Bible Fake?

[Seeker1066]

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

 

[Seeker1066]

Peace Gene,

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

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

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

Thanks in advance,
Troy

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

 

[Rabi Mansur]

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

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

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

It far surpasses anything else I have seen.

:wa:

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

It far surpasses anything else I have seen.

:wa:

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

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

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

Thanks in advance,
Troy

Peace Troy,

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

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

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

 

[kamran javed]

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

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

any body can tellme about earth quick .

 

[Supreme]

Peace Troy,

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

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

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kamran javed]

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

 

[Supreme]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[anatolian]

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

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

 

[tango92]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Supreme]

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

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

 

[Ramadhan]

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

 

[Woodrow]

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

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

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

 

[Supreme]

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

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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


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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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

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

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