard to believe, the Qur'an was refered to as a book before its collection.

Jesus' mission was to spread his message, let us take for example Muhammad's last sermon,

Be my witness, O Allah, that I have conveyed Your message to Your people".

Taken from, http://www.load-islam.com/artical_de...#37;20Muhammad

So, although we know that the Qur'an was not in book form, Muhammad had conveyed the message. I don't think its a matter of Jesus did not make a book so he failed, or the companions of Jesus did not make a book so they failed.

Al Habeshi says that there is no actual answer to my question from Islamic sources (fair enough, thus it is a point of faith, as Abdul Fattah suggested), but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper.

Just for the record, I mentioned, 'I cant give you..' meaning I do not know of such taechings, not that there is 'no actual answer'. There might be but I have not come across it, since I do not study this within the Islamic Realms.

but that he personally thinks it may be been at its very inception when pen was first put to paper.

For clarity, I am not saying that when the author of Matthew or Mark put pen to paper that was the first time, no,

If we speak outside the realms of Islam, then I personally think it would have been possibly curropted at the sources, through the time of its begging from pen to paper, and in the copies and also centuries later.

Meaning, at the sources that the authors used. The Oral Tradition itself, in my view could have harboured false stories which the authors were not aware were false.

Of course, this would imply that if any of the works were by those who actually knew any of Jesus' story first-hand that they intentionally created something that was contrary to the message of Jesus.

Well, that would be if we would know what they wrote, where as, I personally don't think we will know for certainty the unadulterated text of the 4 Gospels.

And if they were not by those people and that the original message had been preserved until this point of writing it down, that those that knew the true message either cared not enough to correct the errors or were somehow effectively silenced from speaking against them.

I don't think it would have been a matter of not caring enough.

I find these last ideas to be rather incredulous.

Care to give any reasons? Let me ask you a serious of questions,

1. Do some report a struggle between Paul and the Disciples at all?
2. Were the many Gospels at the time?
3. Were thre people labeled heretics at that time?
4. How many different sects were there?
5. How many of those sects have died out?
6. Did not Paul write first and the view that the Gospels we have now are somehow inspired by his school of though?
7. What did Paul mean when he spoke of 'other gospels' and 'my gospel'?
8. Who were the rivals Paul spoke of?
9. Was there a whole gentile non-gentile struggle going on?

Regards,

Eesa

[Umar001]

I might take some of the posts from here into the 'obligated to raed the bible' thread, specially thirdwatch's stuff, since I do want to ask about some things.

If anyone wants to have their posts moved please ask me in pm.

Eesa.
:)

[Zulkiflim]

Salaam,

Interesting question,but in Islmaic belief we do not kow what chages took places in the Bible but that it is corrupt.

In the time of the Prophet,the Chrsitian then already worshipped 3 gos thus that is already evident of corruption.

And as for Prophet Jesus as,confirming the Torah,is simple,the Quran also confirm what is given unto the old prophets but not what is know as Bible today.
Another name for the Quran is the Criterion.

as Propeht Jesus as came to confirm the old teaching,to make right what was wrong,so is the Propeht Muhamamd saw sent to right the wrong in the olden book.

[Keltoi]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

[back_to_faith]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

It doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out which parts of the Bible corrupted according to the Quran...

Whatever disagree,violates the Quranic message...even that against common sense is without any reasonable doubt ,corruption....

the examples are many:

If the Quran negate the crucifiction,resurrection,and the New Testament affirms it ..then according to the Quran most of the last chapter
of the New Testament is false and based on a contradictory hearsy...

What is amazing,and a huge support for the Quranic claim regarding the false parts of the Bible ,is that the parts which contradict the Quranic narratation in the NT is the most problemetic parts ,with contradictions,false prophecies,historical problems etc....

I can highlight tens of example,showing why the Quranic narratives are more trusted than the Bible if they both mentions a specific claim,story etc.....
but that is not our topic here.

[don532]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

[Umar001]

So if I have understood the Muslim responses accurately, there is no specific mention of what books of the Bible were corrupted or how? Not that I expected the Qu'ran to mention these things in detail, but I assumed there was general agreement within Muslim theology about which books were corrupted.

:?

I have yet to see ever the Qu'ran speak of the Bible as the 66 Books, the Qur'an speaks of Kitab, and specifically speaks of the Injeel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses, if one wants to then take that to mean the Gospels according 4 people and the 5 books accredited to Moses then one can do so. But I would be hardpressed to find reference to what biblical books are changed on the note that the Qur'an mainly speaks of the two fore mentioned.

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

Hmm, I wonder if Satan was powerful enough to kill God's 'son' Jesus and thwart God's purpose in his son.

Now, whats wrong with the above? The fact that God wanted his Son dead, i.e. the above is not displaying an accurate picture of what God's purpose was.

You assume that God was trying to preserve the message of Jesus and the Injeel of Jesus. You assume that this message was for the non Jewish people.

:heated:

[don532]

:?

I have yet to see ever the Qu'ran speak of the Bible as the 66 Books, the Qur'an speaks of Kitab, and specifically speaks of the Injeel of Jesus and the Torah of Moses, if one wants to then take that to mean the Gospels according 4 people and the 5 books accredited to Moses then one can do so. But I would be hardpressed to find reference to what biblical books are changed on the note that the Qur'an mainly speaks of the two fore mentioned.



Hmm, I wonder if Satan was powerful enough to kill God's 'son' Jesus and thwart God's purpose in his son.

Now, whats wrong with the above? The fact that God wanted his Son dead, i.e. the above is not displaying an accurate picture of what God's purpose was.

You assume that God was trying to preserve the message of Jesus and the Injeel of Jesus. You assume that this message was for the non Jewish people.

:heated:

I have tried to restate what I believe to be the muslim position.

The koran says the injeel was given to Jesus and is (3:3) guidance for the people.

What I have learned here, is that positon of islam is that the injeel is now corrupted by Christians. Correct? Or is the muslim position the injeel of Jesus and the new testament two completely different things?

What did the original injeel contain? Did the Christians make it disappear?

Perhaps you are saying God's purpose was the original injeel was intended to go away?

[back_to_faith]

....and when......

Were the Christians powerful enough to thwart God's purpose by changing the message, and destroying all evidence of the original injeel, given by God to the great prophet Jesus?

Greetings, Don

How are you doin?long time don't see your posts here....

hope you are fine.

well,

Humans, including Christians have free will?
yes?

If so then they could change,violate anything.

[Umar001]

I have tried to restate what I believe to be the muslim position.

The koran says the injeel was given to Jesus and is (3:3) guidance for the people.

What I have learned here, is that positon of islam is that the injeel is now corrupted by Christians. Correct? Or is the muslim position the injeel of Jesus and the new testament two completely different things?

Does anyone in the whole world hold that the Gospel according to Mark, Matthew, Luke and John, or the letters of Paul or anyone else, actually is an inspiration to Jesus from Almighty God, the total word of God?

Noone, not one person I have ever come across. So if noone holds that the above is the direct word of God given to Jesus, and then we know that Muslims believe the Injeel is the direct word of God given to Jesus, how can anyone say they are the same thing, so no, the NT is not the direct word of God given to Jesus.

What did the original injeel contain?

Guidance for the people it was meant to be for, i.e. the people Jesus was sent to.

Did the Christians make it disappear?

I don't know if the people who made it dissapear were Christians or not, would you consider someone who changes scripture, amongst other things, a Christian?

Perhaps you are saying God's purpose was the original injeel was intended to go away?

What we do know is that Jesus was sent for a time and people, and what we do know is that if God wanted to preserve Jesus' message He could do so.

:)

[don532]

Greetings, Don

How are you doin?long time don't see your posts here....

hope you are fine.

well,

Humans, including Christians have free will?
yes?

If so then they could change,violate anything.

Greetings. I have been travelling some (China, India, US) on business. Time to get on the internet, but not taking the time to think and post.

[don532]

I definitely agree the NT is not the word for word revelation from God to Jesus. We believe it is God's message to the world and even with all the "problems" that are said to be in the Bible today there are arguments that can be had (in another thread) to either counter those things or show they do not change the message. But it is definitely not considered a word for word transcript from God like Muslims believe the Koran is.

Help me understand the rest. I think you are also saying Jesus was sent for the Jews(?), we don't know what the words of the Injeel of Jesus were, it's gone and we don't know how, why or when it disappeared. Basically correct?

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus, and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

[back_to_faith]

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus, and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

1-The nowadays NT is basically a biography which makes the focus on Jesus and not his teachings,depends basically on a hearsy rather than eyewitnesses testimonies,and that could be understood easily 'if neither of the apostles nor any other eyewitnesses wrote a word about Jesus 'we can never even found a second or third or fourth hand testimony'of any eyewitnesses .

Is the New Testament the Injeel that preached Jesus?

During the ministry of Jesus - long before the four Gospels that we read in The New Testament were written - his disciples following the footsteps of their beloved Teacher: "began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).
This was the 'Gospel of God' that Jesus had taught them.

The Gospel(Injeel) which Jesus taught the disciples,and urged them to preach
is nothing more than some rules,laws,spritual teachings were spoken by Jesus just as Moses did and Mohamed peace be upon them all did too.


The late NT writings after Jesus departure have another agenda ,due to the obvious attempts by the writers as Paul,John etc to cancell the OT laws ,and mix the the teachings of Jesus with a pagan concepts to attract the heathen,pagan people to the modified (Jesus-christianity) which is obviously similar to what they believe.



The Quran gives us hints to the contents of the(original) Injeel:

Qur'an 5:46/47
We sent him the Injeel (the Gospel),
therein was Guidance and Light.


"When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said:
'Now I have come to you with wisdom,
in order to make clear to you some of the (points)
on which you dispute therefore fear Allah and obey me
For Allah is my God and your God
so worship you Him this is a straight way."


Quran

3:50 "'I (Jesus)have come to you, to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

[003:003]
and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment be tween right and wrong).

peace

[don532]

The Gospel(Injeel) which Jesus taught the disciples,and urged them to preach
is nothing more than some rules,laws,spritual teachings were spoken by Jesus just as Moses did and Mohamed peace be upon them all did too.

Thank you.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? All we have, in the muslim view, is some hints as to the original contents that are contained in the verses of the koran quoted above.

Let me offer an apology to Grace Seeker for hijacking this thread. My curiosity got the best of me, I guess.

[thirdwatch512]

Why would they? Let me give you a couple of examples,

The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.

Some would write alongside it to explain it, where once it read The beggining of the gospel about Jesus Christ someone felt the need to add, The Son of God. Instances like this are not rare. Anyhow, so yes, some of those people might feel 'moved' by the spirit to write or explain passages, othres might feel there is something wrong with the current passage for example,

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son,[a] but only the Father.

Matthew 24:36 Some manuscripts do not have nor the Son.
The above might have been a passage which indicates the lack of knowledge of Jesus, some thought it best left out. The list is ongoing.

Please show me some other verses that the original manuscritps did not say "Son of God" please.

And btw, as I look through the Bible I see "Son of God" mentioned in MANY other verses, and they do not have the footnote "Not all manuscripts say the Son of God." I am assuming that the "son of God" added to those two verses is probably to make it make more sense. I see "Son of God" mentioned in Matthew 9 times, and they do not have the footnote that says "Son of God not in original manuscripts."


[PIE]For many centuries the NT documents were seldom questioned: but by the beginning of this century 'higher critics' claimed to have demonstrated that the New Testament accounts were the result of a gradual process of adaptation over a period in excess of 100 years. However, more recent discoveries have caused scholarly opinion to revert to the view that these documents are indeed contemporary with the apostles. - [/PIE]

[Umar001]

Please show me some other verses that the original manuscritps did not say "Son of God" please.

That sir is outside my capabilities. I do not have access to the manuscripts. I quoted from the NIV Bible considering it to be held as a reliable source by most Christians, if it is not for you then, I will try find a source you trust. :)

And btw, as I look through the Bible I see "Son of God" mentioned in MANY other verses, and they do not have the footnote "Not all manuscripts say the Son of God." I am assuming that the "son of God" added to those two verses is probably to make it make more sense.

So would you advocate changing the scripture to have it 'make more sense'?

I see "Son of God" mentioned in Matthew 9 times, and they do not have the footnote that says "Son of God not in original manuscripts."

Interesting you should bring Matthew up, I don't know what Biblical Commentaries you look at, though, the famous confession, where Jesus askes his disciples, who do you say I am. The reply given in Mark, the elder gospel from what I heard, is a simple one, whilst the one given in matthew adds some words, that is the general outline, it seems to be.

I definitely agree the NT is not the word for word revelation from God to Jesus. We believe it is God's message to the world and even with all the "problems" that are said to be in the Bible today there are arguments that can be had (in another thread) to either counter those things or show they do not change the message. But it is definitely not considered a word for word transcript from God like Muslims believe the Koran is.

Cool

Help me understand the rest. I think you are also saying Jesus was sent for the Jews(?),

From what I know yes.

we don't know what the words of the Injeel of Jesus were,

Nope, not word for word.

it's gone and we don't know how,

I have not studied this in depth in Islam so I can only say that I do not know how according to my limited knowledge of Islam.

why or when it disappeared.

I have yet to see such details, the main point is there though. Let me give an example, if I am not mistaken Paul said, without the cross faith is in vain, to that effect, and Islam comes and says Jesus did not die, so to me the main point is there but not the details, if you get what I mean, the sufficient part is there.

So in the muslim view, the New Testament we have today is:
1. a badly corrupted version of the Injeel of Jesus,

Not neccesarily version. The Injeel is the words of God given to Jesus, the NT, contains 'biographical' writings of Jesus, so within it it is possible that there are corrupted parts of Jesus' message or uncorrupted parts.

From my understanding.

and
2. corrupted sometime before Muhammad's time.
Correct?

Well, I havent seen the writings of the book of Jesus being corrupt in prophecy form, yes, I think it is speaking of before Muhammads time.

[Redeemed]

Jesus was never given a book. Christins have never claimed Jeses was given a book.

The Muslim presumption is wrong to begin with.

-

As I learn about Islam and read the Bible, I am beginning to understand why Muslims reject the idea of Jesus rising from the dead and being the son of God. For example, after certain disciples visited the sepulcher. Jesus was talking with them asking why they were so said. They didn’t think it was Jesus talking to them, because they saw him die. The disciples responded you must be a stranger in town if you don’t know what has just happened around here. Jesus said, “Oh fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken” Ought not Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into his glory?” Jesus himself stood in the middle of them and said “Peace be unto you” but the disciple doubted and were even fearful it was him; in fact, they thought they were seeing a spirit of some sought. Jesus said, “Why are you troubled…? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: touch me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as I have” Yet his disciples were still not convinced. Jesus had to confirm his actual presents again by asking them for a piece of meat and he ate a piece of fish to show he was flesh and blood. Then he opened their eyes and said; “Thus it is written, and thus it behooved Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead… and repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations starting with Jerusalem and you are witnesses of these things.” If Jesus’ disciples doubted it was him who rose from the dead when the prove was in front of their eyes, how can even us Christians believe without having seen much less our Muslim brothers of humanity and especially an atheist? Jesus, said to Thomas: “You believe because you see, but blessed are those who believe and have not seen.” After Jesus told them they were witnesses he said, “…I send the promise of my Father upon you…“ How can I expect anyone to see that Jesus is the Christ? Unless God reveals it to them, they will never see; so, I will not judge a Muslim or an atheist.

[back_to_faith]

Thank you.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? All we have, in the muslim view, is some hints as to the original contents that are contained in the verses of the koran quoted above.

.

And the original injeel of Jesus is lost, correct? yes and No !!

If you mean (the original injeel )a written work by the hands of Jesus(peace be upon him) or his disciples,there is no Quranic claim of such thing...and If we understand the words of the Quran regarding the Injeel as a written work ,it would be a stuff contained in the so called (New Testament apocrypha )or non canonical books ,which mentions nothing about Trinity,crucifiction etc ,and which the church refused to accept it as inspired ,without any reasonable criterion !!!!

Examples:

Infancy Gospel.

Gospel of Barnabas




the original injeel of Jesus is not something which makes muslims regret ever reading,because it had the basics which has the Torah and also the Quran:


1-The call of true monotheism

The Qur’an tells us that Jesus came to teach the same basic message which was taught by previous prophets from God—that we must shun every false god and worship only the one true God. Jesus taught that he is the servant and messenger of that one true God, the God of Abraham.

Holy Quran 5:72

Surely, they have disbelieved who say: "Allah is the Messiah Jesus, son of Mary." But the Messiah jesus said: "O Children of Israel! Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord." Verily, whosoever sets up partners in worship with Allah, then Allah has forbidden Paradise for him

exactly in accordance with the following:


Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone

John 17:3
3Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.


John 20:17
"Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God."



2-the urge for keeping the commandments of God:

Matthew 5:17-20
Do not think that I(Jesus) have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.”



that is the true Injeel of Jesus'if we find other NT contents that contradict the previous 2 basic principles'could be understood if we understand the hearsy source which the writers depended on and the agenda they had in their mind...eg(inventing verses call for cancelling the Law) etc..


that is why Ingersoll wrote:

"The careful reader of the NT will find three Christs described:--One who wished to preserve Judaism--one who wished to reform it, and one who built a system of his own." "What Must I Do To Be Saved," Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 1
, p. 443


"There are some of his sayings which show him to have been a devout Jew, others that he wished to destroy Judaism, others showing that he held all people except the Jews in contempt and that the wished to save no others, others showing that he wished to convert the world, still others showing that he was forgiving, self-denying and loving, others that he was revengeful and malicious, others, that he was ascetic, holding all human ties in utter contempt." "The Foundations of Faith," in Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 4, p. 270



No wonder we find such contradictions,if we find ample proofs of corrupting,altering the contents of the NT.

The Jesus of Mark denies to being good compared to God.

Mark 10:18
Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone


that is for sure didn't satisfy the writer of John and his own concept about Jesus so let his Jesus claims to be good

John:10: 14

"I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me.

[don532]

How about a simple, straight answer. What is the injeel referred to in the koran?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/ peace

No, because by that standard I can go to some of the many English interpretations of the Qur'an, find a few that disagree with each other, declare one of them false, and suddenly we have a corrupted Qur'an

i did not read the whole thread .

First of all : Translation is not Quran . The revealation came in to Arabic language --- that was written /copied / memorised by Muslims from the beginning.

But , Christians did not do any of these ( or did they ? ) to keep the original srcipture error free.
So , in the past some people tried to be benifitted by changing the laws.


One example came in to mind now. Once a Jew was caught for adutlery . Most probably s/he was rich .so some wanted to save the criminal .


When Prophet Muhammed (p) asked what is the punishment regarding Torah , a Jew started reciting from Torah but hide the specific verse that prescribed death penalty. Then a new Muslim ( ex Jew ) informed Prophet what the Jew was trying to hide.

This is only one example of how some people tried hard to change the law.

[Zulkiflim]

How about a simple, straight answer. What is the injeel referred to in the koran?

Salaam,

A simple straigt answer..

the Injeel is the book given unto Prophet Jesus as.

the Bible does not have the injil according to Propeht Jesus as,,but according to 4 men,who were inspired.

simple aint it.

Also the Injeeil as is all the book are always written in the Prophet own language.
Thus when we say translation of the Quran is not the Quran,,only the arabic version is refered to as the Quran.

[don532]

Salaam,

A simple straigt answer..

the Injeel is the book given unto Prophet Jesus as.

the Bible does not have the injil according to Propeht Jesus as,,but according to 4 men,who were inspired.

simple aint it.

Also the Injeeil as is all the book are always written in the Prophet own language.
Thus when we say translation of the Quran is not the Quran,,only the arabic version is refered to as the Quran.

Excellent. Thank you.
How about another simple answer?
According to Islam, the Injeel was a physical book and has now disappeared. Correct?

[Zulkiflim]

Excellent. Thank you.
How about another simple answer?
According to Islam, the Injeel was a physical book and has now disappeared. Correct?

Salaam,

Well,we can assume that there is no "book" of the Injeel as the bible does not contain any gospel according to Propeht Jesus as but gospels according to man inspired by Propeht Jesus.

I would beleive that if there were a physical Book of the teaching of Prophet Jesus we would get a corrupted book like the Torah,Zabur..or what is refered to as the OT.with word of the Propeht mixed with words of historians and corrupters.

So the Injeel was most likely nevver collected in Book form ,and thus people seeking to NOT forget the teaching of Prophet Jesus felt INSPIRED to write about Propeht Jesus teaching..
Thus they are making a biography,,but it is not the Injeel..

[back_to_faith]

Excellent. Thank you.
How about another simple answer?
According to Islam, the Injeel was a physical book and has now disappeared. Correct?

Not correct

the Injeel According to Islam is what Jesus has orally preached,and ordered his disciples to preach , to the lost sheep of Israel during his life time....

what was written during his lifetime (no proofs yet for such thing)or after his departure ,is called injeel according to Muslims as long as is in accordance with the basic principles of the Torah and the Quran.....

peace

[Joey]

hasent the bible already been changed a few times. I remember hearing it somewhere but im not sure

[don532]

[7.157] Those who follow the Apostle-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel (who) enjoins them good and forbids them evil, and makes lawful to them the good things and makes unlawful to them impure things, and removes from them their burden and the shackles which were upon them; so (as for) those who believe in him and honor him and help him, and follow the light which has been sent down with him, these it is that are the successful.

Doesn't the idea of the injeel being oral contradict the above surah?

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;




related links :

Has the Bible Been Tampered With?

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...=1119503545430

Scriptures of People of the Book

They argue:

“God asks the People of the Book to follow their Books; this is possible only if the Books are extant. But then the Qur’an says that those books have been changed!”



In fact, neither the Qur’an, nor any knowledgeable Muslim says that the Books of the Jews and Christians do not contain the Truth.


The point is that the Jewish and Christian scribes and priests have added many things to the Book as God’s word on the one hand and on the other, they distort the true message through misinterpretation.




For example see how the Jews misinterpret Jehovah’s promise of the Land of Canaan to the Children of Abraham (Genesis 17): They claim that “the seed” of Abraham in the context refers to the Children of Israel only, and not to the Children of Abraham’s firstborn, Ishmael.




Similarly the Christians introduce into their Book, the pagan idea that Jesus was the only begotten son of God, (begotten not made!) and that he was/is really God Himself!



The Qur’an refers to such distortions of the Holy Book. But this fact does not in any way invalidate the truth that is still remaining in the Books of the Jews and Christians.

And this is specifically ascertained by many verses. Note that the Qur’an gives this meaning when it says:

And when there came to them an apostle from God, confirming what was with them, a party of the people of the Book threw away the Book of God behind their backs, as if [it had been something] they did not know!

(Al-Baqarah 2:101)

What some Jews and Christians try to do is to tell the Muslims that their own Book - the Qur’an - certifies the authenticity of the present versions of their books. But the Qur’an says what means:

*{To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what God hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the Truth that hath come to thee…}*(Al-Ma’idah 5: 48)

The actual Arabic expression used in the Qur’an, that is translated as “guarding in safety” above is: “muhaiminan”. Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the famous English translator of the Holy Qur’an has this to say about this expression:

“The Arabic word ‘muhaimin’ is very comprehensive in meaning. It means one who safeguards, watches over, stands witness, preserves, and upholds. The Qur’an safeguards ‘the Book’, for it has preserved within it the teachings of all the former Books. It watches over these Books in the sense that it will not let their true teachings be lost. It supports and upholds these Books in the sense that it corroborates the Word of Allah which has remained intact in them


http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE

The Revelation of the Bible

http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/S...AskAboutIslamE



Verses for this life & the hereafter




“O people of the Book!

There has come to you Our Messenger, revealing to you much that you used to hide in the Book, and passing over much (that is now unnecessary):

There has come to you from God a (new) light and a perspicuous Book.”

Al Ma’idah: 15

[back_to_faith]

Doesn't the idea of the injeel being oral contradict the above surah?

Good Question

but you didn't read my post well


I defined the injeel with the following:

1-oral teachings

2-what was written either his lifetime (no proofs yet for such thing)or after his departure ,is called injeel according to Muslims as long as is in accordance with the basic principles of the Torah and the Quran.....

the writings of Mark,Matthew,Luke,John have some truth based on true oral traditions ,but most of them based on false hearsy

Do muslims believe 100% of John to be the true Injeel of Jesus?the answer is NO

but

John 1:19-23.
Now this was John's testimony when the Jews of Jerusalem sent priests and Levites to ask him who he was. He did not fail to confess, but confessed freely, "I am not the Christ.
They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."


Who is the prophet who is neither Elijah nor the christ which priests and Levites ,aske John about?



and:

The Gospel of Barnabas 97:9-10
The name of "Muhammad" is frequently mentioned verbatim in the Gospel of Barnabas, as in the following quote:

"Jesus answered: `The name of the Messiah is admirable, for God himself gave him the name when he had created his soul, and placed it in a celestial splendour. God said: "Wait Mohammed; for thy sake I will to create paradise, the world, and a great multitude of creatures, whereof I make thee a present, insomuch that whoso bless thee shall be blessed, and whoso shall curse thee shall be accursed. When I shall send thee into the world I shall send thee as my messenger of salvation, and thy word shall be true, insomuch that heaven and earth shall fail, but thy faith shall never fail." Mohammed is his blessed name.' Then the crowd lifted up their voices, saying: `O God, send us thy messenger: O Admirable One, come quickly for the salvation of the world!'"


the previous examples from Canonical and non canonical Gospels could be parts of the true Injeel of Jesus

and the following verse in the light of the previous is proven to be true

Holy Quran (7.157] Those who follow the Apostle-Prophet, the Ummi, whom they find written down with them in the Taurat and the Injeel

[Umar001]

Good Question

but you didn't read my post well


I defined the injeel with the following:

1-oral teachings

2-what was written either his lifetime (no proofs yet for such thing)or after his departure ,is called injeel according to Muslims as long as is in accordance with the basic principles of the Torah and the Quran.....

I think you should say, 'is eligable to be called the injeel' not 'is called' as just because someone writes something which agrees with Islam and ascribes it to Jesus does not mean it is truly from Jesus.

So what was retained from his Oral tradition and collected in writing, is part of his Message. The 4 Gospels we have now, might have some of his message in them, and I belive this is why some Muslims hold that you can see prophecies of Muhammad in some of the passages of the Bible, because some of the Oral tradition has arraived into it.

A quick thing, anything which disagrees with Islam found in the Gospels then we know for sure is not the message of Jesus, unless it be some laws which could have been changed. Anything which does agree with Islam, then this has the possability of being from Jesus, but we cannot know for certain.

That's what I understand. And Allah knows best.

[back_to_faith]

I think you should say, 'is eligable to be called the injeel' not 'is called' as just because someone writes something which agrees with Islam and ascribes it to Jesus does not mean it is truly from Jesus.

So what was retained from his Oral tradition and collected in writing, is part of his Message. The 4 Gospels we have now, might have some of his message in them, and I belive this is why some Muslims hold that you can see prophecies of Muhammad in some of the passages of the Bible, because some of the Oral tradition has arraived into it.

A quick thing, anything which disagrees with Islam found in the Gospels then we know for sure is not the message of Jesus, unless it be some laws which could have been changed. Anything which does agree with Islam, then this has the possability of being from Jesus, but we cannot know for certain.

That's what I understand. And Allah knows best.

:sl:

Thanx dear brother

you paraphrased what I meant
:thumbs_up

peace

[don532]

I did read the responses well. Each one, word for word, several times.

I have found 12 places in the koran where the word injeel is mentioned. I asked the question because I do not find any reference to an oral injeel or the injeel being a combination of oral and written truth, in the koran.

In ten of those surahs, the taurat and injeel are mentioned together. 3:3, 3:48, 3:65, 5:46, 5:66, 5:68, 5:110, 7:157, 9:111, and 48:29.

5:47 talks about the followers of the injeel
57:27 talks about we giving to Isa the son of Miriam the injeel.

[back_to_faith]

I did read the responses well. Each one, word for word, several times.

I have found 12 places in the koran where the word injeel is mentioned. I asked the question because I do not find any reference to an oral injeel or the injeel being a combination of oral and written truth, in the koran.

In ten of those surahs, the taurat and injeel are mentioned together. 3:3, 3:48, 3:65, 5:46, 5:66, 5:68, 5:110, 7:157, 9:111, and 48:29.

5:47 talks about the followers of the injeel
57:27 talks about we giving to Isa the son of Miriam the injeel.

Greetings,


Giving to Isa the son of Miriam(PBUH) the injeel,the wisdom etc doesn't mean a book was given to jesus in his own hand...though sometimes the Quran mentions the injeel with the meaning of some written material could be found in Canonical and non canonical NT book

God gave him injeel in the verse you mentioned ,means taught him the wisdom....


no better example could be found than the NT itself:

Jesus' disciples following the footsteps of their beloved Teacher: "began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).


were they preaching John?Luke?Matthew?Mark?

Never

Had they copies of written material? Never

It was oral work.

later and after the departure of Jesus at least 30-40 years...It is said that some of such oral traditions were mixed with lots of hearsay,un-verfied,exaggerated,biased,zealous material ....

nice links to have a hint of such process

http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jhcjp.htm

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...spel_john.html


peace

[don532]

God gave him injeel in the verse you mentioned ,means taught him the wisdom...

From where in the koran does this idea come from, that the injeel was either oral, or written, or a transfer of wisdom from God to Isa? The references in the koran certainly seem to indicate a physical book.

[Redeemed]

Biggest lie? You first need to prove (If not to us, then to yourself, because your faith is baseless without it) that the book you call the bible was written by people who had the authority to write it.

The point of my post was that we Muslim do not believe that the bible is as authoritative as Christians like to think it.

So when the Quran says the books have been changed, it is not referring to the bible used today, therefore asking us to show where and when it was changed from the original is pointless because we aren't even talking about the same book.

I can't ask the witnesses of Jesus' death and resurrection to prove it, because they aren't here to ask. It is written, "the just live by faith." Muslims need to prove the Bible is not authoritative instead of Christians proving that it is. I can't prove to you that God is real. Does that meant that my believing that he lives is not authortiative, because I can't prove it?:smile:

[don532]

Hmmmm. We're missing some posts here. We had a good discussion going, too. Computers are great when they work. At least the site is back up.

[back_to_faith]

Hmmmm. We're missing some posts here. We had a good discussion going, too. Computers are great when they work. At least the site is back up.

That is true Don

yesterday I read a post by Seeker
tried to reply but the site was down...

anyway I remember the issue of the post


he asked ,what is the difinition of True Gospel

1-is it what Jesus said,preached no more,and no less.
or
2-It could be also a testimony of what Jesus did (miracles etc.....)?

the answer


Jesus' disciples "began going about among the villages, preaching the Gospel..." (Luke 9:6).


in the light of the previous verse, do you think that Jesus' disciples "began going about among the villages preaching

some of absured ,Human made writings such as the so called (Paul's inspired writings)



Romans
Chapter 16

6
Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you.
7
Greet Andronicus and Junia, 5 my relatives and my fellow prisoners; they are prominent among the apostles and they were in Christ before me.
8
Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.
9
Greet Urbanus, our co-worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys.
10
Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus.
11
Greet my relative Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.
12
Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord.
13
Greet Rufus, 6 chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
14
Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers who are with them.
15
Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the holy ones who are with them.
16
Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you.


