Evidence of Biblical Corruption?

  • Thread starter Thread starter George_Waters
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Justice, Catholics do not need to appeal to the Old Testament itself to prove its inspiration - and to do so would be begging the question. Read about how we go about proving the inspiration of all Scripture, here. I think that is the right link, but it’s not working for me right now so I’m sorry if it is not.
 
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...
IOW - there is a pattern in how God acts. And because there is a pattern in how God acts, it is possible to notice a pattern in the activity of the prophets. For a Christian, this pattern is summed up and “canonised” in the person and activity of Jesus. Which is why
  • St. Paul calls Him the telos - the end, conclusion, fulfilment, goal, purpose, and rationale - of the Law;
  • and why the evangelists, in describing His Transfiguration, show Jesus accompanied by Elijah & Moses
  • and why He says what He does in Matthew 5 - He has not come to break the Law, but to fulfil it;
  • just as He “fulfil all righteousness” by being baptised.

  • and this also why we as Christians do not accept the message of Mohammed: his claim breaks the pattern, because his morality is regressive; it is as though we were being told that the noonday sun in its splendour is a lesser gift than twilight, and that we ought to live in half-darkness, and not in the full light of day.
Besides, the prophetic character of Jesus is in ethnic continuity with the prophetic character of Moses and Isaiah or Jeremiah: they are all members of the Chosen People, the descendants of Abraham by way of Isaac, Jacob, and the Twelve Patriarchs.

This ethnic continuity (based upon God’s gracious choice of Israel to be His own Holy People) is not true for Mohammed, who is neither Jew, nor Christian, but a descendant of Ishmael - so, why would God raise up His final, most important, prophet from the descendants of Ishmael ? There is, again, a break in the pattern.

If God had cast off the Jews - as He has not: see St.Paul on this in Romans 9 to 11 - this would still not mean that the objection was solved; for Christians are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not by their own deed, but by virtue of their being members of Jesus Christ. Mohammed was not a Christian, therefore, he was not a member of Christ. Therefore, he was not a sharer in the membership of the Chosen People. Therefore, he was an Israelite neither by blood, nor by faith in Christ. Therefore, claims for his being the final and greatest prophet, if true, have to explain how he can be in a prophetic succession of which he is part neither by blood nor by faith.

This does not mean, that God has a place in His purposes neither for the descendants of Ishmael, nor for Mohammed, nor for Islam - but, whatever that place may be, it has to be understood in the context of what God has done already. And Islam seems able to validate its claims for Mohammed only by treating what God has done before Mohammed as meaningless or impossible to know - for that is what God’s purposes become, if the Christian understanding of the Bible and the of Jesus is so completely corrupt and worthless. And if God’s purposes are meaningless or impossible to know, then the claims for the finality of Mohammed also collapse for then the very existence of a prophetic succession which is closed by him, becomes empty - he can hardly be the greatest of prophets if they cannot be compared with him. But they can be ccompared with him, only if we can have a good idea of the meaning of their message. And that message, is contained in the Bible.

IOW: Muslim claims of the corruption of the Bible and of the distortion & loss of the message of Jesus are self-refuting. In fact, those claims destroy the entire foundation of Islam itself. ##
 
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...

No 🙂 - I am not saying that.​

I am not saying either that the Koran is ruined, or that is is not. What I’m doing, is to use a valid type of the argument ad hominem

The invalid type we all know by many examples - this valid type says:
  • Although I don’t agree with Notion X that you hold, or are treating as a valid or an unchallengeable basis for argument,
  • let us, purely to avoid cluttering up our debate with more questions than can be conveniently dealt with, leave the question of its validity or unchallengeableness aside; let us prescind from that question for the time being.
  • IOW; let us, in our practice of this discussion, suppose for the moment that Notion X is valid or unchallangeable".
IOW, I am arguing as though there were no doubt that Surah 29.1 is as inspired as Islamic belief and teaching supposes - that it is, is my Notion X. Whether that belief about Surah 29.1 is valid or intelligible (given the fondness of Muslim apologists for savaging the Bible) is the question from which I am, for the time being, prescinding. 🙂

One accepts things “for the sake of argument”, because not every basis for an argument can be discussed in so unsystematic a debate as this is.

The dilemma you propose fails because it depends upon my making an argument which, at this point at least, I was not making. My apologies for failing to make my intentions clearer.

