If any one of you is without sin...

[Malaikah]

To the christians,

Hello. :thankyou:

I thought I should start this thread instead of taking the stoning thread of topic.

Glo posted this:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:1-11)​

Does this mean that you are not allowed to punish people for their sins? That because we all have sin then we cannot accuss others? Does this mean that the crme of adultery has no punishment? Or does it mean all crimes have no punishment, including murder, stealing etc because there is no one who is sinless and able to carry out the punishment? :?

Also, do christians view the fact that stoning is a part of Islamic law as something barbaric, or inhumane? If so, your own prophets did this so do you have the same feelings towards your prophets?

 

[Umar001]

To the christians,

Hello. :thankyou:

I thought I should start this thread instead of taking the stoning thread of topic.

Glo posted this:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin." (John 8:1-11)​

Does this mean that you are not allowed to punish people for their sins? That because we all have sin then we cannot accuss others? Does this mean that the crme of adultery has no punishment? Or does it mean all crimes have no punishment, including murder, stealing etc because there is no one who is sinless and able to carry out the punishment? :?

Also, do christians view the fact that stoning is a part of Islamic law as something barbaric, or inhumane? If so, your own prophets did this so do you have the same feelings towards your prophets?

Just for the record, the NIV Bible says:

((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

 

[Malaikah]

^Say what?! Are you saying the story is fake? :uuh:

 

[Umar001]

^Say what?! Are you saying the story is fake? :uuh:

By the way I am not saying anything, just quoting.

By the way, the English Standard Version says:

Division Among the People
40When they heard these words, some of the people said, "This really is the Prophet." 41Others said, "This is the Christ." But some said, "Is the Christ to come from Galilee? 42Has not the Scripture said that the Christ comes from the offspring of David, and comes from Bethlehem, the village where David was?" 43So there was a division among the people over him. 44Some of them wanted to arrest him, but no one laid hands on him.



45The officers then came to the chief priests and Pharisees, who said to them, "Why did you not bring him?" 46The officers answered, "No one ever spoke like this man!" 47The Pharisees answered them, "Have you also been deceived? 48Have any of the authorities or the Pharisees believed in him? 49But this crowd that does not know the law is accursed." 50Nicodemus, who had gone to him before, and who was one of them, said to them, 51"Does our law judge a man without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?" 52They replied, "Are you from Galilee too? Search and see that no prophet arises from Galilee."

[The earliest manuscripts do not include John 7:53-8:11]
The Woman Caught in Adultery
53[g] [[They went each to his own house,
John 8
1but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. 9But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."]]​

The footnote reads:

John 7:53 Some manuscripts do not include 7:53-8:11; others add the passage here or after 7:36 or after 21:25 or after Luke 21:38, with variations in the text

 

[Grace Seeker]

^Say what?! Are you saying the story is fake? :uuh:

Yeah, simple answer, it probably is.:rollseyes

For a more complex analysis of the textual criticism which leads most scholars to consider it unlikley to have been part of the original autograph, you can read below:

Recall that no original autographs (manuscripts in John's handwriting) exist. What we have today are copies, and copies of copies. Some fragments of copies made in the first century. Some a few complete copies from the second century. Then even a few more copies in subsequent centuries. Some times a biblical passage (or a supposed biblical passage) is quoted in a letter, or it is found in a prayer book. Scholars try to trace this back, grouping them by families so that 100 copies made in 350 are not more important than 10 copies made in 225. But also, if several different families from widely divergent parts of Christendom (say Syria, Eygpt, Byzantium and all similar) then even if they are from 225, maybe they copied from a better original source than the one from Rome in 220 that is slightly different. In the end, these scholars make their best guess (and honestly that is what it is, a guess) as to what the original most likely looked like.

Of this particular story, what the scholars say is: It is absent from such early and diverse manuscripts as p66, p75, Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and about 27 others of the best known and most reliable manuscripts. Plus it is also absent from the oldest of the syriac manuscripts, as well as the Sahidic and Bohairic manuscripts and all but 5 of the 30 Armenian manuscripts.

No Greek Church Father prior to the 12th century even comments on it. Though it is found as early as the fourth century, it isn't till the 6th century that it begins to appear regularly in the Latin church and around this same time in the syriac manuscripts.