I don't think that God wasted his time and preached such useless stuff to Jesus (peace be upon him)


neither I think that God wasted the precious time of Jesus teaching him lessons from the Song of Solomon

Song of Solomon 8:10 "Dear brothers, I'm a walled-in virgin still, but my breasts are full— And when my lover sees me, he knows he'll soon be satisfied."

"How beautiful your sandaled feet, O prince's daughter! Your graceful legs are like jewels, the work of a craftsman's hands. Your navel is a rounded goblet that never lacks blended wine.

Song of Songs 4:5 "Your two breasts are like two fawns, like twin fawns of a gazelle that browse among the lilies." !!!!!!




The Holy Quran 6:93 Who can be more wicked than one who inventeth a lie against God, or saith, "I have received inspiration," when he hath received none, or (again) who saith, "I can reveal the like of what Allah hath revealed"? If thou couldst but see how the wicked (do fare) in the flood of confusion at death! - the angels stretch forth their hands, (saying),"Yield up your souls: this day shall ye receive your reward,- a penalty of shame, for that ye used to tell lies against God, and scornfully to reject of His signs!"

[don532]

I don't recall Grace Seeker's exact question, but perhaps he will rejoin and clarify.

I will contribute a bit though. Of course the disciples when Jesus was alive, wouldn't preach anything written by Paul. Paul was not a Christian yet, so how could they preach about things like the letter to the Ephesians? Here is an extremely small portion of what we are told in the Bible about Jesus' message while he was alive.

Matthew 4:17 From that time Jesus began to preach and say, "Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

Later in Matthew 4:
23Jesus was going throughout all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness among the people.

24The news about Him spread throughout all Syria; and they brought to Him all who were ill, those suffering with various diseases and pains, demoniacs, epileptics, paralytics; and He healed them.

25Large crowds followed Him from Galilee and the Decapolis and Jerusalem and Judea and from beyond the Jordan.

From Luke and John:
* Luke 6:35 But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and [to] the evil.

* Luke 10:27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbor as thyself.

* John 13:35 By this shall all [men] know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another.

* John 15:12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.


From Jesus' words in the Bible, we get a good idea of what Christians believe he taught when he was alive. The sermon on the mount, the parables, the Lord's prayer, Jesus' predictions of his own death and resurrection, etc.

However, Grace Seeker's question was the muslim perspective on this issue. Hopefully we will hear from GS again soon.

[back_to_faith]

I don't recall Grace Seeker's exact question, but perhaps he will rejoin and clarify.

I will contribute a bit though. Of course the disciples when Jesus was alive, wouldn't preach anything written by Paul. Paul was not a Christian yet, so how could they preach about things like the letter to the Ephesians? Jesus' predictions of his own death and resurrection, etc.

.

Greetings

FIRST:

Great notice from you....

Paul never met Jesus,never claims that his letters based on eyewitnesses' testimonies....
Just assertion ,that he met a ghost of Jesus....

such lie is exposed by the fact that He contradicts himself in such crucial narrative:

In the 9th chapter of Acts, Luke tells the story of the conversion of Saul, saying that "the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man." In the 22nd chapter of the same book, Luke quotes Paul's own words regarding the same experience: "And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake unto me."


Luke says "hearing a voice," but Paul says, "They heard not the voice

his writtings from A to Z is wholly without merit,for the muslims.



SECOND:

I agree that the words of Jesus you quoted could be from his true Gospel based on true tradictions....

with the exception of (the so called Jesus' predictions of his own death and resurrection)

that is NT claim,which is not in accordance with the Quran ,hence not true Gospel and
Even if the Quran was silent about such matter,one could easily find out that such NT claim is false with all the problems with the narratives of the so called Crucifiction,resurrection eg,

the apparent contradictions therin,the 3 days and 3 nights problem,the non-existed OT' prophecy regarding the Messiah resurrection after 3 days,which the NT writers claimed to be exist etc.......


in sum and substance,

the New Testament(canonical and non canonical) has some of the true Gospel of Jesus mised with false addetions ,according to Islam.
one simple example of that is:


Matthew
Chapter 1

the angel of the Lord 9 appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary your wife into your home. For it is through the holy Spirit that this child has been conceived in her.
21
She will bear a son and you are to name him Jesus, 10 because he will save his people from their sins."
22
All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet:
23
11 "Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel," which means "God is with us."


the above in green could be called a true gospel tradition,while the one in red is a false addetion by the writer ,cause there is Zero prophecy ,regarding the virgin birth in the Old Testament (and we discussed that before together).



Peace

[Redeemed]

Great thread,



If you are asking when do the Islamic teachings say the Bible was curropted then I don't think they do mention dates or names. If you ask when can starting from the point of Islam, then look back at history and say 'It is possible that changes happend here here and here' then that's a different matter.

I can't give you the Islamic teachings on what dates the Bible were curropted or by whom, but I can give you what I found outside the realms of Islamic sources about the 'Corruption' of the Bible.



Well if you want the answer from islamic sources, then what we know is that it would have been from Jesus time to Muhammad's time. I have yet to find dates of the instances.

If we speak outside the realms of Islam, then I personally think it would have been possibly curropted at the sources, through the time of its begging from pen to paper, and in the copies and also centuries later.



But what if the interpretation lead to textual curroption. Example,

Original Text - 'Then forth, Jesus took Simon Peter to the peak of the Hill'

Copy of Scribe - 'Then forth, Jesus took Simon Peter to the highest level of understanding amongst the disciples'

Someone might think it's rediculous but, I beg to differ, maybe you can enlighten me but I do think there have been 'exegis' and scribal addition to 'clarify' the text at times.



Original autographs of the Four Gospels? I wouldn't have thought so, the Injil is the word of God delivered to Jesus. The Four Gospels in their Original would have been Oral traditions, used by the authors to reflect their communities understanding or theological ideas about Jesus and so on. So I don't think even at the first autographs we would have that which Islam speaks of. The sources of the autographs are probably closer to it.



Whilst I don't agree with Abdul Fatah's whole statement, I namely disagree with, the 'since not all of the sources of the bible are publicly available.' since I think some might be, and since I dont think public availability would improve anything much.

But I do think that it is true that we are hardpressed to know now what is true and what is not. What originally was in the original writings and what was not. With the discovery of earlier and more accurate manuscripts which caused a need for revision of earlier editions, which had 'grave defects' I do wonder if any manuscripts would be found in the future which would do the same. There is only so much comparison between manuscripts can do, and also comparison between the four Gospels themselves can do.



Maybe we shouldn't diviate, there is a thread speaking on the validity of the Qur'ans retention. I do personally think that the social circumstances of the believers of each faith played a big part in its preservation. I believed that even as a non Muslim.



Well when you think about what you read in the Gospels, and that'd be an assumption that those records are accurate. The whole point of this thread. :) Although one of the most amazing changes is about the resurection in Mark's Gospel, where the author leaves the Gospel abpruptly and someone else then later comes and adds the whole resurrection story. Scholars have wondered who done that and why the original author stopped earlier.




I think it would be healthy to speak on the problems which I percieve with the resurrection stories. But we are here to speak of the 'changes' to the Bible, not on other such topics.




Yes, I think to say God is three is the Biggest lie. What's you point, to say that BIble is curropted is the Biggest lie, maybe we should take it more academically then namely preaching.



Well maybe you aint been using you logic or reasoning. You have yet to show why you believe it is an accurate account. We are here to discuss whether the Bible was curropted and share experiences on it. To simply come here and say 'Am I to believe it is curropted....Oh thats the Biggest lie and Hitler said something about making big lies....Jesus had witnesses (according to the same text we are sayin is curropt)...'

Noone is asking you to blindly believe the Bible has been changed. Get an NIV Bible, look at the footnotes, when they say that the 'earliest and most reliabile manuscripts do not contain these verses' [something to that effect] then you're on the first step of your journey. :)



On what basis do you rank the presumption of Muslims wrong? On the Basis that the Christians never claimed Jesus was given one? If so then what makes you think that the Christian position is right?

I believe The Bible is inerrant. I cut and pasted some information.
Definition of Inerrancy:
"Inerrancy is the view that when all the facts become known, they will demonstrate that the Bible in its original autographs and correctly interpreted is entirely true and never false in all it affirms, whether that relates to doctrine or ethics or to the social, physical, or life sciences."

People use to think the world was flat. If they read the Bible they could have learned it was round from Job were it refers to the circle of the earth.

Inerrancy regarding the Bible is rather different than what a lot of people think it is! Skeptics can easily show many differences in wording between different (English translations of) Bibles. They also seem to know a list of Verses in the (modern English language) Bible that seem to contradict otherwise known details or even itself. Therefore, they claim that Inerrancy is not true of the Bible.

If the actual subject at hand was the modern English-language Bible, they might be right. But scholars never really claim that ANY modern Bible is absolutely inerrant. They claim that the Original Manuscripts were! If it is accepted that God Inspired the writing of the Books of the Bible, then to claim otherwise would imply that either He made or permitted mistakes in the Bible or that He is nowhere near as all-knowing as we believe He is. So, the claim of Inerrancy in the Bible is only made regarding the Original Manuscripts. As far as anyone knows, all of those Original Manuscripts have long since disintegrated, and only Scribe-made copies of any of them still exist, so the claim of Inerrancy regarding the Original Manuscripts is probably beyond any possible proof.


Massive scientific research on around 20,000 old Scribe copied Manuscripts, has resulted in a number of tiny refinements regarding the source Greek and Ancient Hebrew texts. See the BELIEVE presentation on Bible for more on that. The current texts are believed to be extremely close to what the Original must have been.

The Original Greek or Ancient Hebrew words often have a number of different translations into English, which is the central reason why there are a large number of English Versions of the Bible. All of them are translated from the very same Greek and Ancient Hebrew texts. See the BELIEVE presentations on Literal Translation and on History of the Bible for more on that.

No formatting existed in the Original texts. Even though some modern Ministers insist that their Bible is Inerrant perfectly, regarding every punctuation mark, that is not true. Until at least 900 AD, no punctuation marks were included in the Scriptural texts. There were no Verse or Chapter numbers until centuries after that. Actually, prior to about 900 AD, the texts were written in Scriptua continua, where there were no spaces between words or sentences, no capitalization and no punctuation. It must have been extremely hard to read. See the BELIEVE presentation on Translating the Bible to get some idea about all that.

In any event, skeptics and critics might be correct regarding some minor errors about details in modern English Bibles, but their criticism is claimed to not apply to the Original Manuscripts.


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

Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible
Advanced Information
The question of authority is central for any theology. Since Protestant theology has located authority in the Bible, the nature of biblical authority has been a fundamental concern. The Reformation passed to its heirs the belief that ultimate authority rests not in reason or a pope, but in an inspired Scripture. Thus, within conservative Protestantism the question of inerrancy has been much debated.

BELIEVE
Religious
Information
Source
web-site
Our List of 1,000 Religious Subjects
E-mail
The two words most often used to express the nature of scriptural authority are "inerrant" and "infallible." Though these two terms are, on etymological grounds, approximately synonymous, they are used differently. In Roman Catholic theology "inerrant" is applied to the Bible, "infallible" to the church, particularly the teaching function of pope and magisterium. Since Protestants reject the infallibility of both the pope and the church, the word has been used increasingly of the Scriptures. More recently "infallible" has been championed by those who hold to what B B Warfield called limited inspiration but what today is better called limited inerrancy. They limit the Bible's inerrancy to matters of faith and practice, particularly soteriological issues. Stephen T Davis reflects this tendency when he gives a stipulative definition for infallibility: the Bible makes no false or misleading statements about matters of faith and practice. In this article the two terms shall be used as virtually synonymous.

A number of points in this definition deserve discussion. Inerrancy is not presently demonstrable. Human knowledge is limited in two ways. First, because of our finitude and sinfulness, human beings misinterpret the data that exist. For instance, wrong conclusions can be drawn from inscriptions or texts. Second, we do not possess all the data that bear on the Bible. Some of that data may be lost forever, or they may be awaiting discovery by archaeologists. By claiming that inerrancy will be shown to be true after all the facts are known, one recognizes this. The defender of inerrancy argues only that there will be no conflict in the end.

Further, inerrancy applies equally to all parts of the Bible as originally written. This means that no present manuscript or copy of Scripture, no matter how accurate, can be called inerrant.

This definition also relates inerrancy to hermeneutics. Hermeneutics is the science of biblical interpretation. It is necessary to interpret a text properly, to know its correct meaning, before asserting that what a text says is false. Moreover, a key hermeneutical principle taught by the Reformers is the analogy of faith, which demands that apparent contradictions be harmonized if possible. If a passage appears to permit two interpretations, one of which conflicts with another passage and one of which does not, the latter must be adopted.

Probably the most important aspect of this definition is its definition of inerrancy in terms of truth and falsity rather than in terms of error. It has been far more common to define inerrancy as "without error," but a number of reasons argue for relating inerrancy to truth and falsity. To use "error" is to negate a negative idea.

Truth, moreover, is a property of sentences, not words. Certain problems are commonly associated with views related to "error." Finally, "error" has been defined by some in the contemporary debate in such a way that almost every book ever written will qualify as inerrant. Error, they say, is willful deception; since the Bible never willfully deceives its readers, it is inerrant. This would mean that almost all other books are also inerrant, since few authors intentionally deceive their readers.

Some have suggested that the Bible itself might help in settling the meaning of error. At first this appears to be a good suggestion, but there are reasons to reject it. First, "inerrancy" and "error" are theological rather than biblical terms. This means that the Bible applies neither word to itself. This does not mean that it is inappropriate to use these words of the Bible. Another theological term is "trinity." It is, however, more difficult to define such words. Second, a study of the Hebrew and Greek words for error may be classified into three groups: cases of error where intentionality cannot be involved (e.g., Job 6:24; 19:4), cases of error where intentionality may or may not be involved (e.g., 2 Sam. 6:7), and cases where intentionality must be involved (e.g., Judg. 16:10 - 12). Error, then, has nothing to do with intentionality.

Admittedly, precision of statement and measurement will not be up to modern standards, but as long as what is said is true, inerrancy is not in doubt.

Finally, the definition states that inerrancy covers all areas of knowledge. Inerrancy is not limited to matters of soteriological or ethical concern. It should be clear that biblical affirmations about faith and ethics are based upon God's action in history. No neat dichotomy can be made between the theological and factual.


Arguments for Inerrancy
The primary arguments for inerrancy are biblical, historical, and epistemological in nature.

The Biblical Argument
At the heart of the belief in an inerrant, infallible Bible is the testimony of Scripture itself. There is some disagreement as to whether Scripture teaches this doctrine explicitly or implicitly. The consensus today is that inerrancy is taught implicitly.
First, the Bible teaches its own inspiration, and this requires inerrancy. The Scriptures are the breath of God (2 Tim. 3:16), which guarantees they are without error.

Second, in Deut. 13:1 - 5 and 18:20 - 22 Israel is given criteria for distinguishing God's message and messenger from false prophecies and prophets. One mark of a divine message is total and absolute truthfulness. A valid parallel can be made between the prophet and the Bible. The prophet's word was usually oral, although it might be recorded and included in a book; the writers of Scripture communicated God's word in written form. Both were instruments of divine communication, and in both cases the human element was an essential ingredient.

Third, the Bible teaches its own authority, and this requires inerrancy. The two most commonly cited passages are Matt. 5:17 - 20 and John 10: 34 - 35. Both record the words of Jesus. In the former Jesus said that heaven and earth will pass away before the smallest detail of the law fails to be fulfilled. The law's authority rests on the fact that every minute detail will be fulfilled. In John 10:34 - 35 Jesus says that Scripture cannot be broken and so is absolutely binding. While it is true that both passages emphasize the Bible's authority, this authority can only be justified by or grounded in inerrancy. Something that contains errors cannot be absolutely authoritative.

Fourth, Scripture uses Scripture in a way that supports its inerrancy. At times an entire argument rests on a single word (e.g., John 10:34 - 35 and "God" in Ps. 82:6), the tense of a verb (e.g., the present tense in Matt. 22:32), and the difference between a singular and a plural noun (e.g., "seed" in Gal. 3:16). If the Bible's inerrancy does not extend to every detail, these arguments lose their force. The use of any word may be a matter of whim and may even be an error. It might be objected that the NT does not always cite OT texts with precision, that as a matter of fact precision is the exception rather than the rule. This is a fair response, and an adequate answer requires more space than is available here. A careful study of the way in which the OT is used in the NT, however, demonstrates that the NT writers quoted the OT not cavalierly but quite carefully.

Finally, inerrancy follows from what the Bible says about God's character. Repeatedly, the Scriptures teach that God cannot lie (Num. 23:19; 1 Sam. 15:29; Titus 1:2; Heb. 6:18). If, then, the Bible is from God and his character is behind it, it must be inerrant and infallible.


The Historical Argument
A second argument for biblical inerrancy is that this has been the view of the church throughout its history. One must remember that if inerrancy was part of the corpus of orthodox doctrine, then in many discussions it was assumed rather than defended. Further, the term "inerrancy" may be a more modern way of expressing the belief in the English language. Nevertheless, in each period of the church's history one can cite clear examples of those who affirm inerrancy.
In the early church Augustine writes, "I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error."

The two great Reformers, Luther and Calvin, bear testimony to biblical infallibility. Luther says, "But everyone, indeed, knows that at times they (the fathers) have erred as men will; therefore I am ready to trust them only when they prove their opinions from Scripture, which has never erred." While Calvin does not use the phrase "without error," there can be little question that he embraced inerrancy. Of the writers of the Gospels he comments, "The Spirit of God . . . appears purposely to have regulated their style in such a manner, that they all wrote one and the same history, with the most perfect agreement, but in different ways."

In modern times one could cite the works of Princeton theologians Archibald Alexander, Charles Hodge, A A Hodge, and B B Warfield as modern formulators and defenders of the full inerrancy and infallibility of Scripture.

The biblical and historical arguments are clearly more important than the two that follow. Should they be shown to be false, inerrancy would suffer a mortal blow.


The Epistemological Argument
Because epistemologies differ, this argument has been formulated in at least two very different ways. For some, knowledge claims must, to be justified, be indubitable or incorrigible. It is not enough that a belief is true and is believed on good grounds. It must be beyond doubt and question. For such an epistemology inerrancy is essential. Inerrancy guarantees the incorrigibility of every statement of Scripture. Therefore, the contents of Scripture can be objects of knowledge.
Epistemologies that do not require such a high standard of certitude result in this argument for inerrancy: If the Bible is not inerrant, then any claim it makes may be false. This means not that all claims are false, but that some might be. But so much of the Bible is beyond direct verification. Thus, only its inerrancy assures the knower that his or her claim is justified.


The Slippery Slope Argument
Finally, some see inerrancy as so fundamental that those who give it up will soon surrender other central Christian doctrines. A denial of inerrancy starts one down a slope that is slippery and ends in even greater error.

Objections to Inerrancy
The arguments for inerrancy have not gone unchallenged. In what follows, responses by those who object to each argument will be given and answers will be offered.

The Slippery Slope Argument
This argument is both the least important and most disliked by those who do not hold to inerrancy. What kind of relationship exists between the doctrine of inerrancy and other central Christian doctrines, they ask, that the denial of all inerrancy will of necessity lead to a denial of other doctrines? Is it a logical relationship? Is it a causal or psychological relationship? On close examination, none of these seems to be the case. Many people who do not affirm inerrancy are quite clearly orthodox on other matters of doctrine.
What has been said to this point is true. It should be noted, however, that numerous cases do support the slippery slope argument. For many individuals and institutions the surrender of their commitment to inerrancy has been a first step to greater error.


The Epistemological Argument
The epistemological argument has been characterized by some as an example of overbelief. A single error in the Bible should not lead one to conclude that it contains no truth. If one finds one's spouse wrong on some matter, one would be wrong to conclude that one's spouse can never be trusted on any matter.
This objection, however, overlooks two very important matters. First, while it is true that one error in Scripture would not justify the conclusion that everything in it is false, it would call everything in Scripture into question. We could not be sure that everything in it is true. Since the theological is based on the historical and since the historical is open to error, how can one be sure that the theological is true? There is no direct means for verification. Second, while the case of the errant spouse is true as far as it goes, it does not account for all the issues involved in inerrancy. One's spouse does not claim to be inerrant; the Bible does. One's spouse is not omniscient and omnipotent; the God of the Bible is. God knows everything, and he can communicate with man.


The Historical Argument
Those who reject inerrancy argue that this doctrine is an innovation, primarily of the Princeton theologians in the nineteenth century. Throughout the centuries the church believed in the Bible's authority but not its total inerrancy. The doctrine of inerrancy grew out of an apologetic need. Classical liberalism and its growing commitment to an increasingly radical biblical criticism made the orthodox view of Scripture vulnerable. Therefore, the Princeton theologians devised the doctrine of total inerrancy to stem the rising tide of liberalism. This represented a departure from the views of their predecessors in the orthodox tradition.
Calvin, for example, speaks of God "accommodating" himself to man in the communication of his revelation. Calvin also says that the Bible's teaching does not need to be harmonized with science, and that anyone who wishes to prove to the unbeliever that the Bible is God's Word is foolish.

These objections to the historical argument do not do justice to the evidence. They fail to reckon with the host of clear affirmations of inerrancy by Christian theologians throughout the church's history, only a few of which were given above.

Moreover, the treatment of figures like Calvin is unfair. While Calvin talks about accommodation, he does not mean accommodation to human error. He means that God condescended to speak in language that finite human beings could understand. In one place he says that God spoke only baby talk. He never implies that what God said is in error. On matters of science and proof, the same sort of thing is true. Calvin nowhere says that the Scriptures cannot be harmonized with science or that they cannot be proven to be the Word of God. He felt rather that such an exercise is futile in itself because of man's sin. Hence, he relied on the testimony of the Holy Spirit to the unbeliever. The problem is in man, not in the Scriptures or the evidence for their origin. The theologians of the church may have been wrong in their belief, but they did believe in an inerrant Bible.


The Biblical Argument
A common objection to the biblical argument is that the Bible nowhere teaches its own inerrancy. The point seems to be a subtle one. Those who make this point mean that the Bible nowhere says "all Scripture is inerrant" in the way that it teaches "all Scripture is given by inspiration of God" (11 Tim. 3:16). While it is true that no verse says explicitly that Scripture is inerrant, biblical inerrancy is implied by or follows from a number of things the Bible does teach explicitly.
Another objection is that inerrancy is unfalsifiable. Either the standard for error is so high that nothing can qualify (e.g., even contradictions have difficulty in qualifying), or the falsity or truth of scriptural statements cannot be demonstrated until all the facts are known. The doctrine of inerrancy is not, however, unfalsifiable in principle; it is unfalsifiable only at present. Not everything that bears on the truth and falsity of the Bible is yet available. How then is it possible to affirm so strongly the doctrine of inerrancy now? Should one be more cautious or even suspend judgment? The inerrantist wants to be true to what he or she thinks the Bible teaches. And as independent data have become available (e.g., from archaeology), they have shown the Bible to be trustworthy.

Another criticism is that inerrancy fails to recognize sufficiently the human element in the writing of Scripture. The Bible teaches that it is a product of human as well as divine authorship. This objection, though, underestimates the divine element. The Bible is a divine - human book. To de-emphasize either side of its authorship is a mistake. Furthermore, this criticism misunderstands man, implying that humanity requires error. This is false. The spokesmen of God were human, but inspiration kept them from error.

The objection has been raised that if one uses the methods of biblical criticism, one must accept its conclusions. But why? One need accept only the methods that are valid and the conclusions that are true.

Finally, it has been objected that since the original autographs no longer exist and since the doctrine applies only to them, inerrancy is meaningless. The identification of inerrancy with the original autographs is a neat hedge against disproof. Whenever an "error" is pointed out, the inerrantist can say that it must not have existed in the original autographs.

Limiting inerrancy to the original autographs could be such a hedge, but it need not be. This qualification of inerrancy grows out of the recognition that errors crop up in the transmission of any text. There is, however, a great difference between a text that is initially inerrant and one that is not. The former, through textual criticism, can be restored to a state very near the inerrant original; the latter leaves far more doubt as to what was really said.

It might be argued that the doctrine of inerrant originals directs attention away from the authority of our present texts. Perhaps inerrantists sometimes fail to emphasize the authority of our present texts and versions as they should. Is the remedy, however, to undercut the base for their authority? To deny the authority of the original is to undermine the authority of the Bible the Christian has today.

P D Feinberg
(Elwell Evangelical Dictionary)

Bibliography
For inerrancy
D A Carson and J D Woodbridge, eds., Scripture and Truth; N L Geisler, ed., Inerrancy; J W Montgomery, ed., God's Inerrant Word: An International Symposium on the Trustworthiness of Scripture; B B Warfield, The Inspiration and Authority of the Bible; J D Woodbridge, Biblical Authority: A Critique of the Rogers / McKim Proposal.

Against inerrancy
D M Beegle, Scripture, Tradition and Infallibility; S A Davis, The Debate About the Bible; J Rogers, ed., Biblical Authority; J Rogers and D McKim, The Interpretation and Authority of the Bible.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Also, see:
Infallibility

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The individual articles presented here were generally first published in the early 1980s. This subject presentation was first placed on the Internet in May 1997.
This page - - Inerrancy and Infallibility of the Bible - - is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/text/inerranc.htm
This subject presentation was last updated on 12/31/2006 16:10:25




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

Copyright Information

Send an e-mail question or comment to us: E-mail

The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html

[Grace Seeker]

You're heart is in the right place, Alapiana. But I'm not really interested so much in the inerrancy issue from a Christian viewpoint, as I'm not talking wanting to spend our time arguing between Christian versus Muslim beliefs with regard to the Bible. Though feel free to start a thread to discuss that if you so desire. I might even join you there.

I designed this one to try to better understand the Muslim viewpoint -- as I already have a pretty good grasp on the Christian viewpoint(s) -- specifically I have noted that Muslims seem to be in general agreement that the Bible is corrupted and speak of it in this way often. But they also provide very few details as to when this took place. Some Muslims even cite as proofs of the Bible's corruption things that took place well after the time of Muhammad (pbuh), so I know that those were not what was intended when that idea was forumalted. The purpose of this thread is to see if we can establish an agreement as to when Muslims believe that this corruption took place.

We are getting several different answers. But the one I would like to pursue more is this idea that the true Injeel that Jesus spoke was the one that his disciples preached when the Gospel of Mark describes them being sent out two by two. It seems that perhaps we should not even use the terms Injeel and Gospel as synonyms for what Muslims mean by the Injeel appears to be something completely different from what Christians mean by the Gospels.

What I am curious about right now is: Are you saying that the Gospels became corrupted the moment that the writers decided to include more than just this simple Injeel that Jesus gave to his disciples about the Kingdom of God? Are you saying that when they decided to tell about some of Jesus' other sayings and acts: feeding 5000 thousand, healing a blind man, casting out demons, calming a stormy sea, that this decision to tell of these events in the life of Jesus corrupted the Gospels? Are you saying that even if the record they provided was an accurate record of the events in Jesus' life, that simply the fact that they told more than the Injeel was in itself an act of corruption?

[Redeemed]

I see, I did start a new thread, but I can't understnd why it didn't get approved. Their arguments as to when the Bible became corrupted or even that it is at all lacks substance to say the least. But you are asking good questions. I can't say the same about the answers coming back. I really believe the Holy Spirit has to witness to their spirit about the truth in the Bible or they will not see nor be convinced.
Blessings

[Redeemed]

You're heart is in the right place, Alapiana. But I'm not really interested so much in the inerrancy issue from a Christian viewpoint, as I'm not talking wanting to spend our time arguing between Christian versus Muslim beliefs with regard to the Bible. Though feel free to start a thread to discuss that if you so desire. I might even join you there.

I designed this one to try to better understand the Muslim viewpoint -- as I already have a pretty good grasp on the Christian viewpoint(s) -- specifically I have noted that Muslims seem to be in general agreement that the Bible is corrupted and speak of it in this way often. But they also provide very few details as to when this took place. Some Muslims even cite as proofs of the Bible's corruption things that took place well after the time of Muhammad (pbuh), so I know that those were not what was intended when that idea was forumalted. The purpose of this thread is to see if we can establish an agreement as to when Muslims believe that this corruption took place.

We are getting several different answers. But the one I would like to pursue more is this idea that the true Injeel that Jesus spoke was the one that his disciples preached when the Gospel of Mark describes them being sent out two by two. It seems that perhaps we should not even use the terms Injeel and Gospel as synonyms for what Muslims mean by the Injeel appears to be something completely different from what Christians mean by the Gospels.

What I am curious about right now is: Are you saying that the Gospels became corrupted the moment that the writers decided to include more than just this simple Injeel that Jesus gave to his disciples about the Kingdom of God? Are you saying that when they decided to tell about some of Jesus' other sayings and acts: feeding 5000 thousand, healing a blind man, casting out demons, calming a stormy sea, that this decision to tell of these events in the life of Jesus corrupted the Gospels? Are you saying that even if the record they provided was an accurate record of the events in Jesus' life, that simply the fact that they told more than the Injeel was in itself an act of corruption?

I see, I did start a new thread, but I can't understnd why it didn't get approved. Their arguments as to when the Bible became corrupted or even that it is at all lacks substance to say the least. But you are asking good questions. I can't say the same about the answers coming back. I really believe the Holy Spirit has to witness to their spirit about the truth in the Bible or they will not see nor be convinced.
Blessings

[Grace Seeker]

I see, I did start a new thread, but I can't understnd why it didn't get approved. Their arguments as to when the Bible became corrupted or even that it is at all lacks substance to say the least. But you are asking good questions. I can't say the same about the answers coming back. I really believe the Holy Spirit has to witness to their spirit about the truth in the Bible or they will not see nor be convinced.
Blessings

Patience. Sometime these things just take time. I once waited for over 2 weeks. After the crash, they may be busy with other stuff that they got behind on. Maybe even things in their personal lives that they put on hold to get us back online.

[back_to_faith]

Are you saying that the Gospels became corrupted the moment that the writers decided to include more than just this simple Injeel that Jesus gave to his disciples about the Kingdom of God?

I find no problem at all if the disciples mention the miracles of Jesus peace be upon him, while preaching the gospel to the people who never saw him ...

that is a helpfull tool for their preaching,but such thing can't be called a Gospel material....Why?


Did the almighty God inspire Jesus with things such as:

John 2:3-4
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no
wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My
hour has not yet come."


from the muslims' point of view and logically too... such parts could never be the true Gospel that was inspired to Jesus by God...
The Gospel material are those that Jesus peace be upon him preached and that reflects what God the almighty inspired him....

[back_to_faith]

the same way could be the parts of the Old Testament such as Deuteronomy 34, which records the death of Moses..


So Moses the servant of the Lord died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the Lord. And He buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth Peor; but no one knows his grave to this day. Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died. His eyes were not dim nor his natural vigor diminished. And the children of Israel wept for Moses in the plains of Moab thirty days. So the days of weeping and mourning for Moses ended.



That can't be a part of the true Torah that inspired by God to Moses..

in light of the facts I mentioned ,
If you still insist that the OT and NT are 100% inspired ,inerrant then,if you will consult a basic logic book you will learn the simplicity of your error....

