First Corrupted Verse

  • Thread starter Thread starter Shoes
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 319
  • Views Views 37K
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Shoes

Active member
Messages
40
Reaction score
3
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)

And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
 
this doesn't really belong to clarifications about Islam, see if a mod can move it to comparative..

all the best
 
Shoes said:
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?

    Genesis 1:1

    in the NT, "the Gospel According to Matthew"
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)

the words of man have replaced the words of Allah, thus they are unreliable

And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

determine which verses are the oldest [though still maybe not authentic] and then you can see changes in later verses.

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
Click to expand...

there are MANY forms of corruption in the NT, the MOST important would be Paul [or whoever Paul learned from] is no longer preaching the Gospel that Jesus preached, but rather he is preaching a gospel ABOUT Jesus. by this time, Jesus' message is already lost.

there a about 5,700 ancient manuscripts of the New Testament. of them, NO TWO are the same. maybe someone could show us which verses AREN'T corrupted!

as an example, perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!

there is more but let's start there, eh?
 
The Burial of Moses pbuh in the OT

Deutronomy 34:5-6 "5Then Moses, the servant of the Lord, died there in the land of Moab, at the Lord’s command. 6He was buried in a valley in the land of Moab, opposite Beth-peor, but no one knows his burial place to this day. "

The Quran says that the Torah was given to Moses pbuh yet here we have the Torah talking about Moses death??
 
Last edited:
The biggest corruption of the Bible is, that Paul himself added around 15 books to the Bible! Did he ever meet Jesus (pbuh)? Did he ever talk to him? Did he ever walk with him? Did he ever pray with him? Before he was an apostel, he was a bounty hunter: Killing Christians. It is the same as Hitler killed millions of Jews, he saw him with Moses (pbuh) in a dream, and then start to write 15 books and add those books to the Torah to be saved. Would the Jews accept that?!
 
If you mean the Bible as a whole, then it's probably somewhere in the Old Testament.

Perhaps in Genesis where it says God "rested" on the 7th day? This would go against Islam because we say that God is not in need of rest or sleep (see Ayat al-Kursi below), and He is free of all needs (obviously rest is a need for humans).

Ayat Al-Kursi:

"God! There is no god but He, - the Living, the Self-subsisting, Eternal. No slumber can seize Him no sleep. His are all things in the heavens and on earth. Who is there can intercede in His presence except as He permits? He knows what (appears to His creatures as) before or after or behind them. Nor shall they compass anything of His knowledge except as He wills. His Throne extends over the heavens and the earth, and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them for He is the Most High, the Supreme (in glory)." (2:255)
 
Last edited:
Shoes said:
Hello everyone :) I've put this thread into Clarifications as I don't want it to be a debate - more a discussion on everyone's opinions.

So my questions are:

  • What is the first corrupted verse in the Bible?
  • How does it contradict Islamic teaching? (If it does.)

And more general questions to consider as we go along: What is a corruption of a text? And how can we tell which verses are/aren't corrupted?

To reiterate: this isn't a debate!

OK, fire away! :)

Salam,
Shoes
Click to expand...


As I recall, Biblical scholars admit tothere being errors in the Bible along with many many manuscript variants.

In the words of a famous Biblical scholar "There are more variants of the Bible than there are words in it." So I guess you could say that when a scripture falls into that kind of ambiguity, it is corrupted. Moreover any contradicting verses or mistakes are corrupt. The reason for this being that, God states in the Bible that he isn't the author of confusion, and moreover, that inspired scripture cannot be contradictory or be flawed.

Also, from a pure Quranic view, any parts of the Bible that are in disharmony with the Quran, are corrupted. The reason for this being that the Quran is the exact word of God, his own speech. Thereforce, anything that goes against him is false.
 
Salaam

Yeah thats true many Biblical scholars themselves agree that the bible is corrupted.

peace
 
Zafran said:
Salaam

Yeah thats true many Biblical scholars themselves agree that the bible is corrupted.

peace
Click to expand...


Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
 
Grace Seeker said:
Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
Click to expand...

What is your definition of corrupted?

Dictionary says: to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal,
 
AntiKarateKid said:
Also, from a pure Quranic view, any parts of the Bible that are in disharmony with the Quran, are corrupted. The reason for this being that the Quran is the exact word of God, his own speech. Thereforce, anything that goes against him is false.
Click to expand...
Or, from a Christian perspective it could be just the opposite -- places where the Qur'an is not in harmony with the Bible would be evidence that God didn't actually speak those words to Muhammed, as anything that contradicts the Bible can be assumed to be in error.
 