So, how did it become some widespread in the church today? Well, Jerome included it in his translation of the Bible from Greek into Latin in his well known Vulgate. In 1516 Erasmus edited a text of the Greek New Testament. He had few Greek manuscripts available to him, and when in doubt used Jerome's Vulgate to guide him as to which to accept as most accurate. Sometimes even having to translate it himself back out of the Latin Vulgate into Greek because he had no Greek manuscript available to him for that portion of the Bible. It is Erasmus' edition of the Greek New Testament which Guttenberg used when printing the first book, the Bible, on a printing press. Subsequent to that historic event, Erasmus' text was given the moniker "Textus Receptus" (or received text) and for generations many thought it was the most accurate text available. The Textus Receptus is the text behind the King James Version of the Bible, which was the most popular English language Bible in the USA until just recently and still distributed by the millions across the globe.

So, given that it probably shouldn't be in the Bible, why is it included? It is undoubtedly an ancient story, at least as old as the 4th century, and probably older. It appears to come from an oral tradition about Jesus, even if not actually penned by John. Thus the story might be authentic. (I am still of the opinion that it is apocryphal.) The best answer is that all scholars recognize that it shouldn't be included. And some versions do not include it. But, most publishers are hesitant to completely remove such a well know story and take the tactic used by the NIV, they set it off either by brackets or a change in print type to indicate that readers should take note of something different about this passage, and then have a note that most reliable early manuscripts omit the passage.


Hey, all you Muslims keep saying our Christian Bible is corrupted. Now you even know exactly where. Another passage that has the same problems is the doxological ending to Matthew 6:15 ("for thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory forever. Amen."). I hope you will also realize, how seriously those of us who care about the authenticity of the Bible are to be sure to note where it is corrupted and correct it. You will note that NIV does not include that doxological ending and clearly footnotes the passage we have been talking about. This is why I have confidence that though there are minor variant readings, that the main message of the Gospel and the rest of the New Testament (and for that matter the Old Testament, or the Jewish Bible) is accurately preserved and its message is intact and correctly transmitted through the generations to us.

Recent findings of Old Testament texts in the caves of Qumram which gave us a glimpse into how good a job was done of not corrupting either the text or the message. Prior to Qumran the oldest copy of a scroll of Isaiah dated to 800 AD. But the Qumram scrolls gave us a copy that dated 200 BC -- a 1000 year jump. In comparing the two, even though they were from different family lines, there were no significant variations. Thus what you read today (assuming you pay careful attention to footnotes) can safely be said to be the same message that was written nearly 2000 years ago (or more when referring to the Old Testament). You may take exception with what they wrote, but what we read is what they wrote.

 

[Malaikah]

Well I'm just glad we have the original Quran which was memorized by heart by many many of the companions of the prophet and we are 100% certain that it is all the word of God and is exaclty what Muhammad pbuh taught us.

Hey, all you Muslims keep saying our Christian Bible is corrupted. Now you even know exactly where.

So... the NT has some stuff added to it... and the OT is based on the greek translation and not the original Hebrew... you don't even need us Muslims to tell you they have been changed, youalready know it yourself, even if it is to a small extent. That's something new to me. :uuh:

I wonder whether Glo knows that the story was never part of the bible and that it was added later on... she seems to really like the story.

 

[Umar001]

Well I'm just glad we have the original Quran which was memorized by heart by many many of the companions of the prophet and we are 100% certain that it is all the word of God and is exaclty what Muhammad pbuh taught us.

So... the NT has some stuff added to it... and the OT is based on the greek translation and not the original Hebrew... man you guys got so many problems with your holy books, you don't even need us Muslims to tell you they have been changed! :uuh:

I wonder whether Glo knows that the story was never part of the bible and that it was added later on... she seems to really like the story.

Well as you read in Grace Seeker's passage above, the fact that some have taken critisism to this level makes some feel as though they are finally moving towards the original message of the Gospel.

That is much debatable, for the reason that we see in the Gospel a sort of evolution, and if we have scribes writing in when they feel like writing then what is to say that the first writings were not in of themselves based on wrong Oral Tradition.

I dont think comments like 'man you guys got so many problems with your holy books' are very productive, borderline rude in some ways, so please, it can be very offending to read something like that. But yes, the Bible is very different to the Qu'ran and will always be.

As for not needing to have Muslim tell Christians the Bible has changed that is very clear even Yusuf Estes says that all the time. Rather, it seemed a little refreshing to have Grace Seeker being open, since alot of Christians I know seem to stick their head in the sand.

And yes it would be interesting to see if Glo knew this but still quoted it, or if she thought it was God's word.

