|
Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam |
Post Reply 
|
Page <12345 35> |
| Author | |
believer 
Guest Group 
Joined: 08 January 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1397 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:27pm |
|
So all the verses in the Quran about the Torah and Gospel are a lie?!?
|
|
|
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. |
|
 |
|
|
Shasta'sAunt
Senior Member 
Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:52pm |
|
"You can read the various translations of the Bible and see that the main theme exists and has not been erased or burned. LOL!!"
"The criteria for being included in the NT as Scripture was � Apostleship by Jesus, writings that had already been accepted and were being read aloud in services by the believers, consistency with other Scripture and contradiction-free, writings created during the Apostolic age, and orthodoxy with Church beliefs."
I think you are forgetting the Apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels, some of which are used to this day by various churches, yet not deemed orthodox enough to be included in the NT. This is just another example of corruption, men picking and choosing which scriptures to include based upon what went along with Church beliefs.
Apostleship by Jesus? Which Apostles actually wrote the Gospels? No one knows, that is why they are titled "According to". The real authors are not known.
Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 02 March 2009 at 2:56pm |
|
|
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
|
|
Shasta'sAunt
Senior Member
Female Joined: 29 March 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1930 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 March 2009 at 3:53pm |
|
"If a massive corruption of the Bible has taken place, when did it occur? If it happened after Mohammed arrived with the Quran, that would solve one of the problems I listed above. But there were already thousands of manuscripts of the Bible we use today � all around the world by that time."
It doesn't have to be a "massive corruption of the Bible". Changing a few words here and there can change the entire meaning of the text.
The Bible, especially the NT, has had numerous changes, some in recent history. I will give a few examples.
You have only to look at the King James Version:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
The Revised Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
The English Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
Takes on a WHOLE different meaning. But not as much as the following verses:
King James Version 1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
New Living Translation:
So we have these three witnesses
the Spirit, the water, and the blood--and all three agree.
Revised Standard Version:
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
HUGE difference......
All of these versions, and many more, of the Bible are currently in print and in use around the world today. Which is the actual Word of God?
Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 02 March 2009 at 3:54pm |
|
|
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt |
|
|
|
|
Nur_Ilahi
Senior Member 
Joined: 19 January 2008 Status: Offline Points: 1031 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 March 2009 at 8:57pm |
Chrysalis, a very good post.
I like those words that I highlighted in red.
In other words, Christians should send St Paul to the same treatment.
|
|
|
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.
|
|
|
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member 
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 02 March 2009 at 10:11pm |
Hasan,
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
Apollos
|
|
|
|
|
Mansoor_ali
Senior Member
Male Joined: 25 September 2008 Location: Pakistan Status: Offline Points: 584 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 March 2009 at 4:11pm |
|
To Apollos Topic:Corruption in Bible? The Gospel of Mark: Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?
(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31;)
Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"? If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20: "Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)" This quote raises a very serious issue here. First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel". Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it.If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person? |
|
|
|
|
Apollos
Senior Member
Joined: 29 January 2009 Status: Offline Points: 426 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 03 March 2009 at 7:40pm |
|
To Apollos The Gospel of Mark: Note: This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!
So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. It is more likely that Matthew or one of Paul's letters is the earliest but I don't think that point is worth arguing about now. The testimony of the early church that is referred to above includes testimony from John�s disciples. I think that is very good evidence and testimony. Additionally, you are quoting a commentator�s opinion about there not being �direct internal evidence�. In other words, the text itself does not come out and say that Mark wrote this as the secretary for Peter. The contemporaries said that it was, the language style is consistent with Peter and there are several details in the account that only Peter would have known. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark? There is no need to talk to people with different opinions on the matter when we have manuscripts and quotations of the NT books much earlier than this time. True they weren�t compiled into a collection called the NT until around this time frame but the writings themselves can be traced back much earlier. E.g. � we have a fragment of John�s gospel that is within 10-15 years of the original.
There are some who believe that these verses aren�t original. But remember the amazing word patterns I mentioned? They are evident in these verses and some patterns are destroyed by removing them. I take that as an indication that they are authentic. But let�s say they aren�t and lets say at a minimum that one of the versions of Mark is corrupted. This means we have identified the area of concern and there is no reason to say �hey � everything must be corrupted!�. When we find an electrical short in a house we don�t say that. We use tools to identify the problem, fix it and in doing so confirm that the overall system is intact. If this minor �potential corruption� was all Muslims were claiming, I would say: �OK, lets talk about it�. But the type of corruption that is being asserted is massive. Apollos |
|
|
|
|
Hayfa
Senior Member
Female Joined: 07 June 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2368 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: 04 March 2009 at 10:10am |
|
And i don't think that the Bible is an issue for most Muslims or Islam. Frankly the majority are too busy working and living to notice.
|
|
|
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <12345 35> |
Tweet
|
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options
Chrysalis wrote: