Grace Seeker
IB Legend
- Messages
- 5,343
- Reaction score
- 617
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Christianity
Re: Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) Prophecised in the Bible.
As I said, I think your understanding of the changes that have taken place with regard to the Bible are in error, serious error. Indeed Catholics and Protestants recognize two different canons of scripture. But it is not because of changes in the texts, but disagreement on which books should be considered as authoritative. There are disagreements in Islam as to who should be considered authoritative as well. Does that make all the interpreters of the Qur'an untrustworthy? I don't think so. Likewise I don't think that the disagreements with regard to the canon make the agreed on books questionable.
Beyond that there are no "changes" in the Bible in the sense of alterations to change the theology or overall message. What there are are variant readings produced by errors in copying. And while some of them might be considered significant, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post.
Just as you have a "science" to determine the validity of various (i.e. variant) hadiths, so we have a science of textual criticism to determine the validity of any variant readings. Because of this, even secular scholars who don't believe in the teachings of the Bible trust the accuracy of the available texts as being the most reliable of any manuscript of its antiquity or older. Thus any reasons for not having confidence in the integrity of the Bible as presently used by Christians (be it Protestant or Catholic) are generally unfounded, your above claims not withstanding.
well u can understand this also tat the Bible is not the word of Allah anymore, there r more than 1 additions of Bible and each one is different from the other. so if an error was present it would be present now rather than hundreds of years ago. when there were not much changes.
As I said, I think your understanding of the changes that have taken place with regard to the Bible are in error, serious error. Indeed Catholics and Protestants recognize two different canons of scripture. But it is not because of changes in the texts, but disagreement on which books should be considered as authoritative. There are disagreements in Islam as to who should be considered authoritative as well. Does that make all the interpreters of the Qur'an untrustworthy? I don't think so. Likewise I don't think that the disagreements with regard to the canon make the agreed on books questionable.
Beyond that there are no "changes" in the Bible in the sense of alterations to change the theology or overall message. What there are are variant readings produced by errors in copying. And while some of them might be considered significant, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post, the vast majority are as simple to observe as someone who makes a typo in an LI post.
Just as you have a "science" to determine the validity of various (i.e. variant) hadiths, so we have a science of textual criticism to determine the validity of any variant readings. Because of this, even secular scholars who don't believe in the teachings of the Bible trust the accuracy of the available texts as being the most reliable of any manuscript of its antiquity or older. Thus any reasons for not having confidence in the integrity of the Bible as presently used by Christians (be it Protestant or Catholic) are generally unfounded, your above claims not withstanding.