 

[rubiesand]

When I was Christian I never heard the authenticity of the story of the woman caught in adultery being questioned. I wonder how many Christians have read of its history.

It's ironic for me, because while I was at the stage of my conversion to Islam where I was not-quite-ready to become Muslim, this story of the woman caught in adultery was one of the last things I clung to of Christianity. If I had known about it then what I know now, it would have made my choice easier. But alhamdulillah, nevertheless I got there in the end

 

[Umar001]

When I was Christian I never heard the authenticity of the story of the woman caught in adultery being questioned. I wonder how many Christians have read of its history.

It's ironic for me, because while I was at the stage of my conversion to Islam where I was not-quite-ready to become Muslim, this story of the woman caught in adultery was one of the last things I clung to of Christianity. If I had known about it then what I know now, it would have made my choice easier. But alhamdulillah, nevertheless I got there in the end

Assalamu Aleykum,

You know, if alot of Muslims who were Christian before, had more knowldge of the Bible before they became Muslim, they would have become Muslim quicker in many cases.

 

[glo]

I wonder whether Glo knows that the story was never part of the bible and that it was added later on... she seems to really like the story.

And yes it would be interesting to see if Glo knew this but still quoted it, or if she thought it was God's word.

Greetings, Cheese and Eesa (or should that be ChEesa? :giggling: )

You two really know how to put a spin on a story, don't you? :rollseyes

I pondered for a while whether I should even reply to this post.
But I feel slightly annoyed about the way both of you speak about me as if I am not present; and I feel that you are making a certain assumption that I am either ignorant of the Bible or deliberately misquoting it.
So allow me to post my own view on this

In answer to your question:
Yes, I am aware that the authenticity of the story in question is debateable. I do so, because - as Grace Seeker mentioned - my Bible informs me that 'the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain it'.

Why did I use it regardless?
Firstly, cheese, what you neglected to do is to put my quote into the context I used it in:
I used it in a thread on 'stoning' in the Islamic Jurisdiction section:

Originally Posted by bin saladin View Post
stoning is in the jewish Jurisprudence as well

in the old testament right?

Yes.
I don't know if there are any countries where it is still practiced ...

I can't help but be reminded of this story:

But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. etc. etc. [...]

In that context I had no need to justify or prove the authenticity of the story.
I was making neither a point nor used it in an argument. I was merely reminded of it.

I cannot help but feel, cheese, that you are reacting fairly strongly because you perceived my post as a criticism or an argument against stoning as a punishment.
I never did any such thing.
I never made any argument at all!
Perhaps you were reading between the lines? Perhaps you were seeing things which aren't there?

she seems to really like the story.

Again, cheese, what information do you base that statement on?
Do you read that too out of this one sentence: 'I can't help but be reminded of this story'??? :?

Now, you two, go and play fair! :giggling:

Grace Seeker,
Thank you for your informative post.
I am interested to hear more about what you mean by the story most likely being apocryphal. PM me, if you prefer!

The questionable authenticity aside, the story certainly reflects Jesus' nature and his teaching of grace and forgiveness of sin. Would you agree?

Peace to you all.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Grace Seeker,
Thank you for your informative post.
I am interested to hear more about what you mean by the story most likely being apocryphal. PM me, if you prefer!

The questionable authenticity aside, the story certainly reflects Jesus' nature and his teaching of grace and forgiveness of sin. Would you agree?

Peace to you all.

I agree that the story reflects what we know of the nature and character of Christ as revealed in other undisputed passages of scripture. I think it makes a wondeful sermon, in and of itself, and I might use it as an illustration of grace and forgiveness despite questions about its authenticity, just the same as I might use other non-biblical stories (or even fables) to make a point. Remember, Jesus' parables weren't about historical people, but they still communicate his message.

I say probably apocryphal, as a personal opinion only and because this is the only place we have this story, in the later manuscripts. Thus, when did it originate? Where did it originate? These are unanswerable questions. Some suggest that it was originally part of the text, and expunged because it seemed to give license to adultery. Perhaps, but I don't find their arguments convincing. Some suggest that it was a part of an existing and parrallel oral tradition about Jesus and then added later. Perhaps, but then why just this one piece, and not others?

