A serious issue in Paul's "Epistle to the Galatians"!

[KathleenGee]

Sam, at this point I would pray to the Holy Spirit to give you peace and perspective on this passage.

Galatians is about saying all that being Jewish is done now with the new life of Jesus Christ.

Christ broke the issue of lineage, of time, to enter into His life which is life eternal and can be experienced in a limited degree in this life.

What is important is that we have Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

I personally never liked the OT because of the violence, expulsion, killing, etc. Glad Christ changed that and in His Passion, took all of humanity’s dark inclinations to put it on Himself on the Cross.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Sam, at this point I would pray to the Holy Spirit to give you peace and perspective on this passage.

Galatians is about saying all that being Jewish is done now with the new life of Jesus Christ.

Christ broke the issue of lineage, of time, to enter into His life which is life eternal and can be experienced in a limited degree in this life.

What is important is that we have Jesus Christ as our Savior and Redeemer.

I personally never liked the OT because of the violence, expulsion, killing, etc. Glad Christ changed that and in His Passion, took all of humanity’s dark inclinations to put it on Himself on the Cross.

Many thanks for this…

Gloria

.

 

[Sam_777]

I do not have enough with this answer, I told you before when I asked which roots. So please if you are so sure, mention those ‘few’ that can be traced before Ishmael!!!

Gloria, find one tribe example below, (I cannot expose myself more, else I will end in the hands of the Islamic police):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qahtanite

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Paul said according to NIV, KJV, and DRA versions of the Bible:
***(Galatians 4:30)NIV:
***"But what does Scripture say? “Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman’s son.”

***(Galatians 4:30)KJV:
***“Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.”

***(Galatians 4:30)DRA:
***“But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.”

The actual Scripture which Paul is referring to is (Genesis 21:10) :
Sarah said to Abraham, “Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that woman’s son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”

I don’t understand how Paul did not include that in his quote, when someone says “the Scripture says” it implies that the "Holy Spirit" is saying that, but actually in that particular quote "Sarah" was the one who said that.

For example, I cannot say “the Scripture says” and quote “Satan” !!!

To be honest with you this is a very serious issue for me:

1. Because of that wrong quote referenced by Paul.
2. Paul’s tone in that letter towards “Hagar”, because even GOD himself showed sympathy towards her in (Genesis 21) and Paul did not !!!

Well two verses later in Genesis, God agreed with Sarah, “…in all that Sara hath said
to thee, hearken to her voice…” (Genesis 21:12). Besides, “SCRIPTURE SAYS,” and
it was clearly God’s will, for Ishmael *was *illegitimate, not to be heir to God’s promises
to Abraham. Two verses before that verse in Galatians, Paul is also comparing all us
Christians to Isaac, calling us the “children of promise.” Paul is bringing to mind that
there are those who are of the New Covenant in Christ and are thus the True Sons of
Abraham, THEN there are those who, like Ishmael, are not under the Covenant.

I did my best, could be wrong or imperfect there, check me on that.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Gloria, find one tribe example below, (I cannot expose myself more, else I will end in the hands of the Islamic police):

