First Corrupted Verse

[جوري]

wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

the criteria is that you undo all the commandments of the OT whilst maintaining you are getting a direct vision from God, vision 'god himself' couldn't uphold whilst alive and voila write ad lib and it becomes holy..

 

[Grace Seeker]

wouldn't that depend on:

when the extra verses were added and by whom, and who wrote them?

methinks so!

so please kind sir please tell us the answer!

I don't know that they are extra verses at all. Might it not be that the oldest copies originally had those verses on the last page of the codice, but that page got detached from the rest of the book, just like the last pages of books often are lost today?

And again, I'm also not disputing that they might be a corruption. I'm just trying to be sure that you state what it is that since you have identified them as a corruption that I understand the reasoning behind that statement.

Thus far, what I understand is that you believe that Mark ended at 16:8 and that 16:9-20 where then added later.

And you also think that regardless of how, who, why, or on what authority they were added that simply the fact that it alters the original version that it makes it a corruption.

Do I understand you correctly?

 

[Trumble]

I don't know that they are extra verses at all. Might it not be that the oldest copies originally had those verses on the last page of the codice, but that page got detached from the rest of the book, just like the last pages of books often are lost today?

I think the most likely explanation is that the final verses (which are clearly needed) of the original were lost, and what is there now were added later, although it isn't universally agreed that they aren't 'original'.

Whether that represents 'corruption' or not depends on how you would normally use the word. I suggest that, should the same thing have have happened to just about any other text, few would consider it appropriate, at least in the absence of any further information. 'Corruption' is such a dramatic word, though, isn't it?

 

[YusufNoor]

So, you are saying that they are extra verses. Does that in and of itself make them a corruption?

i'll quote what the Christian website says and you and your allies can continue whatever it is you are doing...

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

this pretty much seems to imply that the mere inclusion of, and i repeat, Mark 16:9-20 renders those codices unreliable! and that "other ancient witnesses agree with that statement.

but lets, leave that as the Christians here seem incapable of addressing the matter in an honest manner.

let's return to the issue of what day Jesus [allegedly] died on. if there is not 1 single Christian [or Joey] that can determine whether or not Jesus had the passover meal with his disciples before he died or can even tell on what day he died, using the 4 Gospels [or Joey's 2], can we safely assume that:

1) Jesus NEVER ate the last passover meal with his disciples and that there is NO BASIS in the 4 Gospels [or Joey's 2] for what is now [and earlier] referred to as "the Lord's Supper?"
IF you disagree, please give your evidence.

and

2) Jesus NEVER died. if you believe that he did die, then please back up your answer by telling us on what day he died. if you CANNOT tell us or are incapable of telling us or are unwilling to tell us on what day he died, then we must conclude that he didn't.

IF you cannot respond to those questions, can we assume that any mention of those issues in the 4 gospels [or Joey's 2] is just corrupted text?

La Hawla wa La Quwata Illa Billah!

Subhanallah, getting a straight answer around here seems impossible!

 

[Grace Seeker]

Skye, you objected with Shoes wrote:

P.S. I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.

If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

all the best

You objected when I wrote:

God is entirely sufficient within himself without the need of any creation.

And yet you write elsewhere:

God has no needs.. we need God.. everything that functions on its 'own volition' functions through the will of God.. He is the sustainer of life

Talk about a lack of concordance!!


But I do agree with your above statement. And, since I don't see anything different in that statement and what Shoes and I have been saying that you keep objecting to, I am left to wonder why it is that you object to our posts? Are you just being contentious? Or do you really not understand them?

 

[جوري]

Skye, you objected with Shoes wrote:

You objected when I wrote:


And yet you write elsewhere:

Talk about a lack of concordance!!

you say I objected, yet you fail to show me my quote with the objection. go ahead, quote me pls show me my lack of concordance-- seeing how you managed one quote of mine surely you can manage the other!

But I do agree with your above statement. And, since I don't see anything different in that statement and what Shoes and I have been saying that you keep objecting to, I am left to wonder why it is that you object to our posts? Are you just being contentious? Or do you really not understand them?

