View Full Version : Has the Bible been corrupted?
In just about every dialogue I have seen between Christians and Muslims, I have seen the statement that the Bible can't be trusted now because it is not the same as when it was originally written and has been completely corrupted. Nevertheless, Muslims quote from the Bible to prove a point sometimes, such as when trying to establish that the coming of Mohammed was prophesied by Jesus. So I must assume that Muslims believe that *parts* of the Bible are corrupt, but not all of it. Do I have this right?
And if I do, is there someplace where it is written down, which parts are corrupt (in the Muslim view) and which parts are OK? And how was the decision made about which was which?
:)
well let me tell you... muslims believe that the original bible was the truth... over the years... additions and things taken out has made things vague in the bible... some changing words according to what people believe the word meant has changed the truth...
however, muslims believe anything which has been confirmed in the quraan... coming of Mohammad.... we are told in the quraan that Jesus said that after he is gone, a prophet shall come his name will be ahmad, another name for the prophet mohammad, thus we know it is there!
etc!
hope this explains things more
vancouver
21-03-2002, 11:48
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 21-03-02 AT 10:50 AM (GMT)]Many thought this but the finding of the dead sea scrolls has completely vindicated the translations of the bible.
How We Got the Bible ***
THERE is solid evidence that the Bible, the inspired Word of God, has been accurately copied and transmitted down to us. The evidence consists of ancient manuscripts available today-perhaps 6,000 of the entire Hebrew Scriptures or portions of it and some 5,000 of the Christian Scriptures in Greek.
Original Writings-The original Bible writings were handwritten on perishable materials such as papyrus and vellum; none of the originals are known to exist today
Copies-Hebrew or Greek-Soon after the originals were written, manuscript copies began to be produced. The copyists exercised great care to transmit the text accurately; the Masoretes counted even the letters that they copied
Early Translations-To make the Scriptures available in other languages, Bible translation became necessary. There exist today manuscripts of such early versions as the Septuagint (a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, from the third and second centuries B.C.E.) and Jerome's Vulgate (a translation of Hebrew and Greek texts into Latin, originally produced c. 400 C.E.)
Master Texts-By a comparative study of hundreds of existing Bible manuscripts, scholars have prepared master texts. These printed editions of original-language texts suggest the best readings available while drawing attention to variations that may exist in certain manuscripts. Texts of the Hebrew Scriptures with comparative readings in footnotes have been prepared by such scholars as Ginsburg and Kittel. Included among the master texts of the Christian Greek Scriptures are those published by Westcott and Hort as well as by Nestle and Aland
Modern Translations-Bible translators today generally use original-language master texts to produce modern translations
*** How We Got the Bible ***
Hebrew Scriptures
Caves at Qumran, near the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, where many ancient Biblical scrolls were discovered
Section of Dead Sea Scroll of Isaiah (dated toward the end of the second century B.C.E.). When compared with the Masoretic text of more than a thousand years later, only minor differences were found, mostly in spelling
>In just about every dialogue I have seen between Christians
>and Muslims, I have seen the statement that the Bible can't
>be trusted now because it is not the same as when it was
>originally written and has been completely corrupted.
>Nevertheless, Muslims quote from the Bible to prove a point
>sometimes, such as when trying to establish that the coming
>of Mohammed was prophesied by Jesus. So I must assume that
>Muslims believe that *parts* of the Bible are corrupt, but
>not all of it. Do I have this right?
>
>And if I do, is there someplace where it is written down,
>which parts are corrupt (in the Muslim view) and which parts
>are OK? And how was the decision made about which was
>which?
This is exactly what many have experienced regarding the bible, this article below should 'help' a little...
........
>>
Is The Bible Corrupted?
By The Explorer
The Letter
My Dear Sir,
The following article appears at a Christian web site. Kindly give your comments on it.
Many Muslims claim that the Bible has been tampered with and corrupted.
Any event in real life reality with human agents has certain characteristics and conditions attached to it. Any such act is done by one or more particular persons, at one or more specific times, in a certain fashion, in certain places, and for a reason. I hope everybody can agree with that.
So, to make your claim of tampering credible you will have to answer these questions:
When happened this tampering? [Before or after Muhammad]?
Who did the tampering?
Where was it done? [city, country, ...?]
What parts of the text were changed?
How was it done [i.e. without leaving traces of it]?
Why would anybody do this incredibly difficult thing?
No Muslim could ever answer these questions. I wonder why?? Maybe because it is such an incredible feat that would require more than a miracle do get done? Believing in the tampering needs a lot of faith. Blind faith, against the manuscript evidence we have.
Dr. Rizwan Haider, Lahore, Pakistan
>>>
The Reply
My Dear Dr. Rizwan
Thank you for writing.
I do not wish to go into lengthy details regarding the authenticity or otherwise of the Bible, as I do not consider myself qualified to do so. But I, most certainly would like to point out a very simple fact about the Bible that we have at hand. And that too, not because of any particular belief in any particular Book, but because of pure and bare analysis done by a number of Christian and other unbiased, neutral writers, and that is, that most of the books of the Bible as they stand today, cannot be believed to be exactly the same as were revealed to the respective prophets of God. These books have gone through a number of changes and editing, which is openly admitted and declared by the textual scholars of the Bible (their academic and intellectual honesty, without a hint of a doubt, is commendable). And because of this and a number of other reasons, even their ascription to these prophets is quite doubtful.
To be more objective, I would base my reply to your question only on writings of authors who are not Muslims.
But before I go into any detail, I would very briefly like to tell you that if someone gathers up the courage to ask the same questions about the Bible, that the author has asked about the "Muslim claim" of corruption in the text of the Bible, it would be very difficult, if not impossible to get precise answers to these questions. There is a tremendous difference in the scholars of the Bible, regarding who, precisely, were the authors of most of the books and exactly when and where these books were written. This is also the reason why, as the author says, "No Muslim (or the textual scholars of the Bible) could ever answer these questions. I wonder why??".
Thus, believing in the complete Bible, that we have at hand, to be of a Divine origin, needs a lot of faith. Blind faith - for there exists no other ground for believing so.
For example, let us just consider the authorship of some of the most important books of the Christian faith. C. F. Evans writes in "The Cambridge History of the Bible", Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970:
With the exception of the Pauline letters the New Testament writings were relatively slow in appearing and a high proportion of them are anonymous. (p. 233)
He writes further:
... such external evidence on matters of origin, authorship, sources and date as has come down from the second and succeeding centuries is very meager, and, when itself subjected to critical examination, turns out to be of dubious value, if not worthless. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 235)
About the Pauline letters, the author writes:
Further elucidations of the Pauline letters as documents in the Church is faced by three not unconnected problems, their formation into a corpus, their unity and authenticity, and their chronology; and in each case the data are insufficient for a solution. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 239)
The Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Gospel of Mark:
Though the author of Mark is probably unknown, authority is traditionally derived from a supposed connection with the Apostle Peter, who had transmitted the traditions before his martyr death under Nero's persecution (c. 64-65). Papias, a 2nd century bishop in Asia Minor, is quoted as saying that Mark had been Peter's amanuensis (secretary) who wrote as he remembered (after Peter's death), though not in the right order... (harmony of the Gospels). (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, THE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS, The Gospel According to Mark: Background and overview.)
Regarding the Gospel of Matthew, the encyclopedia says:
Although there is a Matthew named among the various lists of Jesus' disciples, more telling is the fact that the name of Levi, the tax collector who in Mark became a follower of Jesus, in Matthew is changed to Matthew. It would appear from this that Matthew was claiming apostolic authority for his Gospel through this device but that the writer of Matthew is probably anonymous. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Matthew.)
Regarding the Gospel of Luke, it says:
The author has been identified with Luke, "the beloved physician," Paul's companion on his journeys, presumably a Gentile (Col. 4:14 and 11; cf. II Tim. 4:11, Philem. 24). There is no Papias fragment concerning Luke, and only late 2nd century traditions claim (somewhat ambiguously) that Paul was the guarantor of Luke's Gospel traditions. The Muratorian Canon refers to Luke, the physician, Paul's companion; Irenaeus depicts Luke as a follower of Paul's gospel. Eusebius has Luke as an Antiochene physician who was with Paul in order to give the Gospel apostolic authority. References are often made to Luke's medical language, but there is no evidence of such language beyond that to which any educated Greek might have been exposed. Of more import is the fact that in the writings of Luke specifically Pauline ideas are significantly missing; while Paul speaks of the death of Christ, Luke speaks rather of the suffering, and there are other differing and discrepant ideas on Law and eschatology. In short, the author of this gospel remains unknown. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, The Gospel According to Luke.)