[back_to_faith]

forgot to say ,we have no objection if there is a description of the DEath of Moses (peace be upon him) based on true traditions ....but we call it a work of history ....similar to the islamic Hadith science.

by no mean,a muslim claims that the hadith is a work of inspiration ,God inspired to the writer......
it is a tradition could be authentic and could be not (Hadith science decides that).

the writer of Deuteronomy could tell us whatever he wants ,regarding the character of Moses (PBUH) ,his death etc......

but we have no reason at all to believe that what he said is 1-inspired 2-part of the Torah was inspired to Moses by God.

[Keltoi]

I find no problem at all if the disciples mention the miracles of Jesus peace be upon him, while preaching the gospel to the people who never saw him ...

that is a helpfull tool for their preaching,but such thing can't be called a Gospel material....Why?


Did the almighty God inspire Jesus with things such as:

John 2:3-4
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no
wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My
hour has not yet come."


from the muslims' point of view and logically too... such parts could never be the true Gospel that was inspired to Jesus by God...
The Gospel material are those that Jesus peace be upon him preached and that reflects what God the almighty inspired him....

This goes back to Grace Seeker's question. Is the "corruption" simply the fact that the Gospels describe some of Christ's day to day situtations outside of the Message? I'm still confused on the belief on this.

[back_to_faith]

This goes back to Grace Seeker's question. Is the "corruption" simply the fact that the Gospels describe some of Christ's day to day situtations outside of the Message? I'm still confused on the belief on this.

If you have read my posts well,you you would have known that i answered the question

some of Christ's day to day situtations outside of the Message,could have another siutable place outside the Gospel(A study tool) ,as long as it is PROVED TO BE AUTHENTIC.....

Just as the narratives of the biography of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH),the authentic ones ,are very helpful for understanding the Quran, but no one ever claim that such biographies to be inspired from God,and the Holy Spirit dectated it to the writers ..,...

[don532]

If you have read my posts well,you you would have known that i answered the question

some of Christ's day to day situtations outside of the Message,could have another siutable place outside the Gospel(A study tool) ,as long as it is PROVED TO BE AUTHENTIC.....

Just as the narratives of the biography of the Prophet Muhammad(PBUH),the authentic ones ,are very helpful for understanding the Quran, but no one ever claim that such biographies to be inspired from God,and the Holy Spirit dectated it to the writers ..,...

I have always interpreted the muslim charge of a corrupted Bible as being changes, inaccuracies, Paul's agenda being added, etc.

Are you are saying the Bible is also corrupt because it contains documentation of things other than what Jesus preached? In other words, the Bible is corrupt because it does not record the direct revelation from God to Jesus like the koran records the direct revelation of Allah to Mohammad?

[back_to_faith]

I have always interpreted the muslim charge of a corrupted Bible as being changes, inaccuracies, Paul's agenda being added, etc.

Are you are saying the Bible is also corrupt because it contains documentation of things other than what Jesus preached?

Greetings

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.


"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a LIE. (Jeremiah 8:8)"


"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to followThe Noble Quran, 4:156-159



"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places The Noble Quran, 5:41

peace

[Grace Seeker]

I find no problem at all if the disciples mention the miracles of Jesus peace be upon him, while preaching the gospel to the people who never saw him ...

that is a helpfull tool for their preaching,but such thing can't be called a Gospel material....Why?


Did the almighty God inspire Jesus with things such as:

John 2:3-4
When the wine failed, the mother of Jesus said to him, "They have no
wine." And Jesus said to her, "O woman, what have you to do with me? My
hour has not yet come."


from the muslims' point of view and logically too... such parts could never be the true Gospel that was inspired to Jesus by God...
The Gospel material are those that Jesus peace be upon him preached and that reflects what God the almighty inspired him....

I appreciate what you have said. I hope you will appreciate what I am about to say.

The term "Gospel" has a very specific meaning. It is a term coined by the Church, and I think that it ought to therefore be the Church that defines it. I now understand that what we call the Gospel and the gospels are different from what you call the Injeel. Therefore, I think that in the future it would be wise if we no longer use these terms interchangably. As the Church uses the term "Gospel" it actually isn't a record of what Jesus preached. That may sound strange to you, and this may be part of our problem. The word "Gospel" literally means "good news". In this case the good news of the Gospel was not just what Jesus said but even more what he did. So, based on our Christian understanding of the word "Gospel" and your Muslim understanding of the word "Injeel" being that message which God gave to Jesus to deliver, it is obvious that we really are talking apples and oranges when speaking of them.

So, now that the difference between those two is more clear (that the Gospel and the Injeel are really referring to do completely different messages, the Injeel a message delivered by Jesus and the Gospel a message delivered about Jesus, I have a follow-up question.

When I hear Muslims speak of the Bible beig corrupted to what are they referring. (I know that the reference includes concerns with regard to the Torah, but I want to focus on that which revovles around Jesus for the moment.)
Do Muslims mean the the Injeel that Jesus delivered has been corrupted?
or
Do Muslims mean that the Gospel message delivered about Jesus has been corrupted?


I also understand that Muslims may believe both types of corruption have occurred. But I want to know when they use such a phrase as to speak of the Bible being corrupted, with regard to Jesus, which is the concern they are expressing at that time?

Was Muhammad (pbuh) more concerns that Christians did not have the true Injeel that Jesus himself spoke, or that the Gospel record Christians did have told some untruths with regard to what Jesus did?

[don532]

Greetings

Deuteronomy 4:2
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the Lord your God that I give you.


"How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a LIE. (Jeremiah 8:8)"


"That they rejected Faith; That they uttered against Mary A grave false charge; That they said (in boast): 'We killed Christ Jesus The son of Mary, The Messenger of Allah.' But they killed him not, Nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to followThe Noble Quran, 4:156-159



"O Apostle! let not those grieve thee, who race each other into unbelief: (whether it be) among those who say "We believe" with their lips but whose hearts have no faith; or it be among the Jews,- men who will listen to any lie,- will listen even to others who have never so much as come to thee. They change the words from their (right) times and places The Noble Quran, 5:41

peace

Greetings:
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a "yes, with regard to the message of Jesus, anything other than words attributed to Jesus that agree with the koran is also a corruption". If not, please let me know.

I'm getting the impression you think Christianity should have the Bible containing only the message directly from God, and anything that's not the direct message should be in something like the hadiths.

Grace Seeker makes a good point about how Christians define the "gospel", that I was also going to bring up at this point. I would also be interested in reading the answers to his questions.

Peace.

[back_to_faith]

Do Muslims mean the the Injeel that Jesus delivered has been corrupted?
or
Do Muslims mean that the NEW TESTAMENT message delivered about Jesus has been corrupted?

We have just agreed that the Injeel for muslims is that what Jesus (PBUH)preached to others (what he uttered from his own mouth reflecting the inspiration he recieved God)

if so then the Injeel (The words)that Jesus delivered has been corrupted

Clue?
we have ample proofs that even the parts of the NT which mention the so called oral teachings of Jesus (PBUH) is proved to be problematic and false..

Among them:
1-false statements and inaccurate ,unfulfilled prophecies, as in
John 3:13 -Matt. 12:40 -John 13:38

2- Distorting the Old Testament and inventing non-existed prophecies ,as in

John 7:38 - Luke 24:46


not need to give more examples...

according to the Quran:there are some of False statements and failed Prophecies ,, put in the mouth of Jesus in the New Testament.


Was Muhammad (pbuh) more concerns that Christians did not have the true Injeel that Jesus himself spoke, or that the Gospel record Christians did have told some untruths with regard to what Jesus did?[

Answer: Both

I appreciate what you have said too.

peace

[back_to_faith]

Greetings:
I guess I'm supposed to take that as a "yes, with regard to the message of Jesus, anything other than words attributed to Jesus that agree with the koran is also a corruption". If not, please let me know.



Peace.

Greetings

I Didn't say it is a corruption ,I only say it can't be from the Gospel God taught Jesus..

anything other than words attributed to Jesus ,if proved to be from authentic source ,could be a very helpful tool to understand the true Gospel..... but there is no such thing called authentic in the whole world of the NT.

thanx

peace

[Grace Seeker]

Greetings

I Didn't say it is a corruption ,I only say it can't be from the Gospel God taught Jesus..

anything other than words attributed to Jesus ,if proved to be from authentic source ,could be a very helpful tool to understand the true Gospel..... but there is no such thing called authentic in the whole world of the NT.

thanx

peace

Please, can you instead say, "I Didn't say it is a corruption ,I only say it can't be from the Injeel God taught Jesus.."
I know it is going to take time, but I think such distinction of terms in our speech will help both sides to communicate better.

[back_to_faith]

Please, can you instead say, "I Didn't say it is a corruption ,I only say it can't be from the Injeel God taught Jesus.."
I know it is going to take time, but I think such distinction of terms in our speech will help both sides to communicate better.

I Agree

thanx

[Grace Seeker]

So, from the Muslim persepctive, the Injeel that God gave Jesus has been lost (though it is assumed that it would be the same basic Injeel that God have Muhammad I would guess.) And thus I can understand why some might say that the Injeel of Jesus has been corrupted. But if the intent of the disciples in their writings was NOT to present the Injeel, but to tell a different story of their experience of being with and knowing Jesus, then that story might include some elements of this Injeel, but it would be incombant upon it to do so. And I would seem to be perfectly appropriate for them to write more than just the Injeel, telling about other things that Jesus said and did, even given their personal understanding of what all of this meant, as long as they didn't create any fictional accounts to their writings. Would such a Gospel, and here I am talking about the original telling of it by the disciples (whether that was in oral or written form) be considered a corruption?

[back_to_faith]

So, from the Muslim persepctive, the Injeel that God gave Jesus has been lost (though it is assumed that it would be the same basic Injeel that God have Muhammad I would guess.) And thus I can understand why some might say that the Injeel of Jesus has been corrupted. But if the intent of the disciples in their writings was NOT to present the Injeel, but to tell a different story of their experience of being with and knowing Jesus, then that story might include some elements of this Injeel, but it would be incombant upon it to do so. And I would seem to be perfectly appropriate for them to write more than just the Injeel, telling about other things that Jesus said and did, even given their personal understanding of what all of this meant, as long as they didn't create any fictional accounts to their writings. Would such a Gospel, and here I am talking about the original telling of it by the disciples (whether that was in oral or written form) be considered a corruption?

Again I say ,from the Quranic persepctive, some of the Injeel that God gave Jesus 'we could find in the NT .
Lost and Corrupted are not equal !!


the disciples in their writings ???

What disciples?and where one could find their writings?







(even given their personal understanding of what all of this meant)

there bagan one of the reasons of Gospel corruption, If john writes


John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

according to you John his personal understanding of the Gospel .
but anyone take a look at Mark 10:17-18,find out How false such statement made by John

Mark 10:17-18
Why do you call me good ?" Jesus answered. "No one is good except God alone.

What John did is not understanding of the True Gospel,

John had a desire to use Greek pagan concepts and philosophies as a tool for communicating Jesus as the Logos to a Christianized Gentile audience. John's Logos would not be understood by Jews and his book would only be familiar to someone practiced in the pagan mystery cults that flourished in the Hellenistic world. Heraclitus of Ephesus used the word Logos around 500 BCE to describe his concept of the regularity with which the universe seemed to operate. The universe was a divine machine and Heraclitus credited the Logos (literally the reason) as the ultimate rationale which secretly operated the universe and the heavens above.(from The Gospel of John and the Hellenization of Jesus )



We need the Gospel of Jesus (The inspired word of God)
not the concept of Paul,John etc Regarding God....

according to you

seem to be perfectly appropriate for them to write more than just the Injeel, telling about other things that Jesus said and did, even given their personal understanding of what all of this meant,that story might include some elements of this Injeel.

and I say:

We need the whole elements of the Injeel,and as long as they are neither eyewitnesses nor disciples,giving their personal understanding of what all of this meant,claiming the meeting of a Ghost of Jesus(Paul), visions regarding Jesus,that they received (Book of Revelation) is WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.

peace

[don532]

We need the whole elements of the Injeel,and as long as they are neither eyewitnesses nor disciples,giving their personal understanding of what all of this meant,claiming the meeting of a Ghost of Jesus(Paul), visions regarding Jesus,that they received (Book of Revelation) is WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT.

So, present direct revelation from God, the same as what muslims believe Mohammad received, and nothing else has merit?

[Keltoi]

So, present direct revelation from God, the same as what muslims believe Mohammad received, and nothing else has merit?

What it basically boils down to, is that any religious text that seems to contradict something in the Qu'ran has been corrupted by default. That isn't a surprising attitude in the context of religion. Christians have pretty much the same attitude about the Qu'ran, as it contradicts what we believe about Jesus. We can't prove the other to be in error, it is a product of faith and belief.

[Grace Seeker]

there bagan one of the reasons of Gospel corruption, If john writes


John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

according to you John his personal understanding of the Gospel .


but anyone take a look at Mark 10:17-18,find out How false such statement made by John

Mark 10:17-18
Why do you call me good ?" Jesus answered. "No one is good except God alone.

What John did is not understanding of the True Gospel,

Please, I thought we agreed to use the term Injeel when speaking of that which Muslims understand to be the message that God gave to Jesus. And to use the term "Gospel" when referring to the Christian understanding of the message about Jesus.

It may be that John did not speak truthfully. But it is meaningless to argue over that till we can agree that John actually wrote it. So, are you willing to admit that the line you referred to (John 1:1), that you see as untrue, was indeed a part of the Gospel as recorded by John?

We need the Gospel of Jesus (The inspired word of God)
not the concept of Paul,John etc Regarding God....

Well, we don't have it. The best record we have is that of those who knew and spent time with Jesus. If you accept that we have their record, then your complaint is not with the quality of the preservation of the New Testament books, but with the quality of the writing itself -- in other words you are arguing that Paul, John, etc did not tell the truth regarding God.

[back_to_faith]

We can't prove the other to be in error, it is a product of faith and belief.

with all the incredible number of errors, contradictions, and fallacies in Bible,
I have strong, objective reasons to prove the Bible to be in error without using a product of faith and belief,and ignoring what the Quran accuses the Bible.....

[Grace Seeker]

with all the incredible number of errors, contradictions, and fallacies in Bible,
I have strong, objective reasons to prove the Bible to be in error without using a product of faith and belief,and ignoring what the Quran accuses the Bible.....

I think this is off topic, but I am willing to give it one go round before asking such discussions be moved to another thread. So... NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?

Now again, I'm looking for this to be about the Bible, not about respective faith positions. In other words, if the Bible says that the moon around the seventh planet of some distant star we have never heard of is supposedly made out of green cheese, then disputing such a statement couldn't be made on the grounds that our moon nor any other we know of is not made out of green cheese. It would have to be made on actual knowledge that this particular moon is not made out of green cheese, which would be hard to do if it talks about a solar system we have never heard of, but nonetheless could be there. This standard is one that you set, but before you attempt to prove things by it, I want you to know that I intend to hold you to that standard. The Bible does indeed make many faith statements, but you have said that you can prove it is in error "without using a product of faith and belief" and even ignoring the Qur'an.

I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

[back_to_faith]

Please, I thought we agreed to use the term Injeel when speaking of that which Muslims understand to be the message that God gave to Jesus. And to use the term "Gospel" when referring to the Christian understanding of the message about Jesus.

It may be that John did not speak truthfully. But it is meaningless to argue over that till we can agree that John actually wrote it. So, are you willing to admit that the line you referred to (John 1:1), that you see as untrue, was indeed a part of the Gospel as recorded by John?






Well, we don't have it. The best record we have is that of those who knew and spent time with Jesus. ,.

well,we do have it partly,and mixed with falshoods,due to the hearsay accounts that inspired such writers and their ballant attempts to corrupt the injeel by their gross distortions of the Old Testament,putting false prophecies,statements into the mouth of Jesus(PBUH),
for purposes of indoctrination ,quest for religious legitimacy and status.


again you assert:
The best record we have is that of those who knew and spent time with Jesus.

like who? those who knew and spent time with Jesus,and you have their record?
Paul? John? etc.......
Are you serious?!!!

To sum up the whole thread:

You asked :
When was the Bible corrupted?

If you need a comprehensive answer highlighting the date-time-hour of corruption then you need to find answers to the following:

1-Which date Paul wrote his epistles?
2-Which date the writer of Mark,Luke,Matthew wrote their works?
3-Which date the church voted to the so called canonical-books and burned other so called non canonical ones?
4-what date( The Mark 16:9-20: forgery) was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark?.

5- what date the (1 John 5:7-8 forgery) appeared

"Because there are three who testify in heaven: Father, Word and Holy Spirit; and these three are one; and there are three who testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7-8 KJV).


the answers of such sample Questions,would be exactly some of the answers to the Question

When was the Injeel corrupted?

". . . If any man shall add to these things or delete God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)


"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from God," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:79)"

[back_to_faith]

I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

Great offer from you..

Let's start a thread on matters which I would like to prove objectively,that the writers intentionally erred while writing their narratives...

choose from the following matters :

1-The virgin birth prophecy.

2-The suffering servant prophecy(Isaiah 53).


pick a one ,tell me..and allow me to start a thread on it.

thanx

[Grace Seeker]

". . . If any man shall add to these things or delete God shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation 22:18-19)

First a comment on this passage because so many misunderstand or misapply it. The passage refers not to the entirety of the Bible. It only refers to the Book of Revelation itself.

again you assert:
The best record we have is that of those who knew and spent time with Jesus.

like who? those who knew and spent time with Jesus,and you have their record?
Paul? John? etc.......
Are you serious?!!!

They were the writers you named. And I can't think of a source that was closer to Jesus than John.

To sum up the whole thread:

You asked :
When was the Bible corrupted?

If you need a comprehensive answer highlighting the date-time-hour of corruption then you need to find answers to the following:

1-Which date Paul wrote his epistles?
2-Which date the writer of Mark,Luke,Matthew wrote their works?
3-Which date the church voted to the so called canonical-books and burned other so called non canonical ones?
4-what date( The Mark 16:9-20: forgery) was inserted at the end of the so-called "Gospel of Mark?.

5- what date the (1 John 5:7-8 forgery) appeared

"Because there are three who testify in heaven: Father, Word and Holy Spirit; and these three are one; and there are three who testify on earth: the Spirit and the water and the blood; and these three are one." (1 John 5:7-8 KJV).


the answers of such sample Questions,would be exactly some of the answers to the Question

When was the Injeel corrupted?

This implies that you feel that the corruption took place first in the actually process of putting the words to paper, that the original authors did not properly transmit the Injeel, but something else. (I make that inference from questions #1 & 2.)

Then you also imply continued corruption beyond that in two other forms:
(1) Question #3 implies that the church as a whole authored corruption by its method of selecting what was and what was not considered canonical.
(2) Questions #4 & 5 imply that other individuals intentionally altered the existing texts and that this is yet another form of their corruption.

I might dispute with you the severity of some of these things. I won't argue that things such as what you suggest with regard to long ending of Mark and the glosses such as the the doxology in 1 John have occurred. A larger "corruption" that certainly deserves mentioning is the story of the woman caught in adulter in John 8. But I will also note that these things have long been the subject of textual criticism which seeks to produce the most likely original text. A process very similar to that used to authenticate hadiths is used to authenticate the text. So, just like some hadiths can be more trusted than others, and some can be entirely trusted, so to with passages of the Bible. Does the fact that some hadith can be shown to be not authentic mean that one throws out all of the hadith? By no means. One corrects what can be corrected, lists as suspicous or doubtful that which cannot be authenticated, and declares to be authentic that which can be verified. So, to with the scriptures.

Many times I have read Muslims compare (correctly I think) the Gospels to the Hadith. Well, as you don't throw out all of the Hadith because of a few doubtful stories, neither do we feel a need to throw out all of the Gospel narrative.


Lastly, thank-you for taking the time to go into such depth with me on this topic. I think I better understand now where Muslims come from with their objections. It really isn't in the copying, though that can be seen as problematic. The problem goes much deeper, to the very concepts that the original writers of scripture thought to record. These ideas themselves (whether in the time of Jesus or refering to those who recorded the Torah) are seen as corruptions of the message that Allah gave his prophets.

[back_to_faith]

(Many times I have read Muslims compare (correctly I think) the Gospels to the Hadith.)

.

Big difference

1-first no one ever claims that the hadith should be 100% inspired ,while the Gospel is said to be.

2- the tools available in the Hadith studying tools is far superior than those of the NT , eg:we have (al isnad science) which check the narraters and their origin,trustworthy,source etc.... while we have zero of the same tools while trying to study the NT.


(Well, as you don't throw out all of the Hadith because of a few doubtful stories, neither do we feel a need to throw out all of the Gospel narrative).


and no Quranic verse advise anyone to to throw out all of the Gospel narrative....


(Lastly, thank-you for taking the time to go into such depth with me on this topic. I think I better understand now where Muslims come from with their objections. It really isn't in the copying, though that can be seen as problematic. The problem goes much deeper, to the very concepts that the original writers of scripture thought to record. These ideas themselves (whether in the time of Jesus or refering to those who recorded the Torah) are seen as corruptions of the message that Allah gave his prophets)

You are welcome ...and thank you too for your discussion.
and waiting for your reply to my invite to discuss NT issues.

peace

[Thanaa]

As I understand it, according to the Qur'an the Bible is corrupted. We will start with that as a given then -- that Islam holds to a view that the Bible is corrupted. Thus, I don't need multiple quotes from the Qur'an and Hadith to "prove" this to me. But what I am curious about is the question of when?

Now, one other issue that I don't see as relevant to this discussion, and I hope to head off here at the beginnng. I don't think it is germain to a discussion of when the Bible was corrupted to speak of the many different English translations of it that one can find today. The Qur'an made its statements about the Bible being corrupted before English even existed as a langauge, so even getting the Pope and every priest/preacher in the world to confess that English Bibles were corrupted would have no relevance to the Bible that Muhammad (pbuh) spoke of.

Obviously Muhammad thought the Bible was corrupted by his time. But was it corrupted from the very beginning, where the first writings themselves corrupted? Was it corrupted when the first copies were made? Some centuries later? When was the Bible corrupted?

Well, I know that somewhen around the 1600s ( Ithink! ) the passage/words "Thou shalt not suffer a poisoner to live" (look up medieval british punishments for people like that=interesting...) were changed to "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live", so that the Church could wipe out all pagans, old women and village idiots.
I believe-but may be wrong-that it had something to do with King James...beause He was a paranoid weirdo. Im pretty cerain that it was he who had an obsession about witchcraft, and it being used on him, and not another King.

[MustafaMc]

Copied from: Re: Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible as I think it is relevant here, too.

Oh, I very much understand that we are talking about different books. Given that we are, I don't think it is wise to use the same name to refer to both of them. As you said the word is Injeel. Also as you said, the Injeel is not the Bible that Christians speak of. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Muslims to speak of the Bible of the Christians being corrupted, based on a comment that we don't have the Injeel. They are different books. Imagine saying that Harry Potter was corrupted because it wasn't the Injeel. Doesn't make any sense does it? So, as the Bible that Christians possess is not intended to be the Injeel that Muslims believe was given to Moses or Jesus, then it is wrong to condemn it for not being something that it does not claim to be. It is a completely different type of record than the Injeel.

I fully agree with you that the Injeel and the 4 NT gospels are not the same thing. We Muslims believe that the Injeel was the revelation given directly to Jesus (as) that he shared with his disciples and other followers while he walked among them. I believe that fragments of the Injeel are captured in the gospels such as the Beatitudes, various parables and prophesy about the coming of the Comforter.

Also, to know that the Bible corrupted the teaching of Jesus, wouldn't you have to have a record of the true Injeel delivered by Jesus to compare it with. Perhaps you are wrong in the assumption that the record of the Bible is not a true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus. Do you have another contemporaneous record of what Jesus' mission and teaching was that Christians are not aware of?

Although I am sure that you believe the Gospel of Barnabas is a Muslim fabrication, we Muslims believe that it may be a more accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings than the 4 NT gospels.

I think that we can agree that the disciples did not preserve (even take notes) what was revealed to Jesus (as) immediately as he spoke. Contrast this to the Quran which was written and memorized immediately as it was being revealed and what had been revealed was recited each year during the month of Ramaddan.

The only portion of the NT that can be claimed to be comparable to the Injeel is the gospels. Acts was written to record the actions of the disciples after Jesus' ascension, the letters to the churches were written by Saul/Paul who apparently never even met Jesus during his life on earth and Revelation was apparently a revelation given to John. It is clear that the gospels are narrative stories written from memory many years after Jesus' ascensionand that they are not the revelation "in toto" given to Jesus (as).

[pie]
Wikipedia
Gospel's Date of Origin
The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996
Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Gospel's Authorship
Mark: The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses.

Matthew: Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to Matthew the Evangelist, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. .... Beginning in the 18th century, however, scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

Luke: According to this view, Paul's "dear friend Luke the Doctor" (Col 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phlm 24) makes the most likely candidate for authorship out of all the companions mentioned in Paul's writings. Modern scholarship is divided on these points, with many believing that the author of Luke is unknown.

John: The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness,....Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes.
[/pie]

The dates of origin being many years after Jesus' ascension, the narrative style and the lack of authorship documentation points to the fact that the gospels are not the unadulterated revelation given to Jesus (as). I think that you can agree with this point.

We Muslims can make an analogy between the NT gospels and various hadith recording what Prophet Muhammad (saaws) said and did. Just as there are strong, authentic hadith, so also there are weak and even fabricated hadith attributed to Muhammad (saaws). These hadith were recorded as individual actions and words for a specific situation. There were not collated into a narrative story as were the gospels.

The Quran is the "ver batim" revelation given to Muhammad (saaws) while the NT gospels are not the "ver batim" revelation given to Jesus (as).

Which does bring us back to a question related to this thread -- why would Mohammad even suggest that Muslims believe in this book that is not the Injeel? Or is that your point, Muhammad was telling his people to believe in the Injeel, but was not telling them to read the Bible in order to find that Injeel?

The fact that the NT gospels preserve even fragments of the Injeel points to the fact of Divine revelations being given to previous Prophets - Moses, David, Jesus - of which the Quran is a continuation and termination of the chain. Even Mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." is enough for us to believe that ithe Bible contains portions of the Injeel. However, there has been so much added (e.g. letters by Paul) that were not part of the Injeel that it is impossible for the unlearned to discern the fragments of Truth.

[MustafaMc]

What I am curious about right now is: Are you saying that the Gospels became corrupted the moment that the writers decided to include more than just this simple Injeel that Jesus gave to his disciples about the Kingdom of God? Are you saying that when they decided to tell about some of Jesus' other sayings and acts: feeding 5000 thousand, healing a blind man, casting out demons, calming a stormy sea, that this decision to tell of these events in the life of Jesus corrupted the Gospels? Are you saying that even if the record they provided was an accurate record of the events in Jesus' life, that simply the fact that they told more than the Injeel was in itself an act of corruption?

GraceSeeker, I think I understand your question. I hope that my previous post will help to clarify our position, but I wanted to also address questions in this specific post.

I want to repeat that I agree with you that the Injeel is not synonymous with the NT gospels; however, I do believe that it is the Divine message that Jesus (as) gave to the disciples.

The corruption has nothing whatsoever to do with the inclusion of Jesus' (as) actions as this just illustrates the narrative nature of the gospels. We believe that the corruption is attributing words to Jesus (as) that we believe he did not actually say. It is difficult to discern what he did and didn't say, but, as has been pointed out, we reject quotes that are directly contrary to the Quran. We also reject all writings by Paul because he did not even follow Jesus (as) while he was on earth.

So to address the thread title, "When was the Bible corrupted?" I believe that the gospels were corrupted with additions, deletions and modifications to what was revealed through Jesus (as) from the very beginning.

[Basirah]

May I ask Muslims who attack the Bible (which is fine with me) why they do not apply the same critical thinking to the Quran, when reading, which the academic community certainly has done.

[جوري]

Your question was answered adequately in the refutation section, under 'can you prove the Quran has been Altered'--thus I find it some what of a conundrum this incessant need to malinger, and peddle the same Question on every thread--
Have you indeed devised a method to infiltrate every Muslim's head and now fully cognizant of thoughts each employs in 'critical thinking' as far as the Quran or 3aqeeda are concerned? Or you just enjoy patronizing members a la mode of a mimus polyglotktos and courtesy of the two excerpts you've read from your orientalists brochures; which you like to hawk for 'scholarly treatise'?
ya reyt ya fali7 t'7el 3ana!

Aslaam only 3la ahel islaam!

[Grace Seeker]

thank you too for your discussion.
and waiting for your reply to my invite to discuss NT issues.

peace

I already made a suggestion earlier, perhaps you missed it:

I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

Just send me a PM when you post it, as it probably should be dealt with in another thread so that we can leave this one on topic.
(And, also, so that we can stay on topic, I hope no one feels obliged to address Basirah's trolling comment above.)

[MustafaMc]

A process very similar to that used to authenticate hadiths is used to authenticate the text. So, just like some hadiths can be more trusted than others, and some can be entirely trusted, so to with passages of the Bible. Does the fact that some hadith can be shown to be not authentic mean that one throws out all of the hadith? By no means. One corrects what can be corrected, lists as suspicous or doubtful that which cannot be authenticated, and declares to be authentic that which can be verified. So, to with the scriptures.

Many times I have read Muslims compare (correctly I think) the Gospels to the Hadith. Well, as you don't throw out all of the Hadith because of a few doubtful stories, neither do we feel a need to throw out all of the Gospel narrative.

I agree. You seem to have a clear understanding of the Muslim perspective.

Lastly, thank-you for taking the time to go into such depth with me on this topic. I think I better understand now where Muslims come from with their objections. It really isn't in the copying, though that can be seen as problematic. The problem goes much deeper, to the very concepts that the original writers of scripture thought to record. These ideas themselves (whether in the time of Jesus or refering to those who recorded the Torah) are seen as corruptions of the message that Allah gave his prophets.

Thank you for your personal integrity to honestly try and understand our perspective.

I have never heard from a Christian that the NT gospels are ver batim a revelation spoken by Jesus. Perhaps, from this perspective it is unfair for Muslims to criticize the Bible because it doesn't fit the model of the Quranic revelation.

I understand that Christians believe the NT authors were directly inspired by God to write what they did and that the compilers of the Holy Bible in the 4th century were Divinely guided as to which of the many writings to include and which to exclude. Although Christians don't make the outright claim that the NT authors were prophets, they are de facto prophets and messengers because they are claimed to have received direct revelations from God/Jesus.

The concept of prophethood and receiving divine revelations is one of extreme importance to Muslims. Perhaps you can understand why we accept the revelation (Injeel) to Jesus (as) as authentic, but at the same time reject a Divine origin for the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as well as the letters from Paul.

I think that you can understand why I would equate Jesus with Muhammad (saaws) and equate the disciples of Jesus (Peter, Andrew, James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, etc) with the companions of Muhammad (Abu Bakr, Ali, Omar, Othman, etc). I also roughly equate Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and Acts with hadith compiled by Bukhari, Muslim, Dawood, and Tirmidhi. However, there is no Christian equivalent to the Quran which we Muslims believe is the message revealed ver batim through Prophet Muhammad (saaws). According to our belief, the message revealed through Jesus (as), the Injeel, doesn't exist in toto today and perhaps it never even existed at all in written form.

