A civil debate forum for people of all persuasions (Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, Christians, and adherents of any religion)

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Reply to topic
JehovahsWitness
First Post
PostPosted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:20 am  When was the bible corrupted? Reply with quote

I have discussed scripture with a lot of Muslims who tell me that while the bible is indeed the result of divine revelation but that it was corrupted. My question is:


1 Is this an "official" teaching of Islam?
and

2 About when (which century) did this corruption begin for...

a) the hebrew bible
b) the Christian Greek Scriptures

references would be greatly appreciated.

JW
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 31: Thu Jan 10, 2013 8:11 am
Reply

Like this post
Burninglight wrote:

The Bible has negligible problems with some interpolation and translational errors but scholars know what they are

Seven negligible problems:
  1. Comma Johanneum [First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7–8)]
    Although many traditional Bible translations, most notably the Authorized King James Version (KJV), contain the Comma, modern Bible translations from the Critical Text such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.
  2. The Long Ending to Mark [Mark 16:9–20]
    In dispute as early as 160 AD.
  3. Pericope Adulterae [John 7:53-8:11]
    Excluded from the earliest manuscripts
  4. The Signs of the Times [Matthew 16:2b–3]
    Absent from many early manuscripts. The authenticity of the passage has been disputed by scholars.
  5. Christ's agony at Gethsemane [Luke 22:43–44]
    Absent in many of the earlier manuscripts.
  6. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen" [Matthew 6:13]
    The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke's version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. It is absent in the oldest and best manuscripts of Matthew, and most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew.
  7. Luke 22:19b-20
    Does not appear in some of the early manuscripts of Luke. Some scholars therefore believe that it is an interpolation, while others have argued that it is original.
To me these are evidence that the early Christians did not regard the writings which were later to be gathered together into what we now call the New Testament as holy scripture, literally inspired by God. If they did, they would have been much more careful to preserve it unaltered. The idea that the New Testament is holy scripture came from a period much later than the actual writing of the New Testament.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 32: Thu Jan 10, 2013 3:22 pm
Reply
Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Like this post
JehovahsWitness wrote:

I have discussed scripture with a lot of Muslims who tell me that while the bible is indeed the result of divine revelation but that it was corrupted. My question is:


1 Is this an "official" teaching of Islam?
and

2 About when (which century) did this corruption begin for...

a) the hebrew bible
b) the Christian Greek Scriptures

references would be greatly appreciated.

JW







May I jump in here with my personal opinion regarding "corruption" of any scripture. I will use the Quran as a baseline because it exists today in the exact same form and language in which it was first put down in writing (about 22 years after it was received by Mohammad). As the Quran was received by Mohammad from the angel Gabriel he committed it all to memory. It is this fact that is the reason we use the word "quran" to name it. "Quran" translated to English is "recitation". Today throughout the world there are tens of millions of Muslims who have completely memorized the Quran. They do this to honor the memory of Mohammad's efforts. I've never heard of a single Christian who has done that. I have a copy of the Quran in my library very close to all the many different Bibles. Please note that there is no Sunni Quran and no Shia Quran and no Sufi Quran. There is only one. In it the text is in Arabic on one page and in English on the facing page. This is so that the reader may compare the two. All of the world's Muslims recognize the Quran in Arabic but, as with English in my copy, their home language may also appear opposite the original. This is a universal format and is as close to "uncorrupted" (I think) as any scripture can be considering the proximity to human beings (we are so fallible).