Regarding the Gospel of John, it writes:
From internal evidence the Gospel was written by a beloved disciple whose name is unknown. Because both external and internal evidence are doubtful, a working hypothesis is that John and the Johannine letters were written and edited somewhere in the East (perhaps Ephesus) as the product of a "school," or Johannine circle, at the end of the 1st century. (Biblical Literature and Its Critical Interpretation, THE FOURTH GOSPEL: THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO JOHN, Uniqueness of John.)
Likewise, consider the following statement that appears in "The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church", regarding the Gospel of John:
The Apostolic origin of the book, however, is contested by a large body of modern scholars whose position vary from a complete rejection of both its authenticity and its historicity to the admission of Apostolic inspiration and a certain historical value. The unity of the book has been disputed esp. by German scholars, e.g. J. Wellhausen, R. Bultmann. Where its unity is admitted, its attribution to John the Presbyter is favoured. (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, John The Apostle, 1974, pg. 743)
Again, in "Peakes Commentary on the Bible", the introduction of the Gospel of John starts with the following words:
The origin of this Gospel is veiled in obscurity (Peakes Commentary on the Bible, C. K. Barrett, "John", Nelson 1967)
Knox, (although not ascribing to this view) in his "New Testament Commentary" writes about the authorship of John's Gospel:
The picture which emerges (according to these critics) is that of a profound logical treatise, composed late in the first or more probably early in the second century, by some unknown author who had a thesis to propound, and did so under the (now established) literary form of a "gospel". It was not, evidently, a fisherman from Galilee who had the learning and the culture to leave such a monument behind him. Possibly the author may have been that "John the elder" who is referred to by Papias (Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.4 and 14) as a valuable source of early tradition. (Knox, New Testament Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xiii)
Knox, further states, regarding the Gospel of John:
In 21.24, and possibly in 19.35, another hand, not that of the author has made its contribution (cf. Rom. 16.22). This raises the question whether we ought to think of John as sitting and writing the gospel with his own hand. It is improbable that one who was regarded as "a simple man, without learning" by his own fellow countrymen (Acts 4.13) would have lived to write Greek as idiomatic as that of the Fourth gospel. (Knox, New Testament Commentary, Introduction, 1955, pg. xv).
In a situation like this, anyone who holds these books to be Divine cannot afford to have the strict criteria, as is mentioned by the author of your quoted article. Yes, he has all the right in the world to ask questions as to what exactly are the discrepancies or corruption in the text of the Bible, and why does one believe them to be discrepancies or corruption, but I am afraid that insisting on the answers of the quoted questions and still believing the Bible to be Divine, can only be done if one is prone to believing and rejecting things by applying absolutely different criteria for the two.
Now, let us see what "Corruption in the Bible" really means.
To fully understand what a Muslim means when he says that the Bible is corrupted, we must first understand what, in the mind of a Muslim, is uncorrupted revealed literature. Briefly stated, the Muslims, for this purpose have basically two criteria.
Firstly, the Muslim mind contrary to (a majority of) the early Christians, at least such Christians as played a major role in the canonization1 of the books of the New Testament, does not believe that God's revelation is accessible to all men without distinction2. On the contrary, it believes that God reveals His words to those He selects from amongst men. Such men are of impeccable character and repute. They, bring with them clear evidences of their Divine authority. These men are called Prophets, or Messengers of God, by the Muslims. Whatever they say, and whatever they do with reference to religious beliefs or actions, gets the status of True Religious Teachings. No one other than the prophets or messengers of God holds this position. The Apostles or Messengers of any prophet, are by their very name, subordinate to the prophets (or messengers of God). They are only to deliver the message of the prophet, as the prophet was to deliver the message of God. Thus, God reveals his words to His prophets or messengers only. Whereas, the apostles and messengers of these prophets do not speak or write with Divine inspiration, they are only to deliver the message of the prophet, which in turn, no doubt, was Divinely Inspired. Thus, due to this belief of the Muslims, they believe that the origin of any Divine literature must lie with some Prophet (and thus God)... not with the prophet's Disciples or Apostles.
Secondly, such writings, actions or sayings of the prophet must come down to us in unbroken and absolutely dependable chains of transmission of such tradition. For instance, it should not be so that a compilation of the sayings of a prophet, suddenly is made available to the world, while in the past it is not known to exist. If such be the case, the Muslim mind would not base its religious beliefs3 on such a narrative. This also means that such transmission, is kept clean of any and all kinds of alteration. And is delivered to us, in exactly the same words, as it was, when delivered to the companions of the prophet.
Thus, when a Muslim says that the text of the Bible is corrupted, all that is really implied is
the books that comprise the Bible are not the ones given by the respective prophets to whom they are ascribed,
these books do not meet the criteria of unbroken and dependable chains of transmission, and
a number of intentional and unintentional changes has occurred in the text of these books, which renders them all the more "corrupted", even though the first two criteria were quite adequate, in rejecting these books as "basis" of one's religious beliefs.
For instance, Muslims believe that the Torah (Torat) was revealed to Moses, and the Gospel (Injil) was revealed to Jesus. But, it is pretty obvious from these books, as they appear in the Bible today, that neither of the two books were written by these writers, or even dictated by them. Torah, as well as the Gospels are more of historian's accounts of the lives and teachings of Moses and Jesus respectively, than books revealed to them. Thus, I really don't think that anyone who is aware of the history of the compilation of the Bible really has any problems in accepting the statement of the Muslims that the various books of the Bible, as we have them today are more likely to be a lot different from what was revealed to and then taught by the Prophets to which they are ascribed.
The Bible, that is normally read around the world today, is basically a translation of the (narration of the) original text. The various books that constitute the Bible today were first written in languages other than English or German or Urdu or Arabic. For example, the Genesis is thought to be originally written in Hebrew. So is Exodus and also the other books of the pentateuch.
Let us first consider the Torah (or the Pentateuch). The Torah is believed to be revealed by God to Moses (May Peace & Blessings of Allah be upon him). Thus, it is taken to be revealed somewhere around the 13th century BC. But the books that we have with us today, that constitute Torah, do not date as farther back. Furthermore, experts on the text of the Bible also believe that the Torah, as we have it now, was not written or even dictated by Moses (Peace be upon him) himself. Geddes MacGregor, in his book, "The Bible in the Making" writes:
All you have to do to see that the Old Testament as we know it did not come straight from the pen of its several authors, is to look at the first three chapters of Genesis. There you will find two quite distinct accounts of the creation of man. The account in the first chapter is startling different from the account in the second and third....
... There is no doubt that these two stories of the creation of man which have been set down together in the opening chapters of Genesis belong to very different periods. The second is by far the more primitive one, and between the writings of the two narratives about as much time elapsed, as has elapsed between the day of Christopher Columbus and our own. The disparity is obvious from the character of the stories themselves: you can detect it in reading them alongside each other in an English Bible. If you were reading them in Hebrew you would be struck by the fact that throughout the first account, the word used for "God" is from "Elohim", while in the second the name assigned is that of "Yahweh".
The use of the term "Elohim" goes further back, however, than the date of the passages in Genesis in which it is used. A study of various passages in the Hebrew Bible shows that there must have been originally two documents, of which the author of the more primitive one used the name Yahweh in referring to God, while the author of the other used the name Elohim. Scholars call the first document J, from "Jahveh" ("Yahweh"), and the second document E, from "Elohim". (Chapter III, The Writing of the Old Testament, Pg. 23-24, 1961)
The author, has then described briefly how the first six books of the Hebrew Bible have come down to us. A summary of the writer's description follows4:
J was the product of the southern kingdom, while E of the northern kingdom.
Some time after 721 BC, a writer in the southern kingdom put these two documents together with additions of his own. The work of this scholar is called JE by the modern scholars.
In the following century, JE was enlarged by the addition of the discourses of Deuteronomy (these are apparently, addresses delivered by Moses, shortly before his death)5.