P.S. I hope that I have not offended you or other Christians by the words I have written. If so, please PM me to let me know.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

I hope that I have not offended you or other Christians by the words I have written..

I want to add something...hope it won't offend anyone.

I read about Imam Bukhari ( may Allah be pleased with him ) that he did his wadu/abolution & offered 2 rakat extra salat before writing each hadith.

I wonder , if any of the Bible writers did the same ..i.e. took the noble task so seriously that they cleaned themselves before starting writing & asked God's help in writing down the holy words correctly.

Once Imam Bukhari travelled ( it was a long journey & most probably he walked all the way ) to collect hadith from a person.

When he reached there , he saw the person cheated an animal .......to catch the goat or camel , he showed the animal his hand pretending foods are there but the hand was empty & when the animal came ..he did not give him food.

After watching this , Imam Bukhari left the place without collecting the hadith. He thought a person who can cheat animal can also cheat me.

I m curious to know if any Bible writer was that careful while composing Biblical verses.

[Grace Seeker]

Although I am sure that you believe the Gospel of Barnabas is a Muslim fabrication, we Muslims believe that it may be a more accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings than the 4 NT gospels.

I don't know who wrote this supposed Gospel of Barnabas, so whether the writer was Muslim or not is not something I can't say. I can see why Muslims might like its content. I cannot see why Muslims tend to view it as authentic when the oldest extant copies weren't even written till a century after Columbus, add to that that they exist only in Italian and Spanish. So, though it is impossible to say who did it, the book shows itself to be a forgery, and not just an ancient forgery but a relatively modern forgery at that. An example of this is easily seen in the Old Testament quotations found in it. They do not reflect use of either the Greek Septuagint that was used by the other Gospel writers, or the Hebrew Masoretic text that one might have used if originally writing in Aramaic -- these were the two sources of the Tanakh available in the first century. Rather when the Gospel of Barnabas quotes the Old Testament it shows dependence on the Latin Vulgate, a text that was not even in existence until the 5th century.

In addition, some things in the book just don't make any sense no matter what one's faith perspective is. For instance the writing continually refers to Jesus not just by his name, but also with the title Christ as if Jesus Christ were his first and last names. But Christ is in reality simply a Greek translation of the Hebrew word Messiah; yet the book has Jesus the Christ claim that he is not the Messiah. So it is self-contradictory.

Quite honestly, when a Muslim tells me that the Gospel of John can't be accepted because of its corruption and then quotes the Gospel of Barnabas, to me, they just prove themselves be nothing more than an enthusiast of a double-think corrupted mindset; it is hard for me to accept them as a serious or knowledgable scholar not just of the New Testament, but of any ancient manuscripts. Now, MustafaMc, I know you to be a more critical and honest thinker than that so, other than wishful thinking, what possible documentary evidence could lead you to conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas "may be a more accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings than the 4 NT gospels"?

[MustafaMc]

Quite honestly, when a Muslim tells me that the Gospel of John can't be accepted because of its corruption and then quotes the Gospel of Barnabas, to me, they just prove themselves be nothing more than an enthusiast of a double-think corrupted mindset; it is hard for me to accept them as a serious or knowledgable scholar not just of the New Testament, but of any ancient manuscripts. Now, MustafaMc, I know you to be a more critical and honest thinker than that so, other than wishful thinking, what possible documentary evidence could lead you to conclude that the Gospel of Barnabas "may be a more accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings than the 4 NT gospels"?

You put forth a good argument. I have no documentary evidence to support my claim that it may be more accurate than the NT gospels. It has been some time since I read the book, but I remember it being more consistent with my beliefs that I hold to be True. I also remember from reading the introduction/preface that it did not come from a Muslim country nor was there an obvious connection with a Muslim. However, I am not saying that there was no Muslim authorship because as you noted the author is unknown.

Perhaps, you would care to comment on the rest of the post or did that one sentence completely discredit me?

[Grace Seeker]

Perhaps, you would care to comment on the rest of the post or did that one sentence completely discredit me?

It probably should. :okay:

Actually, that one sentence caught my attention yesterday just because of (for me, at least) the riduculousness of all the attention given to that supposed-Gospel. But what I really wanted to comment on was the rest of that post and your next one following it. I just hadn't had the time to give them the attention and serious thought they deserved. The Gospel of Barnabas was something that (if you'll pardon me for characterizing it, not you, like this) I felt I could swat away like a pesky fly. But your post, unlike the Gospel of Barnabas, is actually worthy of attention.:D

[ummzayd]

[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;794608]I think this is off topic, but I am willing to give it one go round before asking such discussions be moved to another thread. So... NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?

Greetings of peace to you

one doesn't have to read far into the bible to find errors. Genesis states that God created light and divided the light from the darkness and called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night'.

And a few days later He created the sun.

well ahem. kind of a glaring error right there.

as for the NT (most Christians want to wash their hands of the OT while also keeping it in their 'bible') how about the Sign of Jonah, Matthew 12:40, where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly prophesies his death and resurrection:

'for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'.

unfortunately according to the NT Jesus (pbuh) was placed in the tomb on Friday and raised some time before Sunday morning.

so that is glaringly inaccurate. Either Jesus pbuh was wrong, or the writer who is supposedly reporting his words is wrong. my own theory is that Jesus pbuh may have mentioned 'the sign of Jonah', and either the writer of that book, or a later copyist, decided to add the explanation - and put the words about 3 days & 3 nights in Jesus' mouth. highly risky, highly unethical and untrustworthy - which for me sums up the attitude of the writers/copyists/care-takers of NT scripture. Not people to be relied upon at all.

Those are two reasons why I regard the bible as full of error, unreliable, corrupted...etc. etc. I have many more, if you would like to hear them?

peace

[MustafaMc]

It probably should. :okay:

Actually, that one sentence caught my attention yesterday just because of (for me, at least) the riduculousness of all the attention given to that supposed-Gospel. But what I really wanted to comment on was the rest of that post and your next one following it. I just hadn't had the time to give them the attention and serious thought they deserved. The Gospel of Barnabas was something that (if you'll pardon me for characterizing it, not you, like this) I felt I could swat away like a pesky fly. But your post, unlike the Gospel of Barnabas, is actually worthy of attention.:D

Although I am no scholar of ancient texts such that I can counter your well researched points about the authenticity of this book, I am a man of faith and I accept as true what is in agreement with my "gold standard" the Quran and I reject what is in disagreement with it. I was rereading Barnabas last night and came across this passage that may be of interest to Muslims.

Gospel of Barnabas 52

"The judgement day of God will be so dreadful that verily I say unto you, the reprobates would sooner choose ten hells than go to hear God speak in wrath against them. Against whom all things created will witness. Verily I say unto you, that not alone shall the reprobates fear, but the saints and the elect of God, so that Abraham, shall not trust his righteousness, and Job shall have no confidence in his innocence. And what say I? Even the messenger of God shall fear, for that God to make known his majesty, shall deprive his messenger of memory, so that he shall have no remembrancehow that God had given him all things. Verily I say unto you that, speaking from the heart, I tremble because by the world I shall be called God, and for this I shall have to render an account. As God liveth, in whose presence my soul standeth, I am a mortal man as other men are, for although God has placed me as a prophet over the house of Israel for the health of the feeble and the correction of sinners, I am the servant of God, and of this ye are witness, how I speak against those wicked men who after my departure from the world shall annul the truth of my gospel by the operation of Satan. But I shall return towards the end, and with me shall come Enoch and Elijah, and we will testify against the wicked, whose end shall be accursed." And having thus spoken, Jesus shed tears, whereat his disciples wept aloud, and lifted their voices saying: "Pardon, O Lord God, and have mercy on thy innocent servant." Jesus answered "Amen, Amen."

As GraceSeeker has clearly pointed out, I can't vouch for the authenticity of the Gospel of Barnabas as I have no documentary evidence that it traces back to the 1st century.

[جوري]

^^ salaamz akhi.. one of the brothers who founded Al-Ahram news paper, has contributed greatly to a book written on this bible's authenticity, with detailed research, but it was published in Arabic... just a note, that both brothers were Maronite Lebanese Christians.
I think to defend the position and authenticity of that bible of Barnbas would create an obvious clash between his duties as a journalist and his duties as a Christian.. but I and many others who have read it, appreciated his integrity..

:w:

[Grace Seeker]

^^ salaamz akhi.. one of the brothers who founded Al-Ahram news paper, has contributed greatly to a book written on this bible's authenticity, with detailed research, but it was published in Arabic... just a note, that both brothers were Maronite Lebanese Christians.
I think to defend the position and authenticity of that bible of Barnbas would create an obvious clash between his duties as a journalist and his duties as a Christian.. but I and many others who have read it, appreciated his integrity..

:w:

"ths bible's authenticity"?????


Do you mean "this book", rather than "this bible"? I'm confused as to what exactly it is that you are refering to.

[back_to_faith]

I
I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified..)

I missed it,thank you for making me pay attention to it...

If you mean ,could we discuss the matter (with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified)
I think that such topic was discussed before lots in the fourms..

we need new one....What about a related ,important topic ?

Isaiah :53

it is related to the topic of crucifiction ,and I think no topic is more attractive for christians to discuss than (the Isaiah :53)

let me suggest a title for it:

How could be ( Isaiah :53) a prophecy fulfillment?

one could assert:

1-Jesus fulfilled it of all its items.

2-Israel fulfilled it.

3-none fulfilled it,cause it is not a prophecy at all.

PM with ok if,you ready to discuss it,or suggest another new topic.

[جوري]

It was a corroborative effort between two authors one of whom was a Christian Maronite , who have written a book, on the bible of barnbas' Authenticity!

peace!

[Grace Seeker]

It was a corroborative effort between two authors one of whom was a Christian Maronite , who have written a book, on the bible of barnbas' Authenticity!

peace!

I am confused by the term "bible". I am not familiar with it being used the way you are. I know of no "bible of Barnabas". I know of a "Gospel of Barnabas" and a "Letter of Barnabas" which are two completely different things. And I am aware that some people think of the Bible as a single book rather than as a collection of books.

But, if I may, can I try to restate what you are saying, then you can tell me if I understand you correctly:

You know of a book (published in Arabic) that defends the authenticity of the "Gospel of Barnabas". And one of the two authors of this book that researches the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a Maronite Lebanese Christian who with his brother founded the Al-Ahram newspaper.

Is that what you are saying?

[جوري]

You know of a book (published in Arabic) that defends the authenticity of the "Gospel of Barnabas". And one of the two authors of this book that researches the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a Maronite Lebanese Christian who with his brother founded the Al-Ahram newspaper.

Is that what you are saying?

Yup , that is correct! :smile:
.. I have the book here in my home library.. I'll take some pix at some point and upload it for you to see if you want... though I don't think it will make much of a difference.. but there is no ISBN number.. it is a very old book, at least over a century old...

peace!

[ummzayd]

Big difference

1-first no one ever claims that the hadith should be 100% inspired ,while the Gospel is said to be.

2- the tools available in the Hadith studying tools is far superior than those of the NT , eg:we have (al isnad science) which check the narraters and their origin,trustworthy,source etc.... while we have zero of the same tools while trying to study the NT.


(Well, as you don't throw out all of the Hadith because of a few doubtful stories, neither do we feel a need to throw out all of the Gospel narrative).

:sl:

and no Quranic verse advise anyone to to throw out all of the Gospel narrative....

:sl:

thank you brother for pointing out that even the hadiths have more integrity than the NT. this is an important point.

each hadith is a separate 'document' with its own sources, chain of narrators etc. if one is 'doubtful' then certainly it can be disregarded without casting doubt on any other, separately documented and sourced hadith.

To truly compare hadiths with NT on this point, Grace Seeker would have to agree that any book of the bible (or just NT if preferred) that contained a glaring mistake/contradiction etc would have to be jettisoned in its entirety from the canon. I wonder how many books would be left if we did this!

:w:

[ummzayd]

[QUOTE=ummzayd;796840]

I think this is off topic, but I am willing to give it one go round before asking such discussions be moved to another thread. So... NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?

Greetings of peace to you

one doesn't have to read far into the bible to find errors. Genesis states that God created light and divided the light from the darkness and called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night'.

And a few days later He created the sun.

well ahem. kind of a glaring error right there.

as for the NT (most Christians want to wash their hands of the OT while also keeping it in their 'bible') how about the Sign of Jonah, Matthew 12:40, where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly prophesies his death and resurrection:

'for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'.

unfortunately according to the NT Jesus (pbuh) was placed in the tomb on Friday and raised some time before Sunday morning.

so that is glaringly inaccurate. Either Jesus pbuh was wrong, or the writer who is supposedly reporting his words is wrong. my own theory is that Jesus pbuh may have mentioned 'the sign of Jonah', and either the writer of that book, or a later copyist, decided to add the explanation - and put the words about 3 days & 3 nights in Jesus' mouth. highly risky, highly unethical and untrustworthy - which for me sums up the attitude of the writers/copyists/care-takers of NT scripture. Not people to be relied upon at all.

Those are two reasons why I regard the bible as full of error, unreliable, corrupted...etc. etc. I have many more, if you would like to hear them?

peace

I hope Grace Seeker will address my points as I am actually interested in how the Christians deal with this (I can't be the first person to bring up the contradiction of these scriptures).

[Grace Seeker]

:sl:

thank you brother for pointing out that even the hadiths have more integrity than the NT. this is an important point.

each hadith is a separate 'document' with its own sources, chain of narrators etc. if one is 'doubtful' then certainly it can be disregarded without casting doubt on any other, separately documented and sourced hadith.

To truly compare hadiths with NT on this point, Grace Seeker would have to agree that any book of the bible (or just NT if preferred) that contained a glaring mistake/contradiction etc would have to be jettisoned in its entirety from the canon. I wonder how many books would be left if we did this!

:w:

There is a science of textual criticism. In it each separate document is considered a unique source, given an identifying tag, and then compared with every other document. None are thrown out. Rather, when there is any discrepancy each discrepancy is noted and the reader is informed of all of the variant readings, the sources of each one, how many and which documents support each reading.

I wonder how one can know with certainty that you are throwing out the mistake and not the correct version. One would have to have the ability to compare to the authenticated original to make the choice. And as I understand it the original in the case of the Qur'an and Hadith were all oral. Simply writing it down means that you are working from a copy.


Quickly, because I'm already running late at the moment, the Genesis passage has mutliple explanations depending on one's view of the literalness of scripture. I myself take the opening as poetry and not science, so the issues you raise are not ones that I have. Though I can address them as others might if you want more on it.

As to the crucifixion on Friday, you have to count like a first-century Jew: Friday afternoon till sunset = first day. Friday at sunset till Saturday at sunset = second day. Saturday at sunset till Jesus' resurrection sometime before sunrise on Sunday = third day. So call Jesus wrong if you wish because he was only in the ground for 2 nights, but he was communicating in the vernacular of his day. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to us today, but the as you said, you aren't the first to have noticed this, indeed it would have been of note to the very first believers. And what they would have known, that we today often don't, is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

[back_to_faith]

is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

That topic, has been discussed before

It is true according to Jewish tradition part of the day is equivalent to a full day...
but, does such concept, clears up the (3 days and 3 NIGHTS)problem?

I discussed that before here....

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-dead-11.html

still waiting for your pm

peace

[ummzayd]

There is a science of textual criticism. In it each separate document is considered a unique source, given an identifying tag, and then compared with every other document. None are thrown out. Rather, when there is any discrepancy each discrepancy is noted and the reader is informed of all of the variant readings, the sources of each one, how many and which documents support each reading.
I wonder how one can know with certainty that you are throwing out the mistake and not the correct version. One would have to have the ability to compare to the authenticated original to make the choice. And as I understand it the original in the case of the Qur'an and Hadith were all oral. Simply writing it down means that you are working from a copy.


Quickly, because I'm already running late at the moment, the Genesis passage has mutliple explanations depending on one's view of the literalness of scripture. I myself take the opening as poetry and not science, so the issues you raise are not ones that I have. Though I can address them as others might if you want more on it.

As to the crucifixion on Friday, you have to count like a first-century Jew: Friday afternoon till sunset = first day. Friday at sunset till Saturday at sunset = second day. Saturday at sunset till Jesus' resurrection sometime before sunrise on Sunday = third day. So call Jesus wrong if you wish because he was only in the ground for 2 nights, but he was communicating in the vernacular of his day. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to us today, but the as you said, you aren't the first to have noticed this, indeed it would have been of note to the very first believers. And what they would have known, that we today often don't, is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

it would not be acceptable for a hadith to contain a glaring error and still be classified as sound or reliable - in this way alone the hadiths (all of them) are superior to the NT. however it is not only an obvious error that is looked for, each and every person in the chain of narration must be known to be reliable and honest, and of course if anything in the hadith contradicts the qur'an then it is dismissed.

I maintain that if a document is known to contain errors, contradictions (whether internal contradictions or contradictions with another, reliable document) and so on then the document no longer has any integrity. bible scholars do not agree obviously - well fine for them, but don't come and tell me how reliable and authentic the bible is and how free of errors and contradictions. (sorry that was not addressed to you but those people who do say that sort of thing).

as for the '3 days and 3 nights' well according to your explanation you could possibly get away with the 3 days but NOT the 3 nights. I realise that the Jewish 'day' (like the Muslim day) is counted from sunset to sunset but night time is still that period of the 24 hour day when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth. and there were only 2 nights, not even 'part' of a third night, between Friday afternoon and daybreak on Sunday.

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

peace and thanks for raising some really interesting topics

peace

[MustafaMc]

it would not be acceptable for a hadith to contain a glaring error and still be classified as sound or reliable - in this way alone the hadiths (all of them) are superior to the NT. however it is not only an obvious error that is looked for, each and every person in the chain of narration must be known to be reliable and honest, and of course if anything in the hadith contradicts the qur'an then it is dismissed.

In this manner we have multiple ahadith that are recorded as being narrated through different chains of people, yet there is an amazing consistency between them. A very important point is that except for the very few Hadith Qudsi, the actual ahadith are not considered to be inspired by Allah (swt).

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

Yes, there is a major difference between the preservation of what was revealed through Prophet Muhammad (saaws) and what was revealed through Prophet Jesus (as). We have every word of the Quranic revelation preserved intact; whereas, we have only fragments of the Injeel as marked by red letter font in some Bibles.

There is more similarity between the 4 NT gospels and our ahadith. Note that what Jesus (as) is quoted as having said in a particular situation varies between the 4 NT gospels. Even the Lord's Prayer is not the same word-for-word between the gospels that record it.

Christians believe that the various writers of the NT (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James) were all separately inspired by God to write what they did. Even though Bukhari went to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of hadith that he recorded, we Muslims don't believe that he was inspired by Allah (swt) to write what he did.

Yes, they have some of the words that Jesus (as) spoke, but the message that Jesus (as) spoke is less important to them than his being the Son of God and dying on the cross for their sins.

[rav]

I missed it,thank you for making me pay attention to it...

If you mean ,could we discuss the matter (with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified)
I think that such topic was discussed before lots in the fourms..

we need new one....What about a related ,important topic ?

Isaiah :53

it is related to the topic of crucifiction ,and I think no topic is more attractive for christians to discuss than (the Isaiah :53)

let me suggest a title for it:

How could be ( Isaiah :53) a prophecy fulfillment?

one could assert:

1-Jesus fulfilled it of all its items.

2-Israel fulfilled it.

3-none fulfilled it,cause it is not a prophecy at all.

PM with ok if,you ready to discuss it,or suggest another new topic.

Shalom,

The passage in question (Isaiah 53) is quoted often by unknowledgable missionaries, targeting Jews for conversion. The 'suffering servant' is suppose to be Jesus according to these missionaries, however, that is obviously wrong. Let us look at a verse I will quote for you in Isaiah:

"And he said to me,'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"
Isaiah 49:3 (NRS)

Isaiah says in chapter 49, verse 3 that Israel (the collective people) are the suffering servants of G-d. Now has this prophecy come true? Well, it seems that the Jews throughout history, from being expeled from Spain and England, to the Holocaust have always suffered to keep their religion. The easy way would be to leave Judaism for either Christianity or Islam, a huge powerful religion, however, that is not the correct path. The people of Israel (children on Israel) will always be the 'suffering servants'.

Many more times are the people of Israel revealed to be the 'servants':

Numerous times throughout the Book of Isaiah the servant is called by name. The following is a sampling:

Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. [9] [Thou] whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou [art] my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. (KJV)

[44:1] Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: [2] Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. (KJV)

[44:21] Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou [art] my servant: I have formed thee; thou [art] my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me. (KJV)

[45:4] For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (KJV)

Peace.

[back_to_faith]

Shalom,

The passage in question (Isaiah 53) is quoted often by unknowledgable missionaries, targeting Jews for conversion. The 'suffering servant' is suppose to be Jesus according to these missionaries, however, that is obviously wrong. Let us look at a verse I will quote for you in Isaiah:

"And he said to me,'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"
Isaiah 49:3 (NRS)

Isaiah says in chapter 49, verse 3 that Israel (the collective people) are the suffering servants of G-d. (KJV)[/indent]

Peace.

Greetings,Rav

I'm aware of the (Isaiah 53) misuse by christian missionaries,and appreciate the Jewish efforts of providing academic work to expose the NT misuse,distortion of the OT...

(Isaiah 53) is as exactly as (Isaiah 7)and many others
both reflect a very weak argument for prophecy fulfillment,cause they're simply not prophecies.

one could argue that(Isaiah 53) is fulfilled by Jesus,or by Israel,
but my approach is different.
I believe that neither Jesus nor Israel as a whole nation reflects
the (Isaiah 53) description.

that is offtopic subject...hope you let the discussion here and later we discuss it in the right place
I invited Seeker to discuss it.
still waiting for his reply,and you will be welcomed ,Rav

to share us

peace

[Grace Seeker]

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

peace and thanks for raising some really interesting topics

peace

Well, let me illustrate the problem with "oral tradition" with something that came across my desk today.

We had a meeting on Monday looking at 2008 budgets. As part of that discussion we discussed giving some money from the church to another ministry in town that assists people in various stages of need. All agreed on the goal, but we debate the means, how much, and when.

Among the possibilities was designating money from an ongoing aluminum can drive be dedicated to that purpose, in our case this would amount to $600-$800 dollars a year. However, we didn't know how much was presently in the fund. So, my understanding was that we decided to specify that all money received in 2008 be dedicated to assist this other ministry. And we also wanted to constribute some money this year, but we would make that decision when we met again in September. However, this morning my treasurer told me that the chair of the committee had asked for $500 to be taken out of the present fund (which I have since learned has $1000 in it) and given to this other assisting ministry.

Obviously my chairperson and I have to talk, but the problem is that he also served as the taker of minutes for this particular meeting last Monday. So, do I trust the minutes? Do I trust my memory of the discussion? I don't know what he actually has written down, but even if he has written down something about giving this other group $500 now, I at the same time know that we put off making any decision regarding 2007 spending till our September meeting. Both of us are in truth working from our memory of the oral tradition and we are likely to have to call a couple of other members to see what their memory of it is.

When we apply this to the Bible and the Qur'an, we have similar issues involved.

With the Bible we have several people each writing down years later their memory of what Jesus said and did. Their memory has probably been colored by repeated telling and hearing of these stories, conversations with others, and in some cases they were not even present themselves so the information is at best second hand or perhaps taken from other now lost writings by others before them. But we do have multiple witnesses so that we can compare and see what they agree and what they disagree on as a way of determininig what actually occurred.

With the Qur'an we have one person who received a message in pieces from one of God's angel. Then that person memorizes it at the time and recites it back to others who in turn remember it and then write it down. For the Hadith, you have something more akin to what I just described above with regard to the stories of Jesus. When we say we trust the Qur'an we are saying that not only do all of the written records of it agree with each other, but that we trust Muhammad (pbuh) to have properly memorized the message when it was given him. This is where I am talking about oral tradition. Muhammad received it as an oral message that no one else heard and delivered it as an oral message to others. One can compare the writings from the oral message the Muhammad gave with each other to see if they are all the same like we will do in our meeting. But one cannot compare the oral message Muhammad gave the Muslims with the oral message that Gabriel gave Muhammad. There is no other witness to it except Muhammad and Gabriel and only Muhammad hears from Gabriel, so we simply have to take Muhammad's word for it that he didn't make any mistakes in what he passed on to those who listened to him recite it. You say that this is splitting hairs, but to me it is a significant issue. Especially when what Muhammad has to say contradicts so much of what was reportedly revealed before, some of it reported by eye-witnesses and confirmed by people who had no stake in the matter. (Here I speak of the crucifixion which we are to believe never occurred on Muhammad's report alone, despite the testimony of multiple persons in the early church, some who claim to have been eye-witnesses to at least part of it, and the testimony of contemporaries both Roman and Jewish that accepted this event as an historical truth.)

Now, with the Hadith, you admit that you have some stories that have been rejected? On what grounds? That scholars don't accept them? Scholars who weren't there. Scholars who say they disagree with what they understand to be true about Islam.

You've read my testimony about my meeting. How would you resolve our differences? Can someone who was not in it resolve it based on what each of us might write about it? What if all you had was my story and my chairperson's minutes, are you going to decide that he is wrong because I said so, or that I am wrong because he said so? He's the chair of the committee; I'm the pastor of the church. Which one of us should be viewed as less credible? My personal view is that the best way for an outsider to make any such determination is to get as much information and as many reports of the meeting as possible. If my treasurer becomes the filter for all others, and she discards all subsequent accounts as inaccurate except that which she is willing to accept, what we have remaining isn't anything more than her opinion on the matter passing as authenticated history. The science of authenticating hadiths seems to me to ultimately boil down to this. The process is probably the best one can do, but if that which is not accepted is destroyed, you have said you don't trust the future to come to the same conclusion that the "authenticator" has. You seem to be comfortable in putting all of that power in the hands of a few. I am glad that for the most part even the disputed passages in the Bible have been preserved.

Now, I expect that someone will point out that there have been times in Christian history that church leaders have destroyed collections that they felt were not in agreement with the "true" teachings of the church. I think they were wrong to have done so, but I would not expect Muslims who do that with their own "false" hadiths to object to those practices.

[Grace Seeker]

still waiting for your pm

It sounds like you want to debate the interpretation of Isaiah 53. I am not interesting in debating interpretation. I already gave you a suggestion, if you don't want to accept that, then you don't want to accept it. I guess that's the end of that then. We'll move on to other things.

[Grace Seeker]

It is true according to Jewish tradition part of the day is equivalent to a full day...
but, does such concept, clears up the (3 days and 3 NIGHTS)problem?

I think it does if you accept this part of what I said, " 'three days and three nights' need mean no more than 'three days' or the combination of any part of three separate days."

Agreed, by our way of counting you only had 2 nights. But our way of counting doesn't count (pun intended:-[ ) for understanding this passage.

When my kids go to school they go to school from Monday through Friday (5 days), but I still call it a week even though it is less than 7 days.

Is next week the last week of July or the first week of August? Answer: technically neither as it isn't a full week, but people will commonly talk about it that way.

How about if I asked you if you liked vegetables? For instance do you like tomatoes? I don't know about other langauges or other countries on this, but in the USA we speak of the tomato as a vegetable, but it isn't. Botanically it is a fruit. That doesn't mean that people who serve tomatoes as a vegetable are lying, or even wrong by our venacular standard, but who knows what someone 2000 years will think of my grandmother's vegetable soup recipe that doesn't have any vegetables in it.

So, Jesus speaking in the venacular speaks of 3 days and 3 nights and is only in the ground 2 nights, that doesn't make him wrong, because parts of 2 days and all of the 1 day and 2 nights between those two partial daytime periods is (to his way of speaking) one of the things one can mean by saying 3 days and 3 nights. But I agree, it just makes it sound wrong to our ears.

[Grace Seeker]

Gospel of Barnabas 10

Jesus having come to the age of thirty years, as he himself said unto me, went up to Mount Olives with his mother to gather olives. Then at midday as he was praying, when he came to these words: "Lord, with mercy...," he was surrounded by an exceeding bright light and by an infinite multitude of angels, who were saying: "Blessed be God." The angel Gabriel presented him as it were a shining mirror, a book, which descended into the heart of Jesus in which he had knowledge of what God had done and what hath said and God willeth insomuch that everything was laid bare and open to him; as he said unto me: "Believe Barnabas, that I know every prophet with every prophecy, insomuch that whatever I say the whole hath come forth from that book.

In Islam we know this book that descended into the heart of Jesus as the Injeel in which every Muslim believes as a fundamental article of faith. Unfortunately, this book of revelation was not recorded except for a few fragments that made their way into the NT gospels.

The above quote actually comes from the "Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?" thread.

And though I know we wish to avoid redundancy, I hope it makes sense that I might post similar comment here that I did there.


I think this really helps answer my question: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If Muslims believe that such a book actually at one time existed (whether the Gospel of Barnabas is authentic or not doesn't change the reality of Muslims holding such a belief), then anything that purports to testify to the same matter as would have been in that book, but does not do so accurately would be a corruption of the message of that book.[/QUOTE]

I would like to show some of the reasons that I don't view the Bible to be corrupted, but will wait till others have tired of the present focus of the discussion.

[ummzayd]

I think it does if you accept this part of what I said, " 'three days and three nights' need mean no more than 'three days' or the combination of any part of three separate days."

Agreed, by our way of counting you only had 2 nights. But our way of counting doesn't count (pun intended:-[ ) for understanding this passage.

So, Jesus speaking in the venacular speaks of 3 days and 3 nights and is only in the ground 2 nights, that doesn't make him wrong, because parts of 2 days and all of the 1 day and 2 nights between those two partial daytime periods is (to his way of speaking) one of the things one can mean by saying 3 days and 3 nights. But I agree, it just makes it sound wrong to our ears.

I really sorry but I don't think an impartial referee would let you away with that. I'm afraid it has to stand as an error. If the scripture said 3 days in the heart of the earth then I would let you have it. but it says 3 days and 3 nights and despite your persuasive talk of vegetables and 5-day-weeks Friday pm to Sunday am can never be 3 days and 3 nights. although Rav is hardly an impartial referee he could perhaps enlighten us as to the linguistics, although it feels like flogging a dead horse.

peace

[thirdwatch512]

Well, according to this link,(in arabic) this "Jewish leader" in Yemen found the "original Torah Scrolls" and they point towards mohammad LOL. Yet they only go back to 500 years.

http://www.almotamar.net/news/44511.htm
كشف كبير حاخامات يهود اليمن عن احتفاظه بكتاب للتوراة يعود إلى ما قبل 500سنة تقريبا .ويعتقد يحيى بن يعيش بن يحيى " 38 عاما " ان كتاب التوراة الذي ورثه عن أبيه كتاب صحيح لم يتعرض للتحريف كبقية كتب اليهود .

ويدلل يحيى يعيش الذي خلف الزعامة الدينية بعد والده على اليهود اليمنيين على اعتقاده بعدم تعرض التوراة التي يحتفظ بها للتحريف بالقول ان ذلك الكتاب التوراتي يحوي على بشارة النبي محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام والمطابقة لماورد في القرآن الكريم.
ويضيف كبير حاخامات اليهود بان كتاب التوراة الذي لديه كتب على الجلد والورق في الوقت ذاته بالحبر المصنوع من مادة العصف والزعفران ويتكون من 54 جزءا كل جزء مكون من إصحاح وآيات .