Now how does scripture become "corrupted" (changed)? That's easy. Whenever a single or a group of humans decide that a scripture must be "updated" for ANY reason and they proceed to do so then this is a corruption. No scriptures must ever be changed for any reason. This applies to the New Testament in particular since that volume of stories has been so often changed by man. May we remember that at this time in the world the English had no use for anything to do with Rome. The reason was because national governments at the time throughout Europe all had Bishops installed as being government officials. This meant that the church had official voice in government. This was OK with the English but not if it was the Roman church because they did not want the Pope in any way involved with the English government. What to do? The solution was that they simply re-wrote the New Testament calling it the King James Version. We all know full well that this version omits several books and now we know that those omissions were politically inspired. This constitutes not only a corruption but a major one at that. Now they knew this well enough so they came up with excuses for their actions. They claimed that they were justified because in making those changes they were, in fact, bringing back the original form of the first codification which dated from right around the time of that long past Constantinian council in around 312 AD. There are many problems with this. First of all before the council there was no official compilation of Christian scripture at all. The truth is that this is wrong because other pre-constantinian Christian sects did, indeed, have standardizations or sorts. We will read of these in a bit. Indeed there had never before been any standard format for worship, no priestly sect or anything else in Christianity either. There was never supposed to be a priestly class in Christianity. The beginnings of Christianity were very different from the beginnings of Islam in this. Christianity never had any standardized text until the Roman Emperor (then in Constantinople) created one. It was this man who decided, for reasons of his own, that only the writings of four of the original 12 Apostles needed to be heard from. What of the others? Well, we needn't be concerned with them we are to believe. Of all the New Testaments in circulation today it seems that the Roman Catholic is the least corrupted because it exists today in the exact form dating from the very first recognized codification back in the fourth century. Whoa! The protestants are up in arms here. The books of Peter are not to be included because Peter denied Christ. They also will cite Old Testament writings which infer that the city of Rome was that of "the beast" etc...etc...etc. They have dug deeply to come up with reasons for their politically inspired decisions to dump any references to the Roman church from their New New testament. This is humanity in action. We humans are very good at this sort of thing. It is because God made us both competitive and aggressive. We light our fires of emotion and when we do mind and logic go out the window. Reason, then, has to await the pleasure of desire.

Now the above shows pretty clearly that the first universally recognized codification of what we now call the New Testament comes to us from about 300 plus years after Jesus was put to death. It also shows us that only some of the Apostles are (for some reason) recognized while the others are summarily "swept under the rug" for reasons which, when we read the history of the times, seemed pretty cavalier on the surface. But this is the way of it with Christianity. Now fast forward to King James and see the first of the corruptions and the excuses given for it.

Since a Jehovah's Witness is here on the forum too let me cite the New World Translation by asking "why is this not, too, a corruption? They will have some reason or other which makes perfect sense to them but is their book only a translation or it is a "version". I suppose we have to read it to be sure. I say that since the JW's have beliefs which differ from mainstream Christianity theirs is a version. It it were not thus they why not simply use the KJV??? The New World Translation is thus a corruption but of what? Is it a corruption of the original writings or is it a corruption of original intent of Christ? Those who change scripture ALWAYS justify their actions by citing prior corruptions that they are now repairing. They always claim that their efforts bring back and correct earlier attempts by human beings to tailor scripture to their own ideas of what Christ was really about. This is what we human are so very good at.

There is only one way to ascertain what the earliest Christian body of scripture and religious format was really like. We may follow the other Apostles who went North, East and South to spread the word. We know the results of these other Apostles today through the various orthodox groups of Christians. These good folk who we so easily dismiss from our considerations today represent the very earliest forms of Christianity. They were insulated from what became the Roman Church and escaped the very human processes which, in later centuries, used political expediency to justify changing Christian scripture. They are the least corrupted of all Christians. Those who revere and recognize recorded history will have to agree with all this.

If we are to make judgements about the New Testament then we have to first establish a standard upon which to judge it. The European Christians did this with the KJV a few centuries ago. Most of us are content to say that it is the "correct" New Testament. Those of us who have no problem with the Roman church will say "No. The New Testament dating from 312 is the standard because it is more inclusive". So see? Before we can even begin discussions of corruption we find that we must address politics as well as religion. Our whole argument is because of corruption. We cannot simply say that OUR version of scripture is correct and all the others are wrong. But this is exactly what we do. Christianity has always been a religion up for grabs. It has always been changeable and this is reflected in it's scripture. The New World Translation is only (perhaps) the latest corruption.