Around 500 BC, a school of priests undertook further editorial revision. Finally, in the fifth century BC, this codification was incorporated with JE as revised and expanded by the Deuteronomic editor.
In other words, J and E are the two most primitive narrations of the life and teachings of Moses (though not written or dictated by him), both these narratives are not similar, and differ with each other in many respects. J (written somewhere around 850 BC)6 and E (around 750 BC) were combined and added upon in (around) 650 BC and the resultant document was called JE. In (around) 550 BC, further additions were made from a document called D (dated around 621 BC) and thus, the document now became JED. In (around) 400 BC, priestly ritual laws, (written around 500 - 450 BC) were added to JED - now growing to JEDP. JEDP, as it became in 400 BC, is the Pentateuch (The Torah) as we now know it. Thus, a book considered and believed to be written by and revealed to Moses (around the 13th century) is actually written in the fourth or the fifth century7.
This, then is the reality about the Torah. There is no doubt, at least in my mind after reading the text of these books that they do contain parts of revelations to Moses. But, the situation, as it actually stands does not allow me to stand certain that all the material contained therein is revelation - all revelation. Thus, Geddes MacGregor writes:
There are, indeed, probably echoes in the Old Testament itself of dissatisfaction with the revisions. Jeremiah, for instance, having questioned whether his compatriots are justified in their confidence in possessing the Law of God revealed to Moses, warns them: "Behold, the false pen of the scribes hath wrought falsely (Jeremiah viii. 8)".
The position of most of the other books of the Old Testament is not very different.
***********
Now, let us turn towards the New Testament.
The New Testament does not consist of any book that even claims to be written or dictated or even proposed to be written by Jesus (may peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) - the prophet of God (as Muslims believe him to be), to whom, as the Muslims believe, the real Injil was revealed. All the New Testament consists of, besides the book called "Revelation", are four biographies of Jesus (may peace be upon him) claimed to be written by his disciples, and some letters (claimed to be) of his disciples. The case of "Revelation" is just a little bit different, as it is presented completely as a narrative of a dialogue of Jesus with one of his disciples. Recognizing this fact, C. F. Evans writes:
The only New Testament book, which appears to have been written self-consciously as if for canonical status (but only until the imminent end) is Revelation, with its solemn blessing on those who read and hear it and its threat of damnation on anyone who adds to or subtracts from it, but this is because writing had become a solemn and mysterious act in the apocalyptic tradition, and it is significant that Revelation, though a mosaic of Old Testament phrases and allusions, nowhere makes any explicit citation from it. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 234)
In the beginning, it seems, all the writings now included in the New Testament, with many others that were in circulation among Christians, were written only to preserve the life and teachings of Jesus, as was understood or interpreted by their respective writers. Most of these writings, it seems were never meant, initially, to become the basis or canons of a new religion. So, whoever had anything related to the life and teachings of Jesus, which he thought to be important, was written down, so that no part of it was lost in oblivion. This, is quite understandable. Disciples of all great people tend to do so. And no doubt, such writings are of great importance for a student of history. But, placing them at the exalted status of canons or basis of a new religious belief, does not seem to be quite justified. Thus, it seems that initially, no one even thought about collecting and publishing all the writings that were in circulation8and at that time they were, probably, not even as much revered as they later became. C. F. Evans writes:
So long as Christianity stood close to Judaism, or was predominantly Jewish, scripture remained the Old Testament, and this situation can be seen persisting in such a document as I Clement, with its frequent and almost exclusive appeal to the Old Testament text. The elevation of Christian writings to the position of a new canon, like those writings themselves, was primarily the work of Gentile Christianity, whose literature also betrays a feeling that the very existence of the Old Testament was now a problem to be solved and that there was need of some new and specifically Christian authority. ... what eventually took place was precisely what in the earliest days of the Church could hardly have been conceived, namely, the creation of a further Bible along with that already in existence, which was to turn it into the first of two, and in the end to relegate it to the position of 'old' in a Bible now made up of two testaments. The history of the development of the New Testament Canon is the history of the process by which books written for the most part for other purposes and from other motives came to be given this unique status; and the study of the New Testament is in part an investigation of why there were any such writings to canonize, and of how, and in what circumstances, they came to possess such qualities as fitted them for their new role, and made it impossible for them to continue simply as an expansion of, or supplement to, something else. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 234 - 235)
He further writes:
During the apostolic age the Christian Bible consisted of the Old Testament alone. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 286)
The Muslim mind is simply confused by the fact that if the books that now constitute the New Testament were truly believed to be of Divine origin at the time of their writing, then how can such careless attitude towards such books be seen at that time. It seems quite obvious that this status was given to these books only at a later stage. Initially, they were neither considered as Divine, nor as canons of a new religion, but simply narrations of the teachings of a prophet by such people who were his companions or by those who had been companions of his companions. Nothing more than that. Later on, when it was felt that these narrations were all that existed about this prophet, and if such careless attitude continued towards these narrations, then, in due course of time, nothing would remain existent about the teachings of this prophet. Thus, for this purpose, these writings had to be canonized and made the basis of a new religion, as nothing else existed. Furthermore, to better the attitude towards them, it was claimed that they were Divinely Inspired and not just writings like any other of their age. Geddes MacGregor writes:
Prominent in the measures taken to safeguard the Church against the dangers that beset it was the attempt to provide a body of Scripture that could be set side by side with the Old Testament and have, for Christians, a comparable status. But this movement to limit the Christians Scriptures to a fixed number of books was much stronger among some Christian communities than among others. (Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 39 - 40)
This process of selecting some of the books that were in circulation at that time as more authoritative and making a New Testament on their basis, initiated in the second century. By the end of the second century Churches in the West, especially Rome, accepted some books to be more authoritative and started calling them the New Testament. In this categorization of the books in circulation, Revelation, the Epistle to the Hebrews, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude were considered to be less authoritative.9While among the Eastern or Greek Fathers, there was considerable disagreement even in the fourth century10.
Now, let us come to the 'corruption' part of the issue.
A few methods have been devised by textual scholars of the Bible to infer which of the text given in the old manuscripts is most likely that of the originally written document. A number of books have been written on the explanation of these methods. One such book is Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration". The author, in the preface of the book has briefly mentioned why it is important to apply textual criticism on the Bible. He states:
The necessity of applying textual criticism to the books of the New Testament arises from two circumstances: (a) none of the original documents is extant, and (b) the existing copies differ from one another. The textual critic seeks to ascertain from the divergent copies which form of the text should be regarded as most nearly conforming to the original. (Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964)
This statement, in other words simply means that the oldest of the manuscripts of the New Testament that we have, do not comply with each other. In such a state, a simple mind, is obviously prone to believing that the text of the New Testament, from its oldest of days was not safe from corruption.
C. F. Evans after a detailed analysis of the various reasons that can be ascribed to the variant readings of the New Testament presents his conclusion in the following words:
Thus a study of the history of the text of the New Testament in the earliest and formative period shows a number of different factors at work. In the first place, the New Testament documents have been open to the normal hazards of manuscript transmission. This is evident in some lines of descent.... It is still a matter of debate whether any places have been so affected in all lines of transmission: a plausible case for corruption might be made in John 3: 25, I Cor. 6: 5, Col. 2: 18, and Jas. 1: 17, to mention only some striking instances... Another debated factor is the influence of doctrine upon the text. It is understandable that many scholars, conscious of the sensibilities of fellow-churchmen, and often sharing those sensibilities themselves (whether from a consciously conservative standpoint or not), should have denied that any variant had arisen from alteration in the interest of some doctrinal issue. However, we have seen that there are instances where we run in the face of the evidence if we deny the presence of this factor in the development of the text. Many variants which can be traced to the second century bear the mark of the development of doctrine... Many variants of a different kind have sprung from the closely related factor of interpretation... Lastly, we perceive that change has come about as a result of the history of the Greek language, both conscious changes from locutions deemed barbaric to others considered cultured, and unconscious changes such as arose through the disappearance of the dative case or the attenuation of the perfect. (C. F. Evans, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Vol. I, "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", 1970, p. 375 - 376)
Bruce M. Metzger has outlined the causes of error in the transmission of the text of the New Testament, in a separate chapter of his book, "The Text of The New Testament". He has broadly divided such errors into two categories11: (a) Unintentional Changes, and (b) Intentional Changes. In unintentional changes, he mentions the following:
Errors Arising from Faulty Eyesight : This maybe of any one of different natures. For example, a scribe with such a problem, found it difficult to distinguish between Greek letters that resemble one another, this was especially the case where the previous copyist had not written with care. Then, there can be a problem of jumping from one line to other and thereby omiting a line or a few lines, if both the lines ended or began with similar words.
