When was the Bible corrupted?

[Keltoi]

Actually you can say ,that's nice Pious Forgeries :sunny:

I prefer my description

 

[جوري]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

 

[Keltoi]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

I think your confused....I didn't suggest there was a "hoax", I was responding to the assertion that Christianity is a "hoax". As far as the "ample evidence" you've referred to, I suppose we differ on what constitutes both "ample" and "evidence". The musings of athiests may be important to you(Paine and Ingersoll), but that is hardly important to me.

Perhaps I'm confused as to who you are referring to in your post....there is always that possibility. kay:

 

[جوري]

I am never amused by Atheists just dulled till I lose my senses by them!... pls don't reference me back to where they are quoted.. it is more a reply to your request to have a source that isn't Islamic to back up any affirmations leveled against the corruption of christianity as we now know it.. and indeed a non-islamic source was given!... christianity and Jesus aren't the parties on trial.. rather the subversion of the bible!

peace!

 

[back_to_faith]

Can you prove He wasn't crucified? Seems I'm not the only one playing a game of "assertions". Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion. Do you have a more "credible" account that Christ wasn't crucified?...without looking to the Qu'ran? .

There we go again !!!

I always provided proofs to support my assertions,

(Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion.)

And I showed some proofs that the only source (NT) christians use to affirm
(crucifixion-resurrection) to be without any reasonable doubt, errant book......

the burden of proofs lies on him who alledges

it is me who ask:

Do you have a "credible" account that Christ was crucified?...

it is you who has to defend the flaws which I posted,in order to prove the NT(the only source for the crucifixion-resurrection exist)to be a valid source.

If proved that the NT writers intentionally contradict each others,faked false,unfulfilled prophecies, misused OT passages...
then not only their cricificton,resuerrection narrative is not trustworthy,but other areas in the NT becomes Dubious.


pick a point I highlighted before and go on the discussion,if not then you has nothing else to offer.

 

[Keltoi]

There we go again !!!

I always provided proofs to support my assertions,

(Christians look to the Gospels for the account of Christ's crucifixion.)

And I showed some proofs that the only source (NT) christians use to affirm
(crucifixion-resurrection) to be without any reasonable doubt, errant book......

the burden of proofs lies on him who alledges

it is me who ask:

Do you have a "credible" account that Christ was crucified?...

it is you who has to defend the flaws which I posted,in order to prove the NT(the only source for the crucifixion-resurrection exist)to be a valid source.

If proved that the NT writers intentionally contradict each others,faked false,unfulfilled prophecies, misused OT passages...
then not only their cricificton,resuerrection narrative is not trustworthy,but other areas in the NT becomes Dubious.


pick a point I highlighted before and go on the discussion,if not then you has nothing else to offer.

Do I have a credible account? I believe I do, and that is the Gospel account. As for you supplying "proof" for your assertions, we must have a very different definition of proof. You have beliefs, and you have opinions. If I wanted to play this game, which I don't, I could post verses from the Qu'ran that say one thing and then another. I could then claim it as proof of the Qu'ran's corruption, even though it had very little to do with the important message contained within. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that authors writing independently of each other will describe some details differently, much like independent witnesses of any major event. The issue is whether the important element, the even itself, is testified to have happened. The Gospel writers agree on the issue, which is Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. The various descriptions of where the sun was when they begin their narrative is interesting, but hardly the meat of the issue. These minor differences in description actually add credibility, since authors writing independently of one another still agree on the all important elements.

 

[back_to_faith]

Do I have a credible account? I believe I do, and that is the Gospel account. As for you supplying "proof" for your assertions, we must have a very different definition of proof. You have beliefs, and you have opinions. If I wanted to play this game, which I don't, I could post verses from the Qu'ran that say one thing and then another. I could then claim it as proof of the Qu'ran's corruption, even though it had very little to do with the important message contained within.

under your line of reasoning,one could believe of a dozen of errant works to be true and inspired as long as,the flaws in the works has very little to do with the important message contained within...

