View Full Version : Mark 16:17-18
LAST EDITED ON 20-12-01 AT 03:16 AM (GMT)[p]Hi Asif!
Good question. There are two separate answers. First, this was speaking to the apostles, the first followers of Jesus, not to everyone per se.
However, this doesn't really matter because the last several verses of Mark aren't Biblical. This half chapter isn't found in the earlier Greek manuscripts, the earliest ones end at verse 8. Also the style of Hebrew is different here from the rest of Mark's book.
JBJ
Hi Asif,
I made a mistake, the verse is speaking to all Christians, not the apostles, from verse 16 "Whoever believes."
Still yes, I'm saying it's possible that the apostles, though human, might have lived through drinking poison, although there's no historical record of them doing it.
I'm thinking that the person Campbell spoke to was passing the idea off as silly, so he mentioned his friend as evidence that this could have happened, and could still happen today. Most Christians acknowledge the possibilities of miracles in modern times, though often less aparent then in Biblical times. Several apostles had attempted assasinations but miraculously survived them. I'll try to post them when I can look up the info.
I don't know how many languages each apostle knew, probably three I suppose, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Why?
I might as well into background on Mark 16. Verse 8 ends with the words "gar" meaning "for." "They were afraid for. . ." "Gar" is a conjunction, like "and" or "but." Therefore the original must have meant to continue past this word. There are two possibilities, either Mark didn't finish writing and got interrupted and died before finishing, or he the last piece of paper the book was written on was lost or destroyed.
For several hundred years the book was kept this way: without an ending. After that time at least two different endings were added on, the one you quoted and a shorter one of about two verses. It's also possible that the endings were written without having the intention of being part of Mark, but a copyist didn't realize this and put them together. It's possible it was meant as a forgery, and possibly not; we'll never know.
Regardless, the main point of the missing text is that Jesus resurrected from the dead. But by looking at the rest of Mark we know that the author believed he was resurrected by Jesus' predictions of his death and resurrection.
I agree that these verses should be taken out of modern Bibles. They've been kept in for the sake of making Mark look complete, but I personally believe it isn't necessary. However, it's important to realize that the Bible isn't exactly the word of God. Jesus is the Word of God (logos), the Bible is a historical record of it. Historical records aren't expected to be flawless, while the Bible proves itself to be more than historical by it's accuracy and self-consistency. The point of trouble isn't with the Bible, it's with the copyists who, for purposed or unpurposed reasons, made errors.
You said: "oh well, i didn't expect anything else" which seems a bit condescending. But I too wouldn't expect humans to be flawless either, Christian or Muslim, or whomever. So I wonder, is every part of the hadith, which is a historical record, 100% historically accurate?
I'm out of time, I'll finish later. Best wishes.
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 20-12-01 AT 08:06 PM (GMT)[p]Oops.
Hi Asif!
There is no historical of the 12 apostles living through poison, but the pseudo-verse speaks to everyone and there are records of some living through poison, and obviously, some not.
I can't view the video, unfortunately, I also have complications with my computer. However, I may have heard of this particular debate before because it happened in Chicago, my home town. If it's the same one, I can get the video from the mosque near by.
Yes, few Christians know the truth behind these verses, I never heard of it until talking with Muslims. The common interpretation behind the verse for those who do think it valid is that the power God sends through faith in believing is strong enough to come in miraculous forms. There's problems with that interpretation, but it doesn't really matter because the verses are not valid. And yes, it's very interesting.
You're right, Christians believe the Bible is inspired by God, and therefore from God. In one way the Bible could be said to be the Word of God, but that would be in the original manuscripts, not little differences we have now like Mark 16 and 1 John 5.
Apology accepted, and I've been guilty of being the same way. (Probably worse.) With Anne Marie, I wasn't meaning to be rude, I wanted to show that her view is illogical, but my words came out wrong. I really respect your humble approach this area, I hope I can be so much so. If you ever find me failing, please tell me.
I don't remember where I declined talking about the hadith, but if you want to do it now, I'm certainly willing. (In a new post, obviously.)
God Bless,
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 27-01-02 AT 03:35 PM (GMT)[p]Greetings All!
I don't really know if I want to jump into the middle of this one, because I confess that the verse of Scripture Asif quoted still baffles me a bit. But I will make a couple of points:
First, I agree with JBJ that the verse was not part of the original gospel as written by the person we call Mark. However, it was part of the final form of the text accepted into the canon. Therefore, even though I do not understand it, I consider that it is inspired by God.
As to its possible meaning, there is a group of Christians (an extremely small group of a few hundred to a few thousand) that actually handle snakes and will drink poisons while praying. Some of them die, and some live. The worhippers who live claim faith will protect you, and those who died did not have greate enough faith. These people are typically called "holy rollers" because they roll on the floor when they feel possessed by the Holy Spirit. The group exists primarily in West Virginia in the United States. There may be other charismatic groups like this elsewhere in the world.