It is interesting to note, so we do not forget, that in both Christianity and Islam there was never supposed to be any priesthood. This, by definition, must include the Protestant minister as well. It would be wrong to say that these good folks are not priests of Christianity. In both early Christianity and early Islam the role of leader in worship was assigned to some man who, in addition to this duty, has a separate occupation which paid his way in life. Religious leadership was a secondary duty only. This was an argument used by the protestants a few centuries ago. They rebelled against priests but later they forgot and installed their own. This changed in both Christianity and Islam. Today we see paid ministers, priests and Imams. It seems we humans have short memories.

Now back to Islam. It is true that there are sects in Islam which disagree with each other sometimes to the point of violence. This is not because of scripture but instead because of disagreements regarding how Islam was to be forwarded from those early days just after the passing of the Prophet. Both Shia and Sunni, and all other Muslims, use exactly the same version of the Quran. At those times in history when anyone attempted to edit the Quran everyone agreed that to do so constituted an abomination and those attempts all failed. I challenge any reader to find a competing version of the Holy Quran. This is the reason I use the Quran as a baseli8ne to define scriptural corruption. It is nothing at all to do with any preference of one religion over another. It is a testimonial to the results of the hand of man. That's all it is. It does not mean that Islam is to be preferred to Christianity.

Christianity will probably never really know what their true scriptural history was because of the length of time between the lives of the original Apostles and those times when their works were finally established in writing. This is unfortunate for us all. It is my opinion though that if we want to be presented with the truest and most complete body of Christian teachings then we must include as many of those teachings as we can and then call the result our New Testament. None such exists so far. There has never been a New Testament Bible which represented all the Apostles. This is most unfortunate. And why is this? Ask representatives from different Christian sects and listen to different reasons but all will say, in one way or another, that their body of scripture is most correct because.......... and then they will explain why.

Christianity is a most jumbled up religion which has no true standard. This is the reason there are so many "flavors" of Christianity in the world. I maintain that no Christian can possibly be correct in his/her declarations of authenticity unless they are willing to include the teachings of ALL the Apostles not just four of them.

What of the teachings of Moses? They are, like those of Islam, universal. It is only Christianity that is so obviously fractured and in disarray. Strange how it is also Christianity that so loudly proclaims scriptural supremacy too. Can't we see in this the very human element? I certainly can.

Now for those who will respond to this. Remember please that if you attempt to use the KJV or the New World Translation as a baseline of truth then you must show that those works date to very close to the time of Jesus. It will not do for any of you to claim that your scriptures are closer to the truth of Jesus. These sorts of claims are empty without historical proofs and their really are none. Again it is the Quran that can show with firm historical evidences the validity and lineage of it's scriptures.

Where is the oldest intact compilation of Christian scripture? I think that we would have to travel to the South of Egypt to that country which has been so isolated for so very long to find the answer. Don't know what country that is? Well let me say that the practice of Christianity was stable in it's scripture a very long time before the merging of Christianity with any central government (which occurred at the founding of the Holy Roman Empire) some centuries later.

Who will tell me that my logic is flawed? What human action constitutes "corruption"? Why, out of twelve Apostles of Christ do we dismiss eight and admit only four of them as being representative of Jesus' teachings? OK I am very familiar with the excuses given for this but what are the real reasons? Don't we have to read those other writings before we can make sound judgments? The facts relating to dating of scriptures are most unreliable. We err greatly when we use these criteria alone to decide. Answer those questions and then speak of how one version or another of the Bible is not corrupted.

jamesjacobyaqub

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 33: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:48 am
Reply
Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Like this post
James Simmons wrote:

JehovahsWitness wrote:

I have discussed scripture with a lot of Muslims who tell me that while the bible is indeed the result of divine revelation but that it was corrupted. My question is:


1 Is this an "official" teaching of Islam?
and

2 About when (which century) did this corruption begin for...

a) the hebrew bible
b) the Christian Greek Scriptures

references would be greatly appreciated.