If you think the Quran has contradictions which has very little to do with the important message contained within,why don't you treat it the same treatment you has with the Bible?

why don't you accept other world sacred scripture as inspired as long as their flaws has very little to do with the important message contained within?

it is obvious that our discussion came to an end in this thread after you joined Seeker's approach....


If the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired

My friend, with all due respect, if there is any verse in the Bible you and those of like mind should commit to memory it is Proverb 14:15, which says, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."

 

[Grace Seeker]

What is (the select group) you talking about?!!!

The disciples.


I've been led to believe that Islam teaches that it was revealed to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

 

[Grace Seeker]

I believe you only consider it a hoax because it challenges the crux of your beliefs....He has provided you with ample evidence including the various bibles plus 'Thomas Paine and Ingersoll' -- you choose to ignore it, or deem it a hoax, but saying so no matter how unflagging your resolve, isn't an adequate testament to in fact dismiss it as a hoax... you certainly have a right to your beliefs-- but by itself doesn't make for a good analysis or historical evidence... I'd actually love to hear the Jewish account of the event, since neither forum members, nor historians, nor Islamic sources seem sufficient....
Maybe Rav, or others can elucidate this from the other side of the fence...
peace!

I'm confused about the "ample evidence".

What difference does it make how many different translations of the Bible are available today? I could write my own translation today, and sometimes do for certain sections that I am studying. They all are translated out of the same source documents.

I do appreciate that Back-to-Faith has researched the comments of scholars. I have done so as well. Though I do not claim to have read all available comments, I have read scholars with many various views. I find the evidence presented by those who would grant legitamcy to the Gospel writers more compelling and have posted some of those arguments on other relevant threads. Btw, that is not an opinion I have always held, but the more I read the more I became convinced by the evidence that I was reading that none of the NT books date from later than the end of the first century. Which is not the same as saying that they were not tampered with by others later, but I do believe they all have first century Greek origins.

Also, I don't find there to be a problem with the colophon (John 21:24-25)

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.​

Yes, vs. 24 is in the first person (we know) while the rest of the book has been written in the third person.
First, I would hardly think that is an argument agains the book as a whole.
Second, it seems a reasonable way for an author of a book written to sustain Christian believers and to inform and persuade unbelievers to make such a personal comment at the end of his work.
Third the whole of the epilogue (chapter 21) contains a number of parenthetic statements. These leave the impression that the account may have been written for a second generation of believers who were themselves historically removed from the original events. This fits well with what else we know about John who was apparently the last of the living disciples at the time he wrote his gospel. However, what one could argue is that the whole of chapter 21 was an addition to the gospel by a later hand, there might be some merit to those assertions given the apparent ending of John 20:30-31. Yet Merrill Tenney (since we are name dropping) has this to say about the Epilogue:

Chapter 21 of John is a postscript to the main development of the book. It is not irrelevant to the preceeding text; in fact, it completes it by illustrating the result of belief. It reads like the reminiscence that an author might have added subsequent to the composition of the first part by dictation to an assistant or scribe who added his own comment in the last two verses. The language bears a strong likeness both to the Synoptics and to the other sections of John.

There is no textual evidence for considering John 21 as a late addition to the main body of the Gospel. Every complete MS of John contains it. Evidently it is integral to the Gospel as a whole, though it may have been written as a special section.

And lastly, taking at look at the critical apparatus listing textual variants, strikingly, there are none for the final two verses of the Gospel of John. They too appear to have been a part of the Gospel from the beginning and not to have been added to the text later as either insertions or modifications.

 

[back_to_faith]

The disciples.


I've been led to believe that Islam teaches that it was revealed to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

And what led you to to belive such things?

I don't held the theory (Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place)for two reasons I can mention..but that is not our topic...

what is interesting ,you said:

it was revealed by God to the disicples that Jesus never was on the cross but that it was another in his place.

so
Have the disicples been decieved?!!!and by whom?

 

[back_to_faith]

Also, I don't find there to be a problem with the colophon (John 21:24-25)

24This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true.
25Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.​

Yes, vs. 24 is in the first person (we know) while the rest of the book has been written in the third person.
First, I would hardly think that is an argument agains the book as a whole.
.