There are also Hindus who are "snake charmers", walk on coals, drink things that appear harmful, etc...Now both Christians and Muslims agree that Hindus have false images of God, if not false gods. So, it is possible that such feats have perfectly natural explanaitions. Perhaps some early Christians engaged in such practices.
I believe that there must be some more spiritual meaning, however. What that meaning is, I am still uncertain. Perhaps snakes are an allegory for temptations of the devil, and poison a metaphor for false doctrines. I think the passage may have been written simply to give courage to Christians as persecutions started. Maybe the passage will make more sense to me at a time in my life when I feel oppressed and persecuted, or maybe I just need to find the right commentary, but so far, this passage does stump me a bit.
In the meantime, while I search for the meaning of this, I have no plans to go around picking up snakes and drinking poison. I do pray with this passage from time to time. I pray that God will protect me when and if I ever face harm.
Hope these wandering thoughts help....
Peace and Blessing!
jcecil3
http://forumnl.maghreb-online.com/images/smiles/icon_lol.gif
Assalaamu alaikum ya muslimeen.
Greetings and good day to all.
As having experienced first hand the life and belief of Christianity, and now as well experiencing the life and belief and knowledge of Islam, I have a different aspect than most of you hear to speak from.
My experiences in the church and Christianity was so that my understanding of this verse mentioned here...although perhaps it was originally addressed as an advice to the apostles, still...it is something of advice and guidance for all Christians.
As for the 'holy roller's'...that is something else entirely.
This particular verse is rather interesting to me, for it is a common thread between Christianity and in Islam as well...that belief and faith in the power of God can overcome all evils. However, the mistake of this verse(in the viewpoint of Islam and the teachings of the Quran)...is that it is requiring the believer to rest his/her belief and faith in Jesus, rather than the ultimate power of God Himself. That is a grave mistake and sin...an association of power-sharing with God, which is true blasphemy.
In Islam, we are taught that it is only God who has the ultimate power to overcome all evils, and our faith in that is a catalyst to give us strength, whether it be physical, emotional, or spiritual.
Another thing that I find quite interesting...is that your suppositions that the Bible is from God, yet your admitions that this verse was added into the Bible at a later date, and that it could be taken out at any time now as well. This is something totally unacceptable to Islam...to mess around with God's words and directives. Something from God...a message and guidance...is not to have human interference at any time. When that happens, then the validity of that revelation comes into serious question. Even if that interference be only one letter, or one word amongst thousands...still it is an interference which should not occur, if indeed the message or scripture in question is divine. When human interference enters into the picture, the divinity of that scripture is a big question mark. This is a great point of importance which was a major catalyst in my own acceptance to Islam, among other things as well.
Lulua.
LAST EDITED ON 06-01-02 AT 00:30 AM (GMT)[p]I accept these verses as being Biblical, but they are not addressed to current believers. Those words were addressed to the believers at the time of the starting of the church. You will notice that Paul, in the book of Acts, is actually bitten by a poisonous snake and survives what should have been certain death. Of course, even Paul did not deliberately go and pick up poisonous snakes just to test God--imagine the arrogance of such an action. So the upshot of the snakes part of the verse is that the believers of the day, the believers who were around for the start of the church, would receive supernatural protection at some times. This certainly happened more than once, and not just in regards to snakes.
Somebody previously asked how many languages the disciples spoke. Normally they spoke whatever languages were common in the day--Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew, I think. However, on the day of Pentecost, the day the actual present-day church started, many of the believers were suddenly able to speak many other languages, without ever having had to learn them. Since this was at a time when there were Jews from all over the Roman Empire present in Jerusalem, all speaking their own language, the Gospel was able to be distributed much, much faster than it otherwise would have been. It was a miracle!
There are many, many different Christian scholars out there, and not all of them agree with each other. Perhaps William Campbell just didn't want to get into yet another area of discussion, or perhaps he just hadn't studied it enough to bring it up in this debate. Saying that all Christian scholars should agree on every point is about as relevant as saying that all Muslim scholars should agree on every point, whether they are Sunni, Shiite, or whatever. So they don't agree. So what? I certainly wouldn't expect them to.
Hi Asif and Servant of Allah!
I wish I had known you didn't think the topic was resolved or I would have responded sooner.
First and formost, don't put too much stock in Christian scholars. They're a lot less honored than imams are. For Christians, all a scholar really is a person who's studied a topic for a long time or in detail. There's nothing official about it except that he/she went through some program at a college or seminary. They're all prone to mistakes, bad judgement, and even bad morals at times. I'm not saying to assume the worst of all of them, but don't assume the best. Many have stepped beyond the bounds of Christians, meaning that some don't believe everything in the Bible. (Rashad the 19er is the only imam I know of similar stature.) So just because Campbell said so, doesn't make it true or even the majority opinion.