وفي جانب اخر يقول يحيى يعيش انه يؤمن بالرسول محمد كإيمانه بموسى وببقية أنبياء الله ورسله وأنه يصلي على النبي محمد وليس في نفسه أي اعتراض على ذلك،لكن ايمانه بما ورد في القران الكريم لايعني تحوله من اليهودية الى الاسلام حيث يقول : لاتهدي من أحببت ولكن الله يهدي من يشاء " فمتى أراد الله ذلك سيكون وان لم يرد فلن يكون.

ونقل يحي يعيش عن والده الذي توفي في احد مستشفيات العاصمة البريطانية لندن في السادس من أبريل الماضي وصيته له بالوطن والدين والعمل الصالح والصلاة والصيام وعدم الكذب وعدم الدجل على خلق الله وانه لم يترك بعده وصية مكتوبة .

وارجع سبب دفن والده في لندن وليس في اليمن إلى معتقد ديني لديهم بأن من يدفن في المكان الذي توفي فيه يكون له خير وصادفت وفاته يوم جمعة يوم عيد الفصح كما أن إكرام الميت دفنه .
ورفض يعيش نقل جثمان والده من لندن إلى ريده بمحافظة عمران شمال مسقط رأسه وقال : ذلك لايجوز في شريعتنا .

ويعالج يحيى يعيش الذي يعرف لدى أبناء الطائفة اليهودية بـ" العيلوم " حالات المس والقرين والجنون والأسحار والربط بالتوراة والقرآن والانجيل .
ويؤكد أنه لايعالج أية أمراض أخرى تخضع للمختبرات والفحص بالأشعة ويقول انه يعالج الناس حسب حالة المريض ومقدرته ولايشترط عليهم دفع مبالغ بعينها .
*26سبتمبرنت
Google translation -
A large Jewish rabbis Yemen reserving the biblical Book of goes back to what nearly 500 years ago. It is believed Ben Yahia Ben Yahia live "38 years" that book by the heirs of the Torah from his father's book has not been true perverting the other books of the Jews. He argues Yahya who live behind the religious leadership after his father Yemeni Jews on the belief that the Torah was kept for distortion to say that this book contains the Torah Bishara Prophet Muhammad, peace and reconciliation for the contents of the Koran. He adds a large Jewish rabbis that the Torah book, which has books on the skin and paper at the same time, ink tiles article disrespected, saffron, consists of 54 part, each part consisting of sanitation and mandates. On the other hand, says he believes Yahya live Prophet Muhammad Kaymanh Moses and the rest of the prophets and messengers of God and pray to the Prophet Mohammed and is not in itself any objection to that, but his faith contained in the Koran does not mean the abandonment of Judaism to Islam says : for Attahdi from loved, but God guides whom "If Allah wants it will be contained and will not be. transfer Yahya live from his father, who died in a hospital in the British capital of London on the 6th of last April and his religion and his nation, and good works, prayer and fasting, not lying, not the hypocrisy God created and that has left several dead and writing. He attributed the reason for the burial of his father in London and not in Yemen to the religious belief that they have buried in the place where it died be best met his death on Friday and Easter also Akram Dead burial. He refused to live transport the body his father, from London to Redah Amran Governorate north of his birthplace and said : That may not be the tolerant. Yahya live and addresses known to the sons of the Jewish community to "Alailom" cases of offending spouse and insanity and Bewitchments linking the Torah and the Koran and the Bible. He confirms that the address of any other diseases subject to the laboratory and radiological examination and says it addresses people as the patient's condition and its ability to pay Eichtert specific .

I do not fall for it though, because 1. 500 years ago is much later then the time of mohammad. It could easily be a forgery.
2. If it was real, people would not hide it. They would have revealed it a long time ago, because their love for G-d is that great and they would not lie about those types of things.
3. If it was an authentic Torah, then there would be no need for quran, since the original book is preserved and in its original, uncorrupted form.

[جوري]

Frankly I have reservation on your proper understanding of your own religion let alone other theological texts... But let's not get into that.. I know how you like to pick and choose renderings to a level suitable in fostering your life style!
peace!

[back_to_faith]

It sounds like you want to debate the interpretation of Isaiah 53.

What interpretation you are talking about?!!

Did Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53?

that is what I want to debate

but it seems you are not ready or not interested to discuss it.

peace

[Grace Seeker]

What interpretation you are talking about?!!

Did Jesus fulfill Isaiah 53?

that is what I want to debate

but it seems you are not ready or not interested to discuss it.

peace

Go ahead, but that won't tell us whether the Bible is corrupted. It begins with an assumption that Isaiah wrote that as a prophecy with regard to the future Messiah, you will note already that Rav rejects that as an incorrect reading the of the text, hence we are already exposed to interpretation. But, let us assume that we agreed that it was a prophecy in reference to the Messiah and we applied it to Jesus and you were to show that it wasn't completely fulfilled. What would that show? Not that the Bible was corrupted, only that either (a) Christians applied it wrong, or (b) assuming that Christians applied it correctly that it was untrue.

You may not think that there is a distinction between corrupted and untrue, but they are different questions. You told me that you could objectively prove that the Bible was corrupted, you seemed willing to discuss any aspect of it, I suggested the one I was interested in seeing you prove. And now you have switched to wishing to discuss something else. You're right I'm not interested in discussing it. There are too many aspects of understanding that have to assumed in order to properly discuss it, thus the nature of the text means that it cannot be discussed objectively, and thus it doesn't fit what we originally talked about. But that's OK. You're within your rights as a human being to change your mind. And I to stick with mine.

[Grace Seeker]

I really sorry but I don't think an impartial referee would let you away with that. I'm afraid it has to stand as an error. If the scripture said 3 days in the heart of the earth then I would let you have it. but it says 3 days and 3 nights and despite your persuasive talk of vegetables and 5-day-weeks Friday pm to Sunday am can never be 3 days and 3 nights. although Rav is hardly an impartial referee he could perhaps enlighten us as to the linguistics, although it feels like flogging a dead horse.

peace

Agreed to both of your final points. If you see it as an error, then that is how you see it. But run it by Rav or someone else on the "Questions answered by a Jew" thread if they are willing to consider it.

Now, this actually well illustrates my point with regard to what back-to-faith wants to discuss. If Jesus actually said it, and Matthew accurately recorded it, then Matthew is not corrupting the Bible, you are just asserting that Jesus would have been wrong. If I understand you correctly, your argument that Matthew has corrupted it, is based on an assumption that Jesus never would have said something like this to begin with so therefore if there is a discrepancy it is the writing that is corrupted, rather than either Jesus' comment being in error or our understanding/application of that comment being in error.

[don532]

I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

I believe this was the proposition Grace Seeker offered earlier. I had trouble remembering what it was and figured others may be looking for it also.

[thirdwatch512]

Frankly I have reservation on your proper understanding of your own religion let alone other theological texts... But let's not get into that.. I know how you like to pick and choose renderings to a level suitable in fostering your life style!
peace!

Why don't you be a little nicer sometimes? You have no knowledge of how I view religion, nor do you have any knowledge of my life. You might think you do here and there, but you don't.

And I do not render anything.

PM me is you want to discuss.

[جوري]

Why don't you be a little nicer sometimes? You have no knowledge of how I view religion, nor do you have any knowledge of my life. You might think you do here and there, but you don't.

And I do not render anything.

PM me is you want to discuss.

I think your views are manifestly obvious from your posts...
There is nothing more to impart or that would necessitate a PM, you've shared your view and I mine.. there is no harm in that!

peace!

[thirdwatch512]

No, there's not a problem at all with that! But I think sometimes you should be a little nicer when posting.

I am a liberal. I have a liberal interpreation of the Bible. Nothing wrong with that! I would think that out of anyone, the muslims would be the most tolerant of different interpretations.. itjihad or whatever it's called. Maybe I am wrong about itjihad and what it means.. Who knows.

[back_to_faith]

But, let us assume that we agreed that it was a prophecy in reference to the Messiah and we applied it to Jesus and you were to show that it wasn't completely fulfilled. What would that show? Not that the Bible was corrupted, only that either (a) Christians applied it wrong, or (b) assuming that Christians applied it correctly that it was untrue.

.

Hold on seeker...

What would show that (Isaiah 53) wasn't completely fulfilled ?
is it that Christians applied it wrong?

If mere christianshad applied it wrong,there woul have never been a claim for Bible corruption.

The problem is bigger and touch the trustworthy and validity of both the NT and its writers as well !!

In the Book of ,Acts 8:34-35 in which so called author, Luke, describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Apostle to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The man explains that he does not understand what he is reading, (Isaiah 53), and Philip explains to him that it is Jesus to whom the passage refers. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.


If the inspired writers that wrote under the guidance and the inspiration of the holy spirit,claimed that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled by Jesus...
then if proved that they erred,means their writings (the NT) is not the word of God.......
so you,Seeker obviously erred when you claimed that the matter of(Isaiah 53)

is not related to the issue of Bible corruption.....
If the whole christian nation claimed that (Isaiah 53) was fulfilled by Jesus,there would be no problem at all,and it can't be an example of Bible corruption....but if part of the Bible (NT)claims that another part of the same bible (OT)was fulfilled ,then here the Bible and its (inspired) writers, erred.

What you argue (Christians applied it wrong) has nothing with Isaiah 53

you can say that with the passage of Isaiah:9 (unto us a child is born etc)

such passage ,has never been used by the (Inspired) writers.....only by christians ..so that can't be an example of Bible corruption....it is simply misuse by christians which has nothing to do with the issue of Bible inspiration.
Man errs ,the Bible and its inspired writers not.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

[back_to_faith]

Now, this actually well illustrates my point with regard to what back-to-faith wants to discuss. If Jesus actually said it, and Matthew accurately recorded it, then Matthew is not corrupting the Bible, you are just asserting that Jesus would have been wrong. .

Seeker ,Don't put the cart front of the horse

the issue according to muslims:

1-Jesus promised to stay 3 days and 3 nights.

2-the narratives according to the 4 NT writings,proved that to be unfulfilled.
3-a proof that the writers put such false statemnet in the mouth of Jesus(PBUH).

4-and so the NT writings proved to be corrupted by its writers.

you obviously ,fond of repeating issues that have been discussed before lots of time...and ignore my proposal of new,fresh topics such as Isaiah 53 !!!!! which is strongly related to the issue of Bible corruption as I mentioned before......

[MustafaMc]

Quran 5
46 Then in the footsteps of those Prophets, We sent Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam
confirming whatever remained intact from the Taurat in his time, and gave him
the Injeel wherein was guidance and light, corroborating what was
revealed in the Taurat; a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

47 Therefore, let the people who follow the Injeel judge by the Law which
Allah has revealed therein; those who do not judge by the Law which Allah has
revealed, they are the transgressors.

48 To you, O Muhammad, We have revealed this Book with the truth. It confirms
whatever has remained intact in the scriptures which came before it and also to
safeguard it. ...

We see that the Injeel (scripture or book) was revealed to Prophet Jesus (as) not to Paul, John, Luke, etc. From the very beginning of Christianity, the scripture revealed to Jesus (as) was only partially preserved as indicated by the very few red letter quotes in the gospels. I believe that there has never existed a comprehensive recording of the message revealed to Jesus (as) while he walked on earth. For that matter even between the gospels rarely is the same quote in the same situation identical to that in the others. So if they are not the same between the gospels, how can we be sure that any of the quotes are exactly what Jesus (as) spoke?

Technically speaking, the Bible per se has probably been reliably preserved, but I contend that the NT (not even the gospels) is not the unadulterated message revealed to Prophet Jesus.

[Grace Seeker]

Technically speaking, the Bible per se has probably been reliably preserved, but I contend that the NT (not even the gospels) is not the unadulterated message revealed to Prophet Jesus.

And I, not being one who holds to the theory of a literal and verbally inspired (i.e. dictated) view of scripture, have no argument with that.

When I speak of the reliability of the scriptures, I am talking about trusting that what we have today is essentially what was actually written by the original authors. The issue of whether or not they can be trusted to tell us the truth and speak forth authoritatively on God's behalf is a second issue that I address independently of the first.

[Grace Seeker]

Hold on seeker...

What would show that (Isaiah 53) wasn't completely fulfilled ?
is it that Christians applied it wrong?

If mere christianshad applied it wrong,there woul have never been a claim for Bible corruption.

The problem is bigger and touch the trustworthy and validity of both the NT and its writers as well !!

In the Book of ,Acts 8:34-35 in which so called author, Luke, describes a scene in which God commands Philip the Apostle to approach an Ethiopian eunuch who is sitting in a chariot, reading aloud to himself from the Book of Isaiah. The man explains that he does not understand what he is reading, (Isaiah 53), and Philip explains to him that it is Jesus to whom the passage refers. "And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? Of himself, or of some other man? Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.


If the inspired writers that wrote under the guidance and the inspiration of the holy spirit,claimed that Isaiah 53 was fulfilled by Jesus...
then if proved that they erred,means their writings (the NT) is not the word of God.......
so you,Seeker obviously erred when you claimed that the matter of(Isaiah 53)

is not related to the issue of Bible corruption.....
If the whole christian nation claimed that (Isaiah 53) was fulfilled by Jesus,there would be no problem at all,and it can't be an example of Bible corruption....but if part of the Bible (NT)claims that another part of the same bible (OT)was fulfilled ,then here the Bible and its (inspired) writers, erred.

What you argue (Christians applied it wrong) has nothing with Isaiah 53

you can say that with the passage of Isaiah:9 (unto us a child is born etc)

such passage ,has never been used by the (Inspired) writers.....only by christians ..so that can't be an example of Bible corruption....it is simply misuse by christians which has nothing to do with the issue of Bible inspiration.
Man errs ,the Bible and its inspired writers not.

2 Peter 1:20-21
20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

I gave two options, you have attacked that idea that it was applied wrong. I also offered the option that it was simply untrue. And like a also said, you may see being untrue and corrupted as the same thing, but they actually are distinctly different questions.

A lie, though untrue, can be preserved uncorrupted. Of course it still remains a lie. If you think that the Bible used by Jews and Christians is a lie you certainly are entitled to that opinion. You wouldn't be the first and you won't be the last.

But you wish to discuss a point with reference to Isaiah 53 that I am not interested in, especially as you project views on to me with regard to my view of scripture that I don't hold. Find someone who holds to the theory of the literal verbal inspiration of scripture and argue with them.

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker ,Don't put the cart front of the horse

the issue according to muslims:

1-Jesus promised to stay 3 days and 3 nights.

2-the narratives according to the 4 NT writings,proved that to be unfulfilled.
3-a proof that the writers put such false statemnet in the mouth of Jesus(PBUH).

4-and so the NT writings proved to be corrupted by its writers.

you obviously ,fond of repeating issues that have been discussed before lots of time...and ignore my proposal of new,fresh topics such as Isaiah 53 !!!!! which is strongly related to the issue of Bible corruption as I mentioned before......

Again, if you read what I wrote about the way a reference to "3 days and 3 nights" would have been understood by Jesus' contemporaries, Jesus' could have been in the tomb as little as 24 hours and 2 minutes (the last minute of daylight on Friday to the first minute of evening on Saturday) and still have been seen as fulfilling that promise. So as to your 4 points, I have 4 of my own.

1) You still seek to make Jesus say what you wish for him to say rather than understand what he actually said.

2) Tell me that Jesus resurrected sometime before sunset Saturday and I will agree with you that Jesus was wrong.

3) Tell me that he didn't arise from the tomb until around dawn on Sunday morning and I'll say that I was confused by that 3 day & 3 night reference until I learned to tell time as first century Jews do. ummzayd and I have agreed that we would need an impartial referee to enlighten us on these linguistics. Neither you nor I can serve in this capacity, so you are free to think as you think and I as I think, and the end result is that no one has proved anything to anyone.

4) Isaiah 53 is also an old topic. Our conversation began here:

Originally Posted by back_to_faith
with all the incredible number of errors, contradictions, and fallacies in Bible,
I have strong, objective reasons to prove the Bible to be in error without using a product of faith and belief,and ignoring what the Quran accuses the Bible.....

I think this is off topic, but I am willing to give it one go round before asking such discussions be moved to another thread. So... NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?

Now again, I'm looking for this to be about the Bible, not about respective faith positions. In other words, if the Bible says that the moon around the seventh planet of some distant star we have never heard of is supposedly made out of green cheese, then disputing such a statement couldn't be made on the grounds that our moon nor any other we know of is not made out of green cheese. It would have to be made on actual knowledge that this particular moon is not made out of green cheese, which would be hard to do if it talks about a solar system we have never heard of, but nonetheless could be there. This standard is one that you set, but before you attempt to prove things by it, I want you to know that I intend to hold you to that standard. The Bible does indeed make many faith statements, but you have said that you can prove it is in error "without using a product of faith and belief" and even ignoring the Qur'an.

I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

That was the original offer/request. If you don't wish to attempt to prove objectively and without reference to the Qur'an that the Bible is in error that Jesus was crucifide then fine. Just like I have no interest in discussing Isaiah 53, you are not required to have an interest in disproving the crucifixion.

[MustafaMc]

And I, not being one who holds to the theory of a literal and verbally inspired (i.e. dictated) view of scripture, have no argument with that.

Do you believe that each of the NT authors were individually inspired by God to write what they did? Paul claims in Galatians to have received a revelation from God/Jesus as does John in Revelation. Did the other NT authors get a personal revelation from God too?

When I speak of the reliability of the scriptures, I am talking about trusting that what we have today is essentially what was actually written by the original authors. The issue of whether or not they can be trusted to tell us the truth and speak forth authoritatively on God's behalf is a second issue that I address independently of the first.

I understand your point that the Bible we have today may be essentially the same as what was written in the 1st century and then approved in the 4th century. Have all of the Dead Sea Scrolls been made public to verify or refute this statement?

[back_to_faith]

And I, not being one who holds to the theory of a literal and verbally inspired (i.e. dictated) view of scripture, have no argument with that.

.

To those who hold not the theory of a literal and verbally inspired view of scripture,I invite them to repent it and listen to the advice of Gleason Archer in his Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties !!

After explaining that witnesses in a court of law lose all credibility once they have been caught lying, he applied this principle to the Bible.

(The same is true of Holy Scripture. If the statements it contains concerning matters of history and science can be proven by extrabiblical records, by ancient documents uncovered through archaeological digs, or by the established facts of modern science to be contrary to the truth, then there is grave doubt as to it trustworthiness in matters of religion. In other words, if the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24, ).

it seems a bit idiotic to me to call a book "the word of God" if the words in that book are not the words of God but only the words of fallible men who were given "ideas" to record in their own words. Anyone with any kind of background in writing should know that this is a ridiculous premise.

Actually the Bible teaches that "the word of God" came to man through a process of verbal inspiration

It teaches that God put his words into the mouths of the Old Testament prophets and at times ordered them to write "his words" that had been revealed to them


In Isaiah 51:16, the prophet had Yahweh saying to him, "I have put my words in your mouth." The same claim was made in Jeremiah 1:9, "Then Yahweh put forth his hand, and touched my mouth, and Yahweh said to me, Behold I have put my words into your mouth." Jeremiah had opened his book with the claim that the "word of Yahweh came to [him], saying..." (1:4), and thereafter he frequently claimed that what he was saying were the "words of Yahweh."
so obviously he was not claiming that Yahweh had given him just the "ideas" that he was preaching but that Yahweh had given him the very words that he spoke.

(Ezek. 6:1; 7:1; 12:1; 13:1; 15:1; 16:1; 17:1; 18:1; etc., etc., etc.). Hosea claimed that the "word of Yahweh" had come to him (1:1), and so did Joel (1:1), and so did Jonah (1:1), and so did Micah (1:1), etc., etc., etc


Exodus 24:3 Moses came and told the people all the words of Yahweh and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice, and said, "All the words that Yahweh has spoken we will do.4 And Moses wrote down all the words of Yahweh.

the people understood that they had heard him read not the "ideas" of Yahweh but the WORDS of Yahweh.

Jeremiah, whose claim that Yahweh touched his mouth and put his words into the prophet's mouth we have already noticed, later claimed that he wrote down the words that Yahweh had spoken to him: "The word that came to Jeremiah from Yahweh: Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel: ‘Write in a book all the words that I have spoken to you’ (30:1-2).


Matthew 10:16 "See, I am sending you out like sheep into the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles. 19 When they hand you over, do not worry about how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you at that time; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.


2 Peter 1:19
First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 because no prophecy ever came by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God.

but if God gave only the "ideas" to prophets, rather than putting his words into their mouths as Isaiah and Jeremiah claimed, then the prophecy would be very much something that had come "by human will." He concluded by saying that men and women "moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Can anyone imagine how it would be at all possible that someone who was "moved by the Holy Spirit" to "speak from God" could say something that wasn't true? If that should happen, then it would necessarily follow that the Holy Spirit had "moved" this person to say something that was inaccurate.

It is very evident that both the Old Testament and New Testament taught that those whom God or the Holy Spirit inspired were guided on a verbal basis in what they said and wrote. In other words, their very words were the words of God and not their own.
The doctrine of verbal inspiration is the only effective description of the process of guidance that the Bible claims that God used in guiding his inspired ones into "all truth." This doctrine is the exact reason why so many Bible believers also believe in biblical inerrancy. This belief is a logical consequence of the doctrine of verbal inspiration.
(Traditional Biblical Inerrancy P:2)

[back_to_faith]

1) You still seek to make Jesus say what you wish for him to say rather than understand what he actually said.

2) Tell me that Jesus resurrected sometime before sunset Saturday and I will agree with you that Jesus was wrong.

3) Tell me that he didn't arise from the tomb until around dawn on Sunday morning and I'll say that I was confused by that 3 day & 3 night reference until I learned to tell time as first century Jews do. ummzayd and I have agreed that we would need an impartial referee to enlighten us on these linguistics. Neither you nor I can serve in this capacity, so you are free to think as you think and I as I think, and the end result is that no one has proved anything to anyone.

.

Seeker,You are at it again ...When will you ever learn?!

first of all you have no idea regarding my capacity on Hebrew linguistics.

second:
you ignored totally the thread I showed which I refuted totally,the arguments you repeat.


One could search till the day of Judgment and never finds that there is such idiom in the Hebrew language :

(part of a day (as opposed to night) ,reckoned as a day and a night)

only It is possibile that A part of a day was reckoned as a day and a part of a night was reckoned as a night .

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...e-dead-11.html


best way to understand the Jewish way of reckoning ,to hear it from their mouth:

excert from Jewsforjudaism


While it is true that according to Jewish law part of the day is equivalent to a full day, Matthew's Jesus promised to be buried specifically for three days and three nights. By the use of the phrase "three days and three nights," Matthew's Jesus indicated that he expected to be buried for three consecutive periods between dawn and dark (day) and dark and dawn (night), or approximately seventy- two hours. The Scriptures employ the phrase "three days" in a more general sense than that expressed by "three days and three nights." For example, "three days" does not necessarily include the period of day or night at either the beginning or end of the total time to be indicated. Therefore, when the phrase "three days" is meant to specifically include three days and three nights, and this is not evident from the text, it must be stated as such: ". . . neither eat nor drink three days, night or day . . ." (Esther 4:16). However, when the phrase "three days and three nights" is stated, it includes either all three days and all three nights or can be deficient in only parts of a day or night at the beginning or end of the entire period, but never of a full segment of day or night out of twenty-four hours (1 Samuel 30:11-13). Although Jesus did not have to be buried exactly seventy-two hours, he did have to be buried at least on parts of three days and three nights. Jesus died on a Friday at the ninth hour, which corresponds to about 3 P.M. The claim is made that Jesus rose three days later, on a Sunday. This would mean that he was buried during the daylight hours of three different days. If this was true, he was buried for only two nights.



What shoots the whole argument in the foot is the narrative of John :

"On the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb" (John 20:1).

Thus, John says that Jesus, having risen before the dawn of Sunday morning, was buried for only two days and two nights, i.e., one full day (Saturday), part of another (Friday), and two nights (Friday and Saturday nights).

you said:

(Tell me that he didn't arise from the tomb until around dawn on Sunday morning and I'll say that I was confused by that 3 day & 3 night reference )

I say:

(you who should Tell me that he didn't arise from the tomb until 5 minutes after sunset on Sunday and I'll say that I was confused by that 3 day & 3 night reference) .


The burden now on your shoulder,Seeker to find a reference of first century ,or any other century Jews or any other humans ,that used such idiom :(part of a day (as opposed to night) ,reckoned as a day and a night)

till you cite a source,your argument holds no merit.

[back_to_faith]

When I speak of the reliability of the scriptures, I am talking about trusting that what we have today is essentially what was actually written by the original authors. .

And whom the original authors, to begin with?

where are their original writings,to compare them with what we have today?

[don532]

The Bible does indeed make many faith statements, but you have said that you can prove it is in error "without using a product of faith and belief" and even ignoring the Qur'an.

I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

I believe this is still the issue at hand.

[Grace Seeker]

I believe this is still the issue at hand.

No. I don't intend to push it. When he said that he could disprove something about the Bible, he didn't say that he could disprove just anything I asked about. I have apparently chosen something, the crucifixion of Jesus, that cannot be disproven by objective means. And I am content to let it rest at that.


As to back-to-faith's points about the 3 days and 3 nights, they are well taken. The information I was sharing wasn't my own, but it also wasn't first century research, it was the opinions of modern commentators. So, now we have JewsforJudaism weighing in on the subject and I have to take them seriously, as I do back-to-faith. Whether or not I can find something that is actually contemporaneus to Jesus to substantiate the view that 3 day & 3 nights could refer to the Friday afternoon to Sunday pre-dawn time period, I don't know. I will look. Until then, I thank back-to-faith for citing the source that he has.

[Grace Seeker]

Do you believe that each of the NT authors were individually inspired by God to write what they did? Paul claims in Galatians to have received a revelation from God/Jesus as does John in Revelation. Did the other NT authors get a personal revelation from God too?

I think that all of the NT authors (and for that matter the OT authors, scribes, even the redactors) were inspired. But I don't think that any of them, except for perhaps the words of the prophets (thus including the law given through prophet Moses) were dictated to by God. Nor do I hold that they had to be in order for the Bible to be understood as inspired. Each contributor received revelation in unique ways, some in the form of prophecy, some from being at the feet of Jesus as he was preaching, some from special knowledge or revelation be it in dream form or some other means, and some by being gifted to think as led (even if not dictated to) by the Holy Spirit. Whether James was inspired by way of revelation we are not told. I suspect he was not, but that he was simply seen by the church as God's chosen instrument because of his position in the life of the church. And while Paul speaks of a special revelation, what I understand is that this special revelation inspired his faith, I don't think he received dictation for all of his subsequent letters in that instant.

By the way, I don't think that these NT authors were necessarily always inspired in everything they did, and I think that others besides them have also been inspired and continue to be inspired today.

But inspiration of the authors is just one part of the story in the creating of the scriptures. One must consider also the inspiration of the church itself. Why is it that while Paul obviously wrote three letters to the church at Corinth, that only two of them were ever preserved? Why were the Shepherd of Hermes that blessed so many or the Letters of Clement who knew the apostles as intimately as Mark knew Peter not included in the NT? I don't know the answer that question, but I do know that long before Nicea that the church herself, I believe under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, sorted through the many gospels, supposed gospels, letters from apostles and other significant first generation Christian leaders, and found some worthy to be included in the canon by which one set a standard for determining the faith and teaching of the church and some to be of value but not canonical in nature. I believe that just as God can be at work in inspiring writing, this same God can be at work in inspiring the compiling and preservation of that writing.

I understand your point that the Bible we have today may be essentially the same as what was written in the 1st century and then approved in the 4th century. Have all of the Dead Sea Scrolls been made public to verify or refute this statement?

Good. I'm glad you understand my point. Then you and I, even if not the rest of the world, are making progress with one another. Praise God/Allah for small victories!!!

No, I don't believe that all of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been made public yet. This is one of the issues that I know was still rubbing some scholars the wrong way as recently as a dozen years ago. The "owners" (for that is how the conservators of these documents were acting) had strictly limited other researchers from personally examining the documents, preferring instead to publish photographic copies of the scrolls. More recently some of this has changed, but I don't know to what degree. The journal Biblical Archaeology Review is probably the key place to find out about these things, I see the current issue has a feature on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Unforuntately, I don't subscribe to it anymore; it was just too indepth level of scholarship for me to try to keep up with everything in it and my churches need me to give my attention to other interests than that type of detailed research.

Also, I don't think that the Dead Sea Scrolls shed much light on the NT at all. To my knowledge they weren't a Christian community. They are more helpful in research into the Tanakh than into the New Testament.

[don532]

No. I don't intend to push it. When he said that he could disprove something about the Bible, he didn't say that he could disprove just anything I asked about. I have apparently chosen something, the crucifixion of Jesus, that cannot be disproven by objective means. And I am content to let it rest at that.


As to back-to-faith's points about the 3 days and 3 nights, they are well taken. The information I was sharing wasn't my own, but it also wasn't first century research, it was the opinions of modern commentators. So, now we have JewsforJudaism weighing in on the subject and I have to take them seriously, as I do back-to-faith. Whether or not I can find something that is actually contemporaneus to Jesus to substantiate the view that 3 day & 3 nights could refer to the Friday afternoon to Sunday pre-dawn time period, I don't know. I will look. Until then, I thank back-to-faith for citing the source that he has.

I understand.

[ummzayd]

NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?


I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified.

This is not an acceptable challenge. You cannot make an assertion and then challenge people to prove it is NOT true. The onus is on the one making the assertion to prove it IS true.

regarding the reasons for believing the bible to be in error, I hope you are now clear about why we believe this.


peace

[Keltoi]

This is not an acceptable challenge. You cannot make an assertion and then challenge people to prove it is NOT true. The onus is on the one making the assertion to prove it IS true.

regarding the reasons for believing the bible to be in error, I hope you are now clear about why we believe this.


peace

I believe what Grace Seeker is saying, is that without using the Qu'ran as evidence, what other evidence is there that the Gospel descriptions of Christ's life and crucifixion are false? In this case, it is Islam that describes the Gospel accounts to be false. Why should a Christian, whose religion outdates Islam for a good number of centuries, believe that the Qu'ran is a better source than Christ's own disciples? That isn't meant to be an attack or an insult, that is honestly the question that comes to my mind on this subject.