Hold on ,Our discussion began with your claim that the church claimed that The Gospel of John was written by the so called John the apostle ,but I showed you something proves without any reasonable doubt that we have traces in the work shows that it is a work of multiple hands.

to sum up the matter:

Is The text itself clear about the issue(Authorship)? absolutely not.


Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, "Master, who is the one who will betray you?" John 21:20

there isn't a single verse that would justify teaching that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

I challenge anyone to provide a single verse that would justify such flase idea.

in other words , that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple in verse 20 ,can never proved to be the same person.


JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe


JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

Who are (the disciple -he-we)?!!!!!!

similar to

Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

similar to


Luke 1

Many ? have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those ? who from the first were eyewitnesses???? and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I ? myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,?

words without sense at all !!!

1- anonymous writers .

2-anonymous eyewitnesses.

3-anonymous sources.

4- anonymous times.

If it is proved by a proof text,that we have traces in the work show that it is a work of multiple hands,How on earth one trust the church's propaganda that the work exclusively,was written by a so called Apostle called John to begin with?!!

that makes me feel like repeating the quoute from Ingersoll's work

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. " Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273




so what is the deal of the fact that John is a work of multiple hands?

Does that make it as a whole false?

I never said that !....neither muslims claim that.


I believe the the development of this work to be:


1) an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus.
2) a structured literary creation by the writers which draws upon additional sources(hearsay accounts) .
3) the edited version that readers know today.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hold on ,Our discussion began with your claim that the church claimed that The Gospel of John was written by the so called John the apostle ,but I showed you something proves without any reasonable doubt that we have traces in the work shows that it is a work of multiple hands.

to sum up the matter:

Is The text itself clear about the issue(Authorship)? absolutely not.


Peter turned and saw the disciple following whom Jesus loved, the one who had also reclined upon his chest during the supper and had said, "Master, who is the one who will betray you?" John 21:20

there isn't a single verse that would justify teaching that John is the disciple whom Jesus loved.

I challenge anyone to provide a single verse that would justify such flase idea.

in other words , that first person "I" in verse 25, the disciple in verse 24 and the disciple whom Jesus loved (also known as the Beloved Disciple in verse 20 ,can never proved to be the same person.


JOHN 19

35. And he that saw it bare record,
and his record is true: and he knoweth
that he saith true, that ye might believe


JOHN 21
24. This is the disciple which testifieth
of these things, and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.

Who are (the disciple -he-we)?!!!!!!

similar to

Then he appeared to more than 500 brethren at one time 1 Corinthians 15:3-9

similar to


Luke 1

Many ? have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those ? who from the first were eyewitnesses???? and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I ? myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning,?

words without sense at all !!!

1- anonymous writers .

2-anonymous eyewitnesses.

3-anonymous sources.

4- anonymous times.

If it is proved by a proof text,that we have traces in the work show that it is a work of multiple hands,How on earth one trust the church's propaganda that the work exclusively,was written by a so called Apostle called John to begin with?!!

that makes me feel like repeating the quoute from Ingersoll's work

--"Nothing can exceed the credulity of the early fathers, unless it may be their ignorance. They did not think it wrong to swear falsely in a good cause. They interpolated, forged, and changed the records to suit themselves, for the sake of Christ. They quoted from persons who never wrote. They misrepresented those who had written, and their evidence is absolutely worthless. " Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 5, p. 273




so what is the deal of the fact that John is a work of multiple hands?

Does that make it as a whole false?

I never said that !....neither muslims claim that.


I believe the the development of this work to be:


1) an initial version based on personal experience of Jesus.
2) a structured literary creation by the writers which draws upon additional sources(hearsay accounts) .
3) the edited version that readers know today.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Why could John NOT be the disciple whom Jesus loved?

What is the big deal about 500 witnesses?

What is wrong with Luke saying that he has researched his Gospel? He doesn't say that he was himself an eyewitness. Though there is no reason that he could not have been.

And I still don't see what you see in John 19 and 21. Yes the Gospel is mostly third person, but as I said a first person ending does not seem at all out of place. And as far as multiple hands go, didn't I even suggest that the final two verses might be that of a scribe who John had dictated the closing paragraph to? It was very common in the first century for writers to write through the use of an amanuensis. We know that Paul did from the way he signs off in some of his letters.