A Muslim example would be the writer whose site was citing some time ago supporting that Jesus was crucified. (mostmerciful.com/raised-dead-or-alive.htm)
Don't be surprised that someone who isn't labeled a scholar would have answers that another "scholar" doesn't. Several Muslim articles (which I would assume were written by scholars of some type) have been refuted, and someone refuted an article by the Christian Jochen Katz and refuted it. Meaning that non-scholars can sometimes deal with an arguement better than a scholar. Whether a person is a "scholar" or not, I think, makes little difference. We're all human and all make mistakes, but Allah can also use anyone to serve in bringing his truth.
My personal experience with Campbell is he that makes quite a few mistakes and is very quick to attack using them. I haven't heard this debate though I'm really thinking I should now and will try to find it. However, in the book someone refered to, he does say that the last verses of Mark's gospel were not written by Mark, but doesn't give his opinion of whether they're "Biblical" exactly or not.
Servant of Allah gave the opinion that every notable Christian should know whether a verse is Biblical and who it speaks to. On the first point I agree. Campbell didn't say the verse wasn't Biblical but implied it is, which Tita and I have agreed with.
On the second point, I disagree. The Bible and Qur'an contain thousands of verses, and many have more than one interpretation. Tita and I disagree but that doesn't mean all Christians are uneducated, or that many Christian scholars are, it just means we disagree. For example, the Muslim writer earlier believes Jesus was nailed to the cross, disagreeing with the majoriy of Muslims. Whether he's right or wrong, it still shows that
Even if there is only one interpretation to these verses, and someone made a mistake, it proves only that this one person didn't know the real meaning of the verse. For example, Hassanalmuslim interpreted many ayat to be scientific, but turned out incorrect. That doesn't reflect he hasn't studied the ayat (which he obviously had) only that he was incorrect.
So what do I think matters? I think that anyone can come to the truth, provided he (she) seeks after it. I believe that any who pray for wisdom and openness can find the truth meaning of anything in the Bible or Qur'an. It is up to the individual, not the elected scholars, to find the truth. Everyone is open to error, and everyone has the responsibility to one's self to find the true words of God and their meaning. In short, only the seeking of Allah Himself can give true Guidance.
I'm out of time now. Sorry I haven't touched on Mark 16, but I will when I get the chance.
Salaam!
JBJ
>
>"Somebody previously asked how many languages
>the disciples spoke. Normally they
>spoke whatever languages were common
>in the day--Aramaic, Greek, and
>Hebrew, I think. However, on
>the day of Pentecost, the
>day the actual present-day church
>started, many of the believers
>were suddenly able to speak
>many other languages, without ever
>having had to learn them.
>Since this was at a
>time when there were Jews
>from all over the Roman
>Empire present in Jerusalem, all
>speaking their own language, the
>Gospel was able to be
>distributed much, much faster than
>it otherwise would have been.
>It was a miracle!"
>
>I'd appreciate it if you show
>me some evidence.
What, you don't believe the Bible? Acts chapter 2.
Plus, it
>is still to be decided
>whether these verses are referring
>to all Christians or not.
That's an easy one. This applied to the first believers after the resurrection of Jesus.
>
>
>Secondly, i do not even think
>it is a matter of
>dispute. Personally, i think your
>interpretation is wrong. Because the
>Christian scholars i have seen
>or heard speaking on the
>issue, including William Campbell, all
>believe Mark 16:17-18 addresses all
>Christians. The person who claimed
>that it addresses only the
>early Christians, on this thread,
>later withdrew this statement and
>apologized (namely JBJ). Now you
>make a similar statement. Plz
>think over it, and decide.
>
No, I made that statement, too, and I did not retract it. :-) Note that the verses in question do not affect any major doctrine of the church (or any doctrine at all, really). That's why they don't generate a lot of interest among Christians in general.
LAST EDITED ON 10-01-02 AT 06:57 PM (GMT)[p]I thought that Muslims believe that the Torah and the Bible are also from God in addition to the Koran, and that they are to be believed as long as they don't conflict with the Koran. Since the idea of speaking new languages doesn't have any bearing on the Koran, why don't you believe it?
The reason Christians are so disinterested in this is because it does not change any doctrines. If you think otherwise, please name a doctrine affected by this passage.
These verses mean exactly what they say. The apostles drove out demons through the power of Jesus Christ. They spoke in new tongues. They healed people. After surviving a shipwreck, Paul was bit by a viper and suffered no harm. If someone who truly believes in and follows Jesus Christ had to drink poison, God could certainly keep them from being harmed by it, just as he kept Meshach, Shadrach and Abednego from being harmed by the flames. But even if the poison killed that Christian's body, they would have eternal life in Christ anyway.
