Evidence of Biblical Corruption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter George_Waters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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,
Click to expand...

The Christian reader is not inspired: assisted by God’s grace through the gift of the same Spirit as moved the authors, yes - but not inspired​

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...

Since the reader is not inspired, the objection based on the inspiration of the reader collapses. I think this is what is called a strawman.​

ISTM there is much more to be said for the Protestant understanding of God’s part in the Christian’s reading of Scripture than is sometimes realised. Being guided in interpretation is not the same thing as seeking to excogitate a doctrine - Protestants are no more apt to do this than Catholics. ##
 
Justice 2006,

Will you please do me the courtesy of answering my two questions addressed to you in post #17?

“…tells us how unreliable are the contents because there are clear contradictions, inconsistencies, improbabilities and scientific errors in them.” Funny I have read the exact same charge leveled against the Quran.

“…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.” Once again isn’t this what happened to the Quran?

“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.” My homework? I wished to have a discussion. This is a discussion forum isn’t it? If you do not wish to discuss this topic and only wish to criticize me for discussing it you are free to quit posting on this thread.

This should be an easy topic for you, but you have once again failed to answer simple questions addressed specifically to you and have tried to place the burden of proof on me when my thread is asking for proof of biblical corruption. If you want to start another thread asking us to prove the Bible is not corrupt, that is your prerogative.

As long as you post on this thread you will offer evidence of biblical corruption from the criteria in my initial post.
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## That was probably me 🙂 Whether it was or not, it would be interesting to see how Muslims answer that objection. ##
Click to expand...

I have asked and have seen this same question raised at least three times now without a response.
 
George Waters:
I have asked and have seen this same question raised at least three times now without a response.
Click to expand...

And I’d still like an answer 🙂 to it​

 
I have to comment on this line from Justice2006; “…you must keep aside your Church/pre-conceived ideas/dogmas/indoctrination while you are at an honest independent faithfull research.”

Let’s change one word and ask Justice2006 to follow his own advice; you must keep aside your Muslim/pre-conceived ideas/dogmas/indoctrination while you are at an honest independent faithfull research. Good advise don’t you think?

Now back to presenting evidence of biblical corruption…
 
40.png
Justice2006:
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.
Click to expand...

Not wholly unlike verses such as “Alif Lam Mim”[Surah 29.1], of which your own commentators say that “Allah alone knows their meaning”.​

If the Koran is not ruined by the obscurity of that verse, and of others, neither is the OT damaged by doubts about the text of 1 Samuel 13.1, for example.

Much of the Muslim case against the Bible is no more than an objection based on what a holy book is expected to be. The Bible can hardly be complained of for not being the kind of book Muslims expect it to be - the books in it were not, in the first instance, provided for them. This is as reasonably as an American’s finding fault with England for not being instantly recognisable as a part of the USA. There is no reason why it should be recognisable as the USA. And neither is the Holy Bible the Koran. Nor is the religion of Jesus the religion of Mohammed. ##
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,
Click to expand...

If you are talking about the tiqqune soferim- there are under twenty of them, and they affect only the Old Testament text - not that of the NT.​

As for calling them “falsehoods”, this is completely unwarranted. One of them, at Judges 18.30, is an alteration of “Moses” to “Manasseh”. This is an alteration for euphemistic purposes, but not a falsehood. ##
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.
Click to expand...

This is self-refuting nonsense - for if the NT text has been so greatly changed, how are we to know it has been so greatly changed ? All we have is the assertion of those who have their own theological reasons for thinking, or wishing, this to be so. But why should we trust Muslims to know better than Christians what was in the NT ? Christians do at least have an unbroken tradition of copying the NT, of interpreting it, and of applying it - a tradition centuries older than Mohammed. Muslims don’t.​

As for the loss of the original texts - we don’t have any of the originals behind any of the Greek & Latin Classics, either. But no one worries about this, because there is a science of textual criticism for Livy, Athenaeus, Herodotus, Virgil, Cicero and any such author you care to name. Just as there is textual criticism of the Bible. Some books are available only in summary - as is true of much of Livy, for instance. This does not arise with the Bible. ##
 
George Waters:
I have to comment on this line from Justice2006; “…you must keep aside your Church/pre-conceived ideas/dogmas/indoctrination while you are at an honest independent faithfull research.”

Let’s change one word and ask Justice2006 to follow his own advice; you must keep aside your Muslim/pre-conceived ideas/dogmas/indoctrination while you are at an honest independent faithfull research. Good advise don’t you think?