[جوري]

I don't want to interject this topic, but will add just add my observation without being baited into a debate.....
however, in no other books or people previous to Christianity would the concept of trinity be accepted... The sole burden doesn't have to fall on the Quran, although in my opinion is it more than sufficient.. to people of the book previous, a concept of a G-D being a man is very heterodox-- You know Jews, Mandeans, Sabeans... certainly no where in the scrolls of Abraham, or the Jewish Torah or any other divinely inspired books, is there a mention of a G-D lowering himself to the level of a mortal. If it were as easy as all that, then, there would be no Jews, Mandeans or Sabeans left in the world.. So it isn't just Muslims that find it outré and grossly unconventional ...There isn't even historical evidence of Jesus at all, save for the bibles of whom you can't get two copies to agree
King James Version (KJV)
The New King James Version (NKJV)
Modern King James Version [Green's Translation] (MKJV)
Literal Translation Version [Green] (LITV)
International Standard Version (ISV)
The New International Version (NIV)
English Standard Version (ESV)
New English Bible (NEB)
American Standard Version (ASV)
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
Revised Standard Version (RSV)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Today's English Version (TEV)
The Living Bible (LB)
New Century Version (NC)
New Life Version (NLV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
Revised Young's Literal Translation (RYLT)
John Darby's New Translation
Weymouth New Testament Translation
Rotherham's

Think I'll take my chances with the original Gospel of Barnbas, as one of the many other theological texts, that speak of a One G-D, with no divisible parts, or need for wives, or a need to be born or a need to leave his heaven, for a period of nine months where he is being formed, or the need to send another part of him to inform a woman that she is to carry him, or the need to crucify himself.. I don't know why a G-D would want to self-immolate.. really what is the point of that? It seems like an insincere pathos for one who has created the universe, the absolute anti-climax!
peace!

[ummzayd]

I believe what Grace Seeker is saying, is that without using the Qu'ran as evidence, what other evidence is there that the Gospel descriptions of Christ's life and crucifixion are false? In this case, it is Islam that describes the Gospel accounts to be false. Why should a Christian, whose religion outdates Islam for a good number of centuries, believe that the Qu'ran is a better source than Christ's own disciples? That isn't meant to be an attack or an insult, that is honestly the question that comes to my mind on this subject.

what comes to my mind is that the bible itself is a poor witness of what it is asserting. how many people went to the tomb of Jesus pbuh on sunday morning? was his (supposed) resurrection bodily or spiritual? why did he say he would be 3 days and 3 nights in the heart of the earth? this did not happen so did 'God' make a mistake, was he lying, or is the written account simply unreliable?.....many many more questions

peace

[back_to_faith]

I believe what Grace Seeker is saying, is that without using the Qu'ran as evidence, what other evidence is there that the Gospel descriptions of Christ's life and crucifixion are false? . .

Why I don't buy the crucifiction,resurrection story?.


1-Gross contradictions in both the crucifiction,resurrection narratives.

eg:
At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).


2-the part of the the crucifiction,resurrection narratives we find ,false NT prophecies ,by NT writers.

as in Matthew 12:40,1 Corinthians 15:3-4


besides,balant attempts to distort OT passages in order to convinse the reader, that the the crucifiction,resurrection story was propheciesed in the OT

eg:

Psalms 22:16,
Zechariah 12:10,
and Zechariah 13:6
Psalms 69:21,
Psalms 22:18
Psalms 34:20,
Isaiah 53

3-The Serious forgery,in the resurrection narratives in Mark 16:9
if the gospel of Mark had originally ended at 16:8, then it was afterwards tampered with to add another ending. If this happened, then reasonable people would have to wonder how much tampering was done with other biblical books after they were written. In a word, the credibility of the Bible and the crucifiction ,resurrection narratives ,would be seriously undermined if it could be established that the author of Mark had originally ended this book at 16:8.



Problems with Paul:

4- The claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus against statements in 1 Corinthians 15 that clearly indicate Paul was speaking about spiritual rather than physical resurrection.

5- Paul, report, "more than five hundred people(note,500 not 499 or 501) who, he says, witnessed a single appearance of the resurrected jesus ,(1 Cor. 15:6). , He named none of them.

5- the imaginary third day resurrection prophecy,which he claimed to exist:
1 Corinthians 15:3-5, we read:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6- 1 Cor. 2:8 Paul said: "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
What princes killed Jesus?



7- A part from the NT,no historical authentic support,based on eyewitnesses for the crucifiction.

with such samples of signs of deception,it would be unwise to buy the crucifiction,resurrection story.

[Keltoi]

Why I don't buy the crucifiction,resurrection story?.


1-Gross contradictions in both the crucifiction,resurrection narratives.

eg:
At what time in the morning did the women visit the tomb?- At the rising of the sun (Mark 16:2) vs. when it was yet dark (John 20:1)
Was the tomb opened or closed when they arrived? - Open (Luke 24:2) vs. closed (Matt 28:1-2)
Did Mary Magdalene know Jesus when he first appeared to her?-Yes, she did (Matt. 28:9) vs. no she did not (John 20:14).


2-the part of the the crucifiction,resurrection narratives we find ,false NT prophecies ,by NT writers.

as in Matthew 12:40,1 Corinthians 15:3-4


besides,balant attempts to distort OT passages in order to convinse the reader, that the the crucifiction,resurrection story was propheciesed in the OT

eg:

Psalms 22:16,
Zechariah 12:10,
and Zechariah 13:6
Psalms 69:21,
Psalms 22:18
Psalms 34:20,
Isaiah 53

3-The Serious forgery,in the resurrection narratives in Mark 16:9
if the gospel of Mark had originally ended at 16:8, then it was afterwards tampered with to add another ending. If this happened, then reasonable people would have to wonder how much tampering was done with other biblical books after they were written. In a word, the credibility of the Bible and the crucifiction ,resurrection narratives ,would be seriously undermined if it could be established that the author of Mark had originally ended this book at 16:8.



Problems with Paul:

4- The claim of the bodily resurrection of Jesus against statements in 1 Corinthians 15 that clearly indicate Paul was speaking about spiritual rather than physical resurrection.

5- Paul, report, "more than five hundred people(note,500 not 499 or 501) who, he says, witnessed a single appearance of the resurrected jesus ,(1 Cor. 15:6). , He named none of them.

5- the imaginary third day resurrection prophecy,which he claimed to exist:
1 Corinthians 15:3-5, we read:
For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

6- 1 Cor. 2:8 Paul said: "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."
What princes killed Jesus?



7- A part from the NT,no historical authentic support,based on eyewitnesses for the crucifiction.

with such samples of signs of deception,it would be unwise to buy the crucifiction,resurrection story.

#1 This is only a contradiction if you don't have the ability to think.

Matthew 28:1: 'At dawn...went to look at the tomb'.
Mark 16:2 'Very early...just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb'.
Luke 24:1: 'Very early in the morning...went to the tomb'.
John 20:1: 'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.

All four accounts describe a journey to the tomb. Matthew described it as "dawn". Mark describes it was "very early...just after sunrise. Luke describes it as "very early in the morning". John describes it as "early....while it was still dark." It isn't even necessary to understand we are talking about two groups of women, as one must assume a walk across Jerusalem might take a little while.

#2 Did Mary Magdalene recognize Christ? Matthew and John describe this event from two different perspectives. Matthew begins his description with the two Marys on their way to the Lord's tomb, already aware that Christ had risen from the dead. What Matthew describes takes place after the appearance described by John when Mary Magdalene had gone to the tomb and mistaken Christ for a gardner. When discussing the Gospel accounts, it is important to understand that they wrote these narratives independently of each other, and from a different chronological standpoint.

#3 By your "false" prophecies I assume you are referring to the "three days and three nights" passage. I believe Grace Seeker has responded appropriately to that question and there is no reason to re-examine that here.

As for "distorting" OT passages...To Christians the passages speak for themselves, there is no reason to distort anything. Do I expect Jews or Muslims to accept these prophecies as genuine? No I don't. That would mean you chose the wrong faith. However, I'm sure most Christians would point to Isaiah 53:3-7 as the clearest and longest prophecy about Jesus. No "distortion" needed.

#4 As to Mark, it is true that the ancient manuscripts end at 16:18. That is why most Bibles these days add a footnote to that effect. As to why the longer ending was added, there are various proposed explanations. Some believe Mark died before it was finished, others state that he meant to end it that way, etc. What it really boils down to is what was added past 16:18...and that was nothing. Everything mentioned in the longer edition of Mark already existed in the other Gospels. The only new thing was a passage about snake venom. So it hardly calls into question the integrity of the Gospel accounts.

#5 Paul and the Resurrection. I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that the passage in question "clearly" points to a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection. Paul was obviously a believer in the Gospel accounts of Christ's physical as well as spiritual resurrection. The passage you are referring to, which is quite long, is referring to the spiritual resurrection of the soul as was promised by Christ's victory over death. 1 Cor. 15:14 says, "and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain."

The next Paul issue is rather amusing, since you claim in the first question that Paul is speaking about a spiritual resurrection, then you ask in the second part about Paul's claim of 500 witnesses to Christ's Resurrection. Is Paul confused or are you? In any event, why should it be strange that Paul refers to 500 as opposed to 501? Usually people round numbers up or down. As for their names, don't you think that would become quite tedious? Especially since the names of all those people were very likely already forgotten. The importance is that many people were blessed by witnessing Christ after His Resurrection, not whether those who saw it were named Dave or Toby.

#6 What princes killed Jesus? You must be kidding me right? You can't seriously be confused by this can you?

#7 In about 112 A.D. the Roman governor of what is now northern Turkey wrote to Emperor Trajan regarding the Christians in his district:

"I was never present at any trial of Christians; therefore I do not know what are the customary penalties or investigations, and what limits are observed. . . whether those who recant should be pardoned. . . whether the name itself, even if innocent of crime, should be punished, or only the crimes attaching to that name. . . . Meanwhile, this is the course that I have adopted in the case of those brought before me as Christians. I ask them if they are Christians. If they admit it I repeat the question a second and a third time, threatening capital punishment; if they persist I sentence them to death. For I do not doubt that, whatever kind of crime it may be to which they have confessed, their pertinacity and inflexible obstinacy should certainly be punished. . . the very fact of my dealing with the question led to a wider spread of the charge, and a great variety of cases were brought before me. An anonymous pamphlet was issued, containing many names. All who denied that they were or had been Christians I considered should be discharged, because they called upon the gods at my dictation and did reverence. . .and especially because they cursed Christ, a thing which it is said, genuine Christians cannot be induced to do."

I added that bit as an historical account of Christians and their feelings about Christ from the perspective of a pagan ruler.


It is a fairly well-established fact that Jesus Christ was publicly executed in Judea in the 1st Century A.D., under Pontius Pilate, by means of crucifixion, at the behest of the Jewish Sanhedrin. The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ.

Lucian of Samosata: The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith . . . - The Passing Peregrinus

I could paste more, but I don't think it is necessary. There are historical accounts of Christ's crucifixion.

[back_to_faith]

#1 This is only a contradiction if you don't have the ability to think.

Matthew 28:1: 'At dawn...went to look at the tomb'.
Mark 16:2 'Very early...just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb'.
Luke 24:1: 'Very early in the morning...went to the tomb'.
John 20:1: 'Early...while it was still dark...went to the tomb'.

All four accounts describe a journey to the tomb. Matthew described it as "dawn". Mark describes it was "very early...just after sunrise. Luke describes it as "very early in the morning". John describes it as "early....while it was still dark." It isn't even necessary to understand we are talking about two groups of women, one must assume a walk across Jerusalem might take a little while.

.

first,thank you for your try to answer....

it shows that you believe in the verbal inspiration of the Bible,that is why I will go on such debate with you.......

yes,All four accounts describe a journey to the tomb.....but here we are not talking about the journey,we talk about the time of arrival

Mark:16
2Very early on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb when the sun had risen. [/U]
John 20
1Now on the first day of the week Mary Magdalene came early to the tomb, while it was still dark, and saw the stone already taken away from the tomb.

If you want to play the game of another meaning (the journey itself or its beginning) then still it can't save you.

because during the journey according to Mark ,there was rising of the sun..while in John it was still dark.


to be continued

[back_to_faith]

#1

#2 Did Mary Magdalene recognize Christ? Matthew and John describe this event from two different perspectives. Matthew begins his description with the two Marys on their way to the Lord's tomb, already aware that Christ had risen from the dead.

.

Hold on ,man

If you had read Matthew 28 well,you wouldn't have had blessed us with such explanation

Is it ,and according to Matthew ,the two Marys on their way to the tomb, already aware that Christ had risen from the dead?. the answer is absolutely Not

Matthew 28

5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."

8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."

according to that ridiculous scenario ,too
Mary Magdalena went first and found the stone had been removed from the entrance.in her first visit

John 20

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

and her second visit,she found that the stone had not been yet removed from the entrance

Matthew 28
The Resurrection
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.



To be continued

[back_to_faith]

#1

#3 By your "false" prophecies I assume you are referring to the "three days and three nights" passage. I believe Grace Seeker has responded appropriately to that question and there is no reason to re-examine that here.

.

Seeker promised to take it seriously,but haven't answered yet.

[back_to_faith]

#1

As for "distorting" OT passages... I'm sure most Christians would point to Isaiah 53:3-7 as the clearest and longest prophecy about Jesus. No "distortion" needed.

.

Why don't you shows us how clear the prophecy got fulfilled by Jesus?

Is it a prophecy to begin with? and why?

[MustafaMc]

Lucian of Samosata: The Christians. . . worship a man to this day - the distinguished personage who introduced this new cult, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains their contempt for death and self devotion . . . their lawgiver [taught] they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take on faith . . . - The Passing Peregrinus.

Although Muslims don't believe that Jesus (as) was crucified, we do see that Christians worship him - a man as this account also testifies.

[back_to_faith]

#1
#4 As to Mark, it is true that the ancient manuscripts end at 16:18. That is why most Bibles these days add a footnote to that effect. As to why the longer ending was added, there are various proposed explanations. Some believe Mark died before it was finished, others state that he meant to end it that way, etc.
.

Why didn't you mention another possible scenario :
The original ending was inconvenient to the church, and it was replaced.


all the previous is a guessing work,not suppoted with proofs.


The longer endings which continue on past Mark 16:8 do not appear in any of the oldest manuscripts, which all end at verse 8. Most scholars now agree that an original, longer ending of Mark was not "lost" or "destroyed," as some once thought; in other words, 16:8 is where the original Mark ended.

What counts is that such forgery(till you prove it not to be) hits the integrity of the Gospel accounts in the root..


we have non-canonical gospel that represent very early strata of the Jesus tradition,
the Gospel of Thomas, omit death and resurrection narratives altogether
in Mark (is said to be the oldest of the so called canonical gospels)
offers no post-resurrection appearances.

Mark leaves the reader at the empty tomb with only a promise that Jesus has risen and has gone ahead to Galilee--hardly an ending to inspire faith. Mark's ending raises far more questions than it answers.

so what?

the solution is easy and the false pen of the scribes is ready....

Matthew and Luke remove the ambiguities of Mark's passion narrative, and in so doing, become readable, believable stories.

to sum up the matter:

(1) no one trying to sell the claim that a man had risen from the dead would have omitted references to resurrection appearances unless he had had an ulterior motive such as a desire to offer an explanation for why there had been no reported sightings of the formerly deceased at the time when the resurrection had allegedly occurred.

(2) if the gospel of Mark had originally ended at 16:8, then it was afterwards tampered with to add another ending. If this happened, then reasonable people would have to wonder how much tampering was done with other biblical books after they were written. In a word, the credibility of the Bible would be seriously undermined if it could be established that the author of Mark had originally ended this book at 16:8.

(Problems in the Ending of the Gospel of Mark p.1)

[back_to_faith]

#1

#5 Paul and the Resurrection. I'm not quite sure how you come to the conclusion that the passage in question "clearly" points to a spiritual rather than a physical resurrection.
.

Are you serious?!!!


1 corinthians 15:42
So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.



1 corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

[back_to_faith]

As for their names, don't you think that would become quite tedious? Especially since the names of all those people were very likely already forgotten.

.

Paul, in an attempt to head off contemporary criticisms pertaining to this report, appealed to "more than five hundred" people who, he says, witnessed a single appearance, and disbelievers could substantiate the claim by interviewing some of the witnesses still living (1 Cor. 15:6). but, they were left unnamed !!!

imagine yourself to have encounter with alien ,and said that 500 people had seen it,and you wrote that down.

Would the reader consider this "objective evidence" that the resurrection from the dead had really happened, or would he see the failure of the writer to give the names of any of these 500 witnesses to be a major weakness in the claim?

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Keltoi;799999
#6 What princes killed Jesus? You must be kidding me right? You can't seriously be confused by this can you?

.[/QUOTE]

again the Question

What princes of the world killed Jesus? their names?

1 Cor. 2:8 : "Which none of the princes of this world know; for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."


have to go ..to be continued inshaAllah

[back_to_faith]

#1

The non-Christian historical accounts of Flavius Josephus, Cornelius Tacitus, Lucian of Samosata, Maimonides and even the Jewish Sanhedrin corroborate the early Christian eyewitness accounts of these important historical aspects of the death of Jesus Christ.

.

For centuries Christian writers took the position that Josephus wrote the Testimonium more or less in its current form; until the 16th century, in fact.

Today almost no scholar holds that position

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephu...t_authenticity

the same applied to Tacitus

the fact that no early Christian writers refer to Tacitus even when discussing the subject of Nero and Christian persecution. Tertullian, Lactantius, Sulpicius Severus, Eusebius and Augustine of Hippo make no reference to Tacitus when discussing Christian persecution by Nero. Additionally, widespread Christian persecution as described in the passage is not mentioned by Luke in Acts. Also, it is unlikely there were an "immense multitude" of Christians in Nero's Rome.



even for the sake of argument suppose that the Testimonium is true

What does it prove? in other words If Josephus mentions the crucifiction without refering to a source .

what does it prove?!!

all of all is that a writer heard the christian propagandistic hearsay regarding their so called savior ,and wrote it down.....

Did he listen to testimonies ? Did he use a source?
where is Jewish Sanhedrin testimony you're talking about?
where is the early Christian eyewitness accounts ?

my friend,the obvious forgeries,the hearsay accounts holds no merit for serious ,objective studies.
Not only there is no historical crucifiction,there's no historical Jesus as well....

[Keltoi]

Although Muslims don't believe that Jesus (as) was crucified, we do see that Christians worship him - a man as this account also testifies.

The reason I posted that account is because it is an early non-Christian description of Christians themselves. Of course a pagan leader isn't going to understand who or what Christ is to a Christian.

[Grace Seeker]

regarding the reasons for believing the bible to be in error, I hope you are now clear about why we believe this.


peace

Yes, between you and MustafaMc, I think I have a better understand as to what it is that you believe and why.

You believe that there was a distinct message given to Prophet Jesus. Jesus was faithful in delivering it, but no one appears to have recorded it at the time he delivered it. The best we have are the memories of others who later wrote down some of the things he said, left out some of the things he said, and add to what he said some things that he didn't say. (Mind you I'm not agreeing this is what happened, but trying to state your understanding.) Even that record has been copied so many times with changes in it, be they accidental or intentional is irrelevant, and the changes have been copied so that it is no longer even possible to get back to even the original of what was written, which itself was a far cry from what Jesus actually said. So, the who thing is untrustworthy. Corrupted from the moment it was conceived and preserved inaccurately.


For her part, Purest believes that comparing differences between multiple copies of English translations is somehow significant, but I have yet to figure out why that is any more significant than saying that Mohammad Abdul Hakim Khan, Hairat Dehlawi, Mirzal Abu'l Fadl, Muhammad Marmaduke William Pickthall, Abdullah Yusuf Ali, Abdul Majid Daryabadi, Sayyid Abul A'la Mawdud'i, Muhammad Asad, and T.B. Irving cannot agree on what the Qur'an says. So, she prefers to take her chances with something that, even if older than the 16th century copies we presently have, the even many Muslims will admit has the marks of being corrupted by interpolations. Purest, is that because you find yourself in agreement with what it says, or because you really find it a credible document?

[Grace Seeker]

even for the sake of argument suppose that the Testimonium is true

What does it prove? in other words If Josephus mentions the crucifiction without refering to a source .

what does it prove?!!

all of all is that a writer heard the christian propagandistic hearsay regarding their so called savior ,and wrote it down.....

Did he listen to testimonies ? Did he use a source?
where is Jewish Sanhedrin testimony you're talking about?
where is the early Christian eyewitness accounts ?

my friend,the obvious forgeries,the hearsay accounts holds no merit for serious ,objective studies.
Not only there is no historical crucifiction,there's no historical Jesus as well....

Now, use the same way of thinking that you presently are.

Even if all Josephus, Tacitus, or any other had to go on was propoganda, what precipitated that propoganda?

Why would people who knew it all to be a hoax, a fable put their lives not only put their lives on the line, but go to their death when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fables as being true?

As far as Jesus not being an historical figure, by the same reasoning neither is Julius Caesar nor Homer.

Do you believe that Leonidas, King of Sparta, died in attempting to defend Greece from being invade by Xeres of Persia at the battle of Thermopylae? There is far less "objective proof" for this accepted historical account than there is for the crucifixion of Jesus. It is one's apriori judgments that cause one to accept as evidence in one accounting what is rejected in the other.

[back_to_faith]

Why would people who knew it all to be a hoax, a fable put their lives not only put their lives on the line, but go to their death when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fables as being true?

.

You ask, would people suffer,die for a hoax?

ask history and it tells you well,how many those who died for a hoax including muslims (according to you)..

why did muslim believe the hoax of Mohamed being the last prophet of God ,and go to their death by the hands of the Pagans,when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fable as being true?

[back_to_faith]

Do you believe that Leonidas, King of Sparta, died in attempting to defend Greece from being invade by Xeres of Persia at the battle of Thermopylae? .

Do you believe that the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical? if not why not?

[Keltoi]

Do you believe that the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical? if not why not?

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that. Why don't I believe in some resurrection of Osiris? The same reason you don't believe that Zeus throws lightening bolts from Mt. Olympus.

[Grace Seeker]

You ask, would people suffer,die for a hoax?

ask history and it tells you well,how many those who died for a hoax including muslims (according to you)..

why did muslim believe the hoax of Mohamed being the last prophet of God ,and go to their death by the hands of the Pagans,when all they had to do to save their lives was deny this fable as being true?

But we are talking about people who, according to Muslims, knew that Jesus was never even crucified dying not becauase they believed in the hoax, but in order to continue perpetrating the hoax on others. I've never heard of that case before.

[Grace Seeker]

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that. Why don't I believe in some resurrection of Osiris? The same reason you don't believe that Zeus throws lightening bolts from Mt. Olympus.

That's it exactly!!!

[back_to_faith]

The same reason you believe that Gabriel delivered a message to Muhammed is the same reason Christians believe in Christ's Resurrection, because we believe there is more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that.

Don't mix your cards ,my friend

we are discussing the historicity of the so called crucifiction,resurrection of Jesus,and your
(more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that)
holds no merit for

1-proved to be errant.
2-not supported by external authentic source.


If yoy were honest,you would have answered that you don't believe in the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical,cause the works upon which such stories based on,proved to be inerrant,with no external,historical support.

again the Question:

what makes better the narratives of the resurrection of Jesus ,than the Passion of Osiris Mithras, Dionysus,krishna etc from a historical point of view?

if they have the same historical defects,then only one reason to urge you prefer the Jesus' passion rather than Krishna's passion,It is (Blind faith).

It is obvious for me ,and expected too...
that you and Seeker as well ,skipped all the internal gospel problems regarding the ,crucifiction,resurrection ...and rather prefer to discuss ,rather minor issue (The historicity of the resurection),cause you know it well,to prove inerrant Bible is a losing battle....

[back_to_faith]

But we are talking about people who, according to Muslims, knew that Jesus was never even crucified dying not becauase they believed in the hoax, but in order to continue perpetrating the hoax on others. I've never heard of that case before.

You have never heard of that case before? Really?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Osiris' passion on others?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Krishna's passion on others?

you ask again What on earth urged them to perpetrate a hoax and convince others with ?

and the answer is very simple:

They believed that if the truth of God through their lies abounded unto his glory,they still can't be judged as a sinner.

in other words

(the end justifies the means)

[Keltoi]

Don't mix your cards ,my friend

we are discussing the historicity of the so called crucifiction,resurrection of Jesus,and your
(more than enough religious and textual evidence to support that)
holds no merit for

1-proved to be inerrant.
2-not supported by external authentic source.


If yoy were honest,you would have answered that you don't believe in the resurrection of Osiris,Mithras, Dionysus to be historical,cause the works upon which such stories based on,proved to be inerrant,with no external,historical support.

again the Question:

what makes better the narratives of the resurrection of Jesus ,than the Passion of Osiris Mithras, Dionysus,krishna etc from a historical point of view?

if they have the same historical defects,then only one reason to urge you prefer the Jesus' passion rather than Krishna's passion,It is (Blind faith).

It is obvious for me ,and expected too...
that you and Seeker as well ,skipped all the internal gospel problems regarding the ,crucifiction,resurrection ...and rather prefer to discuss ,rather minor issue (The historicity of the resurection),cause you know it well,to prove inerrant Bible is a losing battle....

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, especially knowing they wrote their accounts independently of each other.

On the matter of historical evidence, there are various accounts of a "man" named Jesus who was crucified and whose disciples called him "Cristus" or Christ. That in itself is rather impressive, knowing that writing materials were quite precious during this period. People did not write things on a whim. There was no Star Tribune or New York Times. You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and whose followers founded a new faith based on His Resurrection.

As for your supposed internal Gospel problems relating to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, you are nitpicking hours of the day and a speech by Paul relating to the eternal life granted to mankind as a result of Christ achieving victory over death. These issues do not call into question the repeated narrative, of all the Gospel authors, of Christ's crucifixion or resurrection.

[Keltoi]

You have never heard of that case before? Really?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Osiris' passion on others?

Have you ever heard of the those who continued perpetrating the hoax of Krishna's passion on others?

you ask again What on earth urged them to perpetrate a hoax and convince others with ?

and the answer is very simple:

They believed that if the truth of God through their lies abounded unto his glory,they still can't be judged as a sinner.

in other words

(the end justifies the means)

That is a nice conspiracy theory, but there is about as much evidence of your supposed "hoax" as there is evidence of the resurrection of Osiris.

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Keltoi;800306]Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

[back_to_faith]

As for your supposed internal Gospel problems relating to the Crucifixion and Resurrection, you are nitpicking hours of the day and a speech by Paul relating to the eternal life granted to mankind as a result of Christ achieving victory over death. These issues do not call into question the repeated narrative, of all the Gospel authors, of Christ's crucifixion or resurrection.

Keltoi,I guess that you have a reading comprehension
problem:


the point under discussion is:

Paul contradicts the 4 ,NT writers ,claiming that the resurrection is not physical as they assert

Luke 24
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."



Paul had another concept in his own agenda

1 corinthians 15:42

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.


1 corinthians 15:50

I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable.

[Grace Seeker]

[QUOTE=back_to_faith;800314]

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

We have a book, that the church claims was written by John, that asserts that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Was it really written by John?

According to Polycarp, who was known as a disciple of John, John himself told him that he wrote the book, though it was already attributed to John before Polycarp was born.

We also have Iranaeus' letter to the same effect.

Could they have been liars? Sure. But I don't think they were. So, I believe that John really wrote the gospel that the church says he wrote.

Now, could John himself have been inventing the story of the crucifixion and resurrection?

Sure, but I cannot think of what he would have to gain by it, I have cannot think of what "ends" he would accomplish to convince people to believe something that he himself didn't believe was true. I believe that John himself must have believed it to be true.

So, what would cause John to believe any of this was actually true, especially if he was among the select group that according to Islamic teaching knew that Jesus wasn't the person who was actually crucified? There is no "ends" to justify the means in this activity. There is no advantage in John inventing such a story. And no way that he could have been misled into believing it to be anything less than true, unless (as some Muslims like to suggest) even the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross, and then when they met Jesus walking around later they assumed a resurrection.

Is that possible? Sure, with God all things are possible. But that would make God into a deceiver, and I while I will believe all sorts of things, I am unwilling to believe that God intentionally deceived the disicples.

So, we are left with

1) The Disciples knew the truth that Jesus had never been crucified, let alone rasied from the dead and they chose to write and teach a lie.

2) The Disciples were witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus and that experience changed their life and witness, ultimately producing both the church and the records known as the gospels.

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;800338]

We have a book, that the church claims was written by John, that asserts that Jesus was crucified and resurrected.

Was it really written by John?

.

Seeker,

It doesn't need a scientific discovery to find out that John never wrote


(1)

JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe.


"HE" AND "HIs"
NOT JOHN!

24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

25. And there are also many other things
which Jesus did, the which, if they should
be written every one, I suppose that even
the world itself could not contain the books
that should be written. Amen.


the abrupt shift from third person to first person in vss. 24-25 indicates that the author of the epilogue, who is supposed a third-party editor, claims the preceding narrative is based on the Beloved Disciple's testimony, while he himself is not the Beloved Disciple.



(2)


critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes. The critical scholarship argues that there are differences in the composition of the Greek within the Gospel, such as breaks and inconsistencies in sequence, repetitions in the discourse, as well as passages that clearly do not belong to their context, and these suggest redaction.(Ehrman 2004, p. 164-5 )

Raymond E. Brown, a biblical scholar who specialized in studying the Johannine community, summarizes a prevalent theory regarding the development of this gospel He identifies three layers of text in the Fourth Gospel (a situation that is paralleled by the synoptic gospels):

(1) an initial version Brown considers based on personal experience of Jesus(

2) a structured literary creation by the evangelist which draws upon additional sources; and
(3) the edited version that readers know today .

(Brown 1979Introduction to the New Testament. New York: Anchor Bible, p. 363-4. ).

to be concluded

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE

So, what would cause John to believe any of this was actually true, especially if he was among the select group that according to Islamic teaching knew that Jesus wasn't the person who was actually crucified? .

What is (the select group) you talking about?!!!

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;800338]

the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross[/U], and then when they met Jesus walking around later they assumed a resurrection.

.

would you quote a Quranic verse showing that ,the disciples themselves were dupped by God into believe that Jesus died on the cross?

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;800338][QUOTE=

So, we are left with

1) The Disciples knew the truth that Jesus had never been crucified, let alone rasied from the dead and they chose to write and teach a lie.

2) The Disciples were witnesses to the death and resurrection of Jesus and that experience changed their life and witness, ultimately producing both the church and the records known as the gospels.[/QUOTE]

we still left with another possibility

3)Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them,(Age of Reason, Part II, Section 14)

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon."The Theological Works of Thomas Paine p. IX.

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They believed everything except the truth.... They revelled in the mishapen and the repulsive. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous, mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted, hypocritical" Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273

[back_to_faith]

That is a nice conspiracy theory.

Actually you can say ,that's nice Pious Forgeries :sunny:

[Keltoi]

[QUOTE=back_to_faith;800314]

Firstly, we have accounts from Christ's own disciples of the Resurrection. It doesn't get much better than eyewitness accounts, You would be hard pressed to find a serious objective historian of this period who does not believe Jesus of Nazareth was crucified
QUOTE]

How easy your game of assertions without proofs !!!

Can you prove He wasn't crucified? Seems I'm not the only one playing a game of "assertions". Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion. Do you have a more "credible" account that Christ wasn't crucified?...without looking to the Qu'ran? In the end it boils down to what source we are using for authority on the matter.

[Keltoi]

[QUOTE=back_to_faith;800369]

we still left with another possibility

3)Either, then, the men called apostles are impostors, or the books ascribed to them has been written by other persons and fathered upon them,(Age of Reason, Part II, Section 14)

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon."The Theological Works of Thomas Paine p. IX.