These signs are still manifest today. But how do these verses imply a challange? It is God's choice to perform these miracles through his followers, as He sees fit, and to His glory. If I were to attempt to do these things just to prove them to you or to myself, that would be a sin against God.
Sincerely,
Jared
Hi Servant of Allah!
The reason I took so long on the previous posting was that a lot of Muslim articles will quote what Christian scholars say. I didn't mean to imply that you had fallen the misconception that Christian scholars all always right on Biblical subjects, I just wanted to show the idea. I didn't even expect a response because it didn't reallly call for one. (Though I'm glad you corrected me on scholarship.)
I'm sorry if I implied otherwise, so I have no objection with anything you said. Since I'm ignorant on the subject, could you tell me what work does go into becoming an official imam? (If there's a such thing as being official.)
I don't like Jochen Katz much; too many errors and ignored facts. I feel about the same as you do with Meherally and Osama.
When I said the Muslim and Christian articles have been refuted on this forum, I didn't mean that those articles are therefore wrong, just showing an example where the non-scholar knows some things the scholar (or "scholar") doesn't.
Aisha Brown's "Who Invented the Trinity" is refuted under the thread of that name, but she might not be a scholar, I don't know. If you'd like to post an article that you know is by a scholar (because I don't know who is and isn't) go ahead and I'll try refuting it. Jochen Katz was refuted here on the "Father of Jesus" thread.
I'll finish the Mark 16 response soon, I hope.
Salaam!
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 11-01-02 AT 06:18 PM (GMT)[p]Salaam Everyone!
I'm going to go into Mark 16 and hopefully you'll find the explanation satisfactory.
The Text
And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well. (Gospel, Mark 16.17-18, New International Version)
And these signs shall follow them that believe. (King James Version)
The Interpretation
Finally!
In looking at the exact meaning of a statement, the key is usually to look at the meaning of each word. In this case the important words are "accompany" and "those who believe."
"Those who believe" is very simple, it means the followers of Jesus. "Accompany" isn't so simple. So I cross-referenced this verse in about ten other English translations and every one used either "accompany" or "follow." I mention this to show these two words weren't chosen on a whim, more than ten translators have independently concurred on the meaning. To get a simpler meaning, instead of it compacted into one word, is it fair to expand "accompany" into meaning "being around" or "going with"?
Now it becomes fairly simple. The verse is saying that miracles will be around and go with Christians.
Notice first that it speaks to Christians, "those who believe." It is in the plural, not the singular. It says "those." If it did mean the singular, it would say "he who believes." Therefore it refers to the entire group of Jesus' followers. Now this could mean either specific or general, every single Christian or the Christian community.
So which is it? Unless someone can collect the evidence to show that millions of Christians have not died from either poision or hurt from snakes, I'll assume that some individual Christians have not fulfilled this statement. By process of elimination, the verse speaks in general.
To speak in general means the miracles won't be with every person in the group, but with the group as a whole. Have they? According to the Bible at least, they have.
Another Interpretation
There are, I believe, verses that can be interpreted two different ways, both being logical with the text. In fact, I think it very possible that Allah has put in his word more than one truth. Not meaning that two opposite things can be true at the same time, which is silly, but that a single statement can have multiple interpretations. Look at this one:
Fields will be bought for silver. (Old Testament, Jeremiah 32.44)
Originally, the people who read and heard this thought it as an example of how Allah would restore the nation of Israel, showing that commerce would take place. Someone living after Jesus might see it as a reference of when some Jewish priests who persecuited Jesus used money (in silver currency) to buy a field in Israel.
They decided to use the money to buy the potter's field. (Gospel, Matthew 27.7)
Both interpretations are logically valid. God, with Jeremiah recording him, doesn't say that this statement isn't about the priests, nor does he say this statement is not. The verse could mean both things. We can't really know for certain, so this idea is only an opinion.
In other words, I don't know that Tita's interpretation must be wrong. Perhaps a Christian scholar could give insight, but I can't.
Misinterpreting the Verse
It was asked by Asif and Servant of Allah whether Christians are willing to drink poision to demonstrate the truth of these verses. However, this takes the verse in the wrong light for several reasons:
1. It is spoken to the Church as a whole, not the individuals.
2. The verse says "accompany" or "follow" meaning that this is a general statement, not an exact one.
3. To do so would be a test of the verse, and the Bible says not to test God. "Do not test the Lord your God." (Torah, Deuteronomy 6.16)
I hope all this helps.
Salaam!
JBJ
I was under the impression that
>you have been studying Islam
>for 6 or 7 years.
>After such a long time
>studying Islam, i am surprised
>that you do not know
>this very simple thing.
>
>Muslims believe that the Torah and
>Injeel were from Allah. Later
>on, they got corrupted.