Maybe I'm being dense? Maybe you are? Maybe we both are about different things and don't even realize it. But I don't see what you seem to find to be so incredulous.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Originally posted by MustafaMC
Grace Seekeer, thank you for the detailed response. I have saved this post to a Word file for later reference if that is OK with you.

I am very glad you have. When I turned on my computer this morning, it became obvious that LI had experienced another hic-up with its server, and once again several days of posts have been lost. I thought about all of the half-finished conversations that we now never be complete. And I thought about my post that was now in some cyper-cemetary. But, by your actions you have preserved it. Thank-you.

Would you mind posting it a second time on my behalf so that I can get a copy of it again myself?

As you have indicated even this lengthy explanation is not good enough for me to believe that the Bible is the Word of God. You spent a lot of time on this post and I truly appreciate the explanations, but I can see no Divine guidance in the creation of the Bible. When we consider the sacking of Jerusalem and the persecution of the Christians, it is amazing that we even have a NT at all, but I honestly do not see the Bible per se as being Divinely inspired.

I don't expect my detailing of the history of the Bible to satisfy those looking for Divine inspiration. That isn't going to be seen in history. That is something that each person must decide for him/herself. Those who read the books and heard God speaking to them from the text have felt that they were divinely inspired and those who have not experienced that have felt otherwise throughout all of history. This was just as true of the first readers as of you and I today. Belief in its inspiration is something that we approach the scriptures with ourselves even before we open the page. Reading them might make us even more convinced or it might convince us that they were not, but I've never met a person who found any set of scriptures (of any religion) to be divinely inspired, who didn't at least remain open to the possibilty that they could be inspired even before they read them.

 

[MustafaMc]

Original post by Grace Seeker.

I am named after my father. If my father and I both appeared on the show, and they asked which was the real (First Name, Last Name) we would both stand up. The Jewish Bible, the Greek Bible, the Latin Bible they are all the real Bible. I know that is not the way it is with the Qur'an, for it is declared only to be the Qur'an if it is in Arabic. But the Bible is the Bible no matter what langauge it is in.

Perhaps a better question for your purposes would be which is the original Bible? After all, this is what the issue is with regard to corruption. Looking at 15 different English translations of the Bible and seeing that one says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son..." And another says, "For God so loved the world that he gavest his only begotten son..." And another says, "Because God so loved the world, he gave his one and only son..." is not a sign of corruption, just different ways of translating the same original.

So, if we ask about the original Bible, well we would have to admit that the Jewish scriptures, written in Hebrew, were the original Bible. By the time of Jesus they no longer circulated as many independent scrolls, but had been gathered together in a library of scrolls. But each scroll was still an independent document; thought collected together into a library, these Hebrew texts were not collated and compiled into anything resembling a book. (Books themselves would not be invented for about another 200 years.) But another interesting thing happened a couple of hundred years before the time of Jesus. The Jews' Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek. However, the ordering of this translation, according to Rav and Lavikor, was not done by Jews but by Greeks who. And today Jews would say that they translated and included in this Greek version of the Tanakh some books that never belonged in the Tanakh. Either way this Greek version of the Tanakh+ was called the Septuagint (or LXX).

So, by the time of Jesus the Tanakh was used in Aramaic/Hebrew speaking areas of the Jewish world and the LXX was used in Greek speaking areas of the Jewish world.

After Jesus' ascension (see if I say that ascension instead of crucifixion and resurrection both Muslim and Christians can agree, though I'm afraid I cannot please our Jewish brothers and sisters at this time) the disciples of Jesus, his other followers, and those who joined them at Pentecost (read Acts 2 if you don't know the story) began to tell the story of Jesus to all who would listen. This oral testimony was the first proclamation with regard to Jesus, and (in my opinion) it included the classic stories that we read of in Acts of Peter, John, Stephen, Philip, and I would assume others, proclaim as "good news" the story of Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection and how turning to God and believing in Jesus name could bring about the forgiveness of sins. (Again you can read this in the book of Acts.) In time, though not originally, Paul converted from one persecuting the Christians for this message to being the most prolific promoter of it. And as he travelled to share this story with more and more people, he also wrote letters to those places and people that he came into contact with. These letters (or at least some of them) were saved by the churches and even copied and shared with others. Of course they were not part of the Bible at that time, they were initially simply received as letters. At this point in time the only Bible was still the Tanakh, although so many of the Christians that Paul was converting were Greek speakers that it became most common for the early church to use the Greek LXX instead of the Hebrew Tanakh.