Errors Arising from Faulty Hearing: Such problem can especially arise when the scribe is making a copy from dictation. A scribe is more prone to this problem in the case of two or more words with the same pronunciation.
Errors of the Mind: This category of errors seem to have arisen during the particular instance when the copyist was holding a sentence or a phrase in his mind, whether after looking at the previous copy, if the copy was made by looking at a previous copy, or after hearing the sentence, if the copy was made from dictation. This error can result in a number of variations in the text. For example, the copyist may unintentionally substitute a word with a synonymous word. The sequence of words may be unintentionally altered. The letters of a word may be so transported that causes a different word to be written in the copy being so made. The passage being so written may be replaced in the mind of the scribe with a similar passage that is better known to the scribe.
Errors of Judgement: Such errors may arise when a scribe mistakes some words written on the margin of a previously written manuscript to be part of the text being written.
While in intentional changes, the following are mentioned:
Changes Involving Spelling and Grammar: The scribe may, with a motive of correction, change or alter the spelling of a word or the sequence of words in a sentence.
Harmonistic Corruptions: Since the monks normally knew portions of the Scriptures by heart, they tended to make changes in the text to harmonize discordant parallels or quotations.
Addition of Natural Complements and Similar Adjuncts: Where the scribe thought a phrase to be missing a few words that, in his opinion, should have been there, he added such words as he thought were obviously missing and were meant to be there.
Clearing up Historical and Geographical Difficulties: The scribes who were aware of a particular historical or geographical reference being made in the text and found that reference to be incorrect in some way, tended to correct such reference.
Conflation of Readings: When the same passage was given differently in different manuscripts most scribes incorporated both readings in the new copy which they were writing.
Alterations made because of Doctrinal Considerations: When the words of the manuscript which was used as a source differed from or negated the doctrine to which the scribe ascribed himself, he was tempted to alter the words in a way that prevented the particular doctrine from losing its ground.
Addition of Miscellaneous Details: Some scribes had the tendency of adding details to some event that was referred to in the text.
The author has given a number of examples under each sub-category of these changes.
This, then, is what confuses the Muslim mind to the extent that is quite well known. The Muslims do not believe that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus (peace be upon him), whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even if these books were ascribed to Jesus (peace be upon him), the Muslims have never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next, till it reaches Jesus (peace be upon him). Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text....
I am afraid, in the situation as it stands, the Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the prophets to whom they are ascribed.
Do keep in touch.
Footnotes
1- Canonization, very simply stated, means the acceptance of some of the writings that were in circulation, in the early period of Christianity, as authoritative, while not giving this position to other such writings
2- As has been stated by C. F. Evans in his article "The New Testament: The New Testament in the Making", The Cambridge History of the Bible, Cambridge, 1970, p. 286
3- Note that such narratives would not become the "basis" of religious doctrine for the muslims. This does not imply that such narratives would be out rightly rejected.
4- See Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter III, 1961.
5- The author writes: ... indeed they were no doubt based on an oral tradition of a farewell address given by that great leader of the early Hebrews. The writer of Deuteronomy incorporated older materials in his work such as the "Blessing" (Deuteronomy xxxiii); but the ideals and sentiments he expressed are those of his own age, not that of Moses.
6- It must be remembered that the time of Moses is around the 13th century, and the most ancient narrative, and that too only a part of the Torah is not earlier than c. 850 BC.
7- See table in Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making", Chapter III, 1961, p 26
8- Also see Geddes MacGregor's "The Bible in the Making" 1961, Chapter IV, How the New Testament took shape, p. 35
9- see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 40.
10- see Geddes MacGregor, The Bible in the Making, Chapter IV, How The New Testament Took Shape, 1961, p 41.
11- (Bruce M. Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration", 1964. p 186 - 206)
The article that i posted dont seem to be very 'clear'...
So this is the link, of that particular article...
Take a look;
http://www.themodernreligion.com/comparative/christ/bible_tampered_qa.htm
The site is good to view also, so browse and read up the articles...
BinZiad
vancouver
21-03-2002, 14:15
The Revelation(vision)from Jesus to his beloved apostle John while on the Isle of Patmos is extremely important for us today:-
REVELATION TO JOHN
The last book of the Bible as arranged in most translations, though not the last written. It is also called the Apocalypse of John the Apostle.
Writer, and When and Where Written. The apostle John names himself as the writer of the book and designates the place of writing as the island of Patmos, where John was in exile at the time for being a preacher of God's Word and a witness of Jesus Christ. (Re 1:1, 9) The time of writing was possibly about 96 C.E.
Style and Appropriateness. The book is in letter form, detailing a series of visions set forth in a proper order in regular progression, finally coming to the climactic vision. It supplies a fitting conclusion to the entire Bible.
The book seems to proceed on the basis of series of sevens. Seven seals open into the blowing of seven trumpets, then into seven plagues. There are seven lampstands, seven stars, seven thunders, and many other things by sevens, evidently because the number seven here represents completeness, and the book deals with the completion of the sacred secret of God.-Re 10:7; see SACRED SECRET.
Author and Channel. Jehovah God the Almighty is the book's author, and the channel of information is Jesus Christ, who sent it to John and presented it to him by means of his angel. (Re 1:1) The spirit of God is represented as being sevenfold, hence acting in its fullest capacity to convey this disclosure. John was given divine command to write.-1:4, 11.
Purpose. While some of the things seen by John in the vision may seem terrifying-the beasts, the woes, the plagues-the book was written, not to terrify, but to comfort and encourage those who read it with faith. It can lead the reader to blessings. In fact, the writer of the book states at the outset: "Happy ["blessed," KJ] is he who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and who observe the things written in it." (Re 1:3) John also says that the book is for the purpose of showing God's slaves the things that "must shortly take place."-1:1, 2.
Bears Witness to Jesus. In Revelation 19:10, the angel tells John: "The bearing witness to Jesus is what inspires prophesying [literally, "is the spirit of the prophecy"]." That is, the intent and purpose of all prophecy is to point to Jesus Christ. This does not mean that Jehovah God is bypassed or ignored. Earlier in <G<Ț>G>19 <G<Ü>G>verse 10 the angel had told John, who fell down before him: "Worship God," and the apostle Paul had said that "God exalted [Christ] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground, and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." Magnifying Jesus Christ, therefore, and getting acquainted with the knowledge of him result in a better knowledge of God and His purposes, thereby giving the glory to God above all.-Php 2:9-11.
The reason why prophecy bears witness to Jesus is that Jesus is the one through whom God accomplishes his purposes in sanctifying his name, destroying wickedness, and blessing mankind. "Carefully concealed in him [Christ] are all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge." (Col 2:3) He is the Seed of promise, the One in whom the sacred secret is revealed. From the very beginning of God's dealings with men following Adam's rebellion, God has caused Christ to be foretold and foreshadowed and has pointed men to the Kingdom of God in the hands of his Son.-Ge 3:15; 22:18; Ga 3:16; 2Sa 7:12-16; Ps 2:6-12; 110:1-7; Eze 21:27; Acts 2:29, 36; 3:19-26; 1Ti 3:16.
In simple language, what is the meaning of "Revelation"?
The opening chapter of the book concluding the Bible introduces us to the One over all, the Originator of the Revelation message, Jehovah God the Almighty, "the Alpha and the Omega." It gives a vision of the Channel of the communication, Jesus Christ, showing him as having died but now being alive, in great power in heaven. The sharers with him in his tribulation and in the Kingdom are next brought into view, and Christ's interest in them and loving-kindness toward them are displayed in his messages to "the angels" of the seven congregations.-Re 1-3.
Then by the spirit of inspiration John is ushered into the heavens to begin seeing "the things that must take place." He is given a vision of the throne of God and its surroundings, and he describes the One sitting upon it as glorious, supreme, throning in perfect sereneness and composure.-Re 4.