JW







May I jump in here with my personal opinion regarding "corruption" of any scripture. I will use the Quran as a baseline because it exists today in the exact same form and language in which it was first put down in writing (about 22 years after it was received by Mohammad). As the Quran was received by Mohammad from the angel Gabriel he committed it all to memory. It is this fact that is the reason we use the word "quran" to name it. "Quran" translated to English is "recitation". Today throughout the world there are tens of millions of Muslims who have completely memorized the Quran. They do this to honor the memory of Mohammad's efforts. I've never heard of a single Christian who has done that. I have a copy of the Quran in my library very close to all the many different Bibles. Please note that there is no Sunni Quran and no Shia Quran and no Sufi Quran. There is only one. In it the text is in Arabic on one page and in English on the facing page. This is so that the reader may compare the two. All of the world's Muslims recognize the Quran in Arabic but, as with English in my copy, their home language may also appear opposite the original. This is a universal format and is as close to "uncorrupted" (I think) as any scripture can be considering the proximity to human beings (we are so fallible).

Now how does scripture become "corrupted" (changed)? That's easy. Whenever a single or a group of humans decide that a scripture must be "updated" for ANY reason and they proceed to do so then this is a corruption. No scriptures must ever be changed for any reason. This applies to the New Testament in particular since that volume of stories has been so often changed by man. May we remember that at this time in the world the English had no use for anything to do with Rome. The reason was because national governments at the time throughout Europe all had Bishops installed as being government officials. This meant that the church had official voice in government. This was OK with the English but not if it was the Roman church because they did not want the Pope in any way involved with the English government. What to do? The solution was that they simply re-wrote the New Testament calling it the King James Version. We all know full well that this version omits several books and now we know that those omissions were politically inspired. This constitutes not only a corruption but a major one at that. Now they knew this well enough so they came up with excuses for their actions. They claimed that they were justified because in making those changes they were, in fact, bringing back the original form of the first codification which dated from right around the time of that long past Constantinian council in around 312 AD. There are many problems with this. First of all before the council there was no official compilation of Christian scripture at all. The truth is that this is wrong because other pre-constantinian Christian sects did, indeed, have standardizations or sorts. We will read of these in a bit. Indeed there had never before been any standard format for worship, no priestly sect or anything else in Christianity either. There was never supposed to be a priestly class in Christianity. The beginnings of Christianity were very different from the beginnings of Islam in this. Christianity never had any standardized text until the Roman Emperor (then in Constantinople) created one. It was this man who decided, for reasons of his own, that only the writings of four of the original 12 Apostles needed to be heard from. What of the others? Well, we needn't be concerned with them we are to believe. Of all the New Testaments in circulation today it seems that the Roman Catholic is the least corrupted because it exists today in the exact form dating from the very first recognized codification back in the fourth century. Whoa! The protestants are up in arms here. The books of Peter are not to be included because Peter denied Christ. They also will cite Old Testament writings which infer that the city of Rome was that of "the beast" etc...etc...etc. They have dug deeply to come up with reasons for their politically inspired decisions to dump any references to the Roman church from their New New testament. This is humanity in action. We humans are very good at this sort of thing. It is because God made us both competitive and aggressive. We light our fires of emotion and when we do mind and logic go out the window. Reason, then, has to await the pleasure of desire.

Now the above shows pretty clearly that the first universally recognized codification of what we now call the New Testament comes to us from about 300 plus years after Jesus was put to death. It also shows us that only some of the Apostles are (for some reason) recognized while the others are summarily "swept under the rug" for reasons which, when we read the history of the times, seemed pretty cavalier on the surface. But this is the way of it with Christianity. Now fast forward to King James and see the first of the corruptions and the excuses given for it.

Since a Jehovah's Witness is here on the forum too let me cite the New World Translation by asking "why is this not, too, a corruption? They will have some reason or other which makes perfect sense to them but is their book only a translation or it is a "version". I suppose we have to read it to be sure. I say that since the JW's have beliefs which differ from mainstream Christianity theirs is a version. It it were not thus they why not simply use the KJV??? The New World Translation is thus a corruption but of what? Is it a corruption of the original writings or is it a corruption of original intent of Christ? Those who change scripture ALWAYS justify their actions by citing prior corruptions that they are now repairing. They always claim that their efforts bring back and correct earlier attempts by human beings to tailor scripture to their own ideas of what Christ was really about. This is what we human are so very good at.