To me it sounds more like the sort of story we wish were historically true. I know today, and probably you do too, people who hear a story told in church that is just a story, and then later quote it like it is actually in the Bible. For instance, how many magi visited Jesus? The Bible doesn't say, but many people think it was 3 because of a famous song they sing every year. So, the names of the "three" wisemen are apocryphal, and my best guess regarding this story is that it probably is too, but -- barring the invention of a time machine -- no one will ever know for sure.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Well I'm just glad we have the original Quran which was memorized by heart by many many of the companions of the prophet and we are 100% certain that it is all the word of God and is exaclty what Muhammad pbuh taught us.

I can understand where you are coming from on this. I'm not sure that what you think is conclusive proof for the authenticity of the Qur'an is quite as strong as you think it is, but that is for another thread. I did not come here to attack Islam, but to learn about it. Having done that, where things about Christianity are presented as fact, that I understand differently, I hope to do my best to clarifiy, and if possible to correct, misunderstandings. I appreciate the dialogue we have had in this respect and hope for it to continue.

So... the NT has some stuff added to it... and the OT is based on the greek translation and not the original Hebrew... man you guys got so many problems with your holy books, you don't even need us Muslims to tell you they have been changed! :uuh:

No the NT doesn't have stuff added to it, though I can see why you might suggest that it does. It is modern editions of it that have questions marks as to what was the original form of the NT. I thought that this is what Islam has always said about the NT: that it was correct in its original form and message, but was later corrupted. I am basically agreeing with you as far as that statement goes. What I disagree with Islam on strongly is the degree of that corruption. I think it is miniscule. Islam thinks it is catastrophic.

Regarding the OT, I think you just misunderstood what I was saying. The OT is not based on a Greek translation. There are Greek translations of the OT, the most famous one being the Septuigant (LXX) which was completed by the Jews and used by Greek speaking Jews even before the time of Christ. Depending on where one lived and one's native language, early Christians might have used either OT scriptures written in Hebrew or OT scriptures written in Greek. My reference to the Qumran scrolls (200 BC) and the Masoretic texts (800 AD) of Isaiah were comparisons of Hebrew texts, not Greek texts, which showed that there were no significant changes produced by the copying and recopying of these texts over even a 1000 year period of time.

I wonder whether Glo knows that the story was never part of the bible and that it was added later on... she seems to really like the story.

I see Glo has spoken for herself.

 

[Umar001]

Now Now Glo,

It does seem that CheEsa does infact sound like a nice name, erm, but me and cheese I assure you are not one character, lol.

It seems like you have something against Cheese's post and I can see why, though i don't see what problem you have with mine, I mentioned you as if you were not here because at the time you werent.

and I feel that you are making a certain assumption that I am either ignorant of the Bible or deliberately misquoting it.

Nope, I didnt make an assumption, I just wondered which it was, whether you knew but still quoted it, and I was going to ask next why you would quote it if you knew that it is not reliable, but you have answered. So don't feel I was assuming you of deliberately misquoting. Although I would not be suprised if someone did think you were.

Anyhow, I still don't see what wrong I've done, anyhow, am glad that your Bible informs you that 'the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain it'.

Grace Seeker, may I ask if you feel any sort of, how can I put it, like a sense of feeling that these words should not attributed to Jesus because of the doubt of its origin?

 

[Umar001]

No the NT doesn't have stuff added to it, though I can see why you might suggest that it does. It is modern editions of it that have questions marks as to what was the original form of the NT. I thought that this is what Islam has always said about the NT: that it was correct in its original form and message, but was later corrupted. I am basically agreeing with you as far as that statement goes. What I disagree with Islam on strongly is the degree of that corruption. I think it is miniscule. Islam thinks it is catastrophic.

So what your saying is, correct me if am wrong,

"It is modern editions of it that have questions marks as to what was the original form of the NT."

So by this your refering to the unchanged autographs, i.e. the Original Mark Matthew Luke John and letters?

 

[Grace Seeker]

So what your saying is, correct me if am wrong,

"It is modern editions of it that have questions marks as to what was the original form of the NT."

So by this your refering to the unchanged autographs, i.e. the Original Mark Matthew Luke John and letters?

Yes.



















I just couldn't leave it with a one word answer. So, I'm adding your other question to me here:

Grace Seeker, may I ask if you feel any sort of, how can I put it, like a sense of feeling that these words should not attributed to Jesus because of the doubt of its origin?

