Scholars plan to reunite ancient Bible

[Keltoi]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum



No I am actually referring to versions of the Bible, NOT translations.

When one Bible contains 73 books, 7 extra books more than the protestant Bible, then we call them different versions, when the same RSV of 1952 and 1971 contradicts each other, we call them versions and not translations, when you read Jehovah’s witness Bible and compare it with the KJV, you will understand what I mean, when you read the Living Bible and compare it with Jimmy Swaggart’s version, then you will realize the huge differences.

The reason for this is that the original Bible itself do not exist today, and so everyone can claim that his Bible is God’s words, but no one can really back up his claim with some evidence, and that’s why Christian Scholars who have done their home work knows well what am talking about.

I can elaborate further on this subject if you wish.

Salam
Serving Islam

As for the Bible with 7 OT books added, you are referring to the Catholic Bible. It does indeed have 7 books the Protestant Bibles do not. Why? That is a long standing source of disagreement. Protestant do not feel the " deuterocanon", or "apocrypha" are inspired books, but Catholics do. You are right on that score. However, adding or subtracting the apocrypha does not alter Christian doctrine. So the disagreement is not over doctrine.

As for the RSV of 1952 as compared to later versions, that is a case of different translations, as I stated. The difference between the Bibles are different translations of Hebrew words. There is no doctrinal difference.

As for the Jehova's Witnesses version of the Bible, let me ask you a question. If a group of people, with a figurehead, decided to take the Qu'ran and add words and change phrases to match their own ideology, would you consider their version to be valid? The Jehova's Witnesses "Bible" is nothing more than a standard translation of the Bible with their own words added to it. It isn't a case of a different version of the Bible that have always been around, it was a Bible altered in the 19th century. Not really a valid criticism of the Bible mainstream traditional Christianity uses.

The Living Bible is another translation. The author intended it to be a guide in vernacular language, not a sole source of Biblical knowledge.

As for Jimmy Swaggart, again, he did not write a Bible, it is a collection of Bible commentaries. Meant to be a study guide.

 

[Serving Islam]

Bismillah: Assalamo Alikum.

Keltoi

As for the Bible with 7 OT books added, you are referring to the Catholic Bible. It does indeed have 7 books the Protestant Bibles do not. Why? That is a long standing source of disagreement. Protestant do not feel the " deuterocanon", or "apocrypha" are inspired books, but Catholics do. You are right on that score. However, adding or subtracting the apocrypha does not alter Christian doctrine. So the disagreement is not over doctrine.

It is not a matter of who feels which books are inspired and which are not, we are talking about WHICH BIBLE is really God’s word? And you simply can’t prove that because the original manuscripts are not available today.

I am not sure to which denomination of Christianity you are belongs to, but I am sure that you are sticking to ONE BIBLE only and can’t use other Bibles because you know very well that they are different/VERSIONS, as we will see later in this post.

As for the RSV of 1952 as compared to later versions, that is a case of different translations, as I stated. The difference between the Bibles are different translations of Hebrew words. There is no doctrinal difference.

Ok let us examine both Bibles, but before that I urge you to lay your hand on RSV (1971), and read the preface, and you will note that those scholars who re re re revised the KJV said, that the KJV has grave defects, and that these defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS… I wonder how could these defects be so serious if there are no doctrinal differences and mistakes? Just imagine with me for a second, how Muslims would feel when hearing form Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating denominations that the KJV of the Bible HAVE GRAVE DEFECTS?

Anyway, now let us examine those Bibles: (i.e. the twin RSV).

1- If you read RSV 1952, you will see that there is no mention of BEGOTTEN son of God as it is found in KJV (John 3:16).

2- If you read the 1st epistle of John 5:7 of the same version (RSV 1952), there is no mention of Trinity (i.e. that those three are ONE as mentioned in KJV).

3- Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51… please read them in RSV 1952 and you will see that Mark 16 ends at verse no 8. which means that the ascension of Jesus is not mention in that VERSION, and instead they replaced “and was carried up into heaven” by a tiny letter ‘a’ to ask the reader if he wishes to look at the footnote where you can see those missing words, and I guess, any honest man would agree that FOOTNOTES are not God’s words or even inspired by God.

4- Forgot to tell you that Christian scholars also have said that the RSV is the most accurate Bible, goes to the most ancient manuscripts (200 – 300 years after Jesus) bringing their Bible step closer to Islam by removing, God’s begotten son, Trinity, and sitting on God’s right hand/ascension.