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qahtanite

**Medieval **Arab genealogists divided Arabs into three groups:
"Ancient Arabs", tribes that had vanished or been destroyed, such as ʿĀd and Thamud, often mentioned in the Qur’an as examples of God’s power to vanquish those who fought his prophets.
"Pure Arabs" of South Arabia, descending from Qahtan. The Qahtanites (Qahtanis) are said to have migrated from the land of Yemen following the destruction of the Ma’rib Dam (sadd Ma’rib). (from your source: Arab tradition maintains that a semi-legendary ancestral figure named Qahtan[1][2] and his 24 sons are the progenitors of the southern inhabitants of the Arabian Peninsula known as Qahtani.
Early Islamic historians identified Qahtan with the Yoqtan (Joktan) son of Eber of the Hebrew Bible (Gen. 10:25-29).)
The “Arabized Arabs” (musta`ribah) of central and North Arabia, descending from Ishmael the elder son of Abraham. The Book of Genesis narrates that God promised Hagar to beget from Ishmael twelve princes and turn him to a great nation.(Genesis 17:20) The Book of Jubilees, in the other hand, claims that the sons of Ishmael intermingled with the 6 sons of Keturah, from Abraham, and their descendants were called Arabs and Ishmaelites:
And Ishmael and his sons, and the sons of Keturah and their sons, went together and dwelt from Paran to the entering in of Babylon in all the land which is towards the East facing the desert. And these mingled with each other, and their name was called Arabs, and Ishmaelites.
—Book of Jubilees 20:13
Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddima distinguishes between sedentary Muslims who used to be nomadic Arabs and the Bedouin nomadic Arabs of the desert. He used the term “formerly nomadic” Arabs and refers to sedentary Muslims by the region or city they lived in, as in Egyptians, Spaniards and Yemenis.[98] The Christians of Italy and the Crusaders preferred the term Saracens for all the Arabs and Muslims of that time.[99] The Christians of Iberia used the term Moor to describe all the Arabs and Muslims of that time.
Muslims of Medina referred to the nomadic tribes of the deserts as the A’raab, and considered themselves sedentary, but were aware of their close racial bonds. The term "A’raab’ mirrors the term Assyrians used to describe the closely related nomads they defeated in Syria.
The Qur’an does not use the word ʿarab, only the nisba adjective ʿarabiy. The Qur’an calls itself ʿarabiy, “Arabic”, and Mubin, “clear”. The two qualities are connected for example in ayat 43.2–3, “By the clear Book: We have made it an Arabic recitation in order that you may understand”. The Qur’an became regarded as the prime example of the al-ʿarabiyya, the language of the Arabs. The term ʾiʿrāb has the same root and refers to a particularly clear and correct mode of speech. The plural noun ʾaʿrāb refers to the Bedouin tribes of the desert who resisted Muhammad, for example in ayat 9.97, alʾaʿrābu ʾašaddu kufrān wa nifāqān “the Bedouin are the worst in disbelief and hypocrisy”.

Many thanks,** all in all not very reliable**… but let us leave it at that… I do not want you to end in the hands of the Islamic police before your time:God forbid!

In Christ I repeat there is no Jew, no Arab, no Hindu, no etc. it is you and me and all the ones who have been born in the Spirit. So stop attacking Saint Paul… no point… it is not good for your spirit, because to say that Saint Paul was not inspired by the Holy Spirit when he wrote that, is at the end only going to harm your believes in the Holy Spirit and His action in you. :getholy:

Gloria

.

 

[ericc]

If you presented that quote by Paul to any “secular” or a “non-Christian religion” scholar, it will not stand a chance.

Because the scripture does not say that, it’s what Sarah had said, and that is the big difference.

If you think checking with secular or non-Christian religion scholars may bring you to a fuller understanding how to interpret Holy Scriptures rather than folks who have been brought up in the religion, I think that is strange. Wait, on second thought, perhaps not so strange. One could look at it in 2 ways.

1. Christians being taught the Holy Scriptures are more familiar with it than non-Christians. Hence, to know the Holy Scriptures, you ought to check with them on how they interpret it.

OR

1. Since they have vested interest, they may be biased and not objective. Hence, they may not be a reliable source.

It looks like you have to make a choice. For the 2nd option, if that will clarify your thoughts, perhaps you may want to run that through some secular or non-christian websites and see what they say. Unfortunately, I don’t have any websites that I can refer you to as I don’t know any that is neutral. They have to be neutral otherwise they will fall into the first group same as us.

Or you can try other christian websites and see whether the responses are similar to what you got here. Since this verse is non-controversial between Catholic or non-Catholic, you can give that a try, so that you can know the responses are objectively obtained. Do let us know your progress. Perhaps others are better at presenting/explaining this.

As for the Quran, that scripture has also many errors and historical mistakes.

Then if it is not a reliable source, it shouldn’t be quoted in the first place. So you shouldn’t be too concerned when your Islamic friends tries to use it to bolster their argument. You could point out the errors and that will be the end of it. Since that will nullify their challenge, then what is remaining is your own personal quest to seek the understanding you want.

The only 100% accurate words for me is what JESUS personally said.