Now back to presenting evidence of biblical corruption…
Click to expand...

if OT “Bacah” (Psalms 84.6) is really meant to be “Makka” - maybe we should be told which OT manuscripts have the correct or Muslim reading - and which NT manuscripts of John 14-16 promise the Periclytos Mohammed, rather than the Paracletos or Advocate 🙂 If Sura 61.6 of the Koran is taken as proving this, that proof is of no weight if one denies the Koran is inspired, or at least, is inspired in that text.​

letusreason.org/Islam3.htm

“Despite all this evidence, the Muslim’s insist that the paraclete would be a person of flesh and blood and not a Spirit who is God Himself. Even if we concede at this point for the sake of continuing our dialogue, the question we need to ask a Muslim is, is Jesus a prophet? They would of course respond that Mohammed said he was. Can a prophet lie? They would answer in the negative. Then if Jesus is a true prophet then whatever he said should be heeded. Jesus claimed to be the only way to God. If Jesus is right then Mohammed is wrong. If Jesus is wrong, Mohammed is still wrong, because he (Mohammed), said, he is right. So if Jesus is a true prophet he said heaven and earth would pass away before the word would. Then the word is not corrupted but preserved, because Jesus was a true prophet. And we should believe true prophets.”

[my emphasis] ##
 
Bottom line, if God is unable or unwilling to protect the first bibles, then there is no reason to believe he has protected any other korans that came afterwards. If God did protect the first bibles and the koran contradicts those first bibles then the koran is not God’s word. either way islam is found wanting.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Bottom line, if God is unable or unwilling to protect the first bibles, then there is no reason to believe he has protected any other korans that came afterwards. If God did protect the first bibles and the koran contradicts those first bibles then the koran is not God’s word. either way islam is found wanting.
Click to expand...
Good post Daniel.
 
Daniel Marsh:
Bottom line, if God is unable or unwilling to protect the first bibles, then there is no reason to believe he has protected any other korans that came afterwards. If God did protect the first bibles and the koran contradicts those first bibles then the koran is not God’s word. either way islam is found wanting.
Click to expand...
exactly bro, exactly…God is either omnipotent or not; he either fulfills his promise or not…a god that does not in not god but another spirit who wants people in hell.
 
Anybody want to field these two questions?

If so, please answer the following 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?
Thanks!
 
Muslims Are Killing Eachother Saying Thats The Way Of Their God…my Bible Tells Me That My Lord And Savior Jesus…is The Prince Of Peace… So That Cannot Be Right,
Code: 
                          If U Think About It All Relegions Are In Battle, Why? They Say Well We Serve One God,well Does Your God Acknowledge My Lord Jesus...............and Thats The Big Issue ''jesus''.just The Mention Of His Name Is So Powerfull.....jesus Go Ahead And Say His Name..............jesus....
Now Do U Know What I Mean U See How U Didnt Want To Say His Name Thts Power…and Tht Is Why I Love Jesus So Much Because Of How Powerfull My Lord Is…
Code: 
                          1 John 4:1,2,3.............dear Friends ,do Not Beleive Every Spirit, But Test The Spirits To See Whether They Are From God, Because Many False Prophets Have Gone Out Into The World. 2:this Is How You Can Recognize The Spirit Of God:every Spirit That Acknowledges That Jesus Christ Has Come In The Flesh Is From God. 3: But Every Spirit That Does Not Acknowledges Jesus Is Not From God. This Is The Spirit Of The Antichrist,which You Have Heard Is Comming And Even Now Is Already In The World.........amen




                                 Jesus Loves U All.....
                                                            Amen.
 
Mr. Gottle of Geer,

You siad:
If the Koran is not ruined by the obscurity of that [Surah 29.1] verse, and of others, neither is the OT damaged by doubts about the text of 1 Samuel 13.1, for example.

Here, your logic and analogy is actually a case against you.

Arn’t you saying that the Koran is actual **not ruined ** by the obscurity of that verse [Surah 29.1] and others?

If yes, then in your eyes, the Koran is the Word of God and the Bible too is the Word of God because both are not ruined by the obscurity of those verses ( such as Surah 29.1 and 1 Samuel 13.1

Now, if you say "No, the Koran is indeed ruined by verses such as Surah 29.1, then** in your eyes ** the Koran is not a clear Book thus not the Word of God and your Bible** too is ** not a clear Book because of verses such as 1 Samuel 13.1. (Not to mention so many other meaningless stuff and half-told stories in the BIble that makes no sense.) thus Bible too is not the Word of God.

So, your “No” answer too is a case against you.

Now you may be wondering howcome your both answers – YES and NO – are actually cases against you? The reason, it is against you, because your logic/analogy has no base and you **did not ** realise it before using it.