The glorious position of "the Lamb" of God, Jesus Christ, is portrayed as that of the one second only to Jehovah God, the only one in heaven and earth qualified to approach God to open up the revelation of God's purpose. Attention is given to a warrior-king (apparently also Jesus) riding forth "conquering and to complete his conquest." The result to earth, especially to God's enemies, when this king begins his ride is shown and so is God's purpose to avenge the blood of his people upon his enemies.-Re 5, 6.
How God views his servants on earth who have been chosen by him to share in the heavenly Kingdom is shown in his holding up destructive action until these servants are 'sealed in their foreheads.' The full number of sealed ones is revealed to be 144,000. Others not sealed, and unlimited as to number, who become servants of God and escape the destructiveness of "the great tribulation" are then shown. The judgments of God against various sections of his enemies on earth, as well as the fight that these enemies wage against his people, are related. This leads up to the efforts of the archenemy, the dragon Satan the Devil, to thwart God's purpose to bring forth the "son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod." Next, wild beasts are seen, symbolizing instrumentalities that this archenemy uses to fight the remaining ones of the seed of the woman and to prevent the completion of the sealing work.-Re 7-13; see BEASTS, SYMBOLIC.
All these attempts of Satan utterly fail. The 144,000 are seen victorious, standing with the Lamb upon Mount Zion, displaying the name of the Father and of the Lamb on their foreheads, and singing as if a new song before the heavenly ones. After these and a "great crowd" of earthly associates are all gathered in "the harvest of the earth," the time has arrived for the great "vine of the earth" to be trodden out in the winepress.-Re 14.
With another symbolism, God's final judgments are portrayed. Seven angels are provided with seven bowls of God's anger. They go forth to carry out this final work. One of the chief foes of God and of the "bride" of Christ comes in for attention, namely, "Babylon the Great, the mother of the harlots," "the great city that has a kingdom over the kings of the earth." Her alliance with the seven-headed beast collapses, the beast becoming enraged with her, eating her flesh, and burning her with fire. The mourning of those who made gain by their dealings with her is great, but heaven rejoices.-Re 15-18.
Babylon the Great, as "the mother of the harlots," would logically make every attempt to seduce the "bride" of Christ to become unfaithful to her promised husband (2Co 11:2, 3; Eph 5:25-27) and thereby make her another harlot. Hence, the heavenly rejoicing is accentuated because Babylon the Great's corrupting efforts have been frustrated. The great harlot is now out of the way, and the bride has gained the victory. She has prepared herself for her espoused One. Therefore it is time for the Lamb's marriage to take place. All those invited to the marriage rejoice. Jehovah now begins a new epoch in his reign, the great harlot having disappeared as a rival to pure worship.-Re 19:1-10.
But God's other enemies must come in for execution of judgment. The Bridegroom goes forth to complete his conquest, to rid the earth of all foes, political and otherwise. The destruction is thorough. Finally, the Devil, having experienced the defeat of all of his agents and instruments, is himself bound for the thousand years of Christ's reign. The vision passes over this Millennial Reign for the moment to detail a judgment that comes at the end of the thousand years; the Devil is temporarily loosed, then, together with all those joining his attack on "the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city," he is completely annihilated.-Re 19:11-20:10.
Turning back to events during the thousand years, the vision depicts the resurrection and judgment that take place under the rule of Christ and his bride, the New Jerusalem. The beauty and grandeur of this heavenly "city" is described, with the healing, life-giving benefits it brings to mankind.-Re 20:11-22:5.
In conclusion, Jehovah God speaks of 'coming quickly with reward according to each one's work.' As "the faithful and true witness," Jesus bears testimony to the completion of the sacred secret concerning the kingdom, saying: "I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star." He is David's permanent heir, the eternal one in the Kingdom covenant and the one foretold at Numbers 24:17. All efforts by Satan, the wild beast, and Babylon the Great (Re 12:1-10; 17:3-14) have therefore been unable to prevent this "star" from rising out of the house of David to sit down on the throne in the heavens forever.-Re 22:6-16.
The spirit, the active force of God, along with "the bride," extend the invitation to all hearing to take of life's water free. With a final warning not to add to or take from the words of the prophecy, and a declaration of the nearness of his coming, Jesus closes the revelation; and John responds, "Amen! Come, Lord Jesus."-Re 22:17-21.
The book of Revelation is of great importance in that it provides spiritual strength and insight for God's people. It highlights God's interest in the congregations of his people and the close and loving care that Jesus Christ exercises toward them as the Fine Shepherd. Jesus knows exactly what conditions prevail and what must be done. This is especially manifest in the first three chapters of the book.
Some persons view Revelation as being so highly symbolic that it cannot be understood, or they view it as being impractical. But Jehovah God wants his people to understand, and he caused the Bible to be written to be understood and to provide guidance for them. The key to understanding Revelation is the same as the key to understanding other parts of the Bible. The apostle Paul points to that key. After explaining that God reveals the hidden wisdom through his spirit, Paul says: "These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we combine spiritual matters with spiritual words." (1Co 2:8-13) If we search the Scriptures (and in some cases the customs and practices of those days), we find in them many of the things used as symbolisms in Revelation. By comparing these Scripture texts, we can often understand what the Revelation symbol means. It should be noted, however, that a term or expression may refer to or symbolize different things, according to the context in which it appears.
HIGHLIGHTS OF REVELATION
A disclosure of God's view of conditions as well as a foreview of what he permits and what he will accomplish through Christ during "the Lord's day"
A series of visions recorded by the apostle John in about 96 C.E.
The glorified Christ gives loving counsel to fellow Kingdom heirs (1:1-3:22)
The Ephesus congregation has endured but has left its first love
The spiritually rich Smyrna congregation is encouraged to remain faithful in the face of tribulation
The Pergamum congregation has held fast to Christ's name under persecution but has tolerated sectarianism
The Thyatira congregation has a record of increased activity, but it has tolerated a Jezebel influence
The Sardis congregation is dead spiritually; it must wake up
The Philadelphia congregation, which has kept Christ's word, is urged to keep holding fast what it has
The Laodicea congregation is lukewarm; let it obtain from Christ what is needed for spiritual healing
A vision of Jehovah's heavenly presence (4:1-5:14)
Jehovah is seen in awesome splendor on his throne, surrounded by 24 elders and four living creatures; he holds a scroll sealed with seven seals
The Lamb is declared worthy to take the scroll and open it
The Lamb opens six seals of the scroll (6:1-17)
As he opens the first seal, a rider on a white horse receives a crown and goes forth conquering and to complete his conquest
The opening of the next three seals introduces three more horsemen, bringing war, famine, and death to mankind
The fifth seal is opened; those martyred for Christ cry for their blood to be avenged; each is given a white robe
At the opening of the sixth seal, a great earthquake heralds the day of the wrath of God and of the Lamb
The four winds of the earth are held back (7:1-17)
John hears that the four winds will be held back until the slaves of God are sealed; the number of those sealed is 144,000
Then, John sees a great, unnumbered crowd out of all nations; these come out of the great tribulation
The seventh seal is opened (8:1-11:14)
There is a half-hour silence; fire from the altar is hurled to the earth; seven angels prepare to blow trumpets
The first four trumpet blasts herald plagues on the earth, the sea, the freshwater sources, as well as on the sun, moon, and stars
The fifth trumpet calls forth a plague of locusts, and the sixth unleashes a terrifying cavalry attack
John eats a little scroll and learns he must prophesy some more
He measures the sanctuary; two witnesses prophecy in sackcloth, are killed, and are raised again
The seventh trumpet: the Kingdom is born (11:15-12:17)
The seventh trumpet sounds and the Kingdom of Jehovah and the authority of his Christ are announced
A woman gives birth to a male child in heaven
The dragon tries to devour the child; there is war in heaven; Michael casts the dragon and its angels down to earth
The dragon wages war on the remnant of the woman's seed
The wild beast from the sea (13:1-18)
A wild beast with seven heads and ten horns comes out of the sea
The dragon gives the beast its authority, and a beast with two horns like a lamb makes an image to it; many are forced to worship the wild beast and accept its mark
Jehovah's faithful servants in action (14:1-20)
The 144,000 on Mount Zion sing a new song
Angels flying in midheaven declare vital messages
Someone like a son of man reaps the harvest of the earth
An angel treads the winepress of God, with much bloodshed
Jehovah, from his heavenly sanctuary, commands seven angels to pour out the seven bowls of his anger (15:1-16:21)
The first six bowls are poured out into the earth, the sea, and freshwater sources, and upon the sun, the throne of the wild beast, and the Euphrates
God's servants must stay awake, as demonic propaganda gathers human kings to Har-Magedon
The seventh bowl is poured out upon the air with devastating results
Visions of the end of Babylon the Great (17:1-18:24)
Babylon the Great, drunk with the blood of the holy ones, sits on a scarlet beast having seven heads and ten horns; the ten horns turn on her and devastate her
Her fall is announced; God's people must get out of her
Her final destruction is mourned by many on earth
The marriage of the Lamb (19:1-10)
Heavenly voices praise Jah for the destruction of Babylon
A thunderous chorus of praise heralds the marriage of the Lamb
King of kings triumphant over the nations (19:11-21)
The Word of God goes to war against the nations; the wild beast and the false prophet are hurled into the lake of fire; all of God's enemies are killed off; animals eat their fleshy parts
Satan abyssed; Christ rules for 1,000 years (20:1-21:8)
Satan is abyssed for 1,000 years
Jesus' fellow rulers judge with him for 1,000 years, after which, Satan is released; he sets out to mislead mankind again, but finally he and all who follow him are destroyed
All those in death, Hades, and the sea are raised and judged before the One seated on the great white throne; death and Hades are cast into the lake of fire
John sees a new heaven and a new earth
The New Jerusalem (21:9-22:21)
The glorious New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, illuminating the nations; a river of water of life flows through it, with trees for healing on each bank
Revelation closes with final messages from Jehovah and Jesus; the spirit and the bride invite anyone thirsting to take life's water free
Well, I definitely don't have time to read such long responses, either in criticism or support of the Bible. So let me re-state my question a little more specifically: is there some way, according to Muslims, that we can look at a specific passage in the Bible and say, "No, we can't rely on that passage, it was corrupted in such and such a manner. . . " or else, "We know that this passage is reliable because . . . " What I'm specifically driving at is that whether or not to trust the authenticity of a particular verse seems to be completely dependent on whether or not it supports the teachings of the Koran. If it does, then that part of the Bible must be OK. If it doesn't, then it must be corrupt in that passage. Quite apart from any reference to the Koran, how would we know (according to Islam) which parts are still good and which parts are not?