>
>Whoever told you that the present
>day Torah and the present
>day Bible are to be
>believed by Muslims, even if
>it is a part that
>does not contradict the Qur'an?
Well, you do believe some parts of the Bible, do you not? For instance, you believe in the existence of Abraham the father of Ishmael and Isaac, and in Moses, and in David. You believe that Jesus was born in Bethlehem, and that Mary was His mother. I could go on, but you get the idea. Are you saying that you do not believe these things? Clearly, I have a lot to learn!
>It's not a matter of doctrines.
>It's a matter of testing
>whether you're a true Christian
>or not.
Clearly, you do as well. Speaking in tongues, handling poisonous serpents and drinking poison have nothing to do with whether or not you are a Christian.
Your analogy of Gilgamesh is correct. I would add, that I would believe in the story of Gilgamesh insofar as it does not contradict the Bible. Of course, much of the story of Gilgamesh is not mentioned in the Bible one way or another and is thus judged on totally different merits.
Thanks for the hadith. I went back to my Koran (yes, I have a copy) and looked up the references to the Gospels. I was misunderstanding what I had read, and also something said by my Muslim neighbors.
Hi Servant of Allah!
You asked said
Another explanation could be that these people who didn't fulfil the statement were never true Christians. As true Christians would be able to do the above mentioned things. If these individuals can't do it, they aren't Christians. Simple explanation. Why try to twist the meaning of the verses just to include a few more individuals as Christians?
Actually that's a good point and it simply hadn't occured to me. Maybe you're right. I don't I was twisting the meaning, because nothing in my interpretation contraticted the text. If you want to believe your own interpretation that's fine.
Well, if Tita's interpretation isn't wrong, then yours is, along with jcecil's and jared's interpretations. Because, you know as well as i do, that both interpretations on this issue cannot be valid. Only one can be correct.
No, you missed my point entirely. I think that more than one interpretation is possible. Why not? I gave an example of a verse in Jeremiah having more than one interpretation, what was wrong with that?
I am sorry, but i do not understand this part.
What part confuses you? I already said the verse may mean the Church. (The Church is a name for the worldwide Christian community. Similar but not exactly the same as the umma.) See:
Notice first that it speaks to Christians, "those who believe." It is in the plural, not the singular. It says "those." If it did mean the singular, it would say "he who believes." Therefore it refers to the entire group of Jesus' followers.
"2. The verse says "accompany" or "follow" meaning that this is a general statement, not an exact one."
Well, i have already seen how you arrived at the "general statement theory". I mean you refuse to accept it is a specific statement just because certain Christians can't fulfil it? Those Christians who are unable to fulfil these statements aren't true Christians, as per the verses. It's as simple as that. Why misinterpret the verses?
How did I misinterpret the verses? It isn't the same as your interpretation, but that doesn't make wrong. Your interpretation is not the same as mine, but that doesn't make yours wrong either.
If you think I'm wrong, then show where I'm wrong. You've shown that there are interpretations outside mine, but you haven't shown where I make a mistake. Why did you say I misinterpreted it without giving any evidence?
"3. To do so would be a test of the verse, and the Bible says not to test God. "Do not test the Lord your God." (Torah, Deuteronomy 6.16)"
We're not testing the verse, but you Christians. The test is for you. And it is a biblical test.
Exactly! It's a test, both of the Bible and of Allah, and according to the Bible I shouldn't test him.
Sorry I couldn't be of more help last time, I hope I've been at least a little better this time.
Salaam!
JBJ
LAST EDITED ON 21-01-02 AT 04:58 PM (GMT)[p]Hi Servant of Allah,
I didn't mean that all three interpretation are correct, I only meant that any one of the three could be correct. Yes, ultimately the verses only refer to one meaning, but so far in this thread it could be any one of the three.
I don't have a copy of the RSV in my home, but according to bible.gospelcom.net it is considered Biblical. (And this site does include footnotes where the translations have put them in.)
Is there any Christian who has been able to cure an AIDS patient by placing his hands over him. Or a cancer patient, or a patient with similar deadly diseases? I would be amused to know that there exist such people who have done this. If they do, please name them (or provide some evidence at least). I do not think there is any Christian who can do this nowadays.
If you want to be exact, Mark 16 doesn't include AIDS or cancer, so those points are irrelevant. However, there have been scores of Christians that have had medical miracles, again, outside of those mentioned in Mark 16.
But a better point is that if you take the verses to mean the Church (general statement), it includes people in the Bible who have performed some of these same miracles. All the 12 apostles spoke in new tongues, Peter healed a lame man, Paul picked up a snake, and the apostles as a group drove out demons. I can give references if you like. The only one missing is drinking poision. This event may have happened or it may not have. I don't think it could ever be proven that no Christian, any where in the world, at any time, has ever survived drinking poision. So I think the Bible should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Now the verses says "these signs will accompany." We have evidence that they do. So whether there are still these Christians alive today or are not, the verses have been been true.
