First Corrupted Verse

[Grace Seeker]

I see no concordance between 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.

 

[جوري]

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

I don't understand this?

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

Then how does the world run without him? that is the atheist position.

Thus he does sustain us.

You are confusing me, he does or doesn't?

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

No one said anything about God with a need..

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.

a complete non sequitur, and that is your own conclusion to try to salvage a failing example..

all the best

 

[Shoes]

Gossamer Skye, do you think that these two statements contradict?

1. I didn't need to play the piano.
2. I played the piano.

Then how about these:

1. Yahweh doesn't need to sustain creation.
2. Yahweh sustains creation.

These are the only two things I'm really saying...I'm rather baffled why you think this is an issue.

As for what the Bible says, I quoted Genesis earlier on what Yahweh rested from, and Grace Seeker's quote shows that Yahweh sustains creation (and has the ability to not sustain it) quite nicely.

Salam,
Shoes

 

[جوري]

Gossamer Skye, do you think that these two statements contradict?

1. I didn't need to play the piano.
2. I played the piano.

Then how about these:

1. Yahweh doesn't need to sustain creation.
2. Yahweh sustains creation.

These are the only two things I'm really saying...I'm rather baffled why you think this is an issue.

As for what the Bible says, I quoted Genesis earlier on what Yahweh rested from, and Grace Seeker's quote shows that Yahweh sustains creation (and has the ability to not sustain it) quite nicely.

Salam,
Shoes

Go back and read all the posts.. There is no point starting a new post after having failed completely to support your understanding on the former.


all the best

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Well worms are God's creatures too.

AntiKarateKid, yes anthropomorphisms are used to describe God - simply due to the limitation of language and the description of the infinite. Does it say that Yahweh was asleep? Or it was as if he was?

Gossamer Skye, all I was saying is that Yahweh's decision to sustain his creation is not one of necessity but of his will. Clearly creation needs Yahweh to sustain it, but Yahweh doesn't need creation to be sustained.

Salam,
Shoes

I understand your point but I feel like it was unnecessary to compare God to a drunk guy. I mean, there are certain things which undermine his glory.

 

[Joe98]

…..because neither side will fully understand the logic behind the other party's reasoning.

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!

-

 

[جوري]

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!

-

you are such a scholar with profound analysis of exegesis especially from the Islamic perspective. I am wondering why no one awarded you the Pulitzer until today? You are a wasted talent..
perhaps we can go back to the original topic now, that you've shared with us those pearls.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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”.

Joe, I appreciate your effort here, only in fairness I think that we Christians have to admit that Jesus didn't really clean the temple in the same way a janitor would. He really probably left more of a mess than when he started, dumped over tables and things scattered on the floor and all. He was more about chasing people out who were doing temporal business in it than cleaning up the place for Saturday services.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Go back and read all the posts.. There is no point starting a new post after having failed completely to support your understanding on the former.


all the best

Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.

 

[YusufNoor]

YusufNoor, I find it really interesting that consider Gen 1:1 corrupted - may I ask what you mean by corrupted in this case?

Salam,
Shoes

Most Biblical scholars (which would exclude Rabbis and Ministers, were talking SCHOLARS [and this leaves out atheist joey as well]) agree that the beginning doublets in the Torah are additions of the author(s) known as P and originate somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE. besides it would be INCREDIBLY foolish to claim the the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, is the same as the "Torah" given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

or comments on "The Gospel according to Matthew"

 

[Shoes]

I understand your point but I feel like it was unnecessary to compare God to a drunk guy. I mean, there are certain things which undermine his glory.

I think the psalmist is making a rather wonderful and glorious point about the nature of Yahweh, having just reflected a bit on the Psalm. It all depends on what sleep and wine refer to in the simile.

Remember that in Christian theology, Yahweh is willing to limit Himself and become a human being in order to reveal Himself, even willing to enter into death to reconcile creation to Himself. A crucified body is a horrible image on the surface, but for the Christian it is the most incredible display of His wisdom, power and glory.

So with this as a paradigm, one can approach an "unnecessary" comparison with the expectation that it will actually reveal new, deep truth about Yahweh.

Salam,
Shoes

 

[جوري]

Skye, no one is presenting any new ideas. Shoes and I are both saying the same thing. If you don't get it, then you don't get it. The only thing we've failed at is opening your eyes to what we've been saying all along. But our posts are not so obtuse. So, I suspect the problem is neither in our writing nor our logic.

really?
let's leave your words unadulterated by my response for all to see, and let others judge the sense of what you are saying:

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.

 

[Shoes]

Most Biblical scholars (which would exclude Rabbis and Ministers, were talking SCHOLARS [and this leaves out atheist joey as well]) agree that the beginning doublets in the Torah are additions of the author(s) known as P and originate somewhere between 600 and 400 BCE. besides it would be INCREDIBLY foolish to claim the the Torah, also called the Pentateuch, is the same as the "Torah" given to Moses on Mt Sinai.