I think disputed passages should be noted as disputed passages, and they are. I think we in the church must better educate ourselves and one another as to the meaning of these footnotes and not just gloss over them. I also think there are better, clearer ways to this mark this particular passage as disputed than the way it was handled in the NIV. But if a disputed passage is so noted, then I think integrity dictates that you must include the disputed passage in the way it is recorded, and if it has Jesus speaks, then it has Jesus speak. Readers just need to be more careful in their reading, and preachers who use disputed passages must take time to explain the nature of the dispute to their congregations.

 

[Grace Seeker]

That is much debatable, for the reason that we see in the Gospel a sort of evolution, and if we have scribes writing in when they feel like writing then what is to say that the first writings were not in of themselves based on wrong Oral Tradition.

Now you're sounding like Rudolf Bultman and some others. ;D

 

[Umar001]

Yes.

So do you agree with a statement which would read:

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John all wrote documents, these documents as they were written by them have not arraived down to us, but copies, some copies include copiest errors which is natural, and some include omissions and additions by other sources unknown.​

I just couldn't leave it with a one word answer. So, I'm adding your other question to me here:
I think disputed passages should be noted as disputed passages, and they are. I think we in the church must better educate ourselves and one another as to the meaning of these footnotes and not just gloss over them. I also think there are better, clearer ways to this mark this particular passage as disputed than the way it was handled in the NIV. But if a disputed passage is so noted, then I think integrity dictates that you must include the disputed passage in the way it is recorded, and if it has Jesus speaks, then it has Jesus speak. Readers just need to be more careful in their reading, and preachers who use disputed passages must take time to explain the nature of the dispute to their congregations.

Ok, so please bare with me, I hate assuming things because it leads to wrong understanding on many occasions so bare with my questions lol.

So from what I understand of the above your saying passages which are disputes as to whether they are a later interpolation should be left in the text of the Bible but with a footnote as the NIV does, thats what I seem to understand, so does this mean that people should attribute to Jesus, in some cases, something which is disputed about and deemed not reliable, don't you think you should attribute to Jesus what is reliable and the rest left out because of the chance that it is not from him?

Peace be upon Jesus.


Edit:

Now you're sounding like Rudolf Bultman and some others. ;D

"Rudolf Bultmann is one of the most influential theologians and biblical scholars of the twentieth century."

Plus he looks handsome

 

[glo]

Now Now Glo,

It does seem that CheEsa does infact sound like a nice name, erm, but me and cheese I assure you are not one character, lol.

Greetings, Eesa

I never meant to imply that you and Cheese are the same person.
It was more of a word game really. Mostly because both of you have recently changed your user names - but I cannot stop thinking of you as cheese and Eesa!

It seems like you have something against Cheese's post and I can see why, though i don't see what problem you have with mine, I mentioned you as if you were not here because at the time you werent.

Nope, I didnt make an assumption, I just wondered which it was, whether you knew but still quoted it, and I was going to ask next why you would quote it if you knew that it is not reliable, but you have answered. So don't feel I was assuming you of deliberately misquoting. Although I would not be suprised if someone did think you were.

Anyhow, I still don't see what wrong I've done, anyhow, am glad that your Bible informs you that 'the earliest manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not contain it'.

You have done nothing wrong, Eesa, and neither has cheese!

I can be a little sensitive when I detect what I perceive to be an aggressive or critical undertone in people's posts ... largely because I try my hardest to avoid the same in my own posts.
I was having a bristly moment.
I am sorry if I sounded defensive! :uhwhat

peace

 

[Malaikah]

Greetings, Cheese and Eesa (or should that be ChEesa? :giggling: )

:lol:

But I feel slightly annoyed about the way both of you speak about me as if I am not present; and I feel that you are making a certain assumption that I am either ignorant of the Bible or deliberately misquoting it.
So allow me to post my own view on this

I wasn's assuming anything, it was jus a massive shock to me that there is actually a part of the bible which christians know and admit shouldnt be there, I was just wondering whether you knew thats all...

I cannot help but feel, cheese, that you are reacting fairly strongly because you perceived my post as a criticism or an argument against stoning as a punishment.
I never did any such thing.
I never made any argument at all!
Perhaps you were reading between the lines? Perhaps you were seeing things which aren't there?

:? I just started a thread because I thought the story was interesting and wondered what the implications where over all... in Islam such a story would surely have significant legal applications, I just wanted to know if it was the same in christianity.

I can understand where you are coming from on this. I'm not sure that what you think is conclusive proof for the authenticity of the Qur'an is quite as strong as you think it is, but that is for another thread. I did not come here to attack Islam, but to learn about it. Having done that, where things about Christianity are presented as fact, that I understand differently, I hope to do my best to clarifiy, and if possible to correct, misunderstandings. I appreciate the dialogue we have had in this respect and hope for it to continue.