hmm....
kind of tricky...i think without the koraan... i wo'nt know what to trust either... if the koraan and hadith didn't mention it... hmm... i guess u don't know, unless u lived in the time of the prophet mohammad in which there were men who KNEW truth...
Allah knows best
vancouver
26-03-2002, 12:46
What about the teaching of the immortality of the soul and hell fire. Those teachings are corrupt. They are not found in the bible by the way. They came from Babylon. That was a long time before the Quran.
These are in the quraan... so they are not corrupt. They are also in Hadith... if the bible didn't mention them that is because Jesus was not given enough time to finish the message that god sent him with, and this is why we needed prophet mohammad to complete the Deen (Deen is not just religion, but a way of life).
I think u got it backward (or i didn't explain it correct) we take the Quraan as an authority.... whatever is in the bible is right ONLY if it agrees with what is in the Quraan.
vancouver
26-03-2002, 22:46
This is the genuine meaning of Hell:-
HELL
A word used in the King James Version (as well as in the Catholic Douay Version and most older translations) to translate the Hebrew sheŽohl' and the Greek hai'des. In the King James Version the word "hell" is rendered from sheŽohl' 31 times and from hai'des 10 times. This version is not consistent, however, since sheŽohl' is also translated 31 times "grave" and 3 times "pit." In the Douay Version sheŽohl' is rendered "hell" 64 times, "pit" once, and "death" once.
In 1885, with the publication of the complete English Revised Version, the original word sheŽohl' was in many places transliterated into the English text of the Hebrew Scriptures, though, in most occurrences, "grave" and "pit" were used, and "hell" is found some 14 times. This was a point on which the American committee disagreed with the British revisers, and so, when producing the American Standard Version (1901) they transliterated sheŽohl' in all 65 of its appearances. Both versions transliterated hai'des in the Christian Greek Scriptures in all ten of its occurrences, though the Greek word Ge'en·na (English, "Gehenna") is rendered "hell" throughout, as is true of many other modern translations.
Concerning this use of "hell" to translate these original words from the Hebrew and Greek, Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words (1981, Vol. 2, p. 187) says: "HADES . . . It corresponds to 'Sheol' in the O.T. [Old Testament]. In the A.V. of the O.T. [Old Testament] and N.T. [New Testament], it has been unhappily rendered 'Hell.'"
Collier's Encyclopedia (1986, Vol. 12, p. 28) says concerning "Hell": "First it stands for the Hebrew Sheol of the Old Testament and the Greek Hades of the Septuagint and New Testament. Since Sheol in Old Testament times referred simply to the abode of the dead and suggested no moral distinctions, the word 'hell,' as understood today, is not a happy translation."
It is, in fact, because of the way that the word "hell" is understood today that it is such an unsatisfactory translation of these original Bible words. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, unabridged, under "Hell" says: "fr[om] . . . helan to conceal." The word "hell" thus originally conveyed no thought of heat or torment but simply of a 'covered over or concealed place.' In the old English dialect the expression "helling potatoes" meant, not to roast them, but simply to place the potatoes in the ground or in a cellar.
The meaning given today to the word "hell" is that portrayed in Dante's Divine Comedy and Milton's Paradise Lost, which meaning is completely foreign to the original definition of the word. The idea of a "hell" of fiery torment, however, dates back long before Dante or Milton. The Grolier Universal Encyclopedia (1971, Vol. 9, p. 205) under "Hell" says: "Hindus and Buddhists regard hell as a place of spiritual cleansing and final restoration. Islamic tradition considers it as a place of everlasting punishment." The idea of suffering after death is found among the pagan religious teachings of ancient peoples in Babylon and Egypt. Babylonian and Assyrian beliefs depicted the "nether world . . . as a place full of horrors, . . . presided over by gods and demons of great strength and fierceness." Although ancient Egyptian religious texts do not teach that the burning of any individual victim would go on forever, they do portray the "Other World" as featuring "pits of fire" for "the damned."-The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, by Morris Jastrow, Jr., 1898, p. 581; The Book of the Dead, with introduction by E. Wallis Budge, 1960, pp. 135, 144, 149, 151, 153, 161, 200.
"Hellfire" has been a basic teaching in Christendom for many centuries. It is understandable why The Encyclopedia Americana (1956, Vol. XIV, p. 81) said: "Much confusion and misunderstanding has been caused through the early translators of the Bible persistently rendering the Hebrew Sheol and the Greek Hades and Gehenna by the word hell. The simple transliteration of these words by the translators of the revised editions of the Bible has not sufficed to appreciably clear up this confusion and misconception." Nevertheless, such transliteration and consistent rendering does enable the Bible student to make an accurate comparison of the texts in which these original words appear and, with open mind, thereby to arrive at a correct understanding of their true significance
With regards and God's blessing
vancouver
Peace to all members!
I have been away for some time, and i will be away for more time, busy with work...now..
>Well, I definitely don't have time to read such long
>responses, either in criticism or support of the Bible.
I dont blame you, but the article is good and it explains some points you raised.
So let me re-state my question a little more specifically: is
>there some way, according to Muslims, that we can look at a
>specific passage in the Bible and say, "No, we can't rely on
>that passage, it was corrupted in such and such a manner. .
You words are correct, in the sense that, if the meaning or the words in the bible are contradicting the quran, then and only then, that specfic word or verse will not be accepted, understand?
>. " or else, "We know that this passage is reliable because
>. . . " What I'm specifically driving at is that whether or
>not to trust the authenticity of a particular verse seems to
>be completely dependent on whether or not it supports the
>teachings of the Koran.
Exactly!! If it agrees with the quran, then it is ok, in regards to islam or muslims..
>If it does, then that part of the Bible must be OK. If it doesn't, >then it must be corrupt in that passage. Quite apart from any >reference to the Koran, how would we know (according to Islam) which >parts are still good and which parts are not?
We will, only use the quran to look at the bible...simple. If the bible is the word of god, and it has been changed, the verses which go with the holy, perfect quran can and only be accepted.