There is another argument. You arrived at the conclusion that it is not specific but general, by way of elimination. When a person reads these verses, he immediately would share the same interpretation as i have presented to you (which you do not seem to object to). If, however, you consider the "specific statement" interpretation as incorrect, then only would a person arrive at the "general statement" interpretation. Because a person would not consider that interpretation (specific statement) feasible, and would thus arrive at your interpretation. However, if a person does not object to my interpretation, which is shared by many people, then he would not need to arrive at your interpretation. I wonder how you are able to reconcile both interpretations?
I'm sorry, I really don't follow you at all. Maybe this will help: I don't think that both of our interpretations are true, I think there're both feasable. That is, mine is possible, or yours is possible, but not both together. I am I answering the right question?
I do not think i am testing the Bible in this particular case. I am testing the whole Christian community (do not tell me that Christians are the Bible).
Yes, you are testing the Church. But I would be testing Allah. I think and believe that the Bible is the word of Allah, so if I drink poision because of something other than necessity, I'm testing Allah to see if he's true to his word. But besides that, I'm not testing the Bible, or my own faith, or really Allah. I'd be testing your interpretation, and it isn't worth risking my life to know which interpretation is right. I'd rather spend my life finding what book is right.
We've also missed the interpretation that these verses are speaking figurately only to get a point across. Meaning that Christians can overcome incredible physical obstacles.
And I wonder, as a Muslim, if similar words were in the Qur'an, would you test them?
I do not think Christians should run away from this golden oppurtunity to prove they're true Christians.
If I did drink poision and lived, would you believe me? It doesn't seem you trust me, and certainly not this much. Besides, John says "(the Anti-Christ) performed great and miraculous signs." I think it's very possible for miracles to come from sources other than God.
Salaam!
JBJ
Hello,
What if God maintains the integrity of His inspired Word even when, in the course of translation and interpretation, there arise minor differences in texts? I assure you that, even given such minor variations, God is able to keep His inspired message intact. Yes, God speaks into an imperfect world, with imperfect ink and imperfect paper, through and to imperfect men, and yet His inspired Word cannot be tainted. Only He makes such a thing possible. You can doubt the integrity of Biblical revelation, but not without doubting the power of God.
Sincerely,
Jared
Hi Servant,
Just had to come over here and see what keeps you so busy all the time. :-)
The answer to your question is that neither the King James Version nor the Revised Standard Version is inspired and without error. They are without error only insofar as they agree with the original text. Just as you believe the Koran has to be read in the original Arabic, so we believe that the actual Word of God was revealed in the original written documents, but has been preserved ever since. Since the original text (the term we use is "autograph") was in Aramaic, Hebrew or Greek, and no two languages translate exactly from one into another, we do the best translation we possibly can and notate, where appropriate, that the original text conveyed a slightly different shade of meaning or something similar. And then we trust the Lord to work even through the faulty words of humans (which, in reality, He doesn't need at all) to reveal His will to us.
My greatest struggle is not in understanding God's Word. It's in applying the parts that I do understand.
I hope this helps make this clear to you.
Hi Servant of Allah,
Are footnotes the word of Allah? That depends. Many are translation, in which case they are because they help give the more accurate meaning of the original language. The other kind of footnotes in Bibles are notes saying that the mss are different. Sometimes one word is different or sometimes an extra word or two are in one ms but not another.
And on rare occaisions the mss differ in an entire verse. There are no differences in the OT, in the NT the questionable verses that I can quote right now are:
Mark 16.9-20
John 5.4
John 7.53-8.11
Acts 8.37
Acts 15.34
Acts 28.29
Romans 16.24
If you know of any others please add them on to my list. John 8 has support from various sources, including extra-Biblical ones, that the content is true and almost all, if not all, translations include it. The verses of single verses aren't as strong and are debated by scholars. Some translations include them, some don't. Generally, the RSV and NIV (New International) exclude them while the KJV and ASV (American Standard) include them.
No Christians believe that any translations are inspired, we believe them to be fallible just as Muslims do with the Qur'an. Neither the KJV, the RSV, nor any other translations involve more "inspiration" than others. It was the original mss, the ones penned by Matthew, John, Paul, etc that were inspired.
There are, to my knowledge, two views of Biblical inspiriation. One is that the authors, Matthew and so on were inspired and nothing else was, probably like the 1952 editors of the RSV.
My view is that because Mark 16 and John 8 existed within the texts approved by the Council of Nicea, they're inspired. (Approved, not authorized.) Not that I think every big committee to make a decision has always been right, but because I believe the Spirit of Allah (Holy Spirit) to be continuously at work within his people. The logic goes like this:
There were among the early Christians those who pursued Allah and those who didn't, as there are for every time and religion.