What I disagree with Islam on strongly is the degree of that corruption. I think it is miniscule. Islam thinks it is catastrophic.

But actually your basing that on what you know to be the changes, there could be many more other changes, of course I dont expect you to believe that but I just wanted to make sure you realise that it is refering only to that specific section of the bible that was changed.

Regarding the OT, I think you just misunderstood what I was saying. The OT is not based on a Greek translation. There are Greek translations of the OT, the most famous one being the Septuigant (LXX) which was completed by the Jews and used by Greek speaking Jews even before the time of Christ. Depending on where one lived and one's native language, early Christians might have used either OT scriptures written in Hebrew or OT scriptures written in Greek. My reference to the Qumran scrolls (200 BC) and the Masoretic texts (800 AD) of Isaiah were comparisons of Hebrew texts, not Greek texts, which showed that there were no significant changes produced by the copying and recopying of these texts over even a 1000 year period of time.

With regard to the OT, I wasnt specifically refering to your comments, rather I was commenting based on the worlds of a very well know Islamic scholar who said that the original hebrew of the OT was lost and that the hebrew version we have today was actually translated back to hebrew from the greek.:?

 

[Grace Seeker]

:lol:
With regard to the OT, I wasnt specifically refering to your comments, rather I was commenting based on the worlds of a very well know Islamic scholar who said that the original hebrew of the OT was lost and that the hebrew version we have today was actually translated back to hebrew from the greek.:?

I don't think there is anyway that I can say this without it sounding like an attack. I hope you'll know I don't mean it that way, at least not against the particular person. But if this is the opinion of "a very well know Islamic scholar" this scares me. Surely Islamic scholarship is better than this. Now, I am not a Hebrew scholar, but without even knowing that is what you were referring to, I think that I showed that such an event is not true (nor has it ever been) just by citing the pre-existing use of the Masoretic text. Yes, Christians do make use of the LXX, a Greek translation, but for clarification of our understanding of how Greek words might have been used by the Hebrew writers of the NT, not to translate the OT back into Hebrew.

The Jews have always had a Hebrew text. We didn't have to go looking to something else to get a translation. Translation into other tongues besides Hebrew and Greek would make use of both the best available Hebrew texts (and, where the existent copy was older, the best available LXX).

Imagine it like this, you are shipwrecked in the country of Omigosh. The Omigoshians speak Omigoshian. Fortunately it is similar to Omigeorgian which you already speak a little and so in time you are able to learn their language. They have no knowledge of Islam, but are curious about your faith. You know have several choices. Teach them in Omigoshian and translate the Qu'ran into Omigoshian for them to read. Teach them Arabic so that they can read it in the original and provide them a copy. Teach them some other language you speak such as your native tongue and then teach them in that language. Now effecting your decision might be whether you actually speak Arabic, have a copy of the Qu'ran in Arabic with you. If all you had with you was a watersoaked, and only half-legible Qu'ran, and a completely legilbe English translation, and a p[rayer book that had the opening chapter in Omigeorgian. You might all those sources to create a translation of it in Omigoshian, but I don't think you would try to translate the Qu'ran back into Arabic. Especially when you knew, that there was already easy access to the Qu'ran in the original once you got out of the country of Omigosh.

So, Christians have used all that was available to them at different times. And no doubt there have been times and places in medieval history where certain groups may not have had ready access to a good Hebrew text. (I don't know this for fact, but I can imagine just as Erasmus didn't have access to a complete Greek text when he compiled his edition of a Greek New Testament and chose to translate from Latin back into Greek for portions of it.) In such circumstances perhaps some reverse translation was done. But none of those are used for the translation of modern versions of the Bible.

If such has occurred (and again I haven't studied them) they are irrelevant to today's translations of the Bible. (Btw, the introductions to a bible usually tell you something about the translation process that went into it. You might want to read the small print, if this is a concern of yours.) And arguments against modern translations based on such things are disingenuious. I prefer to think that your well know Islamic scholar was simply relating some point of history or making another type of reference and somehow was misconstrued as providing an argument against the integrity of modern translations of the Old Testament. Or, even more likely, I've misunderstood your point. I hate to think that it was truly an attempt at a refutation, for such poorly founded refutations are unworthy of truly good scholarship.