Evidence of Biblical Corruption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter George_Waters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

George_Waters

Guest
Time and time again we read from Muslim members of this forum that the Bible is corrupt. Numerous quotes are cited from the Quran as evidence of corruption, however this has no impact on Christians who do not recognize the divinity of the Quran anymore than Muslims recognized the validity of the Bible in its entirety.

As such I will ask that no quotes from the Bible or Quran be offered as evidence of biblical corruption on this thread.

With that said, I would be interested in seeing your responses to the following three questions;
  1. What independent evidence of corruption can you offer that proves the invalidity of the Bible?
  2. Can you cite a pre-biblical source or a source contemporary to the Bible as evidence of biblical corruption?
  3. Can you cite a Muslim scholarly work independent of the Quran that can show each and every addition, change and deletion to the Bible?
Thank you.
 
Come to think of it George I haven’t seen our good friend Justice 2006 on here for almost 24 hours - must be a record for him! Wonder where he is today?
 
You got that right Lily! However I believe our ‘fellowcatholic’ pro_universal will come up to response George’s. 😉
 
** From Augustine to Jerome** (A.D. 405)

" But you [Jerome] will say it is better to believe that, the Apostle Paul wrote what was not true, than to believe that the Apostle Peter did what was not right.
On this principle, we must say (which far be it from us to say), that it is better to believe that the gospel history is false, than to believe that Christ was denied by Peter; and better to charge the book of Kings [second book of Samuel] with false statements, than believe that so great a prophet, and one so signally chosen by the Lord God as David was, committed adultery in lusting after and taking away the wife of another. and committed such detestable homicide in procuring the death of her husband. Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truth the Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either cornmended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”

The Manichaeans maintain that the greater part of the Divine Scripture, by which their wicked error is in the most explicit terms confuted, is not worthy of credit, because they cannot pervert its language so as to support their opinions; yet they lay the blame of the alleged mistake not upon the apostles who originally wrote the words, but upon some unknown corrupters of the manuscripts. For as much, however, as they have never succeeded in proving this by more numerous and by earlier manuscripts, or by appealing to the original language from which the Latin translations have been drawn, they retire from the arena of debate, vanquished and confounded by truth which is well known to all.
Does not your holy prudence discern how great scope is given to their malice against the truth, if we say not (as they do) that the apostolic writings have been tampered with by others, but that the apostles themselves wrote what they knew to be untrue?"
 
The Gospel of the Nazarenes is a book of the New Testament Apocrypha. It may or may not be the same as, or derived from, the Gospel of the Hebrews. Due to the fragmentary nature of both works, there is little certainty regarding their relationship, although there is a strong affinity between the two. Whatever the origin, and similarity of the text, this version of the text was the one used by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria (Aleppo).

The book itself has completely disappeared; all that survives comes to us in the form of quotations by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem, which contain twenty or more fragments. It has, however, been the subject of many critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last century, and recent discussions in a growing body of literature have thrown considerable light upon the problems connected with this Gospel.

Concerning its origin, many historical writers believe that it was written by Matthew. Jerome in his work On Illustrious Men explains that Matthew, also called Levi, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script.

Epiphanius is of the same opinion; he states in the Panarion that without the aid of others, Matthew, in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew, while using Hebrew script. Origen adds to this by stating that the very first account was written and composed in Hebrew script by Matthew, once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the converts who had forsaken Judaism.

Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew refers to an authentic Matthew, which he states was the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew. Jerome also refers to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews by the same title, treating them as one text, which most modern academics feel is inappropriate.

[wikipedia]
.
 
Justice2006 said:
The Gospel of the Nazarenes is a book of the New Testament Apocrypha. It may or may not be the same as, or derived from, the Gospel of the Hebrews. Due to the fragmentary nature of both works, there is little certainty regarding their relationship, although there is a strong affinity between the two. Whatever the origin, and similarity of the text, this version of the text was the one used by the Nazarenes of Beroea, Syria (Aleppo).

The book itself has completely disappeared; all that survives comes to us in the form of quotations by Clement, Origen, Jerome, and Cyril of Jerusalem, which contain twenty or more fragments. It has, however, been the subject of many critical surmises and discussions in the course of the last century, and recent discussions in a growing body of literature have thrown considerable light upon the problems connected with this Gospel.

Concerning its origin, many historical writers believe that it was written by Matthew. Jerome in his work On Illustrious Men explains that Matthew, also called Levi, composed the Gospel of Christ, which was first published in Judea in Hebrew script.