There is only one way to ascertain what the earliest Christian body of scripture and religious format was really like. We may follow the other Apostles who went North, East and South to spread the word. We know the results of these other Apostles today through the various orthodox groups of Christians. These good folk who we so easily dismiss from our considerations today represent the very earliest forms of Christianity. They were insulated from what became the Roman Church and escaped the very human processes which, in later centuries, used political expediency to justify changing Christian scripture. They are the least corrupted of all Christians. Those who revere and recognize recorded history will have to agree with all this.

If we are to make judgements about the New Testament then we have to first establish a standard upon which to judge it. The European Christians did this with the KJV a few centuries ago. Most of us are content to say that it is the "correct" New Testament. Those of us who have no problem with the Roman church will say "No. The New Testament dating from 312 is the standard because it is more inclusive". So see? Before we can even begin discussions of corruption we find that we must address politics as well as religion. Our whole argument is because of corruption. We cannot simply say that OUR version of scripture is correct and all the others are wrong. But this is exactly what we do. Christianity has always been a religion up for grabs. It has always been changeable and this is reflected in it's scripture. The New World Translation is only (perhaps) the latest corruption.

It is interesting to note, so we do not forget, that in both Christianity and Islam there was never supposed to be any priesthood. This, by definition, must include the Protestant minister as well. It would be wrong to say that these good folks are not priests of Christianity. In both early Christianity and early Islam the role of leader in worship was assigned to some man who, in addition to this duty, has a separate occupation which paid his way in life. Religious leadership was a secondary duty only. This was an argument used by the protestants a few centuries ago. They rebelled against priests but later they forgot and installed their own. This changed in both Christianity and Islam. Today we see paid ministers, priests and Imams. It seems we humans have short memories.

Now back to Islam. It is true that there are sects in Islam which disagree with each other sometimes to the point of violence. This is not because of scripture but instead because of disagreements regarding how Islam was to be forwarded from those early days just after the passing of the Prophet. Both Shia and Sunni, and all other Muslims, use exactly the same version of the Quran. At those times in history when anyone attempted to edit the Quran everyone agreed that to do so constituted an abomination and those attempts all failed. I challenge any reader to find a competing version of the Holy Quran. This is the reason I use the Quran as a baseli8ne to define scriptural corruption. It is nothing at all to do with any preference of one religion over another. It is a testimonial to the results of the hand of man. That's all it is. It does not mean that Islam is to be preferred to Christianity.

Christianity will probably never really know what their true scriptural history was because of the length of time between the lives of the original Apostles and those times when their works were finally established in writing. This is unfortunate for us all. It is my opinion though that if we want to be presented with the truest and most complete body of Christian teachings then we must include as many of those teachings as we can and then call the result our New Testament. None such exists so far. There has never been a New Testament Bible which represented all the Apostles. This is most unfortunate. And why is this? Ask representatives from different Christian sects and listen to different reasons but all will say, in one way or another, that their body of scripture is most correct because.......... and then they will explain why.

Christianity is a most jumbled up religion which has no true standard. This is the reason there are so many "flavors" of Christianity in the world. I maintain that no Christian can possibly be correct in his/her declarations of authenticity unless they are willing to include the teachings of ALL the Apostles not just four of them.

What of the teachings of Moses? They are, like those of Islam, universal. It is only Christianity that is so obviously fractured and in disarray. Strange how it is also Christianity that so loudly proclaims scriptural supremacy too. Can't we see in this the very human element? I certainly can.

Now for those who will respond to this. Remember please that if you attempt to use the KJV or the New World Translation as a baseline of truth then you must show that those works date to very close to the time of Jesus. It will not do for any of you to claim that your scriptures are closer to the truth of Jesus. These sorts of claims are empty without historical proofs and their really are none. Again it is the Quran that can show with firm historical evidences the validity and lineage of it's scriptures.