You might understand my point if you look at it in its context - I was making that point as a counter to a point made in post 17 by Justice 2006 (IIRC) who in turn was disagreeing with George Waters.

I don’t in fact accept those beliefs and teachings about the Koran; for me, the final and definitive and canonical revelation from God, is Jesus Christ Himself; He is God’s first, last, and final Word, by which all else is measured and interpreted and verified. He is the Purpose of His Church, of Divine Revelation, and of all creation: for Him and “in Him all things hold together”, make sense, become fully intelligible, are fully realised and fulfilled. 🙂

The Koran seems to be thought of as a sort of semi-independent Divine attribute, like Wisdom in the book of that name - is that correct ? That is, the Koran seems to be thought of as an hypostasised Divine quality.

For Christians, this notion is fulfilled by the person of Jesus, Who is the Personal Word of God - not by the Law of Moses (which is what the Wisdom in that book is), nor by the Koran. The Bible is not unlike an hypostasised Divine quality, but - for Christians at least - it is relative to Jesus Christ; just like everything else.

Is the Bible a “clear book” ? For the purposes of the discussion, I would need to know what you mean by “clear book”.

I hope that clarifies matters. ##
 
“…a point made in post 17 by Justice 2006 (IIRC) who in turn was disagreeing with George Waters.”

should read

“…a point made in post 17 by Justice2006; who was disagreeing with a a point made by George Waters in post 15”.
 
40.png
Atreyu:
Justice, Catholics do not need to appeal to the Old Testament itself to prove its inspiration - and to do so would be begging the question. Read about how we go about proving the inspiration of all Scripture, here. I think that is the right link, but it’s not working for me right now so I’m sorry if it is not.
Click to expand...

FWIW, I got the URL , but nothing more. BTA, my computer is v. unreliable.​

Is inspiration the kind of thing one can prove ? IMO, no. But that is BTW. ##
 
Gottle of Geer said:
## No 🙂 - I am not saying that.

I am not saying either that the Koran is ruined, or that is is not. What I’m doing, is to use a valid type of the argument ad hominem
Click to expand...

The only valid form of ad hominem is, an argument in which both should have common ground/premise.

Like for example if a man’s fingure is broken he is still considered as a man by the both debating parties.

But if a Man ‘X’ is in coma and one party ‘A’ says he is in coma and not dead but the other Party ‘B’ says he is dead, then there is no common ground here between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Then, if Party ‘B’ starts comparing status of Man X with a body of a dead Man ‘Y’ to prove Man 'X’s death by showing some similarities between them, then party ‘B’ is actually going beyond the set premise/common ground beause either he did not know what is coma or just wasting his time.

So, if you tell me that God is One and He is Eternal, Immortal and Invisible. I too agree with this notion. Now we have a common ground here and our dialgue can begin from here onwards or upon this premise.

But then if you all of a sudden tell me:that Holy God came down not from the sky/heaven but born with the help of Holy Spirit which is always the third person in your Trinity, made impure St. Mary according to the law of Moses, got circumcised–eight days after his birth; and was tempted by the devil, he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry…then finally he died because Judas betrayed him, otherwise…[he was going to commit suicide anyway, I guess, in order to “save” you from a sin that you never commited].

then I don’t see any common ground here and I don’t think you really/rationally believe in all these things, unless if your mind is away from rational thinking for a while when discussing this type of issue(s).

Moderator Note: Removed off topic comments…
 
are English translations of the koran perfect? without error?

Show me where, it says that english translations of the bible will be perfect.

A translation is not the orginal.
 
Gottle of Geer:
IOW - there is a pattern in how God acts. And because there is a pattern in how God acts, it is possible to notice a pattern in the activity of the prophets. For a Christian, this pattern is summed up and “canonised” in the person and activity of Jesus. Which is why
  • St. Paul calls Him the telos - the end, conclusion, fulfilment, goal, purpose, and rationale - of the Law;
  • and why the evangelists, in describing His Transfiguration, show Jesus accompanied by Elijah & Moses
  • and why He says what He does in Matthew 5 - He has not come to break the Law, but to fulfil it;
  • just as He “fulfil all righteousness” by being baptised.