Indeed it would. But then the Judeo-Christian concepts of revelation and scripture are rather different to their Islamic counterparts, so no Jew or Christian would ever make such a claim. This is why the way the two groups use the word "corruption" is so important. What Jews and Christians will generally claim is that the Torah as we have it now is the same as the "first edition", excepting perhaps a few trivial scribal errors.

i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on? i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

or comments on "The Gospel according to Matthew"

I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

Salam,
Shoes

 

[جوري]

I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

Salam,
Shoes

I thought the thread title is 'corrupted verses'.. if Jesus had two different death dates, I think you'd need to reconcile that with the integrity of your bible?

all the best

 

[Shoes]

I thought the thread title is 'corrupted verses'.. if Jesus had two different death dates, I think you'd need to reconcile that with the integrity of your bible?

all the best

No, it's "First Corrupted Verse"...the aim of the thread being to apply different criteria of what it means for a verse to be corrupted to the Bible in order to find the first corrupted verse. I (and others I'm sure) will be quite happy to discuss the points YusufNoor raised in separate threads should he or anyone else wish to create them.

Salam,
Shoes

 

[YusufNoor]

Indeed it would. But then the Judeo-Christian concepts of revelation and scripture are rather different to their Islamic counterparts, so no Jew or Christian would ever make such a claim. This is why the way the two groups use the word "corruption" is so important. What Jews and Christians will generally claim is that the Torah as we have it now is the same as the "first edition", excepting perhaps a few trivial scribal errors.

that's incorrect, layman may make that claim but scholars like Richard Elliott Friedman, Professor of Hebrew and to quote wiki: is a biblical scholar and the Ann and Jay Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia. He joined the faculty of the UGA Religion Department in 2006. Prior to his appointment there, he was the Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization: Hebrew Bible; Near Eastern Languages and Literature at UCSD from 1984 until 2006. Dr. Friedman received his Th.D. in Hebrew Bible and Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations from Harvard University in 1978; Th.M.in Hebrew Bible from Harvard University in 1974; M.H.L., Jewish Theological Seminary in 1971, and B.A., University of Miami in 1968. He is a winner of numerous awards and honors, including American Council of Learned Societies Fellow. He was a Visiting Fellow at the University of Cambridge and the University of Oxford; and a Senior Fellow of the American Schools of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He participated in the City of David Project archaeological excavations of biblical Jerusalem.

I suspect no one's responded because it's got nothing to do with the thread (as you're not claiming that the Tanakh is uncorrupted).

how is claiming that from the very title [and then some] that the very 1st book of the NT is corrupted, not relevant to a thread on the corruption of the bible?

Salam,
Shoes

also agreeing with Friedman on this:

Luke Timothy Johnson (born November 20, 1943) is the R. W. Woodruff Professor of New Testament and Christian Origins at Candler School of Theology and a Senior Fellow at the Center for the Study of Law and Religion at Emory University. Professor Johnson's research interests encompass the Jewish and Greco-Roman contexts of early Christianity (particularly moral discourse), Luke-Acts, the Pastoral Letters, and the Letter of James. [wiki]

Prof Johnson relates his opinion in his The Story of the Bible 2part lecture series put out by The Teaching Company [i saw him say it just yesterday!]

 

[Shoes]

I mean that, generally, Jewish and Christian scholars (i.e. scholars who actually profess a Judeo-Christian faith) hold this position.

I hope my previous post makes clear the intentions of the thread. If you have an urge to talk about the first corrupted verse in the New Testament then I suppose that could be a useful example too - but the "first corrupted verse" is an important part of the discussion as it gives us a way of judging between different sets of criteria. Otherwise it'll just become a "Let's find a corruption in the Bible" festival which wasn't quite the intention I had for the direction of the thread!

Salam,
Shoes

 

[Joe98]

i'm still awaiting a response to "perhaps you can tell what day that Jesus allegedly died on?

i ask, because according to the "Gospels," he died on 2 different days!"

To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

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]

To continue with my scholarly knowledge:

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!

-

The Muslim response is rather, why would God die?.. so how about you leave the Muslim response to Muslims and get back to your steakhouse forum?

 

[جوري]

No, it's "First Corrupted Verse"...the aim of the thread being to apply different criteria of what it means for a verse to be corrupted to the Bible in order to find the first corrupted verse. I (and others I'm sure) will be quite happy to discuss the points YusufNoor raised in separate threads should he or anyone else wish to create them.

Salam,
Shoes

I just love semantics.. so you are looking for just one verse not a whole bunch of corrupt verses and you'd like for us to bestow on it the feature of first corrupted? :rollseyes