As time passed, many people (both Jesus' original disciples, other followers who had known Jesus, and new converts) travelled repeating and sharing the story of Jesus. And of course, people wanted to know more and more. So to the original teaching that was just about his crucifixion and resurrection, more details were included and the oral tradition grew. Some of it was written down in a book of basic beliefs and teachings of the church known as the Didache.

By the way, the Didache still exists and is actually older than any of the writings that are considered part of the N.T. But it isn't really a theological book. It is more of a service manual or administrative handbook for regulating worship and other aspects of the individual Christians life. You can read it here: The Didache. Now we know it was written very early, but the version we have of it presently isn't the earliest version of it. It was changed and modified over time and through use, and the verision we have now could date from anywhere from 100-250 AD, depending on which scholar you listen to. And Origen even included it among his list of books used by the church, but not to be considered scripture. As I said, it was more of a training manual for new Christians.

But with the pasage of time, the Church sought to preserve the oral traditions with regard to Jesus that were being shared and they began to write Gospels. There were many Gospels written over the next 200 years. Some were by people who knew Jesus. Some were by people who were disciples of people who knew Jesus. And some were by people much farther removed. Some of these were received by the Church as being particularly of value to faith and practice, some were recieved as being interesting stories, and some were considered to be completely untrustworthy. By the end of the first century the churches were comparing notes with one another to see which books others found to be most valuable, which of interest, and which to simply outright reject. In addition to the various gospels they also considered a number of letters as worthy of being saved and used by all the churches. By the end of the 2nd century they actually had compared notes with each other enough to produce lists of what were "agreed" upon. Though there were a few differences in opinion, there was largely agreement. Those books that were being accepted without question by this time were the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, the book of Acts, Paul's 7 letters to church and 6 personal letters, the first letter of John, and the book of Revelation -- these were universally agreed upon. These had come to actually be considered "scripture". And then there were others that were accepted by some and disputed by others as to whether they whether or not they too should be considered scripture -- they included: James, the 2nd and 3rd letters of John, the letters of Peter (both 1 & 2), Jude, the letter to the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the letter of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Shepherd of Hermes, and the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles (or the Didache). In the following century the present list of New Testament books was that which was used uniformly throughout the church. These books plus the Septuagint were the Greek Bible that Robert Robinson speaks of. It would be some time more before the heirarchy of the Church officially "set" canon of the New Testament at one of its council and Jerome would translate the Greek Bible into Latin for the use of the Latin speaking part of the church. This translation Roman Catholic Bible that Robinson speaks of.

Now, if you think the process of the church taking time to reach agreement as to which books were to be accepted and which excluded from the canon of scripture is the same thing as corruption, then you are entitled to your opinion. But, please be aware, you are employing a Muslim standard on a Christian document. Christians believe that the Holy Spirit guided that process just as surely as if God had posted the list of books in the sky. So, we are entirely satisfied with the result.

What is open to debate is what followed.