Where is the oldest intact compilation of Christian scripture? I think that we would have to travel to the South of Egypt to that country which has been so isolated for so very long to find the answer. Don't know what country that is? Well let me say that the practice of Christianity was stable in it's scripture a very long time before the merging of Christianity with any central government (which occurred at the founding of the Holy Roman Empire) some centuries later.

Who will tell me that my logic is flawed? What human action constitutes "corruption"? Why, out of twelve Apostles of Christ do we dismiss eight and admit only four of them as being representative of Jesus' teachings? OK I am very familiar with the excuses given for this but what are the real reasons? Don't we have to read those other writings before we can make sound judgments? The facts relating to dating of scriptures are most unreliable. We err greatly when we use these criteria alone to decide. Answer those questions and then speak of how one version or another of the Bible is not corrupted.

jamesjacobyaqub
You seem to lean more toward Islam. If the Quran was so memorized, why ddin't Uthman rely on memorization to recompile the Quran after burning the originals. He used the help of text when he borrowed Hafsah's copy, and after her death, her copy was destroyed. Why did 'Uthman feel the need to destroy other copies of the Qur'an, unless they contained variants? Why did Ibn Ma'sud refuse to hand over his copy for destruction? How do we know that 'Uthman's copy was better than any of the others? Earliest complete manuscript 200 AH or 800AD!
Muslims are fond of the myth that there are complete copies of the Koran dating from the year Muhammad died. The scientific facts say otherwise!

There are no ancient copies of the Koran dating before 750 AD in museums. Think twice about cutting down the Bible. Man's power to corrupt is never greater than God's power to preserve. There is enough preserve in God's word to show us His clear plan of salvation Surprised

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 34: Thu Feb 07, 2013 1:49 am
Reply

Like this post
McCulloch wrote:

Burninglight wrote:

The Bible has negligible problems with some interpolation and translational errors but scholars know what they are

Seven negligible problems:
  1. Comma Johanneum [First Epistle of John (1 John 5:7–8)]
    Although many traditional Bible translations, most notably the Authorized King James Version (KJV), contain the Comma, modern Bible translations from the Critical Text such as the New International Version (NIV), the New American Standard Bible (NASB), the English Standard Version (ESV), the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) tend to either omit the Comma entirely, or relegate it to the footnotes.
  2. The Long Ending to Mark [Mark 16:9–20]
    In dispute as early as 160 AD.
  3. Pericope Adulterae [John 7:53-8:11]
    Excluded from the earliest manuscripts
  4. The Signs of the Times [Matthew 16:2b–3]
    Absent from many early manuscripts. The authenticity of the passage has been disputed by scholars.
  5. Christ's agony at Gethsemane [Luke 22:43–44]
    Absent in many of the earlier manuscripts.
  6. "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever and ever. Amen" [Matthew 6:13]
    The doxology of the prayer is not contained in Luke's version, nor is it present in the earliest manuscripts of Matthew. It is absent in the oldest and best manuscripts of Matthew, and most scholars do not consider it part of the original text of Matthew.
  7. Luke 22:19b-20
    Does not appear in some of the early manuscripts of Luke. Some scholars therefore believe that it is an interpolation, while others have argued that it is original.
To me these are evidence that the early Christians did not regard the writings which were later to be gathered together into what we now call the New Testament as holy scripture, literally inspired by God. If they did, they would have been much more careful to preserve it unaltered. The idea that the New Testament is holy scripture came from a period much later than the actual writing of the New Testament.

like you said negligible

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 35: Mon Apr 08, 2013 3:08 pm
Reply
Re: When was the bible corrupted?

Like this post
James Simmons wrote:

NMSquirrel wrote:
James Simmons wrote:

I am Muslim now. All Muslims use exactly the same Quran no matter if they are of different groups. There is only one Quran in the world. I do wish the same could be said for the Bible.


i am not convinced the quran is corrupt proof..
the only argument that i have gotten for a corrupt proof quran is 'because it say so'

and that is not a valid argument..




What do you expect, a certificate of authenticity? You would not accept that either.