  • and this also why we as Christians do not accept the message of Mohammed: his claim breaks the pattern, because his morality is regressive; it is as though we were being told that the noonday sun in its splendour is a lesser gift than twilight, and that we ought to live in half-darkness, and not in the full light of day.
Besides, the prophetic character of Jesus is in ethnic continuity with the prophetic character of Moses and Isaiah or Jeremiah: they are all members of the Chosen People, the descendants of Abraham by way of Isaac, Jacob, and the Twelve Patriarchs.

This ethnic continuity (based upon God’s gracious choice of Israel to be His own Holy People) is not true for Mohammed, who is neither Jew, nor Christian, but a descendant of Ishmael - so, why would God raise up His final, most important, prophet from the descendants of Ishmael ? There is, again, a break in the pattern.

If God had cast off the Jews - as He has not: see St.Paul on this in Romans 9 to 11 - this would still not mean that the objection was solved; for Christians are the spiritual descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not by their own deed, but by virtue of their being members of Jesus Christ. Mohammed was not a Christian, therefore, he was not a member of Christ. Therefore, he was not a sharer in the membership of the Chosen People. Therefore, he was an Israelite neither by blood, nor by faith in Christ. Therefore, claims for his being the final and greatest prophet, if true, have to explain how he can be in a prophetic succession of which he is part neither by blood nor by faith.

This does not mean, that God has a place in His purposes neither for the descendants of Ishmael, nor for Mohammed, nor for Islam - but, whatever that place may be, it has to be understood in the context of what God has done already. And Islam seems able to validate its claims for Mohammed only by treating what God has done before Mohammed as meaningless or impossible to know - for that is what God’s purposes become, if the Christian understanding of the Bible and the of Jesus is so completely corrupt and worthless. And if God’s purposes are meaningless or impossible to know, then the claims for the finality of Mohammed also collapse for then the very existence of a prophetic succession which is closed by him, becomes empty - he can hardly be the greatest of prophets if they cannot be compared with him. But they can be ccompared with him, only if we can have a good idea of the meaning of their message. And that message, is contained in the Bible.

IOW: Muslim claims of the corruption of the Bible and of the distortion & loss of the message of Jesus are self-refuting. In fact, those claims destroy the entire foundation of Islam itself. ##
Click to expand...

AAAMEEENNNN
 
George Waters:
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.
Click to expand...
Peace to you brother George,
hope this will help you, please read it and the sublinks also, its very informative.
answering-christianity.com/ac6.htm#links

Peace.
 
gurrato alaien:
Peace to you brother George,
hope this will help you, please read it and the sublinks also, its very informative.
answering-christianity.com/ac6.htm#links

Peace.
Click to expand...
answering christianity? 😃 for Christ’s sake!! its a joke 😃

look at this in the great site:

Why did Jesus initially say that all non-Jews (Gentiles) were the “Jews’ dogs”?
He even initially rejected a Gentile believer!

😃 😃

what do you suspect from a muslim that relies on the forgery gospel of Barnaba? oh my…anyway the site has been refuted long time ago…
 
40.png
Justice2006:
The only valid form of ad hominem is, an argument in which both should have common ground/premise.

Like for example if a man’s fingure is broken he is still considered as a man by the both debating parties.

But if a Man ‘X’ is in coma and one party ‘A’ says he is in coma and not dead but the other Party ‘B’ says he is dead, then there is no common ground here between ‘A’ and ‘B’. Then, if Party ‘B’ starts comparing status of Man X with a body of a dead Man ‘Y’ to prove Man 'X’s death by showing some similarities between them, then party ‘B’ is actually going beyond the set premise/common ground beause either he did not know what is coma or just wasting his time.

So, if you tell me that God is One and He is Eternal, Immortal and Invisible. I too agree with this notion. Now we have a common ground here and our dialgue can begin from here onwards or upon this premise.

But then if you all of a sudden tell me:that Holy God came down not from the sky/heaven but born with the help of Holy Spirit which is always the third person in your Trinity, made impure St. Mary according to the law of Moses, got circumcised–eight days after his birth; and was tempted by the devil, he ate nothing in those days; and when they were ended, he was hungry…then finally he died because Judas betrayed him, otherwise…[he was going to commit suicide anyway, I guess, in order to “save” you from a sin that you never commited].

then I don’t see any common ground here and I don’t think you really/rationally believe in all these things, unless if your mind is away from rational thinking for a while when discussing this type of issue(s).