BinZiad...sharing some words..
Salam to all!
I got alot of stuff on, im on holiday too, just want to comment on this as;
"..Muslims do not believe that the books that now constitute the New Testament were written by Jesus (sws), whereas, the basis of Christianity is ascribed to him. Even if these books were ascribed to Jesus (sws), the Muslims have never been provided with unbroken and dependable chains of transmission of these books from one generation to the next. The case of the Torah is no different. Lastly, even experts on the text of the Bible believe that it has not remained safe from intentional and/or unintentional changes in the text. Consequently, in the situation, as it stands, Muslims have no option but to believe that the books of the Bible as we have them today do not truly reflect the true teachings of the Prophets to whom they are ascribed..."
Sadiq.
vancouver
27-03-2002, 02:33
[updated:LAST EDITED ON 27-03-02 AT 01:34 AM (GMT)]Greetings Sadiq
Read this post carefully and decide if you still feel the same about the Bible and whether or not God would make sure that mankind always had the word of God to refer to. I realise that it is rather lengthy but it is very important to know the truth about such matters.
Bible ***
The most important book of all times because of its antiquity, its total circulation, the number of languages into which it has been translated, its surpassing greatness as a literary masterpiece, and its overwhelming importance to all mankind. Independent of all other books, it imitates no other. It stands on its own merits, giving credit to its unique Author. The Bible is also distinguished as having survived more violent controversy than any other book, hated as it is by many enemies.
Name. The English word "Bible" comes through the Latin from the Greek word bi·bli'a, meaning "little books." This, in turn, is derived from bi'blos, a word that describes the inner part of the papyrus plant out of which a primitive form of paper was made. The Phoenician city of Gebal, famous for its papyrus papermaking, was called by the Greeks "Byblos." (See Jos 13:5, ftn.) In time bi·bli'a came to describe various writings, scrolls, books, and eventually the collection of little books that make up the Bible. Jerome called this collection Bibliotheca Divina, the Divine Library.
Jesus and writers of the Christian Greek Scriptures referred to the collection of sacred writings as "the Scriptures," or "the holy Scriptures," "the holy writings." (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Lu 24:32; Joh 5:39; Ac 18:24; Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15, 16) The collection is the written expression of a communicating God, the Word of God, and this is acknowledged in phrases such as "expression of Jehovah's mouth" (De 8:3), "sayings of Jehovah" (Jos 24:27), "commandments of Jehovah" (Ezr 7:11), "law of Jehovah," "reminder of Jehovah," "orders from Jehovah" (Ps 19:7, 8), "word of Jehovah" (Isa 38:4), 'utterance of Jehovah' (Mt 4:4), "Jehovah's word" (1Th 4:15). Repeatedly these writings are spoken of as "sacred pronouncements of God."-Ro 3:2; Ac 7:38; Heb 5:12; 1Pe 4:11.
Divisions. Sixty-six individual books from Genesis to Revelation make up the Bible canon. The choice of these particular books, and the rejection of many others, is evidence that the Divine Author not only inspired their writing but also carefully guarded their collection and preservation within the sacred catalog. (See APOCRYPHA; CANON.) Thirty-nine of the 66 books, making up three quarters of the Bible's contents, are known as the Hebrew Scriptures, all having been initially written in that language with the exception of a few small sections written in Aramaic. (Ezr 4:8-6:18; 7:12-26; Jer 10:11; Da 2:4b-7:28) By combining some of these books, the Jews had a total of only 22 or 24 books, yet these embraced the same material. It also appears to have been their custom to subdivide the Scriptures into three parts-'the law of Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms.' (Lu 24:44; see HEBREW SCRIPTURES.) The last quarter of the Bible is known as the Christian Greek Scriptures, so designated because the 27 books comprising this section were written in Greek. The writing, collecting, and arrangement of these books within the Bible's canon also demonstrate Jehovah's supervision from start to finish.-See CHRISTIAN GREEK SCRIPTURES.
Subdividing the Bible into chapters and verses (KJ has 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses) was not done by the original writers, but it was a very useful device added centuries later. The Masoretes divided the Hebrew Scriptures into verses; then in the 13th century of our Common Era chapter divisions were added. Finally, in 1555 Robert Estienne's edition of the Latin Vulgate was published as the first complete Bible with the present chapter and verse divisions.
The 66 Bible books all together form but a single work, a complete whole. As the chapter and verse marks are only convenient aids for Bible study and are not intended to detract from the unity of the whole, so also is the sectioning of the Bible, which is done according to the predominant language in which the manuscripts have come down to us. We, therefore, have both the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, with "Christian" added to the latter to distinguish them from the Greek Septuagint, which is the Hebrew portion of the Scriptures translated into Greek.
"Old Testament" and "New Testament." Today it is a common practice to refer to the Scriptures written in Hebrew and Aramaic as the "Old Testament." This is based on the reading in 2 Corinthians 3:14 in the Latin Vulgate and the King James Version. However, the rendering "old testament" in this text is incorrect. The Greek word di·a·the'kes here means "covenant," as it does in the other 32 places where it occurs in the Greek text. Many modern translations correctly read "old covenant." (NE, RS, JB) The apostle Paul is not referring to the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures in their entirety. Neither does he mean that the inspired Christian writings constitute a "new testament (or, covenant)." The apostle is speaking of the old Law covenant, which was recorded by Moses in the Pentateuch and which makes up only a part of the pre-Christian Scriptures. For this reason he says in the next verse, "whenever Moses is read."
Hence, there is no valid basis for the Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptures to be called the "Old Testament" and for the Christian Greek Scriptures to be called the "New Testament." Jesus Christ himself referred to the collection of sacred writings as "the Scriptures." (Mt 21:42; Mr 14:49; Joh 5:39) The apostle Paul referred to them as "the holy Scriptures," "the Scriptures," and "the holy writings."-Ro 1:2; 15:4; 2Ti 3:15.
Authorship. The accompanying table shows that about 40 human secretaries or scribes were used by the one Author to record the inspired Word of Jehovah. "All Scripture is inspired of God," and this includes the writings in the Christian Greek Scriptures along with "the rest of the Scriptures." (2Ti 3:16; 2Pe 3:15, 16) This expression "inspired of God" translated the Greek phrase the·o'pneu·stos, meaning "God-breathed." By 'breathing' on faithful men, God caused his spirit, or active force, to become operative upon them and directed what he wanted recorded, for, as it is written, "prophecy was at no time brought by man's will, but men spoke from God as they were borne along by holy spirit."-2Pe 1:21; Joh 20:21, 22; see INSPIRATION.
This unseen holy spirit of God is his symbolic "finger." Therefore, when men saw Moses perform supernatural feats they exclaimed: "It is the finger of God!" (Ex 8:18, 19; compare with Jesus' words at Mt 12:22, 28; Lu 11:20.) In a similar display of divine power "God's finger" began the writing of the Bible by carving out the Ten Commandments on stone tablets. (Ex 31:18; De 9:10) It would, therefore, be a simple matter for Jehovah to use men as his scribes even though some were "unlettered and ordinary" in scholastic training (Ac 4:13), and regardless of whether the individual was by trade a shepherd, farmer, tentmaker, fisherman, tax collector, physician, priest, prophet, or king. Jehovah's active force put the thoughts into the writer's mind and, in certain instances, allowed him to express the divine thought in his own words, thus permitting personality and individual traits to show through the writing, yet at the same time maintaining a superb oneness in theme and in purpose throughout. In this way the resultant Bible, reflecting as it does the mind and will of Jehovah, exceeded in wealth and in scope the writings of mere men. The Almighty God saw to it that his written Word of truth was in language easily understood and easily translated into practically any tongue.
No other book took so long to complete as the Bible. In 1513 B.C.E. Moses began Bible writing. Other sacred writings were added to the inspired Scriptures until sometime after 443 B.C.E. when Nehemiah and Malachi completed their books. Then there was a gap in Bible writing for almost 500 years, until the apostle Matthew penned his historic account. Nearly 60 years later John, the last of the apostles, contributed his Gospel and three letters to complete the Bible's canon. So, all together, a period of some 1,610 years was involved in producing the Bible. All the cowriters were Hebrews and, hence, part of that people "entrusted with the sacred pronouncements of God."-Ro 3:2.