There have been times when people attempted to change the quran but they were thoroughly rejected and those efforts failed.

Was this before or after Uthman burned the original Qurans?

We Muslims say that our Quran exists right now in exactly the way it was written. A way to demonstrate the truth or falsity of this claim is to simply compare the two. The original is in existence and so so are the new copies of it. Because Arabic is a complicated language with sometimes as many as eighty meanings for a single word this comparison must be in an Arabic.

In addition as a, preface, to each translation of the Quran the author goes to great lengths to talk about the work involved in translation. This is due to reasons previously stated. No translation is ever done by someone who is not a language scholar. An ordinary cleric will never attempt such.

I claim that this is true. If I did the work of verification for you then you would reject it therefore you are the one who must do the comparing. But you must learn and become fluent in Arabic first.

But there is another, more important, issue. Is the Quran true? Is it, indeed, the Word of God? It seems to me that this must be answered first. Few Christians will agree that it is. It seems it is always they who are so determined to find that only the Bible is of God and nothing else in the world can possibly be as well. This is like saying that we are exclusively privy to God, an inside access of sorts, and no others on the earth enjoy anything like what we have.

I personally believe that all scriptures are the Word of God and that is for us, in our weakness and imperfection, to sort it all out.

Muhammad never said the Bible was corrupted, and the Bible is consistent in saying Jesus is the son of God. There is no evidence that has ever been changed. And it is pretty clear that it states that those who have the son have life and those that don't don't have life but only God's wrath

When be begin by creating divisiveness by insisting that only we are correct then God takes a second place and has to wait for us to finish squabbling with each other. God is not shallow, vain or petty and has no insistence upon anything except that all of us live proper decent lives treating each other as bothers. This, we cannot do, if we are pre-occupied with religious competing and trying to get others to convert to our religion.

When God states that Jesus is His son and we say "No he is not" that is not petty to God!

If God spoke to people on another planet and they recorded it all would it be the same as the Bible or the Quran? Of course not. God does not do dictation. Every single thought that comes to us from God, through a messenger has also to pass through a human brain which is fallible. Thus there are no perfect religions on the planet earth. None. However the Quran has never been changed. That is certain.
Tell that to Hafsah, and ask Uthman if that is true

Blessing to us all and maybe some day we'll wake up and realize that we behave like jealous children when we should be spiritual adults like Jesus was.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 36: Tue Sep 05, 2017 1:23 am
Reply

Like this post
I'm guessing it was corrupted about the time the words 'In the beginning' were written.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Post BBCode URL - Right click and save to clipboard to use later in post Post 37: Wed Jun 27, 2018 10:12 pm
Reply

Like this post
Hello friends.

I have taken some extensive time to read through all of the great posts here in the forum.

A lot of valuable information here and I actually have studied and read the bulk of the information and have been quite aware of this history concerning the Quran for some time now.

We all know the claims of educated Muslims today who have excavated, unearthed or discovered the Fact that their Qurans prophecies and revelations are not found in any ancient manuscripts of the Torah or the Gospels.

In fact, - there are no Torah, no Gospels, no Artifacts, no Genealogies, no Literature, no Preserved record whatsoever. No Books – and No Historic Maps- or Geographic records from any time anywhere in any corner of the earth that defends or confirms, validates or authorizes the new core REVELATIONs and PROPHECIEs of Mohammud and His Quran.

The claim that The Jews distorted, concealed and falsified the original Torah is without a single shred of any proof whatsoever anywhere.

Also, I have been really astonished by many things such as these facts and also by the fact that the message of The Quran does not condemn slavery and slave trade.

I personally find it quite telling that The Quran does not condemn rape either - There are absolutely no punishments, no retribution, no justice and no righteousness or decency concerning the subject of rape and slavery. However, in the Bible, this punishment is a mandatory death penalty in violent cases for anyone committing both rape and slavery with lesser penalties mandated by the offender paying compensation for servant / workers who are injured and even other forms of sexual abuse.