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They believed everything except the truth.... They revelled in the mishapen and the repulsive. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. They were ignorant, credulous, mendacious, fanatical, pious, unreasonable, bigoted, hypocritical" Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273

There is an obvious problem with your theory here. There was no Church of Rome during this period, and the Gospel accounts still existed. Quoting passages from Thomas Paine and Ingersoll is interesting, but hardly make any case for the elaborate "hoax" you've been going on about.

[Keltoi]

Actually you can say ,that's nice Pious Forgeries :sunny:

I prefer my description

[جوري]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

[Keltoi]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

I think your confused....I didn't suggest there was a "hoax", I was responding to the assertion that Christianity is a "hoax". As far as the "ample evidence" you've referred to, I suppose we differ on what constitutes both "ample" and "evidence". The musings of athiests may be important to you(Paine and Ingersoll), but that is hardly important to me.

Perhaps I'm confused as to who you are referring to in your post....there is always that possibility. :okay:

[جوري]

I am never amused by Atheists just dulled till I lose my senses by them!... pls don't reference me back to where they are quoted.. it is more a reply to your request to have a source that isn't Islamic to back up any affirmations leveled against the corruption of christianity as we now know it.. and indeed a non-islamic source was given!... christianity and Jesus aren't the parties on trial.. rather the subversion of the bible!

peace!

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Keltoi;800390]

Can you prove He wasn't crucified? Seems I'm not the only one playing a game of "assertions". Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion. Do you have a more "credible" account that Christ wasn't crucified?...without looking to the Qu'ran? .

There we go again !!!

I always provided proofs to support my assertions,

(Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion.)

And I showed some proofs that the only source (NT) christians use to affirm
(crucifixion-resurrection) to be without any reasonable doubt, errant book......

the burden of proofs lies on him who alledges

it is me who ask:

Do you have a "credible" account that Christ was crucified?...

it is you who has to defend the flaws which I posted,in order to prove the NT(the only source for the crucifixion-resurrection exist)to be a valid source.

If proved that the NT writers intentionally contradict each others,faked false,unfulfilled prophecies, misused OT passages...
then not only their cricificton,resuerrection narrative is not trustworthy,but other areas in the NT becomes Dubious.


pick a point I highlighted before and go on the discussion,if not then you has nothing else to offer.

[Keltoi]

[QUOTE=back_to_faith;800553]

There we go again !!!

I always provided proofs to support my assertions,

(Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion.)

And I showed some proofs that the only source (NT) christians use to affirm
(crucifixion-resurrection) to be without any reasonable doubt, errant book......

the burden of proofs lies on him who alledges

it is me who ask:

Do you have a "credible" account that Christ was crucified?...

it is you who has to defend the flaws which I posted,in order to prove the NT(the only source for the crucifixion-resurrection exist)to be a valid source.

If proved that the NT writers intentionally contradict each others,faked false,unfulfilled prophecies, misused OT passages...
then not only their cricificton,resuerrection narrative is not trustworthy,but other areas in the NT becomes Dubious.


pick a point I highlighted before and go on the discussion,if not then you has nothing else to offer.

Do I have a credible account? I believe I do, and that is the Gospel account. As for you supplying "proof" for your assertions, we must have a very different definition of proof. You have beliefs, and you have opinions. If I wanted to play this game, which I don't, I could post verses from the Qu'ran that say one thing and then another. I could then claim it as proof of the Qu'ran's corruption, even though it had very little to do with the important message contained within. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that authors writing independently of each other will describe some details differently, much like independent witnesses of any major event. The issue is whether the important element, the even itself, is testified to have happened. The Gospel writers agree on the issue, which is Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The various descriptions of where the sun was when they begin their narrative is interesting, but hardly the meat of the issue. These minor differences in description actually add credibility, since authors writing independently of one another still agree on the all important elements.

[back_to_faith]

[QUOTE=Keltoi;800749]

Do I have a credible account? I believe I do, and that is the Gospel account. As for you supplying "proof" for your assertions, we must have a very different definition of proof. You have beliefs, and you have opinions. If I wanted to play this game, which I don't, I could post verses from the Qu'ran that say one thing and then another. I could then claim it as proof of the Qu'ran's corruption, even though it had very little to do with the important message contained within.

under your line of reasoning,one could believe of a dozen of errant works to be true and inspired as long as,the flaws in the works has very little to do with the important message contained within...

If you think the Quran has contradictions which has very little to do with the important message contained within,why don't you treat it the same treatment you has with the Bible?

why don't you accept other world sacred scripture as inspired as long as their flaws has very little to do with the important message contained within?

it is obvious that our discussion came to an end in this thread after you joined Seeker's approach....


If the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired

My friend, with all due respect, if there is any verse in the Bible you and those of like mind should commit to memory it is Proverb 14:15, which says, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

[Grace Seeker]

What is (the select group) you talking about?!!!

The disciples.


I've been led to believe that Islam teaches that it was revealed to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

[Grace Seeker]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

I'm confused about the "ample evidence".

What difference does it make how many different translations of the Bible are available today? I could write my own translation today, and sometimes do for certain sections that I am studying. They all are translated out of the same source documents.

I do appreciate that Back-to-Faith has researched the comments of scholars. I have done so as well. Though I do not claim to have read all available comments, I have read scholars with many various views. I find the evidence presented by those who would grant legitamcy to the Gospel writers more compelling and have posted some of those arguments on other relevant threads. Btw, that is not an opinion I have always held, but the more I read the more I became convinced by the evidence that I was reading that none of the NT books date from later than the end of the first century. Which is not the same as saying that they were not tampered with by others later, but I do believe they all have first century Greek origins.

Also, I don't find there to be a problem with the colophon (John 21:24-25)

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Yes, vs. 24 is in the first person (we know) while the rest of the book has been written in the third person.
First, I would hardly think that is an argument agains the book as a whole.
Second, it seems a reasonable way for an author of a book written to sustain Christian believers and to inform and persuade unbelievers to make such a personal comment at the end of his work.
Third the whole of the epilogue (chapter 21) contains a number of parenthetic statements. These leave the impression that the account may have been written for a second generation of believers who were themselves historically removed from the original events. This fits well with what else we know about John who was apparently the last of the living disciples at the time he wrote his gospel. However, what one could argue is that the whole of chapter 21 was an addition to the gospel by a later hand, there might be some merit to those assertions given the apparent ending of John 20:30-31. Yet Merrill Tenney (since we are name dropping) has this to say about the Epilogue:

Chapter 21 of John is a postscript to the main development of the book. It is not irrelevant to the preceeding text; in fact, it completes it by illustrating the result of belief. It reads like the reminiscence that an author might have added subsequent to the composition of the first part by dictation to an assistant or scribe who added his own comment in the last two verses. The language bears a strong likeness both to the Synoptics and to the other sections of John.

There is no textual evidence for considering John 21 as a late addition to the main body of the Gospel. Every complete MS of John contains it. Evidently it is integral to the Gospel as a whole, though it may have been written as a special section.

And lastly, taking at look at the critical apparatus listing textual variants, strikingly, there are none for the final two verses of the Gospel of John. They too appear to have been a part of the Gospel from the beginning and not to have been added to the text later as either insertions or modifications.

[back_to_faith]

The disciples.


I've been led to believe that Islam teaches that it was revealed to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

And what led you to to belive such things?

I don't held the theory (Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place)for two reasons I can mention..but that is not our topic...

what is interesting ,you said:

it was revealed by God to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

so
Have the disicples been decieved?!!!and by whom?

[back_to_faith]

Also, I don't find there to be a problem with the colophon (John 21:24-25)

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

Yes, vs. 24 is in the first person (we know) while the rest of the book has been written in the third person.
First, I would hardly think that is an argument agains the book as a whole.
.

Hold on ,Our discussion began with your claim that the church claimed that The Gospel of John was written by the so called John the apostle ,but I showed you something proves without any reasonable doubt that we have traces in the work shows that it is a work of multiple hands.

to sum up the matter:

Is The text itself clear about the issue(Authorship)? absolutely not.


Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, "Master, who is the one who will betray you?" John 21:20

there isn't a single verse that would justify teaching that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

I challenge anyone to provide a single verse that would justify such flase idea.

in other words , that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple in verse 20 ,can never proved to be the same person.


JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe


JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

Who are (the disciple -he-we)?!!!!!!

similar to

Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

similar to


Luke 1

Many ? have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those ? who from the first were eyewitnesses???? and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I ? myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,?

words without sense at all !!!

1- anonymous writers .

2-anonymous eyewitnesses.

3-anonymous sources.

4- anonymous times.

If it is proved by a proof text,that we have traces in the work show that it is a work of multiple hands,How on earth one trust the church's propaganda that the work exclusively,was written by a so called Apostle called John to begin with?!!

that makes me feel like repeating the quoute from Ingersoll's work

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. " Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273




so what is the deal of the fact that John is a work of multiple hands?

Does that make it as a whole false?

I never said that !....neither muslims claim that.


I believe the the development of this work to be:


1) an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus.
2) a structured literary creation by the writers which draws upon additional sources(hearsay accounts) .
3) the edited version that readers know today.

[Grace Seeker]

Hold on ,Our discussion began with your claim that the church claimed that The Gospel of John was written by the so called John the apostle ,but I showed you something proves without any reasonable doubt that we have traces in the work shows that it is a work of multiple hands.

to sum up the matter:

Is The text itself clear about the issue(Authorship)? absolutely not.


Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, "Master, who is the one who will betray you?" John 21:20

there isn't a single verse that would justify teaching that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

I challenge anyone to provide a single verse that would justify such flase idea.

in other words , that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple in verse 20 ,can never proved to be the same person.


JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe


JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

Who are (the disciple -he-we)?!!!!!!

similar to

Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

similar to


Luke 1

Many ? have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those ? who from the first were eyewitnesses???? and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I ? myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,?

words without sense at all !!!

1- anonymous writers .

2-anonymous eyewitnesses.

3-anonymous sources.

4- anonymous times.

If it is proved by a proof text,that we have traces in the work show that it is a work of multiple hands,How on earth one trust the church's propaganda that the work exclusively,was written by a so called Apostle called John to begin with?!!

that makes me feel like repeating the quoute from Ingersoll's work

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. " Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273




so what is the deal of the fact that John is a work of multiple hands?

Does that make it as a whole false?

I never said that !....neither muslims claim that.


I believe the the development of this work to be:


1) an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus.
2) a structured literary creation by the writers which draws upon additional sources(hearsay accounts) .
3) the edited version that readers know today.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why could John NOT be the disciple whom Jesus loved?

What is the big deal about 500 witnesses?

What is wrong with Luke saying that he has researched his Gospel? He doesn't say that he was himself an eyewitness. Though there is no reason that he could not have been.

And I still don't see what you see in John 19 and 21. Yes the Gospel is mostly third person, but as I said a first person ending does not seem at all out of place. And as far as multiple hands go, didn't I even suggest that the final two verses might be that of a scribe who John had dictated the closing paragraph to? It was very common in the first century for writers to write through the use of an amanuensis. We know that Paul did from the way he signs off in some of his letters.



Maybe I'm being dense? Maybe you are? Maybe we both are about different things and don't even realize it. But I don't see what you seem to find to be so incredulous.

[Grace Seeker]

Originally posted by MustafaMC
Grace Seekeer, thank you for the detailed response. I have saved this post to a Word file for later reference if that is OK with you.

I am very glad you have. When I turned on my computer this morning, it became obvious that LI had experienced another hic-up with its server, and once again several days of posts have been lost. I thought about all of the half-finished conversations that we now never be complete. And I thought about my post that was now in some cyper-cemetary. But, by your actions you have preserved it. Thank-you.

Would you mind posting it a second time on my behalf so that I can get a copy of it again myself?

As you have indicated even this lengthy explanation is not good enough for me to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. You spent a lot of time on this post and I truly appreciate the explanations, but I can see no Divine guidance in the creation of the Bible. When we consider the sacking of Jerusalem and the persecution of the Christians, it is amazing that we even have a NT at all, but I honestly do not see the Bible per se as being Divinely inspired.

I don't expect my detailing of the history of the Bible to satisfy those looking for Divine inspiration. That isn't going to be seen in history. That is something that each person must decide for him/herself. Those who read the books and heard God speaking to them from the text have felt that they were divinely inspired and those who have not experienced that have felt otherwise throughout all of history. This was just as true of the first readers as of you and I today. Belief in its inspiration is something that we approach the scriptures with ourselves even before we open the page. Reading them might make us even more convinced or it might convince us that they were not, but I've never met a person who found any set of scriptures (of any religion) to be divinely inspired, who didn't at least remain open to the possibilty that they could be inspired even before they read them.

[MustafaMc]

Original post by Grace Seeker.

I am named after my father. If my father and I both appeared on the show, and they asked which was the real (First Name, Last Name) we would both stand up. The Jewish Bible, the Greek Bible, the Latin Bible they are all the real Bible. I know that is not the way it is with the Qur'an, for it is declared only to be the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. But the Bible is the Bible no matter what langauge it is in.

Perhaps a better question for your purposes would be which is the original Bible? After all, this is what the issue is with regard to corruption. Looking at 15 different English translations of the Bible and seeing that one says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." And another says, "For God so loved the world that he gavest his only begotten son..." And another says, "Because God so loved the world, he gave his one and only son..." is not a sign of corruption, just different ways of translating the same original.

So, if we ask about the original Bible, well we would have to admit that the Jewish scriptures, written in Hebrew, were the original Bible. By the time of Jesus they no longer circulated as many independent scrolls, but had been gathered together in a library of scrolls. But each scroll was still an independent document; thought collected together into a library, these Hebrew texts were not collated and compiled into anything resembling a book. (Books themselves would not be invented for about another 200 years.) But another interesting thing happened a couple of hundred years before the time of Jesus. The Jews' Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek. However, the ordering of this translation, according to Rav and Lavikor, was not done by Jews but by Greeks who. And today Jews would say that they translated and included in this Greek version of the Tanakh some books that never belonged in the Tanakh. Either way this Greek version of the Tanakh+ was called the Septuagint (or LXX).

So, by the time of Jesus the Tanakh was used in Aramaic/Hebrew speaking areas of the Jewish world and the LXX was used in Greek speaking areas of the Jewish world.

After Jesus' ascension (see if I say that ascension instead of crucifixion and resurrection both Muslim and Christians can agree, though I'm afraid I cannot please our Jewish brothers and sisters at this time) the disciples of Jesus, his other followers, and those who joined them at Pentecost (read Acts 2 if you don't know the story) began to tell the story of Jesus to all who would listen. This oral testimony was the first proclamation with regard to Jesus, and (in my opinion) it included the classic stories that we read of in Acts of Peter, John, Stephen, Philip, and I would assume others, proclaim as "good news" the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and how turning to God and believing in Jesus name could bring about the forgiveness of sins. (Again you can read this in the book of Acts.) In time, though not originally, Paul converted from one persecuting the Christians for this message to being the most prolific promoter of it. And as he travelled to share this story with more and more people, he also wrote letters to those places and people that he came into contact with. These letters (or at least some of them) were saved by the churches and even copied and shared with others. Of course they were not part of the Bible at that time, they were initially simply received as letters. At this point in time the only Bible was still the Tanakh, although so many of the Christians that Paul was converting were Greek speakers that it became most common for the early church to use the Greek LXX instead of the Hebrew Tanakh.

As time passed, many people (both Jesus' original disciples, other followers who had known Jesus, and new converts) travelled repeating and sharing the story of Jesus. And of course, people wanted to know more and more. So to the original teaching that was just about his crucifixion and resurrection, more details were included and the oral tradition grew. Some of it was written down in a book of basic beliefs and teachings of the church known as the Didache.

By the way, the Didache still exists and is actually older than any of the writings that are considered part of the N.T. But it isn't really a theological book. It is more of a service manual or administrative handbook for regulating worship and other aspects of the individual Christians life. You can read it here: The Didache. Now we know it was written very early, but the version we have of it presently isn't the earliest version of it. It was changed and modified over time and through use, and the verision we have now could date from anywhere from 100-250 AD, depending on which scholar you listen to. And Origen even included it among his list of books used by the church, but not to be considered scripture. As I said, it was more of a training manual for new Christians.

But with the pasage of time, the Church sought to preserve the oral traditions with regard to Jesus that were being shared and they began to write Gospels. There were many Gospels written over the next 200 years. Some were by people who knew Jesus. Some were by people who were disciples of people who knew Jesus. And some were by people much farther removed. Some of these were received by the Church as being particularly of value to faith and practice, some were recieved as being interesting stories, and some were considered to be completely untrustworthy. By the end of the first century the churches were comparing notes with one another to see which books others found to be most valuable, which of interest, and which to simply outright reject. In addition to the various gospels they also considered a number of letters as worthy of being saved and used by all the churches. By the end of the 2nd century they actually had compared notes with each other enough to produce lists of what were "agreed" upon. Though there were a few differences in opinion, there was largely agreement. Those books that were being accepted without question by this time were the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the book of Acts, Paul's 7 letters to church and 6 personal letters, the first letter of John, and the book of Revelation -- these were universally agreed upon. These had come to actually be considered "scripture". And then there were others that were accepted by some and disputed by others as to whether they whether or not they too should be considered scripture -- they included: James, the 2nd and 3rd letters of John, the letters of Peter (both 1 & 2), Jude, the letter to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the letter of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (or the Didache). In the following century the present list of New Testament books was that which was used uniformly throughout the church. These books plus the Septuagint were the Greek Bible that Robert Robinson speaks of. It would be some time more before the heirarchy of the Church officially "set" canon of the New Testament at one of its council and Jerome would translate the Greek Bible into Latin for the use of the Latin speaking part of the church. This translation Roman Catholic Bible that Robinson speaks of.

Now, if you think the process of the church taking time to reach agreement as to which books were to be accepted and which excluded from the canon of scripture is the same thing as corruption, then you are entitled to your opinion. But, please be aware, you are employing a Muslim standard on a Christian document. Christians believe that the Holy Spirit guided that process just as surely as if God had posted the list of books in the sky. So, we are entirely satisfied with the result.

What is open to debate is what followed.

Sometime around the time that Christians were settling on the 27 books the agreed should be considered scriptures of the New Testament, the Jews began to think about the books that they considered to make up their canon. While Jews had once been common in the Greek-speaking Roman empire, following the sack of Jerusalem by the Romes in 70 A.D., Jews were less and less a part of that world. Many moved east into the territory of the Persian empire. Christian-Jews who were a part of that movement began translating their books into Aramaic (and some would argue that maybe a few were even written in Aramaic first). The Jews themselves distanced themselves distanced themselves from all things Gentile and this included the language. The Septuigant, never as fully accepted by the Jews as it was by the Greek-speaking Christians-Jews was now disavowed and abandoned. As Christianity grew in the Roman provinces and Judaism decreased, the Jews began to not appreciate the way that Christians used some of the books in the Tanakh to try to "prove" Messianic prophecies. This was especially true with some of the latter books, books that were in the LXX that were not in the Hebrew Tanakh. So, when the Jews declared their canon, they claimed that those books that were in the LXX that were not in the Hebrew Tanakh were never part of the Tanakh. But by this time the Christian Church had been using them for a couple of hundred years and they no longer had a Jewish element in their midst, and so the Christian world and the Jewish world parted company, including their preference with regard to the Tanakh or the LXX.

Then, in 1500, along comes Luther. As Luther seeks to reform the church, he feels compelled by the issues he is wrestling with, to not trust the Church heirarchy any longer, but to go directly back to scripture. When he does, he realizes the the Church is including books in the Old Testament (based on the LXX) that the Jews do not themselves consider to be scripture (because they are based on the Hebrew Tanakh). So, when Luther translates the Bible into German, he decides to only translate the books of the Hebrew Bible (not the LXX) for use as the Old Testament. And subsequent protestant churches have copied Luther's lead on that decision. And that is why we have a different Protestant and Catholic version of the Bible. Which one is right? You now have as much information as I do.

Of course, this isn't really about corruption. The books are themselves not changed by this decision one way or the other. It is a question as to what one considers authoritative. A pretty big decision, but of a different nature than the question of corruption. For when I think of corruption I am thinking of issues such as whether or not someone rewrote the Gospel of John or the letters of Paul. And the answer to that is that they did.

What?!, A Christian pastor admitting that people have tampered with holy scripture, you say?!

Yes, indeed. It is true. And no New Testament scholar would say that it never happened. Most often it was done as an accidental slip of either omission or reduplication in the copying process. Sometimes it was more substantial, such as adding the "doxology" to the end of the prayer Jesus taught his disciples in Matthew 6. But these thing were not done to change the Bible. One has to remember three things with regard to these sorts of changes:
1) These were not changes that show up in the earliest manuscripts, but rather are ones that we find in the later documents of the middle ages.
2) The use for most scriptures in the middle ages was not for general reading, but for leading worship. While you and I may think it inappropriate today, such things were not added to change the text, but to enhance worship by reminded the liturgist when reading the text to pray that ending to the prayer, in the same way that today we might add "Amen." to a prayer, even if it isn't written into the words we are given to pray. It was assumed everyone knew what was original and what was added in for the sake of liturgy. Unfortunately, what may have been true for the first generation, was less true for succeeding generations when such glisses were copied into the text in the following generation of making copies of the Bible.
3) When we speak of the Bible we aren't speaking of this altered copies from the middle ages anymore than we are speaking of the English translations of today. By the Bible, we mean the body of work used by the early church. And by the science of textual criticism, scholars are able to determine what was most likely to have been that text with a high degree of accuracy.

These texts, that are considered to be the original text of the New Testament (or the Old Testamen) as established by scholars in those fields is what we mean by the Bible. Where there are textual variants, those are noted and the degree of liklihood for each of those variants is noted, and the modern translations are then to be based on the best and most certain of these possibilities. Is that corruption? Sure, we can see where the text have been corrupted and we can even see what the corruption was and choose to not use it for the basis of our modern translations.

Is the system perfect? No, it is not. But it is pretty good. Good enough that we can be more certain of the text of the Bible than any other text of that age or older. Now, that may not be good enough for some here. But I consider it good enough that I feel that I can reliably trust the Bible to deliver the truth of God's message even still. Because the text from which the KJV was translated did not have access to this information, I prefer to trust it less than the modern translations (last 40-50 years) when it comes to considering these textual variants.

Ultimately, no matter which Bible you choose and no matter which translation you use, the message of John 3:16 will still be the same, God loved the world so much that he sent Jesus so that those who put their trust in him need not fear death, for they are guaranteed eternal life.

[MustafaMc]

I am very glad you have. When I turned on my computer this morning, it became obvious that LI had experienced another hic-up with its server, and once again several days of posts have been lost. I thought about all of the half-finished conversations that we now never be complete. And I thought about my post that was now in some cyper-cemetary. But, by your actions you have preserved it. Thank-you.

Would you mind posting it a second time on my behalf so that I can get a copy of it again myself?

No problem. What a coincidence, huh? BTW I had posted a repy to a question by Keltoi. Do you happen to have it in your Outlook Inbox? If so, could you post it as well?

I don't expect my detailing of the history of the Bible to satisfy those looking for Divine inspiration. That isn't going to be seen in history. That is something that each person must decide for him/herself. Those who read the books and heard God speaking to them from the text have felt that they were divinely inspired and those who have not experienced that have felt otherwise throughout all of history. This was just as true of the first readers as of you and I today. Belief in its inspiration is something that we approach the scriptures with ourselves even before we open the page. Reading them might make us even more convinced or it might convince us that they were not, but I've never met a person who found any set of scriptures (of any religion) to be divinely inspired, who didn't at least remain open to the possibilty that they could be inspired even before they read them.

Yes, I see your point. Our reading or not reading or even our acceptance or rejection of scriptures as being inspired does not make them any more or less inspired than they already were. Sort of like does a tree falling in the forest make any sound if there is no one to hear it. When I read the Quran I heard God speaking to me as you indicated, but when you read it you obviosly did not hear the same thing. This fact is indeed quite puzzling!

[Grace Seeker]

No problem. What a coincidence, huh? BTW I had posted a repy to a question by Keltoi. Do you happen to have it in your Outlook Inbox? If so, could you post it as well?

If I have it, I would be happy to. What thread was it in?

Yes, I see your point. Our reading or not reading or even our acceptance or rejection of scriptures as being inspired does not make them any more or less inspired than they already were. Sort of like does a tree falling in the forest make any sound if there is no one to hear it.

This must be why I like discussing things with you. You have such good insights. You are exactly right, inspiration is not dependant on us, though we each still independantly have to determine whether something is/was inspired or not.

When I read the Quran I heard God speaking to me as you indicated, but when you read it you obviosly did not hear the same thing. This fact is indeed quite puzzling!

Yeah, I would agree it can be a puzzle. Especially in our two cases. You came to the Qur'an as a Christian and heard God speaking to you through it, but not from the Bible. And I, though very open to the Qur'an the first time I approached it, found myself dissuaded by the actual reading of it. Makes me think that we probably both have more to learn some day, if not in this life, then in the next.

Anyway, may Allah contiue to guide us both in his path as his will directs us.

[MustafaMc]

If I have it, I would be happy to. What thread was it in?

It was on this thread. His question was what criteria I use to determine divine inspiration.

Keltoi, did you happen to see my reply?

[Keltoi]

It was on this thread. His question was what criteria I use to determine divine inspiration.

Keltoi, did you happen to see my reply?

Unfortunately it was already gone by the time I signed on again.

[Grace Seeker]

Unfortunately it was already gone by the time I signed on again.

I hate it when that happens.


MustafaMc, just consider that either your response was so good that Satan had to prevent it from being seen, or .... so poor that God is giving you a second chance to write it again. :D



And hey!! I just noticed that I lost both reputation points and reputation power in the crash.:cry:

[Sarada]

New Testament was not put together until at least one hundred years after Jesus/Eesa ascended to Heaven. The New Testament in its present form was finally agreed upon at the Council of Nicea in 397 C.E.

There are doubts as to who actually wrote the Gospels as well as many inconsistencies in the texts. Certainly, not only in comparison to the Holy Q'uran, but by any logical standard, the Christian Bible is corrupted. To believe otherwise is a matter of blind faith.

During the time I was a Christian, my pastor talked about the Council of Nicea, and the Nicean Creed, which many Christian sects uphold. It is said that the members of the Nicean Council were inspired by God.

Out of respect for Christians, who can say for certain that the Council was not inspired by God? Only God knows.

Here is a link with more details. Although it is an Islamic source, I do not believe it is biased, the information presented is historically provable.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bib...onlists.html#2

All the Best,

Sarada

[MustafaMc]

MustafaMc, just consider that either your response was so good that Satan had to prevent it from being seen, or .... so poor that God is giving you a second chance to write it again.

Since I seriously doubt the first is true, I will accept the second and try again. I had put a lot of thought into my first reply and had even edited it more just before the crash, but why cry over spilt milk?

The Question by Keltoi was, "What criteria do I use to accept a scripture as divinely inspired?"

I will use the Quran as an example.

First and foremeost in importance is the character of the person bringing the so-called divine revelation and whether that person can be believed as a Messenger of Allah (swt). From what I have read about the biography of Prophet Muhammad (saaws), "The Sealed Nectar" and the 2 volume "A Biography of the Prophet of Islam in the Light of the Original Sources", I believe that Muhammad (saaws) was a prophet of Allah. To read of the difficulties that he endured and the humiliations that he suffered in the early years and to read about the obstacles and difficulties that he overcame only to establish Islam as the religion in an area of rampant idolatory, leads me to believe that he was a Messenger, Prophet and Servant of the Most High. To see the austere life he led despite having access to immense wealth in the latter years, shows me that he did not have selfish, materialistic motives. To accept one as a Messenger of Allah is not to be done flippantly, but with utmost seriousness.

Next in importance is that what the Messenger of Allah spoke as revelation was accurately preserved. As the Quran was revealed, it was immediately written on whatever was available and it was memorized by many people. The revelation was used in the 5 daily prayers and it was repeated in its entirety during the month of fasting, Ramaddan. Since so many of the people who had memorized the Quran were being killed in battles after the death of Muhammad (saaws), Abu Bakr (ra) (first Caliph) had the scribes to assemble all of the recorded portions of the Quran together and assemble into a single book in the order that had been indicated by Muhammad. There is a clear distinction between divine revelation (Quran) and the every day speech and actions of Muhammad (Sunnah).

Finally, I would have to say aggreement of existing copies with ancient texts that are as close as possible to the original. I believe that there is an ancient copy of the Quran in Turkey and one of the former states of USSR that is in agreement with modern Quran. I believe these copies are 2 of the 12 copies made from the original by Othman (ra) (third Caliph).

Those are thoughts that come to my mind, but I reserve the right to modify as additional thoughts come to me.

[Grace Seeker]

One of the things that I see that has yet to be discussed is the relationship between inspiration (or lack thereof) and corruption. I want to suggest that there is none.

I'll let that thought sink in for a second, for I suspect there are many (perhaps not just Muslims, but Christians too) who would take issue with me regarding that statement. So, let me illustrate by creating a fictitious set of documents and we can see why this might be true.


Let us suppose that once upon a time some men wanted to record the events of an ancient king's life. Each of them took the time to write down their favorite stories about the king. Loving their king they wrote only the good things they could think of, and some of them even rather exaggerated the kings prowess in combat and his wisdom in leading his people. In their minds they weren't lying, but minor skirmishes were often blown up to be great victories. Nonetheless this was the record they recorded.

Such a record would hardly be considered inspired.
Few would consider it inerrant.
But are they corrupted??

Main Entry: cor·rupt
Pronunciation: k&-'r&pt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin corruptus, past participle of corrumpere, from com- + rumpere to break -- more at REAVE

transitive verb
1 a : to change from good to bad in morals, manners, or actions; also : BRIBE b : to degrade with unsound principles or moral values
2 : ROT, SPOIL
3 : to subject (a person) to corruption of blood
4 : to alter from the original or correct form or version <the file was corrupted>

intransitive verb
1 a : to become tainted or rotten b : to become morally debased
2 : to cause disintegration or ruin

1)
If 2000 years later we had copies of copies of copies of those original writings and we were able to reliably determine (by means of the science of textual criticism) what was the most likely version of the text originally written, I would hold that the text of those stories about the king that are preserved and available for us today are not corrupted. They are not corrupted because they correctly preserve what the men originally wrote about the king. Whether the stories were true, grandiose exaggerations, or outright lies is not relevant to whether or not the text itself is corrupted.

The question of whether or not we can believe the stories these men have told with regard to the king is completely different from whether or not we can trust that the copy of the stories that was passed down for 2000 years is essentially the same as the story (true or false) that the men had written.


2)
It might be shown that the work of one of the King's servants is corrupted. One might find where future generations had altered one of the stories. But if it can be found where 1000 years later someone had added a story, and today we are able to recognize that addition to the story and note that it is an addition to the original, that means we are able to also note what the original was. In that case, while it might be true that the story was corrupted at one time in history, by making note of that alteration, one is still able today to read the story as it was originally written by the author. So, one would have to say that we still have available to us a uncorrupted version of that story today.