.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Mr. Gottle of Geer,

You siad:
If the Koran is not ruined by the obscurity of that [Surah 29.1] verse, and of others, neither is the OT damaged by doubts about the text of 1 Samuel 13.1, for example.

Here, your logic and analogy is actually a case against you.

Arn’t you saying that the Koran is actual not ruined by the obscurity of that verse [Surah 29.1] and others?

If yes, then in your eyes, the Koran is the Word of God and the Bible too is the Word of God because both are not ruined by the obscurity of those verses ( such as Surah 29.1 and 1 Samuel 13.1

Now, if you say "No, the Koran is indeed ruined by verses such as Surah 29.1, then** in your eyes ** the Koran is not a clear Book thus not the Word of God and your Bible** too is ** not a clear Book because of verses such as 1 Samuel 13.1. (Not to mention so many other meaningless stuff and half-told stories in the BIble that makes no sense.) thus Bible too is not the Word of God.

So, your “No” answer too is a case against you.

Now you may be wondering howcome your both answers – YES and NO – are actually cases against you? The reason, it is against you, because your logic/analogy has no base and you **did not ** realise it before using it.

.
Click to expand...
This post is severely lacking in logic. Your contention is that because the Koran is not necessarily ruined by the obscurity of a particular verse, therefore one must believe the Koran is the word of God. Holy non sequitur Batman!
 
40.png
Atreyu:
This post is severely lacking in logic. Your contention is that because the Koran is not necessarily ruined by the obscurity of a particular verse, therefore one must believe the Koran is the word of God. Holy non sequitur Batman!
Click to expand...
Mr. Atreyu,

Thats not my logic. That is what **Mr. Gottle of Geer ** used by saying “If the Koran is not ruined by the obscurity of that [Surah 29.1] verse, and of others, neither is the OT damaged by doubts about the text of 1 Samuel 13.1, for example”.

And of course in his eyes, OT (which is a part of his Christian Bible) is an inspired Word of God. With this premise in his mind, it was his contention that OT is not ruined/damaged by the obscurity of verses such as 1 Samuel 13.1, because in his mind, the Koran too is not ruined by the verses like Surah 29.1.

So, by his anology, he unknowingly/indirectly accepts that the Koran is atleast inspired Word of God, if not a direct Word of God.

If I was him, I will not use his flawed logic/analogy, unless I first make clear some points and set some premises. In other words I can use it only with conditions.

.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Mr. Atreyu,

Thats not my logic. That is what Mr. Gottle of Geer used by saying “If the Koran is not ruined by the obscurity of that [Surah 29.1] verse, and of others, neither is the OT damaged by doubts about the text of 1 Samuel 13.1, for example”.

And of course in his eyes, OT (which is a part of his Christian Bible) is an inspired Word of God. With this premise in his mind, it was his contention that OT is not ruined/damaged by the obscurity of verses such as 1 Samuel 13.1, because in his mind, the Koran too is not ruined by the verses like Surah 29.1.

So, by his anology, he unknowingly/indirectly accepts that the Koran is atleast inspired Word of God, if not a direct Word of God.

If I was him, I will not use his flawed logic/analogy, unless I first make clear some points and set some premises. In other words I can use it only with conditions.

.
Click to expand...
Gottle of Geer never tried to establish the inspiration of the OT by establishing that “it is not ruined”. He’s just saying Muslims need to be consistent. If a particular obscure verse in the Koran does not ruin the Koran, then a similar obscure verse in the OT does not ruin the OT. Therefore a Muslim cannot be consistent and yet deny the OT because of an obscure verse. This is all Gottle is saying, and your claim that he must accept the Koran as inspired is a big leap in logic.

Anybody can write a book and include an obscure verse. But by your logic, any book that contains an obscure verse is “atleast inspired Word of God, if not a direct Word of God.” This is simply not true. Like I said, non sequitur.
 
Mr.Atreyu,

I think you too misunderstood his “logic”.

What motivated Mr.Gottle of Geer to use an anology of a verse in the Koran?

Lets say he is talking to a person who does not beleive in any religious book. Can he prove the non-ruin-ness of the OT just based on it’s internal evidence.?

If you use an example of any other book such as a novel or a book of history, then your anology will bring down the status of OT to the level of a book written by an uninspired man. As such the OT will be any other book, thus what is so special with OT that people shoud give so much relgious attention to it.
In this case, here again his logic fails, as he unknowingly reduced the level of his “inspired book” to the level of any other uninspired book. Thus discussing about OT would be same as discussing about any other uninspired book.

.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top