In a previous post, I mentioned the dying Jesus quoted a partial Psalms 22. (Mat 27:46). He didn’t say he is quoting Psalms 22 or gave any due credit. So he is as guilty as Paul then for quoting an incomplete Holy Scriptures then? So in your mind is there any room for permissibility to quote a partial verse if the audience already knows the full verse and they know you are quoting an abridged version of the verse out of expediency? That is my opinion in Paul’s case. The audience knew which verse he was referring to. There are no Satanic verses here in our Bible.

 

[Sam_777]

Or you can try other christian websites and see whether the responses are similar to what you got here. Since this verse is non-controversial between Catholic or non-Catholic, you can give that a try, so that you can know the responses are objectively obtained. Do let us know your progress. Perhaps others are better at presenting/explaining this.

No, I think I will leave it to “THE MOST HIGH” , let Him guide and inspire me wherever He sees best for me….

Then if it is not a reliable source, it shouldn’t be quoted in the first place. So you shouldn’t be too concerned when your Islamic friends tries to use it to bolster their argument. You could point out the errors and that will be the end of it. Since that will nullify their challenge, then what is remaining is your own personal quest to seek the understanding you want.

It’s not about what Quran says or what my friends opinion!

If you read that verse in Arabic, it implies that GOD was saying that, I cannot even imagine reading it for my relatives or friends!

There are no Satanic verses here in our Bible.

I see you know the hidden secrets of Quran…

 

[ericc]

No, I think I will leave it to “THE MOST HIGH” , let Him guide and inspire me wherever He sees best for me….

I hope you find what you seek and I hope to see you around! If you seek God, you will find him. The Light is always there, we only need to open our eyes to see it.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, Sarah never expelled Hagar, if Abraham will not have agreed to expel her he himself, not Sarah, Hagar will have stayed there! By saying that it does not make a difference you are giving the power to Sarah and I give it to God.

Well, I think that I would say that Sarah demanded it (Gen 21:10), and God gave permission to Abraham to obey Sarah (Gen 21:12), but I see what you’re saying…

it was not by the will of Sarah that Abraham expelled Hagar (in fact he was very upset about it), but by the will of God.

I think that, in the context of the original audience of this passage, the notion that it was principally the will of God that was in operation would have been the prevailing attitude – in the ancient Semitic mindset, the idea that God made all things happen was taken for granted, and there are many OT examples where this is mentioned explicitly. Yet, Catholic theology would suggest that there is nevertheless the operation of human will and activity in the world, and here, Sarah exhibits that kind of exercise of free will. Abraham certainly assents to it (and the author goes out of his way to demonstrate Abraham’s unwillingness but also his obedience to God), but it really seems to fall on Sarah’s shoulders here…

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Well, I think that I would say that Sarah demanded it (Gen 21:10), and God gave permission to Abraham to obey Sarah (Gen 21:12), but I see what you’re saying…

I think that, in the context of the original audience of this passage, the notion that it was principally the will of God that was in operation would have been the prevailing attitude – in the ancient Semitic mindset, the idea that God made all things happen was taken for granted, and there are many OT examples where this is mentioned explicitly. Yet, Catholic theology would suggest that there is nevertheless the operation of human will and activity in the world, and here, Sarah exhibits that kind of exercise of free will. Abraham certainly assents to it (and the author goes out of his way to demonstrate Abraham’s unwillingness but also his obedience to God), but it really seems to fall on Sarah’s shoulders here…

OK, therefore are we going to blame on Sarah the divisions between Jews and Arabs (Ishmalites) even up to this day

Nevertheless, even Eve was instrumental in Adams sin, wasn’t she?

Greetings,
Gloria

.

 

[Gorgias]

OK, therefore are we going to blame on Sarah the divisions between Jews and Arabs (Ishmalites) even up to this day

Aah… now I understand the concern that you have! No, I think I would say that the divisions between the two groups proceed from a wide variety of conflicts, rivalries, and disagreements, and both groups share the blame; we can’t put the burden of this situation on any one person’s shoulders – but neither should we lay it at God’s feet!

Blessings,

G.

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Aah… now I understand the concern that you have! No, I think I would say that the divisions between the two groups proceed from a wide variety of conflicts, rivalries, and disagreements, and both groups share the blame; we can’t put the burden of this situation on any one person’s shoulders – but neither should we lay it at God’s feet!

Blessings,

G.