Epiphanius is of the same opinion; he states in the Panarion that without the aid of others, Matthew, in the New Testament expounded and declared the Gospel in Hebrew, while using Hebrew script. Origen adds to this by stating that the very first account was written and composed in Hebrew script by Matthew, once a tax collector but later an apostle of Jesus Christ, for the converts who had forsaken Judaism.

Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew refers to an authentic Matthew, which he states was the original Hebrew version of the Gospel of Matthew. Jerome also refers to the Gospel of the Ebionites and Gospel of the Hebrews by the same title, treating them as one text, which most modern academics feel is inappropriate.

[wikipedia]
.
Click to expand...

If this writing has completely disappeared it was obviously never accepted as part of the biblical canon by any group of any significance at all. Dude…weak!
 
Hi Justice, from the same letter you quote, you overlooked,
  1. On such terms we might amuse ourselves without fear of offending each other in the field of Scripture, but I might well wonder if the amusement was not at my expense.** For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the manuscript is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it.** As to all other writings, in reading them, however great the superiority of the authors to myself in sanctity and learning, I do not accept their teaching as true on the mere ground of the opinion being held by them; but only because they have succeeded in convincing my judgment of in truth either by means of these canonical writings themselves, or by arguments addressed to my reason. I believe, my brother, that this is your own opinion as well as mine. I do not need to say that I do not suppose you to wish your books to be read like those of prophets or of apostles, concerning which it would be wrong to doubt that they are free from error. Far be such arrogance from that humble piety and just estimate of yourself which I know you to have, and without which assuredly you would not have said, “Would that I could receive your embrace, and that by converse we might aid each other in learning!”
Click to expand...
letter 82 chapter 1 para 3

newadvent.org/fathers/1102082.htm 👍
 
And the Koran preached by muslims is the real Koran? we have to think that the Caliphate burned all the koran versions against one, he was the man that decide what Koran was good, not God.
 
And on another thread someone pointed out that certain Muslim apologists are playing a shell game–saying all over the place that the Bible is corrupt and yet quoting from it for evidence against Christian beliefs. Ya can’t have it both ways–unless your worldview is all ideological twaddle to begin with.
 
Justice 2006,

Would you care to explain why you believe the works you have cited proves biblical corruption? You have cited your source, but have not shown how any of the quoted material proves biblical corruption.

While I included the first criterion out of fairness I must admit as an historian I am most curious if anyone can offer evidence from the second or third above criterion. I find it quite interesting that Islam has claimed for over 1400 years that the Bible is corrupt, but has been unable to produce an earlier or contemporary work to the Bible and has failed to produce a single scholarly work in 14 centuries that can show each and every addition, change and deletion to the Bible. Many devout Muslims will say they do not need such as work as the Quran provides everything they need (which is completely acceptable for a devout Muslim), however as the supposed simplicity of the Quran has failed to convert the majority of the world’s population it would be logical that a scholarly work would be produced to do just that.
 
40.png
Emad:
Hello, read this thread on the WhyIslam forum:

whyislam.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=9215&PN=1
Click to expand...
Emad,

I started this thread to discuss this topic on this forum, not to solicit links to other websites.

If the link you provided meets the criterion in my initial post, please feel free to quote from it on this thread as long as all sources are cited.
 
Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

According to Catholics: it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason. Because in their minds: “the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false”.

St. Peter warns that in the Bible, there are: **"… things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. …" ** (II Pet. III,16).

Now, if the Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individual reader of Scripture, what St Peter tells us would be impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Bible for their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost at the same time. Since it is “certain” that St Peter was “inspired” by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it means that there is no personal inspiration from the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible; and that this Protestant belief cannot be true since it contradicts the Bible (according to Catholics),.
 
George Waters:
Emad,

I started this thread to discuss this topic on this forum, not to solicit links to other websites.

If the link you provided meets the criterion in my initial post, please feel free to quote from it on this thread as long as all sources are cited.
Click to expand...
Sorry I don’t have the time to do that, I wish I did. However I was providing a way for you to learn, if no one here can answer it, please feel free to join the WhyIslam forum and ask there. Just giving you more options, sorry for any inconvenience.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Protestants hold that anyone who reads the Bible in the proper spirit will be guided by the Holy Ghost in interpretation.

According to Catholics: it is against the Bible, against Tradition, against reason. Because in their minds: “the result of this belief has been that, as many interpretations exist as there are individual thinkers, and many of these interpretations contradict each other; since the Holy Ghost cannot contradict Himself, He cannot be the guide of these interpretations, and therefore, this belief of these Protestants is false”.