Re-read all that you've written in lieu of having me quote you again and then come ask this Q. If there is one thing I detest more than prevarications is finding a loop hole for them when a foot lands in your mouth!

all the best

 

[جوري]

btw I noticed that Br. Yusuf's post was written 6 hrs ago, yours an incomplete reply to mine 2 hrs ago..
why didn't you bother addressing his points in favor of an ancillary hangup?

all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

you say I objected, yet you fail to show me my quote with the objection.

Not true. Just look above and you will see it. I consider the following to be an objection

Originally Posted by Gossamer skye
If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?

go ahead, quote me pls show me my lack of concordance-- seeing how you managed one quote of mine surely you can manage the other!

There are two of your quotes posted above.

If there is one thing I detest more than prevarications is finding a loop hole for them when a foot lands in your mouth!

Then I have no idea how you manage to live with yourself.

 

[Grace Seeker]

i'll quote what the Christian website says and you and your allies can continue whatever it is you are doing...

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

this pretty much seems to imply that the mere inclusion of, and i repeat, Mark 16:9-20 renders those codices unreliable! and that "other ancient witnesses agree with that statement.

TBDAQ -- True, but doesn't answer the question.
Does the additional material in and of itself make it a corruption?

Can't you conceive of scenarios in which you could have a text, and then later add more material to the text and yet determine that the new document produced by that addition was not a corruption?

 

[جوري]

Not true. Just look above and you will see it. I consider the following to be an objection


There are two of your quotes posted above.

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the lack of concordance?

Then I have no idea how you manage to live with yourself.

deflection really isn't your strong suit?

all the best

 

[Follower]

Thank you Joe- you have pointed out the crux of this whole contradiction nonsense-
'Both gospels say he died. Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!'

 

[جوري]

God has died, yet life managed to go on.. it is a wonder..

 

[Follower]

I understand that the thread was asking for the first verses corrupted in the Holy Bible.

Are you asking when? I tried to point that out on another thread and it was closed.

LOL!! I imagine every Bible verse that does not agree with the quran is considered corrupt by muslims. There are quite a few.

LOL! We Christians just don't get it- GOD only spared the quran from corruption!!

Sorry to repeat myself but, the problem I see is that -your quran confirms the Gospel -if the Gospel is corrupt then the quran is a lie.

Why don't muslims see this as a problem? Please help me understand!

I may be leaving soon- just got my final warning.

 

[Follower]

The human form that GOD took died.

 

[جوري]

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

your posts are always worthy of the minute glance..
thank you for taking up webspace
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Grace Seeker]

Perhaps you'd be so kind as to point out the lack of concordance?

In saying: "If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?" it comes across as a rhetorical question in which you imply that Yahweh does in fact need to do something.


And that statement of yours which implies that Yahweh does need to do something is NOT in accord with your statement from the other thread in which you categorically state, "God has no needs."

As this statement that you made in the other thread "God has no needs" is what both Shoes and I have said repeatedly and in many different ways in this thread:

I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
God is entirely sufficient within himself...​

for you to raise any objection at all to what we have said shows that you either don't understand what we have written or that you have become so contentious as to challenge everything written by a Christian even when it is in accord with your Islamic beliefs.

Now, if you really don't understand how what Shoes and I were saying is and has from the beginning of this conversation been in full concord with your second statement that "God has no needs" I am willing to try to and explain it. I know that English isn't your first language, and while I think that you are generally a smart person and should be able to get it, there is probably something in our grammatical construction that has thrown you off. But though you are capable of understanding, I wonder if you care to understand?

As I said, if you do, I will try to make our prior statements more clear. But I ask that before we do we each take a break, take a breath, and return with lowered levels of hostility. I'm not here looking for a fight, and I apologize that I let this become one.

 

[جوري]

In saying: "If Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then I guess life is as good without him as it with him.. what is the point of a 'sustainer' if all he needed to do took 7 days and then eternal rest?" it comes across as a rhetorical question in which you imply that Yahweh does in fact need to do something.

if Yahweh doesn't need to do anything then life is as good with him as without him is indeed a response to 'shoes' allegations that Yahweh can do his work of creation and takes a rest.. if he rested, then the atheist theories of even if there were a God, we're mere petri dishes to him, he creates and forgets.. that is in fact a contradiction with Islamic teaching and on the other thread I have quoted you verses where God doesn't only create but sustains!