Those following Allah would be trying to keep the Books pure from corruption, in act and in prayer. I believe the nature of Allah to be such that he would grant this request.
For whatever reason he wished, Allah didn't preserve his word 100 percent. As a Muslim you agree because you believe the Torah and Injil weren't preserved.
I'm sure at the back of every Muslim's mind who reads this is the Islamic belief that Allah would keep his Word free from any kind of error. They probably also think about how there are no variants in the Qur'an, how there is no arguements of what verses are and aren't from Allah. Of course this a big topic so I won't go into it.
I just want to point out that at one point in Islamic history all the mss were compiled to create one ms. After this one version was made, the other mss were destroyed. This one ms was copied and has been the source of every Qur'anic ms present.
Compare this to Christian history where the first mss were copied by many different people without such organization. No ms were ever destroyed, except by enemies of Christianity. Had Christians made one version and destroyed variants at an early point, there would be much fewer discrepancies. In other words, the variants in the Bible are much due to number of early mss, whereas the Qur'an has very few variants due (at least) to one source.
But the most important things is that it doesn't really matter. None of the the verses I cited have much of any real meaning. The only possible consequence is if you believe the miracles of Mark 16 are specific, not general. John 5.4 says an angel commonly appeared at a pool. John 7.53-8.11 is the story of "he without sin cast the first stone." Acts 8.37 says a nameless eunech believes Jesus is God's son. Acts 15.34 mentions Silas not taking a trip. Acts 28.29 has some Jews discussed with themselves. Romans 16.24 is a sentence prayer by Paul. Nothing too big.
Knowing whether a sentence was or wasn't inspired by Allah doesn't really interest me much. What does interest me is what matters, whether the rest of the Bible which is agreed by all orthodox scholars is inspired. Or knowing if the Qur'an, hadith, vedas, etc are from Allah. Once it's seen which message as a whole is true, a word or phrase here and there is quite trivial.
Salaam
JBJ
>
>I think perhaps some of you
>misunderstood the issue (which i
>am hopeful JBJ won't). For
>example, Tita says: "They are
>without error only insofar as
>they agree with the original
>text."
>
>If you haven't noticed Tita,
>in the case of 1
>John 5:7, it's not a
>matter of difference in translations,
>but the entire verse has
>been removed from the Bible
>by the RSV, whereas the
>KJV chooses to keep it.
>RSV gives the reasoning that
>this verse is not Biblical,
>but was interpolated later on
>(like Mark 16: 9 onwards,
>till the end of the
>chapter). I found some info.
>on the issue on the
>net. I shall share it
>with everyone.
>Benjamin Wilson (scripture translator) says in
>his book Emphatic Diaglott:
>"This text concerning the heavenly witness
>is not contained in any
>Greek manuscript which was written
>earlier than the fifteenth century.
>It is not cited by
>any of the ecclesiastical writers;
>not by any of early
>Latin fathers even when the
>subjects upon which they treated
>would naturally have lead them
>to appeal to it's authority.
>It is therefore evidently spurious."
>
>
>Thus we see that this verse
>is a forgery, and even
>Christian scholars (most of them
>at least) agree to this
>fact. The reason they give
>is that it is not
>found in the "ancient copies".
>
I wouldn't say "most" Christian scholars agree on this point. There is significant disagreement, as a matter of fact. I don't know enough about the debate to bring up any really salient points here, but I can say that just because one document is older than another, it is not necessarily more reliable.
>
>However, the KJV (which is probably
>the most widely used version
>of the Bible by Christians),
>continues mentioning this verse, upto
>this day.
Most Bibles, in fact, include these verses, although a couple of translations have a footnote about it that indicates the controversey. The Revised Standard Version is not a version generally used by people I would call believers because of its inaccuracies (nothing to do with this passage in Mark).
Tita
LAST EDITED ON 27-01-02 AT 08:40 PM (GMT)[p]Response coming soon.
LAST EDITED ON 29-01-02 AT 05:18 AM (GMT)[p]Hi Servant of Allah,
I wasn't done, which is why I didn't address every idea. I think I understood what you meant. Thanks for getting right to the point, I think going through every one individually is a waste of time. So let's speak generally shall we?
First I want to make the note that 1 John 5.7 which you keep bringing up is really a different subject. Let's finish one before the other.
I don't pretend as if this isn't a problem area for Christianity, for it certainly is. But problems don't equate falsity. For example, the Torah, you say, was incomplete; that was a "problem." Eventually the problem was solved by abrogating it. If Allah wished, he could solve this problem too.
The authors were inspired, and everything else is debatable among Christians. Were the early Christians inspired? the church fathers? the Council of Nicea? the Vulgate? the KJV? modern Bibles? But that's all Christian arguement, and not best fit for an Islamic web conference.