 

[Sam_777]

OK, therefore are we going to blame on Sarah the divisions between Jews and Arabs (Ishmalites)

Gloria,

When will you stop calling Arabs “Ishmalites” https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon4.gif

I told that there were many tribes in the Arabian Peninsula prior to the immigration of Sarah/Ishmael to it, there are many history books here in SA mentioning that, and my tribe is one of them (I even mentioned that in my homepage years back)!.

If you want you can visit me in SA and I will show you those Arabic history books, then after that both of us will end in the hands of the religious police .

 

[Sam_777]

we can’t put the burden of this situation on any one person’s shoulders – but neither should we lay it at God’s feet!

Throw it at “the prince of this world”…

 

[Gloria_de_G]

Gloria,

When will you stop calling Arabs “Ishmalites” https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon4.gif

I told that there were many tribes in the Arabian Peninsula prior to the immigration of Sarah/Ishmael to it, there are many history books here in SA mentioning that, and my tribe is one of them (I even mentioned that in my homepage years back)!..

"Originally, “Arabs” were synoymous with the Bedouin ethnic group, until the Arabisation of people with no descent from the ancient Bedouin Tribes, mostly during the Abbasid Caliphate. Therefore all uses of the word “Arab” prior to the 7th century AD, and most those prior to the 13th century AD refer specifically to people belonging to the Bedouin ethnic group. Later uses of the word “Arab” could refer to anyone whose part of the wider linguistic and panethnic definitions of Arabs.

**The most popular Arab account **holds that the word ‘Arab’ came from an eponymous father called Yarab, who was supposedly the first to speak Arabic. Al-Hamdani had another view; he states that Arabs were called Gharab (West in Semitic) by Mesopotamians because Bedouins originally resided to the west of Mesopotamia; the term was then corrupted into Arab. **Yet another view is held by Al-Masudi **that the word Arabs was initially applied to the Ishmaelites of the “Arabah” valley." (From wikipediae)

Any way Sam, I do not want to be stubborn :banghead:, I take it from your own perspective.

[If you want you can visit me in SA and I will show you those Arabic history books, then after that both of us will end in the hands of the religious police .

No, Sam, my witness is to take place in other part of the world. Here, where I am. So even though my origine is mexican, I am a citizen here by the grace of God, because He wants me to witness here to the non Christians.

You will witness there and you will be martyr, but at least make sure God is with you and you have the power, otherwise you will be kill before even you start to witness what you witnessed here in this forums, with the account of your life/call to Christ.
Do not oposse the Holy Spirit otherwise He will leave you to your own stubburness against Saint Paul.

Best wishes and in the love of God,
Gloria

.
[/quote]

 

[jimkhong]

So are you suggesting that I write to the Vatican to get clarification on that issue?

But if I want to do that then I want “Pope Francis” himself to look into that issue not anyone from his assistants! which maybe impossible to do…

Sam, we are all assistants of Pope Francis here. As you mentioned in your PM that you do not consider this issue closed and I hope I can be of service. I think I understand where you are coming from and it will not be easy to break a paradigm of a lifetime. Your differences of opinion and head-banging of walls that resulted is likely the same intractable difference I mentioned in my post in a separate thread. There is a fundamental difference in Muslim and Christian views of revelation (please see my posts in that separate thread here, which I will not repeat as they are several and long - but please read them if anyone intend to follow my reply here). As one poster put it, you would need to unlearn the Muslim concepts if you wish to learn the Christian one.

There is a huge difference in how Paul wrote his letter which eventually found its way into the Bible and how Muslims understood Mohammad’s role in relation to the Quran. Mohamamd basically took dictation from the angel Gabriel and his role was clearly just a broadband cable for the literal word of God. To study the Quran, it is not necessary to understand Mohammad’s frame of mind when he received the revelation, the background of his people or the historical context of the audience the scripture was directed to. It is the literal word of God, unblemished by any human flaws and protected from all errors, not merely as a revelation, but also errors of translation (only the Arabic Quran is the authentic Quran and to study the Quran, you not only need to know Arabic but also its philology, etc).