Sometime around the time that Christians were settling on the 27 books the agreed should be considered scriptures of the New Testament, the Jews began to think about the books that they considered to make up their canon. While Jews had once been common in the Greek-speaking Roman empire, following the sack of Jerusalem by the Romes in 70 A.D., Jews were less and less a part of that world. Many moved east into the territory of the Persian empire. Christian-Jews who were a part of that movement began translating their books into Aramaic (and some would argue that maybe a few were even written in Aramaic first). The Jews themselves distanced themselves distanced themselves from all things Gentile and this included the language. The Septuigant, never as fully accepted by the Jews as it was by the Greek-speaking Christians-Jews was now disavowed and abandoned. As Christianity grew in the Roman provinces and Judaism decreased, the Jews began to not appreciate the way that Christians used some of the books in the Tanakh to try to "prove" Messianic prophecies. This was especially true with some of the latter books, books that were in the LXX that were not in the Hebrew Tanakh. So, when the Jews declared their canon, they claimed that those books that were in the LXX that were not in the Hebrew Tanakh were never part of the Tanakh. But by this time the Christian Church had been using them for a couple of hundred years and they no longer had a Jewish element in their midst, and so the Christian world and the Jewish world parted company, including their preference with regard to the Tanakh or the LXX.

Then, in 1500, along comes Luther. As Luther seeks to reform the church, he feels compelled by the issues he is wrestling with, to not trust the Church heirarchy any longer, but to go directly back to scripture. When he does, he realizes the the Church is including books in the Old Testament (based on the LXX) that the Jews do not themselves consider to be scripture (because they are based on the Hebrew Tanakh). So, when Luther translates the Bible into German, he decides to only translate the books of the Hebrew Bible (not the LXX) for use as the Old Testament. And subsequent protestant churches have copied Luther's lead on that decision. And that is why we have a different Protestant and Catholic version of the Bible. Which one is right? You now have as much information as I do.

Of course, this isn't really about corruption. The books are themselves not changed by this decision one way or the other. It is a question as to what one considers authoritative. A pretty big decision, but of a different nature than the question of corruption. For when I think of corruption I am thinking of issues such as whether or not someone rewrote the Gospel of John or the letters of Paul. And the answer to that is that they did.

What?!, A Christian pastor admitting that people have tampered with holy scripture, you say?!

Yes, indeed. It is true. And no New Testament scholar would say that it never happened. Most often it was done as an accidental slip of either omission or reduplication in the copying process. Sometimes it was more substantial, such as adding the "doxology" to the end of the prayer Jesus taught his disciples in Matthew 6. But these thing were not done to change the Bible. One has to remember three things with regard to these sorts of changes:
1) These were not changes that show up in the earliest manuscripts, but rather are ones that we find in the later documents of the middle ages.
2) The use for most scriptures in the middle ages was not for general reading, but for leading worship. While you and I may think it inappropriate today, such things were not added to change the text, but to enhance worship by reminded the liturgist when reading the text to pray that ending to the prayer, in the same way that today we might add "Amen." to a prayer, even if it isn't written into the words we are given to pray. It was assumed everyone knew what was original and what was added in for the sake of liturgy. Unfortunately, what may have been true for the first generation, was less true for succeeding generations when such glisses were copied into the text in the following generation of making copies of the Bible.
3) When we speak of the Bible we aren't speaking of this altered copies from the middle ages anymore than we are speaking of the English translations of today. By the Bible, we mean the body of work used by the early church. And by the science of textual criticism, scholars are able to determine what was most likely to have been that text with a high degree of accuracy.

These texts, that are considered to be the original text of the New Testament (or the Old Testamen) as established by scholars in those fields is what we mean by the Bible. Where there are textual variants, those are noted and the degree of liklihood for each of those variants is noted, and the modern translations are then to be based on the best and most certain of these possibilities. Is that corruption? Sure, we can see where the text have been corrupted and we can even see what the corruption was and choose to not use it for the basis of our modern translations.

Is the system perfect? No, it is not. But it is pretty good. Good enough that we can be more certain of the text of the Bible than any other text of that age or older. Now, that may not be good enough for some here. But I consider it good enough that I feel that I can reliably trust the Bible to deliver the truth of God's message even still. Because the text from which the KJV was translated did not have access to this information, I prefer to trust it less than the modern translations (last 40-50 years) when it comes to considering these textual variants.

Ultimately, no matter which Bible you choose and no matter which translation you use, the message of John 3:16 will still be the same, God loved the world so much that he sent Jesus so that those who put their trust in him need not fear death, for they are guaranteed eternal life.