3)
There might be cases where in the process of copying by many different people that small changes were made in the text. And if these were continually copied it might become difficult to determine which of many different possible small variations in the text represents the original and which represent the alterations. Then one would in a strict sense have to say that the text was corrupted. However, that would not necessarily make the text unreliable. If the changes were observed to be relatively minor not effecting the content of the message, one might still feel that the essence of what was written was maintained. Also, with sufficient enough copies with enough history, one might be able to analyze them and the differences between then and work backward to determine when the changes occured and what it was they were changed from. Thus getting one closer to the original text. It might be possible to work back all the way to the original, or it might not. If not, those who were scholarly enough to do this process could indicate the remaining options for the most likely version and rate them in terms of the degree of certainty or uncertainty about each being the original form of the text. Thus those particular passages could be noted and the rest of the composition might be understood to be reliable.

4)
With more than one document to work with, it could be that the some of the writings by some of the men are better preserved than others. In this case it would be important NOT to talk about them all as a group (i.e, "The Stories of the King"), but to discuss each individual book independently of the others (i.e. "The Story of the King according to John", "The Story of the King according to Paul", "The Story of the King according to George" and "The Story of the King according to Ringo"). George might be corrupted. But that would not mean that Ringo was.


As we can see, we have not had to consider one way or the other whether John, Paul, George, and Ringo were themselves inspired when they wrote about the King. This question is a completely different question than the one of corruption. Corruption has to do with the quality of the text's preservation. Inspiration has to do with how the document was produced. And inerrancy is yet a third issue having to do with whether or not the document spoke the truth to begin with.

If the text we have today so corrupted that we cannot get back to what they actually wrote, it makes little different whether John, Paul, George, and Ringo were inspired or not. But likewise, asserting that because one doesn't like the works of John, Paul, George, and Ringo whether out of personal taste or because it doesn't match the work of the one you really consider to be the true King (Elvis) that they therefore are neither inspired nor inerrant misses the whole point of whether or not what we have received from them is corrupted or not.

[Keltoi]

Good points Grace Seeker. So then would we say that there is no known process of determining what is divinely inspired writing from simply reading the text in question?, at least not in a material sense? What I'm trying to say, is that when I read the NT I personally feel that it is divinely inspired, but could I point to a particular passage and state "Aww...that proves divine inspiration?" I don't think so. As with most things involving faith, it is a personal journey. What I feel is divinely inspired may not seem divinely inspired to another. So what we are really talking about when we discuss divine inspiration is opinion, an opinion formed in most cases by deep conviction, but opinion nonetheless.

[Talha777]

The Bible was definitely corrupted even before the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (alaihi salaatu wa salaam). First of all, the entire New Testament is a plagiarization and most if not all of it cannot even be considered the words of Jesus. The Holy Quran tells us the Injeel was revealed directly to Jesus (alaihi salaam), but we cannot find that Gospel of Jesus anywhere in the table of contents for any Bible, we have four other gospels, attributed to four different writers, even though most contemporary Bible scholars are beginning to say that even those four gospel versions have anonymous authors. So from an Islamic perspective it is without a doubt that the Bible was corrupted even before the lifetime of Rasoolullah (alaihi salaatu wa salaam).

Astonishingly, from a Christian perspective, this is true as well, but for a different reason, which also holds true for the Islamic perspective. Christians seem to take pride in the fact that the earliest Greek new testament manuscripts, which are the source for every new testament contemporary translation are so abundant compared to other ancient documents, but they often conveniently forget that almost no two manuscripts are exact copies of eachother, but there is in fact such a broad scope in variations and alterations. If you pick up any NIV translation and look at the footnotes for the new testament, you will know that the translators had a difficult time picking and choosing which manuscript to rely on for their translation.

So I urge everyone to read the following very important information:

When one compares one manuscript to another, with the exception of the smallest fragments, no two copies agree completely in their wording. There has been an estimate of between 200,000 and 300,000 variations among all the manuscripts, which is more variations than words in the New Testament. The vast majority of these variations are errors made by scribes, and easily identified as such: an omitted word, a duplicate line, a misspelling, a rearrangement of words. Some variations involve apparently intentional changes, which can make it more difficult for scholars to determine whether they were corrections from better exemplars, harmonizations or ideologically motivated (Ehrman 2004, pp.480f)

These are the facts, and so no one can deny that the Bible was in a state of corruption during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet (alaihi salaatu wa salaam), not even the Christians.

[Grace Seeker]

Talha777 has now provided the Muslim version of points #1 & #3 in my story above, though he also added an additional charge of plagarization.

[silkworm]

I love to read, I have my own Bible (KJV- OT and NT), I have my own Torah and I own a Bhagwadgita (the Hindu book) too. From Bible, I pulled out some contradictions which are very interesting and so far Christians have not been able to satisfy me with a good reliable answer, maybe one of you could explain to me this:

*Contradiction #: 1 He is the S-on of G-d?
But Allah in Holy Qur'an says:"Lam Yalid Walum-yu lad
I am not begotten and I begetteth not", so whats the deal here??? and what are they trying to say???

*Contradiction #: 2 Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani, would he be saying this..?This was said to be called out by Jesus Christ pbuh while he was being crucified? Well, if, according to the Christians Jesus Christ pbuh was S-on of G-d, would he be crying this???

*Contradiction #: 3 Jesus Died for your Sins???
Oh No, need to change this, if my dad committed a murder before my birth, would the law be putting me into jail instead of my dad??? Nay, but what was the sin??? Furthermore it becomes a cause of stimulus for Christians to commit sins, no problema???

*Contradiction #: 4 Jesus was crucified???
One more mistake, hey, Prophets and Apostles are always appointed and sent by God to spread His message on earth. So when he appoints and sent him "duly authorized", it means that God takes the responsibility of his safety and well-being, right? So, I think this is added to gain sympathy from mases, right???

*Contradiciton #: 5 Jesus is G-d the Lord?
Again a very illogical statement. all Monotheistic religions believe in One God, One supreme being which is running the whole universe, so don't you think this contradicts the Monotheistic doctrines??? While God alone is the creator of heavens and earth and humans and river and plants, Jesus Christ would not have passed blasphemous remarks about himself being G*d.

Thanks

[Keltoi]

I love to read, I have my own Bible (KJV- OT and NT), I have my own Torah and I own a Bhagwadgita (the Hindu book) too. From Bible, I pulled out some contradictions which are very interesting and so far Christians have not been able to satisfy me with a good reliable answer, maybe one of you could explain to me this:

*Contradiction #: 1 He is the S-on of G-d?
But Allah in Holy Qur'an says:"Lam Yalid Walum-yu lad
I am not begotten and I begetteth not", so whats the deal here??? and what are they trying to say???

*Contradiction #: 2 Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani, would he be saying this..?This was said to be called out by Jesus Christ pbuh while he was being crucified? Well, if, according to the Christians Jesus Christ pbuh was S-on of G-d, would he be crying this???

*Contradiction #: 3 Jesus Died for your Sins???
Oh No, need to change this, if my dad committed a murder before my birth, would the law be putting me into jail instead of my dad??? Nay, but what was the sin??? Furthermore it becomes a cause of stimulus for Christians to commit sins, no problema???

*Contradiction #: 4 Jesus was crucified???
One more mistake, hey, Prophets and Apostles are always appointed and sent by God to spread His message on earth. So when he appoints and sent him "duly authorized", it means that God takes the responsibility of his safety and well-being, right? So, I think this is added to gain sympathy from mases, right???

*Contradiciton #: 5 Jesus is G-d the Lord?
Again a very illogical statement. all Monotheistic religions believe in One God, One supreme being which is running the whole universe, so don't you think this contradicts the Monotheistic doctrines??? While God alone is the creator of heavens and earth and humans and river and plants, Jesus Christ would not have passed blasphemous remarks about himself being G*d.

Thanks

You are simply imposing a Muslim perspective on a Christian doctrine.

[silkworm]

No Keltoi, I am just letting you know my findings, you have the right to refute them.

[Keltoi]

In response to silkworm's numbered list.

#1. I'm aware of what the Qu'ran states, which seems to be a direct reference to the Gospel accounts. As Grace Seeker illustrated in another thread, Christians do not believe God physically "fathered" a child. Christians refer to Christ as the "Son of God" since he was concieved by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:35 declares, "The angel answered, 'The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God."

#2 I don't understand the sentence you quoted, but do you mean "Why hast thou forsaken me?"

#3 Jesus Christ suffered for the forgiveness of our sins. That does not equate to a free hand. To achieve salvation one must put one's faith in Jesus Christ, which would obviously mean following the Law of God. Christ's forgiveness does not mean we can go around killing, raping, or commit any other kind of evil, for to do so would be turning away from Christ.

#4 To Muslims, Jesus was a prophet. To Christians, Jesus was the human manifestation of God, who was sent to Earth for a specific purpose. That purpose was to take upon Himself the sins of the world.

#5 As Christians believe Christ to be One with God, there is no hint of polytheism. As for Christ referring to His deity, it can be found in numerous passages.

During His trial before the Jewish leaders, the High Priest demanded of Jesus, “I charge you under oath by the living God: Tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God" (Matthew 26:63). Jesus responded, “Yes, it is as you say, ‘but I say to all of you: In the future you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Matthew 26:64). The Jewish leaders responded by accusing Jesus of blasphemy (Matthew 26:65-66). Later, before Pontius Pilate, “The Jews insisted, ‘We have a law, and according to that law He must die, because He claimed to be the Son of God’” (John 19:7).

I and my Father are one. John 10:30

John 10:37-38 [37] Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. [38] But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

John 10:31-33 [31] Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, [32] but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?" [33] "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

[Grace Seeker]

No Keltoi, I am just letting you know my findings, you have the right to refute them.

But either way, it has nothing to do with the corruption of the text itself. Your list of "contradictions" relate only to your opinion that the author of the text was incorrect in what he asserted to be true.

I assert that these things are what the text has always stated to be true and that this message has been preserved without significant corruption to the present, so that one who reads the Bible today can reliably say that they are reading the same message that was conveyed by the Biblical writers when they penned their respective books.

[silkworm]

But you simply cannot ignore the fact that before 4th Century A.D. there were no separate entities named as "Christians" known to the world, there were no Churhces and the so-called Christians used to worship in synagogues and they had no "cross" that was making them different. Whenever they had their placws of worship they had "Star of David" on it.

I fyou think I am saying these things in a fluke, you'd better read "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. I know that Bertrand Russell himself was and Atheist, but he was a historian too.

[don532]

But you simply cannot ignore the fact that before 4th Century A.D. there were no separate entities named as "Christians" known to the world, there were no Churhces and the so-called Christians used to worship in synagogues and they had no "cross" that was making them different. Whenever they had their placws of worship they had "Star of David" on it.

I fyou think I am saying these things in a fluke, you'd better read "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. I know that Bertrand Russell himself was and Atheist, but he was a historian too.

Acts 11:26 KJV And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The Roman historian Tacitus recorded Nero blaming "Christians" for the great fire in Rome which occurred in AD64.

[silkworm]

Means, simply you are dodging my question or whatever I said above

[don532]

Means, simply you are dodging my question or whatever I said above

Keltoi answered your numbered list. I saw no reason to add to his answer.

I answered refuting the statements you wrote about the term Christian not being used until the fourth century, and churches not being in existence before the fourth century.

[Grace Seeker]

Means, simply you are dodging my question or whatever I said above

How did Don532 dodge what you said?. You said:

But you simply cannot ignore the fact that before 4th Century A.D. there were no separate entities named as "Christians" known to the world, there were no Churhces and the so-called Christians used to worship in synagogues and they had no "cross" that was making them different. Whenever they had their placws of worship they had "Star of David" on it.

I fyou think I am saying these things in a fluke, you'd better read "The History of Western Philosophy" by Bertrand Russell. I know that Bertrand Russell himself was and Atheist, but he was a historian too.

And Don pointed out that indeed there are numerous records of both the existance of churches and of the use of the term "Christians" to refer to a particular cult of people who believed in and worshipped one that was called Christ long before the 4th century A.D.

If Bertrand Russell said the things you are claiming he said, it is no wonder that he is remembered as many things: "Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, OM, FRS, (18 May 1872 – 2 February 1970), was a Welsh philosopher, logician, mathematician, advocate for social reform, and pacifist" (Wikipedia article), but an historian is not among them.

And if you and Russell are correct, then the books of the NT that you find to be so objectional were in use and frequently quoted by non-existant people who were part of a non-existant group. There was nothing that made them unique enough for Nero to blame them for the burnin of Rome or for others to have them thrown to the lions in the ampitheaters of Rome and elsewhere throughout the Rome empire.

I'm sorry to say it so bluntly, but your position has no standing in a scholarly world. Worse, even if it did, you still miss the point that it has no effect whatsoever on the question of the corruption or lack thereof of the NT texts be they written by Christians, Jews, Romans, or space aliens. What we have avaialable to us today appears to be a reliable transmission of what their authors wrote and conveyed to their readers.

[silkworm]

History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell..go check it boy

[Grace Seeker]

History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell..go check it boy

I think you just made my case. What is the book about? Answer: Philsophy.

[back_to_faith]

One of the things that I see that has yet to be discussed is the relationship between inspiration (or lack thereof) and corruption. I want to suggest that there is none.

I'll let that thought sink in for a second, for I suspect there are many (perhaps not just Muslims, but Christians too) who would take issue with me regarding that statement. So, let me illustrate by creating a fictitious set of documents and we can see why this might be true.


.

To whom you direct that post?!! to muslims? Didn't we agree before that the proper title for this thread should have been (When was the preached message of Jesus corrupted?)

It seems that ,according to your post,all what busy your mind is the issue of textual preservation


Let me paraphrase what you posted:


Let us suppose that once upon a time some men wanted to record the events of Krishna's life. Each of them took the time to write down their favorite stories about Krishna. Loving their Krishna they wrote only the good things they could think of, and some of them even rather exaggerated Krishna's prowess in combat and his wisdom in leading his people. In their minds they weren't lying, but minor skirmishes were often blown up to be great victories. Nonetheless this was the record they recorded.

Such a record would hardly be considered inspired.
Few would consider it inerrant.
But are they corrupted??



1)
If more than 2000 years later we had copies of copies of copies of those original writings and we were able to reliably determine (by means of the science of textual criticism) what was the most likely version of the text originally written, I would hold that the text of those stories about Krishna that are preserved and available for us today are not corrupted. They are not corrupted because they correctly preserve what the men originally wrote about Krishna. Whether the stories were true, grandiose exaggerations, or outright lies is not relevant to whether or not the text itself is corrupted.

2)
It might be shown that the work of one of the Krishna's servants is corrupted. One might find where future generations had altered one of the stories. But if it can be found where 1000 years later someone had added a story, and today we are able to recognize that addition to the story and note that it is an addition to the original, that means we are able to also note what the original was. In that case, while it might be true that the story was corrupted at one time in history, by making note of that alteration, one is still able today to read the story as it was originally written by the author. So, one would have to say that we still have available to us a uncorrupted version of that story today.

3)
There might be cases where in the process of copying by many different people that small changes were made in the text. And if these were continually copied it might become difficult to determine which of many different possible small variations in the text represents the original and which represent the alterations. Then one would in a strict sense have to say that the text was corrupted. However, that would not necessarily make the text unreliable. If the changes were observed to be relatively minor not effecting the content of the message, one might still feel that the essence of what was written was maintained. Also, with sufficient enough copies with enough history, one might be able to analyze them and the differences between then and work backward to determine when the changes occured and what it was they were changed from. Thus getting one closer to the original text. It might be possible to work back all the way to the original, or it might not. If not, those who were scholarly enough to do this process could indicate the remaining options for the most likely version and rate them in terms of the degree of certainty or uncertainty about each being the original form of the text. Thus those particular passages could be noted and the rest of the composition might be understood to be reliable.

4)
With more than one document to work with, it could be that the some of the writings by some of the men are better preserved than others. In this case it would be important NOT to talk about them all as a group (i.e, "The Stories of Krishna"), but to discuss each individual book independently of the others (i.e. "The Story of Krishna according to Mahabharata", "The Story of Krishna according to Bhagavata Purana", "The Story of Krishna according to George" and "The Story of Krishna according to Ringo"). George might be corrupted. But that would not mean that Ringo was.


asserting that because one doesn't like the works of Mahabharata,, Harivamsa, George, and Ringo whether out of personal taste or because it doesn't match the work of the one you really consider to be the true Krishna that they therefore are neither inspired nor inerrant misses the whole point of whether or not what we have received from them is corrupted or not.


according to your line of reasoning,one could safely accept the story of Krishna and other incarnated gods ;Osiris,Atis etc,their deity,their resurrection etc....as long as only small variations in the errant text that was written by so called disciples of Krishna !!!....

Seeker,If you apply the same criterion ,you applied to the Bible...to all the so called sacred books, you would have dozens of true incarnated savoirs,based on the errant works ,that we accepted as reliable text as long as only small variations in their errant texts.

[Grace Seeker]

Seeker,If you apply the same criterion ,you applied to the Bible...to all the so called sacred books, you would have dozens of true incarnated savoirs,based on the errant works ,that we accepted as reliable text as long as only small variations in their errant texts.

Close to true, but not quite.


According to my line of reasoning, if we applied the same criterion to all the other so called sacred books we would be able to say that the copy we have received of their sacred books is an uncorrupted version of their story as long as what they were able to pass along to us was a reliable text with only small variations in their exitant texts.

That would NOT be the same as saying that they story contained in the text was true. And I am not suggestiong that Muslims should agree with Christians that the stories that the Bible reports with regard to Jesus are in fact true. I'm only hoping that you will agree that the stories that have been preserved are indeed the stories that were believed and held to be true by the first generation of Christians. I am not claiming that they are the Injil of Jesus, only that they are the actual teaching of the first generation of the church which attempted to record what they thought was important for sharing with future generations.

[back_to_faith]

I'm only hoping that you will agree that the stories that have been preserved are indeed the stories that were believed and held to be true by the first generation of Christians. .

If you mean by the first generation of Christians ,such branch of Christianity inside the circle of Athanasius of Alexandria,then we agree

but we have other branches of Christianity outside the circle of Athanasius of Alexandria...who have other concepts regarding Jesus and other texts too,
which was deemed to be heretical,or was unknown to the canonizers..

eg, the Gospel of Thomas which attests to a diversity of viewpoints in early Christianity,including very different understandings of Jesus,It offers the debates and struggles within early Christianity,assists in understanding early Christianity's relationship, and eventual split, with Judaism.

The author begins with (These are the sayings that the living Jesus spoke )

he made it clear that what counts, is the words that been preached,not Jesus himself....

he goes on recording what was transcribed from an oral tradition,mentions nothing regarding Trinity,crucifiction,resurrection ....

That is inconvenient to the Pauline church,and its obseesion with its own ( Hellenized Jesus ) agenda etc.....

Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.(I Corinthians 15:14-15)

so How they would accept a text without (resurrection narratives).

in the first century,

1) EVERY CHURCH HAD ITS OWN DOCTRINE

2) EVERY CHURCH HAD ITS OWN SCRIPTURES.

Not until the first council did the people in Rome set what we see today as the standard christian theology. All those other early churches have been persecuted and killed for their different views.

in sum and substance,
it wouldn't be safe to claim that (4NT&Pauline epistles) are the stories that were believed and held to be true by the first generation of ALL Christians.

[fromgenesis]

*Contradiction #: 4 Jesus was crucified???
One more mistake, hey, Prophets and Apostles are always appointed and sent by God to spread His message on earth. So when he appoints and sent him "duly authorized", it means that God takes the responsibility of his safety and well-being, right? So, I think this is added to gain sympathy from mases, right???

Thanks

You are sure about this ? History seem to contradict you as well as Koran

Muhammad died in 632 A.D. He died as a result of being poisoned following his attack upon and conquest of the Jewish settlement of Khaibar

Tacitus is arguably the greatest of Roman historians. He lived from 56 AD to 120 AD. The following quote is taken from Annals 15.44 - his work on Roman history.

Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius:

The masses required Jesus' death, even having been allowed to show sympathy after He was beaten.

Sorry, I know that this is dear to you, but the Koran is at the very least, not historically correct.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

but the Koran is at the very least, not historically correct.

lol do u have any proof of that ? This discussion will off topic here ; so pl. open a thread '' Proof Quran is historically incorrect ' or u may visit this thread---Things in Islam I am curious about...


--http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-new-post.html




yes , Quran do tell us that Jews killed some Prophets (pbut ) .They tried to kill Jesus (p) also but failed.

[Grace Seeker]

If you mean by the first generation of Christians ,such branch of Christianity inside the circle of Athanasius of Alexandria,then we agree

but we have other branches of Christianity outside the circle of Athanasius of Alexandria...who have other concepts regarding Jesus and other texts too,
which was deemed to be heretical,or was unknown to the canonizers..

eg, the Gospel of Thomas which attests to a diversity of viewpoints in early Christianity,including very different understandings of Jesus,It offers the debates and struggles within early Christianity,assists in understanding early Christianity's relationship, and eventual split, with Judaism.

The author begins with (These are the sayings that the living Jesus spoke )

he made it clear that what counts, is the words that been preached,not Jesus himself....

he goes on recording what was transcribed from an oral tradition,mentions nothing regarding Trinity,crucifiction,resurrection ....

That is inconvenient to the Pauline church,and its obseesion with its own ( Hellenized Jesus ) agenda etc.....

Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.(I Corinthians 15:14-15)

so How they would accept a text without (resurrection narratives).

in the first century,

1) EVERY CHURCH HAD ITS OWN DOCTRINE

2) EVERY CHURCH HAD ITS OWN SCRIPTURES.

Not until the first council did the people in Rome set what we see today as the standard christian theology. All those other early churches have been persecuted and killed for their different views.

in sum and substance,
it wouldn't be safe to claim that (4NT&Pauline epistles) are the stories that were believed and held to be true by the first generation of ALL Christians.

By first generation I mean the first generation, let's say before 100 A.D. Neither Athanasius nor the supposed Gospel of Thomas meet that criterion:
Athanasius of Alexandria, 293-383 AD
Gospel of Thomas, mid-2nd century (140-200 AD)

In my opinion, all of the books of the New Testament, as we now have it, were written before 100 A.D. Yes, this includes the Gospel of John, the Revelation of John, and the letter to the Hebrews. And, yes, there were other books, such as the Didache, written in the first century that are not a part of the New Testament corpus.

And lest you think it was just the 4 Gospels and Paul that shared this message of a crucified and resurrected Jesus, here are some other books that mention it to:
Acts 2:32 -- God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact.
Acts 3:15 -- You killed the author of life, but God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
1 Peter 1:21 -- Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
1 Peter 3:21-22 -- ...and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who has gone into heaven and is at God's right hand—with angels, authorities and powers in submission to him.
Hebrews 2:9 -- But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
Hebrews 12:2 -- Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.
1 John 3:16 -- This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us.
1 JOhn 4:10 -- This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for[c] our sins.
Revelation 1:18 -- I am the Living One; I was dead, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades.

But we can also see that there was no stranglehold that required that every book that was included in the New Testament had to mention Jesus death and resurrection. Some, such as Hebrews, only mention his death, not his resurrection (though I think Hebrews assumes it). Others, such as James, don't mention anything about the life of Christ, only how Christians are to live their lives. I think these facts show us that theories about some Church heirarchy dictating what is and isn't exceptable is not in place. What happened is that the grass roots of the Church, knowing the story of the faith that had been passed down, found some works to be more beneficial than others to helping them perserve their faith and these are the books that became canon while the others were relegated to either slightly lower status or dismissed as being suprious works.

[fromgenesis]

Salaam/peace;



lol do u have any proof of that ? This discussion will off topic here ; so pl. open a thread '' Proof Quran is historically incorrect ' or u may visit this thread---Things in Islam I am curious about...


--http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-new-post.html




yes , Quran do tell us that Jews killed some Prophets (pbut ) .They tried to kill Jesus (p) also but failed.

Kindly consider that the response was to the authenticity of the Bible re the death of Jesus. His death is contradicted by the Koran (hence I suppose the original claim of "corruption"/contradiction).

In view of historical evidence, even outside Christianity, that Jesus was killed, proves the Koran incorrect (sorry, the Bible correct) on at least this one occasion. Please note that the source mentioned is not the only one available.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam/peace;

In view of historical evidence, even outside Christianity, that Jesus was killed, proves the Koran incorrect .

ok , show us pl. what proof do u have '' even outside Christianity '' . And how can u be sure that those evidence is correct & Quran is wrong ?

May be , Quran is right & other sources are wrong ????

To us Muslims , Quran is the criteria & to others .....other sources . So , i guess , we will have to wait till last day when all disputes will be solved .

[back_to_faith]

By first generation I mean the first generation, let's say before 100 A.D. Neither Athanasius nor the supposed Gospel of Thomas meet that criterion:
Athanasius of Alexandria, 293-383 AD
Gospel of Thomas, mid-2nd century (140-200 AD)

In my opinion, all of the books of the New Testament, as we now have it, were written before 100 A.D. .

upon what basis the Gospel of Thomas doesn't meet that criterion?!!!

IF:

The earliest known manuscripts of the New Testament which is a fragment from John, P52. and the evidence allows for a range of dates that extends from before 100 to well into the second half of the second century,the same could be said about ,The scrolls of the Gospel of Thomas, mid-2nd century (140-200 AD)..


when were them both written?
the answer is controversal for both....

John ,some scholars agree on a range of c. 90-100 for when the gospel was written, though dates as early as the 60s or as late as the 140s....
Thomas, an early camp favoring a date in the 50s, approximately contemporary with the composition of the canonical gospels(They have more reasonable arguments), and a late camp favoring a mid-2nd century ...


all the above ,regarding Dating the composition is mere a gussing work without crucial proofs.....

in light of above ,the claim that John,Luke,Matthew,Mark are the work of the first generation christians and Thomas not,for me is a Joke.

unless we find a serious scholar bless us with a crucial,ultimate proof for the date of composition of BOTH.......

[back_to_faith]

Others, such as James, don't mention anything about the life of Christ, only how Christians are to live their lives. .

If the writer chose to write nothing about Jesus and mentions only his own advices,his concept regarding the strong relation between Faith and Works ,his Warning against Boasting ,Warning to the Rich ,Patience and Prayer etc ....we don't have to think for a minute that what he wrote is called a Gospel,unlike The Gospel of Thomas which concerned totally with Jesus and his preaching.....
one should wonder If the writer of Thomas belonged to the Pauline church ,and wrote a Gospel about the lord,not the followers of the Lord,How he provides very different understandings of Jesus,mentions nothing regarding the crucifiction,resurrection(The corner stone of christianity)!!.......

[back_to_faith]

. What happened is that the grass roots of the Church, knowing the story of the faith that had been passed down, found some works to be more beneficial than others to helping them perserve their faith and these are the books that became canon while the others were relegated to either slightly lower status or dismissed as being suprious works.

Actually,The Pauline church didn't find some works to be more beneficial than others,it was because the writtings were at odds with the prevailing Pauline agenda.

That is why the Church destroyed most of their Gospels and excuted them for being heretics !!!!

Irenaeus, in the second century, in his work against Heretics, stigmatises them with the most abusive epithets, and accuses them of the most abominable crimes. He calls them "thieves and robbers," "slippery serpents," "miserable little foxes," and so forth, and declares that they practise lewdness in their assemblies.

the mean,aggressive,vulgar attitude towards any writing that one could by reading it smell something against the Pauline agenda,hit not only the so called non-canonical Gospels,but the canonical as well !!!!

the authenticity of the Epistle of James In the first centuries of the Church ,was doubted by some followers of the Pauline church:

1-Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia in Cilicia; it is therefore deuterocanonical. It is missing in the Muratorian fragment.

2-because of the silence of several of the western churches regarding it, Eusebius classes it amongst the Antilegomena or contested writings (Historia ecclesiae, 3.25; 2.23).

3-Gaius Marius Victorinus, in his commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, openly questioned whether the teachings of James were heretical.




4-In Reformation times a few theologians, most notably Martin Luther, argued that this epistle was too defective to be part of the canonical New Testament. This is probably due to the book's specific teaching that faith alone is not enough for salvation (James 2:24), which seemed to contradict his doctrine of sola fide (faith alone).

--"Many sweat to reconcile St. Paul and St. James.... but in vain. 'Faith justifies' and 'faith does not justify' contradict each other flatly. [Isn't it refreshing to hear an avowed apologist, especially one as knowledgeable as Luther, dispense with all the doubletalk and rationalizing by admitting the obvious--ED.). If any one can harmonize them I will give him my doctor's hood and let him call me a fool." The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, by Preserved Smith, p. 269


"We should throw the Epistle of James out of this school (the University of Wittenberg--ED.) for it doesn't amount to much. It contains not a syllable about Christ. Not once does it mention Christ, except at the beginning. I maintain that some Jew wrote it who probably heard about Christian people but never encountered any. Since he heard that Christians place great weight on faith in Christ, he thought, 'wait a moment. I'll oppose them and urge works alone.' This he did.... Besides, there is no order or method in the epistle. Now he discusses clothing and then he writes about wrath and is constantly shifting from one to the other. He presents a comparison: 'As the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.' O Mary, mother of God! What a terrible comparison that is! James compares faith with the body when he should rather have compared faith with the soul! The ancients recognized this, too, and therefore they didn't acknowledge the Book of James as one of the catholic epistles." "Table Talk" in Luther's Works, Vol. 54, p. 424-25


"Therefore, St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it." Luther's Works, Vol. 35, p. 362


In other words ,just because James' epistle contradict the Pauline agenda in a specific point(Salvation through faith) was said by some Pauline church figures to be rather heretical,and was about to be excluded from the so called Canonical Gospels .

Imagine if the church had ever found writings that contradict the whole Pauline agenda,what would they ever do......

History tells us what they did,and their crimes ,pious forgeries,will pay back for it in day of judgment...


How truth what Thomas Paine wrote!!:

"...the bishop who has answered me has been obliged to acknowledge the fact, that the Books that compose the NT, were voted by yeas and nays to be the word of God, as you now vote a law, by the Popish councils of Nicea and Laodocia, about 1,450 years ago." Works of Thomas Paine. p. 325.

"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon." Ibid., p. 365.

[fromgenesis]

Salaam/peace;

ok , show us pl. what proof do u have '' even outside Christianity '' . And how can u be sure that those evidence is correct & Quran is wrong ?

May be , Quran is right & other sources are wrong ????

To us Muslims , Quran is the criteria & to others .....other sources . So , i guess , we will have to wait till last day when all disputes will be solved .

My dear Muslim Woman. I am sorry, would like to discuss matters in a fairly logic manner. Not possible in this case, but thank you for your response.

You see, you can never accept that Jesus died for your sins, and was raised from the dead - thereby washing you from all sin and paying the price for sin on your behalf. Once you accept that, you will have a serious problem, and I do not think you want to give it all up.

It is not about "winning an argument". That is an empty, really empty victory.

And if you want to wait till the last day to find out if you are right or wrong, I would suggest is not a good idea. What if you are wrong? You can know now - and not by winning or loosing an argument.

[جوري]

as a spectator to this debate and generally uninterested to be ensnared in its midst, I don't see where you have showed Muslim woman proof especially from the 'outside of christianity'.. frankly there is no historical evidence of Jesus short of the bible, of which, you can't even get two versions to agree!

If Jesus died for our sins, then we are sinless and felicitous in this state of anticlimax.. if the Man God died for our sins, then let's all bathe in sin of which we are undoubtedly forgiven by a self-immolating God!

peace!