In Islam, there are only four Messengers to whom the literal revelation of God was revealed, including Moses (Torah), David (Psalms) and Jesus (the Gospel, note the singular) with Mohammad as the last one. The word Messenger is instructive as their role was really to pass on the message and preach to everyone who hears it to be obedient to it. In addition to the four Messengers, there are prophets (which include those we call patriarchs like Adam, etc) whose role is to preach obedience to God’s revelation. In their mission to transmit and/or preach God’s literal revelation, Muslims believe that the messengers and prophets are preserved from error.

So, there are three fundamental differences (from Christianity) here in what Muslims are taught:
1 Scriptures as the literal word of God and have no context
2 Scriptures are transmitted by Messengers as conduit of God’s revelation
3 Scriptures and those writing them are free from all types of errors.

Scriptures as the literal word of God
Unlike Muslims, Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, Catholics (and most other mainstream Christians) do not believe scriptures to be the literal word of God. God did not personally write the scriptures but inspired men to do so (so far, scriptures are only written by men but revelation can be to either gender, eg., at Fatima). This inspiration was not placed into these men as fully formed words, as has happened to Mohammad, but as truths - as in ideas and concepts.

For instance, God taught Paul the truth about love (we don’t know how he was taught - could have been directly as in a dream, taught by another man inspired by God, or taught through an experience of love Paul came across - and we do not think it is important to know how God taught him: suffice to say that he understood) and based on this understanding, Paul wrote 1 Cor 13. What is important for us is not the words of 1 Cor 13, important as they are, but the message of love that Paul intended us to understand. Frankly, if we had misunderstood the words because of our poor grasp of the language but has understood the message of love, I don’t think Paul (and God for that matter) would have cared. We may exalt 1 Cor 13 not because its is beautifully crafted, even though it clearly is, but because of the truth of the message they contain. The words are only receptacle for the truths, and just as we can contain the same coffee in different cups, we can use different words to convey the same truth.

That is why we do not accept that the only authentic Bible is the orginal Hebrew and Greek. The words are constantly translated and re-translated for the intended audience. Even within the same language, translations need to be updated due to changes in word use and word meaning (eg., English useage have changed substantially since 1611, which is why most of use struggle to understand the words in KJV). What is important is the message to be conveyed and not the words. Words used are derived from the meaning to be conveyed, not the meaning from the words used. For us the meaning came first, not the words. Faith came before scriptures. Christianity existed before the Bible.

This differs from the Quran, which cannot be changed or translated from the original Arabic (apparently, God could be an Englishman but he spoke seventh century Arabic). Translated Qurans do not have the stamp of authenticity as God’s word. Not a vowel or punctuation can be changed as it is what God personally spoke. The first caliph confirmed the authentic Quran and all other versions were destroyed - all Qurans today are identical. As far as I know, only one pre-Othmanic scroll was uncovered in Yemen, and the difference were extremely minor (eg., arrangement of the passages).

 

[jimkhong]

With this thinking, it is no wonder that Muslims considered that Christians have altered the Bible, with our many translations and many versions. For Muslims, to misquote scriptures is to alter the word of God but for Christians it is not an issue provided the message, meaning and intention is preserved.

*Scriptures transmitted by Messengers as conduit of God’s revelation
*Paul was the direct author of Galatians, not God. God, however, inspired in Paul a concern for the Church in Galatia, to which he responded by writing the letter. He did not take dictation from God but he wrote based on what he believed to be the truth. He arrived at this belief from the experiences in his life, in which God evidently intervened directly (eg., on the road to Damascus) or indirectly (eg., his training as a Pharisee). Paul was not a passive conduit used by God but an active participant in revelation, cooperating with God by applying his skills, knowledge and experience to the task of transmitting God’s revelation to people with specific desires and problems, adapting his methods to the different scenarios he encountered.

Looking at the NT, you can see quotations of the OT which differs in wording from the Hebrew/Greek OT extant at that time. Sometimes, the quotations are adapted to the circumstances. (Remember from point 1, it doesn’t matter provided the intention, meaning and message is preserved.) Any good preacher will tell you that they drop references in Bible quotations that are not revelant, in order maintain the momentum of the sermon. I sometimes paraphrase quotations when explaining the Gospels to the children (eg., woman who sinned, rather than the adulterous woman). Because we do not have the concept of scriptures as the literal word of God, what I do here (and what Paul did) is not sacriledge.
*
Scriptures and those writing them are free from all types of errors*
Reading the story of the golden calf in the Quran, it strikes me that there is no mention of Aaron’s role in it. This is because it is not possible for a Muslim to conceive of any prophet (and Aaron was considered one) being in error. This includes even more minor errors (to Christians) like quoting scriptures.