And that statement of yours which implies that Yahweh does need to do something is NOT in accord with your statement from the other thread in which you categorically state, "God has no needs."

Indeed God has no needs, I don't see how sustaining us denotes he has a need? it denotes we have needs and since he is the sustainer he has to keep up with our needs!

As this statement that you made in the other thread "God has no needs" is what both Shoes and I have said repeatedly and in many different ways in this thread:

I don't think Yahweh needs to do anything.
God is entirely sufficient within himself...​

indeed again, I fail to see your point..

for you to raise any objection at all to what we have said shows that you either don't understand what we have written or that you have become so contentious as to challenge everything written by a Christian even when it is in accord with your Islamic beliefs.

I think you are the one with poor understanding. us having needs doesn't equate to God having needs!

Now, if you really don't understand how what Shoes and I were saying is and has from the beginning of this conversation been in full concord with your second statement that "God has no needs" I am willing to try to and explain it. I know that English isn't your first language, and while I think that you are generally a smart person and should be able to get it, there is probably something in our grammatical construction that has thrown you off. But though you are capable of understanding, I wonder if you care to understand?

Yeah you can start with this,

If you assume that having created us that God has a responsibility or obligation to sustain us you would not.

But I do not see such a condition being placed on God.

Thus he does sustain us.

But he does so not because he needs to but because he wills to.

This does not mean that we don't need him to sustain us, we do. But a need on our part is not necessarily a need on God's part.

As I said, if you do, I will try to make our prior statements more clear. But I ask that before we do we each take a break, take a breath, and return with lowered levels of hostility. I'm not here looking for a fight, and I apologize that I let this become one.

I don't see it as a fight, I see it as a continued foot in your mouth


all the best

 

[Grace Seeker]

OK. I take you at your word that you want to understand. I accept that I was getting testy in my responses. And I will try to do better (by being less testy) in the future.

M, I really do think that we are trying to say the same thing on this. So, I'm going to take my own advice. I'm going to take a break, breathe, (maybe even lick a few of my toes since you insist that they are still in my mouth) and when I return to this hopefully I will speak more clearly.

 

[Muezzin]

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?

My emphasis on penultimate paragraph.

The point is that such contradictions show that the Bible has been corrupted in response to thread starter's question. This sort of logic is in accordance with the majority of Muslim thought on the matter - which is contradictions in the Bible call into question its authenticity. That is all.

You will after you read this.

In the time of Christ the janitor had a very low social status.

In one bible passage Christ entered a temple to clean it. He was trying to show that everybody is equal and there should not be a “social status”.

The gospels reported it because it was so important.

Christian response: Wonderful!

Muslim response: One gospel has him entering the temple on a Tuesday night and another says he entered the temple on a Wednesday morning – therefore the bible is corrupted and therefore there is nothing to learn here!

-

Funny. I've never heard or seen a Muslim arguing that point. The point Muslims make is that contradictions weaken the authenticity of the text. I've never heard or seen a Muslim arguing that because Jesus is reported as doing such and such good deed on different days, he therefore never performed that good deed, nor is there anything to learn.

Maybe you have seen or heard Muslims arguing that point, in which case you should tell us all about them.

To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

Hmm.

Both gospels say he died.

Christians response: He died !

Muslims response: 2 people both said he died but because they got their days mixed up he never died!

-

Again, from a Muslim point of view the contradictions call into question the authenticity of the text.

Muslims' belief that Jesus did not die comes from Islamic teachings, rather than by picking holes in the Bible.

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

You've said this isn't a debate. Do you feel the thread has become such? If so, would you like myself or another moderator to either delete debating posts or moving such posts into their own separate thread? Or are you happy with them to exist in this one?

 

['Abd-al Latif]

When Jesus's body was placed in the tomb, how come, nobody, including his mother, noticed it was actually somebody else.

This is one of the great weaknesses of Islam. You cannot explain how his mother did not recognise him.


-

Probably because some of us didn't even know Jesus was burried seeing as god dieing is a whole new concept in and of it self. Greatest weaknesses of Islam? Greatest loss of common senses rather of the death of god. I wonder who took his soul and whom it was taken to...