Moderator Note: Removed off topic comments…
Click to expand...
]## But:
  • I didn’t say that last bit
  • it was not implicit in the present discussion - which is, in a general sense, about the reliability of the Bible
  • It is not the faith of the Church
  • It is not - and this appears to be your point, I think - implied by accepting the witness of the Bible, or of the Church, or of the two together, or of these with any other motives for faith in the Gospel of God
  • I don’t believe it anyway - so I’m not trying to suggest you should…
  • …because believing it, is not entailed in being Christian: it is a misunderstanding of what Christians do believe.
The Incarnation of the eternal Word of God neither adds to, nor takes from, nor changes God.

There is a change, certainly - but not in God; only in the human nature assumed to Himself by the Word.

And this human nature, which is the whole of what is proper to man except for the modifications man has introduced in it by sinning, is taken by the Word from the Blessed Virgin Mary.

The Word did not move from Heaven to earth, as though God were a body in space moving from one place to another… God is Spirit, not a body.

She is no more deified by this, than I become a book by reading “The Lord of the Rings”, or the Koran. She was a creature before the Incarnation, she was a creature during it, and has been a creature ever since. You presumably read the Koran; that does not make you one. 🙂

Our family relations modify what we are - love transforms, and so does the form of love we call hate. This happens in so far as people are made present to one another by love. Someone who loves a book is changed by it, not so as to become a book, but so as to take the book into himself in so far as this is possible, given that books and persons are very different things.

The Incarnation is a bit like that.

[continue…]
 
…continued & ended]

However, the Incarnation is not a psychological enrichment of God, such as we enjoy when loving a book or other created thing; for God has no psychology. There is enrichment - but it is an enrichment of the human nature which the Word received from the woman whom He had predestined in His Love to be His mother. This human nature of the word is united with, and made personal in, the Person of the Word; it is therefore of incomparable and infinite dignity. So it is the human nature of the Word, but not the Divine Nature of the Word which -
  • has a beginning in time
  • was created
  • is dignified infinitely by its union with the Divine Nature of the undivided Godhead & with the Divine Person of the Word
It is because of the human nature of the man Jesus of Nazareth, that Jesus of Nazareth is truly God. And because He is truly man, He was truly an infant, truly a child, truly hungry, thirsty, weary, truly suffered, was truly crucified, truly died, and was truly raised from the dead; having broken, destroyed, and abolished death and the one who had the power of death; which comes from sin - that also He destroyed.

This crucified and resurrected Jesus is the head and cause and source of a single new humanity - that is why there is a Church, and why it is one. As the Victor over death, He gives hope of a life like His to all those who are under the power of death, sin, and the devil. As His Life is that of God, He is giving a share in His own glorious Life to those who by nature and because of sin were alienated from it and crippled and ruined by sin.

If you doubt that the world is under the power of sin - look around you at the world. Did God intend that it should be full of evils ? It is full of evils, because man was made for communion with God, but has freely perverted himself by choosing to obey himself and not his God and Creator. When that happens, sin is let loose, and man, having chosen himself instead of God, is enslaved to his own desires and those of his fellow-sinners. He who was too proud to obey God, is now a slave to men no better than he. That, and the far more terrible alienation from God, is what Jesus Christ delivers us from.

Can Mohammed save us from our sins ? At best, he merely brings knowledge - but what we need is salvation, and to be put into a right standing with God. All this Jesus brings, shows, causes, and makes stable within us. Mohammed does but touch the surface of our deadly sickness - Jesus is our very Food; He gives us everything - His:
  • Life
  • Sonship to His Father
  • Spirit
  • Grace
  • Body
  • family relationships on earth
  • Death
  • Cross
  • Messianic character
  • Righteousness
  • Wisdom
  • holiness
  • election
  • predestination
  • Himself as Food
  • Royal throne
  • Priesthood
  • Kingship promises
  • and much more; even the Father cannot give us more, for He has given us everything in His Son, in Whom He is well-pleased. God cannot give more than God.
    And Jesus does this, not because we had done Him good, but while we were at enmity with Him. The Cross shows us God’s judgement on sin & what He does for sinners. It shows His righteous wrath against the one, and His changeless Love for the other. ##
 
Justice2006,

This is the third time I have politely asked you to answer my two straightforward and simple questions (posted again below for your convenience) and it shall be the last.