For us, the saints and prophets are humans who were flawed as any can be but have overcome their flaws to live the revelation of God (not the literal word but the meaning of the message). Their stories which we exalt are those where they have overcome their flaws to serve God. Sometimes, in their flaws, we gain greater insights into God’s message. Often, they die in their flaws: eg., Moses, who was not allowed into the promised land, and David, who was not allowed to build the Temple. I am using the examples of the Messengers, the most exalted of the prophets. Of course, this exludes the other Messenger, Jesus as Jesus was God was born without sin.

And here too is another difference. The saints and the prophets were all born with Original Sin, a concept that is absent in Islam - the story of the Garden of Eden differs slightly. In Christianity, we are called to over-come the Original Sin that we are born with. No one person is infallible in his/her personal life. In Islam on the other hand, the nature of man is evil (not sure if this is the right word here) - which may explain why the Ismaelites treat you the way they did. The only exception are the prophets who were error-free in their mission, including Jesus & Mary whom Muslims believe to be born without and lived without sins.

So, Paul as not error-free in the sense that he wrote without mistakes - he was human after all. But the message of God that he conveyed was error-free. We just have to look past the externalities of the words into the message of God that Paul (and God) intend to be internalised by his readers.

In conclusion, I think you are approaching Galatians like a Muslim, which is understandable. A Christian has a very different truth-perspective. Just as we cannot explain the Quran to a Muslim using Christian principles (at most, we can use universal principles acceptable to both), we cannot explain the Bible using Islamic principles. To do otherwise would create an impasse, sometimes one broken only with God’s intervention.

Sam, I have been impressed with your faith journey and the path you have walked so far has been both commendable and courageous. Unlike Islam though, you cannot understand Christianity merely from reading Christian scriptures, though of course it helps. The criteria for baptism is not whether we know the scriptures but whether we know the truth, which exists at a deeper level than the scriptures.

God bless your faith journey and all those who are walking with you on that journey.

 

[Sam_777]

Sam, we are all assistants of Pope Francis here.

(only the Arabic Quran is the authentic Quran and to study the Quran, you not only need to know Arabic but also its philology, etc).

Yes, I agree.

Paul wrote 1 Cor 13. What is important for us is not the words of 1 Cor 13, important as they are, but the message of love that Paul intended us to understand. Frankly, if we had misunderstood the words because of our poor grasp of the language but has understood the message of love, I don’t think Paul (and God for that matter) would have cared. We may exalt 1 Cor 13 not because its is beautifully crafted, even though it clearly is, but because of the truth of the message they contain. The words are only receptacle for the truths, and just as we can contain the same coffee in different cups, we can use different words to convey the same truth.

I hope that was Paul intention…

That is why we do not accept that the only authentic Bible is the orginal Hebrew and Greek. The words are constantly translated and re-translated for the intended audience. Even within the same language, translations need to be updated due to changes in word use and word meaning (eg., English useage have changed substantially since 1611, which is why most of use struggle to understand the words in KJV).

That is a good concept, but I do not think that would apply to “Epistle to the Galatians”, since the Greek original version confirms it.

For us the meaning came first, not the words. Faith came before scriptures. Christianity existed before the Bible.

That is okay, but also the words are important, specially to argue with other faiths.

all Qurans today are identical. As far as I know, only one pre-Othmanic scroll was uncovered in Yemen, and the difference were extremely minor (eg., arrangement of the passages).

There are some other copies of Quran in Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen which have different Suras and even some different words.

With this thinking, it is no wonder that Muslims considered that Christians have altered the Bible, with our many translations and many versions. For Muslims, to misquote scriptures is to alter the word of God but for Christians it is not an issue provided the message, meaning and intention is preserved.

Yes, that is the mainstream concept regarding the Bible.