Also, we have The Dead Sea Scrolls that include some of the only known surviving copies of Biblical documents written ONE THOUSAND YEARS before The Quran existed - The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the evidence that the Torah has not been changed whatsoever, dating back ONE THOUSAND YEARS before the Qurans revelations and prophecies.

I always find that average Muslims everywhere are eager to leave out important FACTS such as the FACT that The biblical manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls push that CONFIRMATION date back a whole millennium, to the 2nd century BCE.
TODAY - The FULL extant Bible codex in received tradition exists in every single language on earth AND it is the same exact “ PRECISE “ message that was written over a thousand years before The Quran -
The Torah is stemming from thousands upon thousands of recorded detailed years of history and generations. Muslims failed to preserve or go beyond a single generation of anyone anywhere at any time in History. No Genealogies - nothing. Islam is literally religion with no Scriptures, No Gospels, No Artifacts, No genealogies, No Chronicles and No Manuscripts.

The Isaiah Scroll, found relatively intact, is 1000 years older than any previously known copy of Isaiah. In fact, the scrolls are the oldest group of Old Testament manuscripts ever found.

The only goal of the true Honest Bible Believer is to compare The Dead Sea Scrolls Hebrew Biblical texts that date back over three thousand { { 3000 } years ago from today with today's Torah - and it is a precise, perfect, accurate, faithful and truthful message. I believe that we must go back to the original and study what the message was in manuscripts from 1000 years before Islam.... This is done by every real and honest Bible-believing Christian and Jew.

However, Muslims have nothing to go back to - They did not preserve anything.
We find that the Torah is nearly a perfect precise match to the Torah that exists today.
Yet In Islam, Sura 5:47 goes on to say "Let the People of the Gospel Judge by what Allah hath revealed Therein...." If the People of the Gospel are to judge by what God has revealed in the Gospel, then how can the Gospel they are to judge by not be the Gospel God told them to judge by?

Even Sura 6:91 Allah sent down the book which Moses brought? - a light and guidance to man;
Sura 5:48 says, "To thee (People of the Book) We sent the scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed, and follow not their vain desires, diverging from the truth that hath come to thee...."
"And in their [the prophets'] footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Torah that had come before him: we sent him the gospel; therein was guidance and light. And confirmation of the Torah that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah" Sura 5:46
Sura 8:84-85 - Mentions Adam, Noah, Lot, the brother and sister of Moses, the Queen of Sheba and Abraham] Isaac and Jacob, Noah David, Solomon, Job, Joseph, Moses, and Aaron; Zakariya and John [the Baptist] and Jesus and Elias [Elijah].
The Quran also mentions - Mary the mother of Jesus, and Jesus' apostles.
(Sura 5:61-63) God's word, given to the people of the Book.
Jesus was taught the Gospel according to Sura 3:48,
and Christians are the people of the Gospel in Sura 5:46.
Even 'Aisha tells that Khadija took Mohammed to a Christian convert who used to read the Gospels in Arabic.
Sura 3:48 says, "And Allah will teach him [Jesus] the book and Wisdom, the Torah, and the Gospel."

Deep in my mind, I have this same question that I ask to both Muslims and Roman Catholics - " Why do You follow the prophecy, revelation and spiritual claims of Mohammad when they have been proven to be false and error in every single last way possible". ? __

Because Everything that exists in the universe disproves and denies the REVELATIONs and PROPHECIEs and SPIRITUAL CLAIMs of Mohammud and His Quran.

Friends, everything that I have written here is all truth and can not be denied.
I only ask You to consider that Gods word is truly preserved and that there are no contradictions or errors in God's word. )( YES ) - there are textual variants in the copying of the translations. BUT the original, earliest manuscripts agree with the majority of texts found, therefore, I ask Muslims to reconsider their faith and accept the Lord Yahoshua, The Anointed as their Lord and God - The spiritual husband and of their lives. The Image of the invisible God.
.

Goto top, bottom
View user's profile 
Display posts from previous:   

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:  
Facebook
Tweet

 




On The Web | Ecodia | Facebook | Twitter

Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.   Produced by Ecodia.

Igloo   |  Lo-Fi Version