5- All the above points and more were RESTORED into “God’s word” in RSV 1971. Now which one really is God’s word? And what are the evidences?

As for the Jehova's Witnesses version of the Bible, let me ask you a question. If a group of people, with a figurehead, decided to take the Qu'ran and add words and change phrases to match their own ideology, would you consider their version to be valid?

They can’t change the Qur’an, it is written on the hearts of Muslims, that is how Allah preserve it. On the other hand, neither you nor Jehovah’s Witnesses can tell us which version of the Bible is really God’s words because again and again, the original do not exist today, and these are NOT MY WORDS, it’s the words of Bible Christian Scholars.

The Jehova's Witnesses "Bible" is nothing more than a standard translation of the Bible with their own words added to it. It isn't a case of a different version of the Bible that have always been around, it was a Bible altered in the 19th century. Not really a valid criticism of the Bible mainstream traditional Christianity uses.

Again, because you are NOT a Jehovah’s Witness, it is just normal to speak against their own version of the Bible, which is believed BY THEM to be the accurate word of God. How can anyone prove that they’ve added into the original Bible, if we don’t have the original at all???

Salam
Serving Islam.

 

[usman2468]

No offense but what kind of Holy book bible is.

Not preserved in its original version
Conflicting views
Conflicting translations
Conflicting verses

Even if Islam did not tell me that the message of Bible has been corrupted. The problems I have mentioned seemed sufficient to prove that Bible is indeed corrupt.

 

[Keltoi]

It is not a matter of who feels which books are inspired and which are not, we are talking about WHICH BIBLE is really God’s word? And you simply can’t prove that because the original manuscripts are not available today.

I am not sure to which denomination of Christianity you are belongs to, but I am sure that you are sticking to ONE BIBLE only and can’t use other Bibles because you know very well that they are different/VERSIONS, as we will see later in this post.

Actually I don't stick to one Bible. Sometimes I use the King James, sometimes NIV, sometimes something else. The doctrine is the same, it is the translation that is different. Passages can be worded differently while still expressing the Hebrew or Greek language they are translated from, at least to the best of the translators ability. The same is true for the Qu'ran. You will find different translations of the Qu'ran that are worded differently.

As for what is God's Word as opposed to inspired text...I think you are using a Muslim perspective and placing a Christian text into that perspective. We do not believe God writes books. We believe men have been inspired to chronicle God's interaction with His people. As Christians, we believe the OT and the NT chronicle that interaction. It is faith, just like your belief that the Qu'ran is the literal Word of God.

Ok let us examine both Bibles, but before that I urge you to lay your hand on RSV (1971), and read the preface, and you will note that those scholars who re re re revised the KJV said, that the KJV has grave defects, and that these defects are SO MANY and SO SERIOUS… I wonder how could these defects be so serious if there are no doctrinal differences and mistakes? Just imagine with me for a second, how Muslims would feel when hearing form Scholars of the highest eminence, backed by 50 cooperating denominations that the KJV of the Bible HAVE GRAVE DEFECTS?

Actually the preface states that the Kings James version of the Bible suffers from translation defects. They know this because an older version of the Bible was found. The majority of those defects have to do with nouns and verbs, with some errors being more profound. As one passage describes headbands, tablets, and earrings; when it should say sashes, perfume boxes, and amulets. The errors have been corrected to the best of the translators ability. As for your other points about "begotten" and "ascension into Heaven", they are English words used to describe a non-English concept. If you wish to nitpick the Bible, do so in Greek or Hebrew, as that is the source, not the English King James or the revised versions. Oh, and no version says the word "Trinity". That is a word used to describe a religious concept in Christianity. That concept, from a Christian perspective, is found in the Bible, regardless of translation.

Again, because you are NOT a Jehovah’s Witness, it is just normal to speak against their own version of the Bible, which is believed BY THEM to be the accurate word of God. How can anyone prove that they’ve added into the original Bible, if we don’t have the original at all???

Honestly, this is non-point. I don't need to read an ancient codex to figure out that Jehova's Witnesses have altered the available Biblical texts to suit their own religious ideology. If I decide tomorrow to found a new religion based on a singing rabbit and change the word "Jesus" to "Wilber the Rabbit" it doesn't have anything to do with "lack of an original", it was my decision to do so.