Paul was the direct author of Galatians, not God. God, however, inspired in Paul a concern for the Church in Galatia, to which he responded by writing the letter. He did not take dictation from God but he wrote based on what he believed to be the truth. He arrived at this belief from the experiences in his life, in which God evidently intervened directly (eg., on the road to Damascus) or indirectly (eg., his training as a Pharisee). Paul was not a passive conduit used by God but an active participant in revelation, cooperating with God by applying his skills, knowledge and experience to the task of transmitting God’s revelation to people with specific desires and problems, adapting his methods to the different scenarios he encountered.

FYI: Muslim clerics accuse “Paul” himself of corrupting the Gospel.

Reading the story of the golden calf in the Quran, it strikes me that there is no mention of Aaron’s role in it. This is because it is not possible for a Muslim to conceive of any prophet (and Aaron was considered one) being in error.

Quran is full of historical errors, not to mention the Arabic grammars.

So, Paul as not error-free in the sense that he wrote without mistakes - he was human after all. But the message of God that he conveyed was error-free. We just have to look past the externalities of the words into the message of God that Paul (and God) intend to be internalised by his readers.

I think your explanation is the most convincing one for me so far, thank you for those detailed comments and the time you have spent writing them. https://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif

 

[jimkhong]

I think your explanation is the most convincing one for me so far, thank you for those detailed comments and the time you have spent writing them.

You are welcomed, Sam, I find it a priviledge to be able to walk with you on your faith journey.

That is a good concept, but I do not think that would apply to “Epistle to the Galatians”, since the Greek original version confirms it.

Which verse in Galatians do you think states otherwise? Maybe either I or someone else can help with the exegesis.

That is okay, but also the words are important, specially to argue with other faiths.

Arguing with other faiths is not a priority for me. More so, with most Muslims (exception are the Sufis) where I will not get anywhere because of our different starting points.

There are some other copies of Quran in Iraq, Egypt, and Yemen which have different Suras and even some different words.

I would be interested to know about them. You have any references?

Quran is full of historical errors, not to mention the Arabic grammars.

It is, from the Judeo-Christian point of view, a revisionist document - it is stretching it a bit to claim that a document (the Quran) that came later is more authentic than one that came earlier (OT & NT), which are supported by extensive manuscripts collections. Its view of Christianity is clearly based on, or at least influenced by, Christian heresies that we believe to be doctrinally and factually incorrect - Gnostics, as discussed in my other thread and by a number of commentators; as well as Ebionites, principally from Waraqah ibn Nawfal, whom Muslims believe to be an expert on Christian scriptures (again incorrectly in our view, as he seems to have studied scriptures in a Muslim literal manner, not in a Christian scholarship manner).

I can’t comment about the Arabic grammar as my Arabic don’t go far beyong alif-ba-ta, but I certainly find the Quran hard reading for two reasons:

(i) There are just exhortations after exhortations, with no narrative to tell stories as in the OT & the Gospels. (Stories in the Quran are actually references to stories which Mohammad assumes his readers already know. They are more commentaries with ready-made interpretations the reader is to accept, therefore, not narratives where exegesis can be performed in a Christian sense) And these exhortations are all about believing in God’s revelation and promising hellfire to those who don’t. It is a bit like reading the book of Proverbs but in an angry tone.

(ii) There are no justifications in the Quran, no appeal to events and human reasoning. As a Christian, I believe God blessed me, and everyone else, with free will, wisdom and reason so that we can discern truth from untruths. To ask me to believe the Quran just because it says so seem to me a denial of the gifts that God gave. God gave me those gifts because he loves me as I am, whether I believe in him or not. I cannot accept a God who gave me gifts for the self-serving motive of purely knowing his revelation better, and his love of me is conditional on whether I accept his revelation.

And therein lies the difference between Christianity and Islam. Islam (and fundamentalist Christianity) works well who require a one-stop set of truths without questioning anything. Christianity is for those who wishes to enter into a never-ending revealing of the mysteries of God, with all our doubts, flaws and frailities.

God bless your quest, protect you from error and give you courage for your witnessing.

 

[Sam_777]

I would be interested to know about them. You have any references?

I can’t comment about the Arabic grammar as my Arabic don’t go far beyong alif-ba-ta, .

The references I have are in Arabic, so probably will not be beneficial for you, however, if you need them in the future you can PM me.