The Bible is not an unrelated assortment or collection of heterogeneous fragments from Jewish and Christian literature. Rather, it is an organizational book, highly unified and interconnected in its various segments, which indeed reflect the systematic orderliness of the Creator-Author himself. God's dealings with Israel in giving them a comprehensive law code as well as regulations governing matters even down to small details of camp life-things that were later mirrored in the Davidic kingdom as well as in the congregational arrangement among first-century Christians-reflect and magnify this organizational aspect of the Bible.
Contents. In contents this Book of Books reveals the past, explains the present, and foretells the future. These are matters that only He who knows the end from the beginning could author. (Isa 46:10) Starting at the beginning by telling of the creation of heaven and earth, the Bible next gives a sweeping account of the events that prepared the earth for man's habitation. Then the truly scientific explanation of the origin of man is revealed-how life comes only from a Life-Giver-facts that only the Creator now in the role of Author could explain. (Ge 1:26-28; 2:7) With the account of why men die, the overriding theme that permeates the whole Bible was introduced. This theme, the vindication of Jehovah's sovereignty and the ultimate fulfillment of his purpose for the earth, by means of his Kingdom under Christ, the promised Seed, was wrapped up in the first prophecy concerning 'the seed of the woman.' (Ge 3:15) More than 2,000 years passed before this promise of a "seed" was again mentioned, God telling Abraham: "By means of your seed all nations of the earth will certainly bless themselves." (Ge 22:18) Over 800 years later, renewed assurance was given to Abraham's descendant King David, and with the passing of more time Jehovah's prophets kept this flame of hope burning brightly. (2Sa 7:12, 16; Isa 9:6, 7) More than 1,000 years after David and 4,000 years after the original prophecy in Eden, the Promised Seed himself appeared, Jesus Christ, the legal heir to "the throne of David his father." (Lu 1:31-33; Ga 3:16) Bruised in death by the earthly seed of the "serpent," this "Son of the Most High" provided the ransom purchase price for the life rights lost to Adam's offspring, thus providing the only means whereby mankind can get everlasting life. He was then raised on high, there to await the appointed time to hurl "the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan," down to the earth, finally to be destroyed forever. Thus the magnificent theme announced in Genesis and developed and enlarged upon throughout the balance of the Bible is, in the closing chapters of Revelation, brought to a glorious climax as Jehovah's grand purpose by means of his Kingdom is made apparent.-Re 11:15; 12:1-12, 17; 19:11-16; 20:1-3, 7-10; 21:1-5; 22:3-5.
This Kingdom under Christ the Promised Seed is the means by which the vindication of Jehovah's name will be accomplished. Following through on this theme, the Bible magnifies God's personal name to a greater extent than any other book; the name occurs 6,973 times in the Hebrew Scripture portion of the New World Translation. That is in addition to the use of the shorter form "Jah" and the scores of instances where it combines to form other names like "Jehoshua," meaning "Jehovah Is Salvation." (See JEHOVAH [Importance of the Name].) We would not know the Creator's name, the great issue raised by the Edenic rebellion involving this name, or God's purpose to sanctify and vindicate that name before all creation if these things were not revealed in the Bible.
In this library of 66 little books the theme of the Kingdom and Jehovah's name are closely interwoven with information on many subjects. Its reference to fields of knowledge such as agriculture, architecture, astronomy, chemistry, commerce, engineering, ethnology, government, hygiene, music, poetry, philology, and tactical warfare is only incidental to development of the theme; not as a treatise. Nevertheless, it contains a veritable treasure-house of information for the archaeologists and paleographers.
As an accurate historical work and one that penetrates the past to great depths, the Bible far surpasses all other books. However, it is of much greater value in the field of prophecy, foretelling as it does the future that only the King of Eternity can reveal with accuracy. The march of world powers down through the centuries, even to the rise and ultimate demise of present-day institutions, was prophetically related in the Bible's long-range prophecies.
God's Word of truth in a very practical way sets men free from ignorance, superstitions, human philosophies, and senseless traditions of men. (Joh 8:32) "The word of God is alive and exerts power." (Heb 4:12) Without the Bible we would not know Jehovah, would not know the wonderful benefits resulting from Christ's ransom sacrifice, and would not understand the requirements that must be met in order to get everlasting life in or under God's righteous Kingdom.
The Bible is a most practical book in other ways too, for it gives sound counsel to Christians on how to live now, how to carry on their ministry, and how to survive this anti-God, pleasure-seeking system of things. Christians are told to "quit being fashioned after this system of things" by making their minds over from worldly thinking, and this they can do by having the same mental attitude of humility "that was also in Christ Jesus" and by stripping off the old personality and putting on the new one. (Ro 12:2; Php 2:5-8; Eph 4:23, 24; Col 3:5-10) This means displaying the fruitage of God's spirit, "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control"-subjects on which so much is written throughout the Bible.-Ga 5:22, 23; Col 3:12-14.
Authenticity. The veracity of the Bible has been assailed from many quarters, but none of these efforts has undermined or weakened its position in the least.
Bible history. Sir Isaac Newton once said: "I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever." (Two Apologies, by R. Watson, London, 1820, p. 57) Its integrity to truth proves sound on any point that might be tested. Its history is accurate and can be relied upon. For example, what it says about the fall of Babylon to the Medes and Persians cannot be successfully contradicted (Jer 51:11, 12, 28; Da 5:28), neither can what it says about people like Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 27:20; Da 1:1); Egyptian King Shishak (1Ki 14:25; 2Ch 12:2); Assyrians Tiglath-pileser III and Sennacherib (2Ki 15:29; 16:7; 18:13); the Roman emperors Augustus, Tiberius, and Claudius (Lu 2:1; 3:1; Ac 18:2); Romans such as Pilate, Felix, and Festus (Ac 4:27; 23:26; 24:27); nor what it says about the temple of Artemis at Ephesus and the Areopagus at Athens (Ac 19:35; 17:19-34). What the Bible says about these or any other places, people, or events is historically accurate in every detail.-See ARCHAEOLOGY.
Races and languages. What the Bible says about races and languages of mankind is also true. All peoples, regardless of stature, culture, color, or language, are members of one human family. The threefold division of the human family into the Japhetic, Hamitic, and Semitic races, all descending from Adam through Noah, cannot be successfully disputed. (Ge 9:18, 19; Ac 17:26) Says Sir Henry Rawlinson: "If we were to be guided by the mere intersection of linguistic paths, and independently of all reference to the Scriptural record, we should still be led to fix on the plains of Shinar, as the focus from which the various lines had radiated."-The Historical Evidences of the Truth of the Scripture Records, by G. Rawlinson, 1862, p. 287; Ge 11:2-9.
Practicality. The Bible's teachings, examples, and doctrines are most practical for modern man. The righteous principles and high moral standards contained in this book set it apart as far above all other books. Not only does the Bible answer important questions but it also provides many practical suggestions which, if followed, would do much to raise the physical and mental health of earth's population. The Bible lays down principles of right and wrong that serve as a straightedge for just business dealings (Mt 7:12; Le 19:35, 36; Pr 20:10; 22:22, 23), industriousness (Eph 4:28; Col 3:23; 1Th 4:11, 12; 2Th 3:10-12), clean moral conduct (Ga 5:19-23; 1Th 4:3-8; Ex 20:14-17; Le 20:10-16), upbuilding associations (1Co 15:33; Heb 10:24, 25; Pr 5:3-11; 13:20), good family relationships (Eph 5:21-33; 6:1-4; Col 3:18-21; De 6:4-9; Pr 13:24). As the famous educator William Lyon Phelps once said: "I believe a knowledge of the Bible without a college course is more valuable than a college course without a Bible." (The New Dictionary of Thoughts, p. 46) Regarding the Bible, John Quincy Adams wrote: "It is of all books in the world, that which contributes most to make men good, wise, and happy."-Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son, 1849, p. 9.
Scientific accuracy. When it comes to scientific accuracy the Bible is not lacking. Whether describing the progressive order of earth's preparation for human habitation (Ge 1:1-31), speaking of the earth as being spherical and hung on "nothing" (Job 26:7; Isa 40:22), classifying the hare as a cud chewer (Le 11:6), or declaring, "the soul of the flesh is in the blood" (Le 17:11-14), the Bible is scientifically sound.
God's blessing be with you
vancouver
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.