 

[MustafaMc]

I am very glad you have. When I turned on my computer this morning, it became obvious that LI had experienced another hic-up with its server, and once again several days of posts have been lost. I thought about all of the half-finished conversations that we now never be complete. And I thought about my post that was now in some cyper-cemetary. But, by your actions you have preserved it. Thank-you.

Would you mind posting it a second time on my behalf so that I can get a copy of it again myself?

No problem. What a coincidence, huh? BTW I had posted a repy to a question by Keltoi. Do you happen to have it in your Outlook Inbox? If so, could you post it as well?

I don't expect my detailing of the history of the Bible to satisfy those looking for Divine inspiration. That isn't going to be seen in history. That is something that each person must decide for him/herself. Those who read the books and heard God speaking to them from the text have felt that they were divinely inspired and those who have not experienced that have felt otherwise throughout all of history. This was just as true of the first readers as of you and I today. Belief in its inspiration is something that we approach the scriptures with ourselves even before we open the page. Reading them might make us even more convinced or it might convince us that they were not, but I've never met a person who found any set of scriptures (of any religion) to be divinely inspired, who didn't at least remain open to the possibilty that they could be inspired even before they read them.

Yes, I see your point. Our reading or not reading or even our acceptance or rejection of scriptures as being inspired does not make them any more or less inspired than they already were. Sort of like does a tree falling in the forest make any sound if there is no one to hear it. When I read the Quran I heard God speaking to me as you indicated, but when you read it you obviosly did not hear the same thing. This fact is indeed quite puzzling!

 

[Grace Seeker]

No problem. What a coincidence, huh? BTW I had posted a repy to a question by Keltoi. Do you happen to have it in your Outlook Inbox? If so, could you post it as well?

If I have it, I would be happy to. What thread was it in?

Yes, I see your point. Our reading or not reading or even our acceptance or rejection of scriptures as being inspired does not make them any more or less inspired than they already were. Sort of like does a tree falling in the forest make any sound if there is no one to hear it.

This must be why I like discussing things with you. You have such good insights. You are exactly right, inspiration is not dependant on us, though we each still independantly have to determine whether something is/was inspired or not.

When I read the Quran I heard God speaking to me as you indicated, but when you read it you obviosly did not hear the same thing. This fact is indeed quite puzzling!

Yeah, I would agree it can be a puzzle. Especially in our two cases. You came to the Qur'an as a Christian and heard God speaking to you through it, but not from the Bible. And I, though very open to the Qur'an the first time I approached it, found myself dissuaded by the actual reading of it. Makes me think that we probably both have more to learn some day, if not in this life, then in the next.

Anyway, may Allah contiue to guide us both in his path as his will directs us.

 

[MustafaMc]

If I have it, I would be happy to. What thread was it in?

It was on this thread. His question was what criteria I use to determine divine inspiration.

Keltoi, did you happen to see my reply?

 

[Keltoi]

It was on this thread. His question was what criteria I use to determine divine inspiration.

Keltoi, did you happen to see my reply?

Unfortunately it was already gone by the time I signed on again.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Unfortunately it was already gone by the time I signed on again.

I hate it when that happens.


MustafaMc, just consider that either your response was so good that Satan had to prevent it from being seen, or .... so poor that God is giving you a second chance to write it again.



And hey!! I just noticed that I lost both reputation points and reputation power in the crash.

 

[Sarada]

New Testament was not put together until at least one hundred years after Jesus/Eesa ascended to Heaven. The New Testament in its present form was finally agreed upon at the Council of Nicea in 397 C.E.

There are doubts as to who actually wrote the Gospels as well as many inconsistencies in the texts. Certainly, not only in comparison to the Holy Q'uran, but by any logical standard, the Christian Bible is corrupted. To believe otherwise is a matter of blind faith.

During the time I was a Christian, my pastor talked about the Council of Nicea, and the Nicean Creed, which many Christian sects uphold. It is said that the members of the Nicean Council were inspired by God.

Out of respect for Christians, who can say for certain that the Council was not inspired by God? Only God knows.

Here is a link with more details. Although it is an Islamic source, I do not believe it is biased, the information presented is historically provable.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonlists.html#2

All the Best,

Sarada