St. Peter warns that in the Bible, there are: **"… things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and the unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction. …" ** (II Pet. III,16).

Now, if the Holy Ghost was inspiring personally, every individual reader of Scripture, what St Peter tells us would be impossible, because obviously, no one can read the Bible for their own destruction, and be inspired by the Holy Ghost at the same time. Since it is “certain” that St Peter was “inspired” by the Holy Ghost when he wrote that, it means that there is no personal inspiration from the Holy Ghost while reading the Bible; and that this Protestant belief cannot be true since it contradicts the Bible (according to Catholics),.
Click to expand...
And this proves biblical corruption how?
 
Justice2006,

In another thread you asked if someone as the actual uncorrupted teachings of Jesus. As Islam proclaims the Bible is corrupt I would ask if you have the “actual uncorrupted teachings of Jesus” to prove the Bible is corrupt? The burden of proof is yours as you are claiming the Bible is corrupt.

We know you do not have such teachings from Jesus or you simply would have responded to this thread by citing these teachings as an original contemporary source. We can also be confident that no Muslim scholar has produced a work citing original sources that demonstrates each addition, deletion or change.

So that we may avoid spending time discussing sources that may not exist, please answer the following two questions with a simple yes or no. If you answer yes please provide the source.
  1. Can you cite a pre-biblical source or a source contemporary to the Bible as evidence of biblical corruption?
  2. Can you cite a Muslim scholarly work independent of the Quran that can show each and every addition, change and deletion to the Bible?
 
40.png
Emad:
Sorry I don’t have the time to do that, I wish I did. However I was providing a way for you to learn, if no one here can answer it, please feel free to join the WhyIslam forum and ask there. Just giving you more options, sorry for any inconvenience.
Click to expand...
No inconvenience at all and I do appreciate the link. My apologies for not thanking you in my initial response your post.

I would think this would be a simple matter for any Muslim to answer. Especially one who joins a Catholic forum to discuss matters of faith.
 
George Waters:
Justice2006,
In another thread you asked if someone as the actual uncorrupted teachings of Jesus. As Islam proclaims the Bible is corrupt I would ask if you have the “actual uncorrupted teachings of Jesus” to prove the Bible is corrupt? The burden of proof is yours as you are claiming the Bible is corrupt.
Click to expand...
Mr. Waters,

It is the Christiandom who carries all those thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament. They are divided into two groups: ancient and most ancient MSS. No two of them are identical. Most authors of the these books are still UNKOWN. So, **since it is YOU (Christaindom) who is presenting them as proof of teachings of a man named Jesus Christ, then the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove ** that all those unidentical MSS are 100% true. If you don’t prove and then force/ask other people to believe in what you believe (faith), then all others who do not subscribe to your faith, have every right to examine the contents of your manuscripts. As such, when we see the internal evidence of your various versions of the Bibles, it tells us how unreliable are the contents because there are clear contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors in them.

This is a real challenge for you to figure out the truth from the “falsehood of lying pens of the Scribes” and from the corruption of Unknown Authors of the Greek NT, because unfortunately thats all **you have ** and all the previous gospels/books that were in circulation prior to the so-called “cononization” in the 4th century, are lost/destroyed for various reasons. One of the reasons appears to conceal the whole truth of the Jesus’ Message, in order to conveniently accomodate pagan/Greek philosophies.

Actually It is **for you ** to do your own home-work. But a critical and objective study/reaserch can help you to find out the truth but you have to have patience, time and you must keep aside your Church/pre-conceived ideas/dogmas/indoctrination while you are at an honest independent faithfull research.

If you don’t have enough time to do an honest research you can atleast read these two books [Available free ONLINE]:

The Bible, The Qur’an and Science
by Dr. Maurice Bucaille
THE HOLY SCRIPTURES EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT
OF MODERN KNOWLEDGE
Translated from French
by Alastair D. Pannell and The Author
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/
** What is the Origin of Man?**
The Answers of Science and the Holy Scriptures
Dr Maurice Bucaille
[witness-pioneer.org]](witness-pioneer.org])
witness-pioneer.org/

.
 
Scott Waddell:
And on another thread someone pointed out that certain Muslim apologists are playing a shell game–saying all over the place that the Bible is corrupt and yet quoting from it for evidence against Christian beliefs. Ya can’t have it both ways–unless your worldview is all ideological twaddle to begin with.
Click to expand...

That was probably me 🙂 Whether it was or not, it would be interesting to see how Muslims answer that objection.​

 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top