Grace Seeker said:
Agreed. But do you understand that the connotation you have of "corrupted" as a Muslim is considerably different than what a textual critic means by that same term?
Click to expand...

Or, you have already agreed that the Bible has been corrupted.
 
AntiKarateKid said:
What is your definition of corrupted?

Dictionary says: to destroy the integrity of; cause to be dishonest, disloyal,
Click to expand...
If that is the definition we are going to use, then I withdraw my above statement and would not agree that the Bible is corrupted. I recognize that there are variants in the various extant copies of the Biblical text that we have available to us today, and in that sense I am willing to grant that there have been changes made by someone at sometime. However, I don't believe that they destory the integrity of the text. And as a general statement (with a few notable exceptions) they were also not attempts to be either dishonest or disloyal.

I have written about the authenticity of the Bible before and will again if someone feels it necessary for me to do so. However, I don't think that is the purpose of this thread, so I'll spare everyone the lengthy posts that such a presentation would require.
 
Honestly I think getting into a discussion with Christians on the integrity of scripture is a waste of time. The reason for that is Muslims and Christians both view the integrity of texts in two completely different lights.

Muslims see the Qur'an as a perfect miracle from God and thus its incorruptibility lends credence to the belief that everything contained within those pages is absolute truth and must be followed.

Christians on the other hand, view the Bible as more of an "inspiration". They focus on the core message and are (mostly) unconcerned with the notion that the hands of man has altered the Books of God. They view the Old Testament largely as one big history book, as they rarely derive rulings and guidance from it. The New Testament is more about what Jesus (supposedly) did than what he said, so there again it doesn't really matter how much the text has changed as long as the core ideas are still there.

There really isn't a need to get into a debate here because neither side will fully understand the logic behind the other party's reasoning.
 
Last edited:
YusufNoor, I find it really interesting that consider Gen 1:1 corrupted - may I ask what you mean by corrupted in this case?



rpwelton said:
If you mean the Bible as a whole, then it's probably somewhere in the Old Testament.

Perhaps in Genesis where it says God "rested" on the 7th day? This would go against Islam because we say that God is not in need of rest or sleep (see Ayat al-Kursi below), and He is free of all needs (obviously rest is a need for humans).
Click to expand...

Though may I point out that the word Hebrew word translated "rest" is better translated as cease - Yahweh doesn't snooze. :) (e.g. see Everett Fox's (in my opinion) amazing translation of the Torah)



May I ask (politely!) that we stay on topic and not start ranting about Paul (unless you think that his writings were the first corrupted of course!). This isn't a debate about whether the bible is corrupted; rather a discussion, with the example of the "first corrupted verse" as a hopefully useful one. I think everyone (especially me!) could benefit from gaining an understanding of the different ways we use the word corruption - I don't think this is a waste of time at all, far from it: we can actually have nice reasonable discussions about this issue if we understand the way others think about this issue.

Salam,
Shoes
 
Shoes said:
Though may I point out that the word Hebrew word translated "rest" is better translated as cease - Yahweh doesn't snooze. :) (e.g. see Everett Fox's (in my opinion) amazing translation of the Torah)
Click to expand...

That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
 
Last edited:
rpwelton said:
That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
Click to expand...

Christians will certainly have a problem, in general, if you say Yahweh rested because he was tired or fatigued. But that Yahweh rested/ceased from creating so that he could admire the good creation he had made is very important - not only does it tell us that Yahweh wants to enjoy his creation with us, but it also gives a mandate for the teaching of the Sabbath - which says that we should rest/cease the business of our daily lives to enjoy creation with Him. Indeed, this Sabbath teaching is actually (I would argue) the primary purpose of Gen 1:1 - 2:4.

Salam,
Shoes
 
rpwelton said:
That may be the case. If it is, however, then why do Bible translations always use "rested"? Clearly there is a huge difference between what each word implies in regards to God's nature and being.

I'm not disputing with you, but I am wondering: do Christians generally not have a problem with the idea that God "rested"?
Click to expand...
No, we don't because we don't think of God has having to expend effort in the act of creating. Therefore, to us it is clear that resting is simply about ceasing an activity, not about being tired.
 
Grace Seeker said:
No, we don't because we don't think of God has having to expend effort in the act of creating. Therefore, to us it is clear that resting is simply about ceasing an activity, not about being tired.
Click to expand...

OK, fair enough then.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar Threads

Back
Top