As an example, I for one hold very closely to Jared’s view. I’m sorry you dismissed it so quickly, for it contains some great wisdom. Deep, very deep. Let me try and explain it to you.
What if God maintains the integrity of His inspired Word even when, in the course of translation and interpretation, there arise minor differences in texts?
I believe Allah to have maintained inspiriation throughout history, from the first drop of Mark’s pen until this very moment. The texts may be different, but the Spirit has been moving in all of them.
I assure you that, even given such minor variations, God is able to keep His inspired message intact. Yes, God speaks into an imperfect world, with imperfect ink and imperfect paper, through and to imperfect men, and yet His inspired Word cannot be
tainted.
There is a dominant theme throughout Christianity, perfection through imperfection. All Christians are imperfect, yet through Christ we are promised to become perfection. Though our love for Allah is imperfect, Allah finds perfection through our intention. The earth is sinful and imperfect, yet Christ, sinless and perfect, came into it. The Biblical texts are imperfect, yet Allah chooses to reveal himself through them without blemish.
Only He makes such a thing possible. You can doubt the integrity of Biblical revelation, but not without doubting the power of God.
Allah is perfect! He can do all things, even have his same message in different words. Why can’t he?
Every verse used in a Bible, I believe, is inspired by Allah. Bible versions without all the verses aren’t unispired, they’re simply lacking. For example, many Bibles are printed with only the NT because they’re much smaller. These aren’t unispired just because they chose to leave out the OT, they’re just not complete. In the same way all Bibles don’t include all the verses but are only lacking. It reminds me of the aya of stoning adulterers, but that’s another subject.
You’re probably noticing that earlier I said translations are not inspired while now I’m mean that they are. I mean this in two different senses. They are not inspired in the sense that they are not always accurate of the original mss. They are inspired in the sense that they are accurate of Allah’s desired meaning.
An imporant exception is for non-Christain translations. Some so-called Bibles have been produced by non-Christians such as the New World Translation by Jehovah's Witnesses. These which have blatant fabrications do not have Allah's Spirit and so are not inspired. Whoever listens to the early Christians by use of mss is inspired, but those who don't carry falsehood.
We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.( 1 John 4.6)
Of course that’s only my opinion, and other Christians have others. In reflection to different ideas, some Bibles include all the verses, some in the body and some in footnotes.
What is the translation doing in the area of the footnotes? It should be "up there" on top of the footnotes.
Footnotes regarding translation are usually unimportant. For example, the first footnote in the NT in the NIV is on Matthew 1.16 which notes that "Christ" as used above can also be translated "Messiah." In this case the use of either word makes no difference. Someone reading through the NT doesn't want to be bothered about this every time the word "Christ" or "Messiah" is read, so it's pushed down out of the way.
The second footnote in the NT is in Matthew 3.11 where John the Baptist says "I baptize you with water." The NIV has footnote saying the word "with" could be also translated "in." Someone reading this wouldn't want to be bothered about the nature of this Greek word either. It distracts from the flow and makes the Bible more difficult to read, so thefootnotes are put in more convient areas on the page.
Finally, your quote of 4.171 often misleads people and I hope you'll stop using it. First, by using the word "Trinity" Yusuf Ali implies that the Qur'an disagrees with the Christian idea of the trinity while no place in the Qur'an does it do this. Rather it speaks about the heretical position of 3 gods in one.
Second, it says Allah did not have a son. The Qur'an refers to a physical son. The Bible doesn't support this at all, it supports Isa as a spiritual son.
Quoting 2.79 is also misleading because it implies the misconception that the Qur'an supports the idea that Jews and Christians changed their books. In fact the Qur'an does not support this but implies conclusively that this did not happen. You may want to pick up the arguement in a new thread or here:
http://www.aliasoft.com/iwc/index.cgi? az=show_thread&om=66&forum=DCForumID4&omm=27
Salaam!
Netcurtains
31-01-2002, 09:50
I'm no expert but it reads like a prophecy.
The apostles and other saints will perform miracles.
It does appear from reading "the acts of the apostles"
that this was so. Do miracles happen today? Well they
would seem to (every now and again).
I hope this helps.
Netty.
alhamdliyesua
07-02-2002, 20:18
It states clearly in the Bible not to test the Lord.
Of course the true disciples of Christ would be protected if it was the will of God for them to survive a trap set by someone, like poison.
Peace
Netcurtains
07-02-2002, 20:45
Hi Alhamdliyesua,
Yes I agree with that.
Think about it logically. If everyone who
believed could perform miracles on demand then
obviously religion would move away from Faith
to Knowledge.
jesusfreak4life
20-02-2002, 17:59
I notice it's always "Christians" well a christian is a believer of Christ a follower so are u christians? Mark 16: 17-18 says to all who believe so what do u believe?
Dee,
nenadee42@yahoo.com
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.