These questions were asked in my initial post and by posting on this thread you should have read them and known I did want an answer. These are simple yes or no questions. Please show me the courtesy to simply answer them.

If you do not answer in the affirmative with your sources cited I will be forced to conclude that Islam has no pre-biblical or contemporary biblical evidence and that no Muslim scholar has been able to produce a work demonstrating each and every corruption in fourteen centuries.

I hope you will cite your sources or have the courage to admit Islam has no independent evidence of biblical corruption.
  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?
 
George Waters:
Justice2006,

This is the third time I have politely asked you to answer my two straightforward and simple questions (posted again below for your convenience) and it shall be the last.
Click to expand...
Dear George,
If you are really interested in critical and intellectual reseasrch I can recommend you some books, because I cannot copy/paste the whole websites here.

You can start with these books:

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/[/INDENT]

And here is a website:

Examining The Bible
islamic-awareness.org/Bible/
Textual Integrity Of The Bible

This site discuss topics such as:

**The Canon Of The Bible **
A detailed discussion about the various canons of the Bible drawn at various times by different Churches can be seen here.

**The New Testament Manuscripts **

Was The Bible Same As We have In Our Hands Today?

Church Tradition and The Textual Integrity Of The Bible

**Church Tradition and The Bible **

Protestant Church
Roman Catholic Church
Anglican Church
Greek Orthodox Church
Coptic Church
Ethiopic Church
Syriac Church

**Church Tradition and Apostolic Fathers **

Clement Of Rome
Ignatius Of Antioch
The Didache
Papias Of Heirapolis
Barnabas
Polycarp Of Smyrna
Hermas Of Rome
The So-Called Second Epistle Of Clement

**Church Tradition and The Early Lists Of The Books Of The New Testament **

**Church Tradition and ‘Inspiration’ Of New Testament Books **

The Didache
Epistle Of Clement
Epistle Of Barnabas
Shepherd Of Hermas

**Church Tradition and Manuscripts **

**Church Tradition and The Six ‘Disputed’ Books
Extracts From The Book How We Got Our Bible

The Bible and Its ‘Inspiration’

Was Paul Inspired?

Church Tradition and ‘Inspiration’ Of New Testament Books**

The Didache
Epistle Of Clement
Epistle Of Barnabas
Shepherd Of Hermas

’Accuracy’ Of The New Testament

**Textual Reliability Of The Bible - Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?/B]

Criteria Used In Choosing Among Conflicting Readings In New Testament Witnesses

Introduction
The Criteria
Outline Of Criteria

External Evidence
Internal Evidence

Some Examples

**Textual Reliability / Accuracy Of The New Testament

Modern Approaches To New Testament Textual Criticism**

Radical Eclecticism (G. D. Kilpatrick, J. K. Elliott)

Reasoned Eclecticism (B. M. Metzger, K. Aland)

Reasoned Conservatism (H. A. Sturz)

Radical Conservatism (Z. Hodges, A. Farstad)

Critical Text Of The New Testament: Methodology and Implications

Introduction
Formation Of A Critical Text: Methodology and Implications
Conclusion
Appendix: Other Articles Of Interest
The Multivalence Of The Term “Original Text” In New Testament Textual Criticism, E. Jay Epp, Harvard Theological Review, 1999, Volume 92, No. 3. pp. 245-281.

Introduction
The Use of the Term “Original Text” Past and Present and Its Multivalence
The Relation of an Elusive, Multivalent “Original Text” to the Concept of “Canon”
Conclusion

Who Is Afraid Of Textual Criticism?

**Variant Readings In The Qur’an and In The Bible **

**The Qur’an, Its Variant Readings and Islamic Scholarship
The New Testament, Its Problems and The Critical Texts **

**Textual Criticism and The Reaction Of The Church **

J Mill
R Bentley
J J Wettstein
B F Westcott and J A Hort

islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/ ]​
**
 
Justice 2006,

You have claimed the Bible is corrupt and I have repeatedly asked you to answer my two questions with a simple yes or no and, if yes, to cite your sources. You have refused to answer yes or no and continue to make excuses as to why you can not answer my questions. As r.gonzales used to say, bring your evidence if you are indeed truthful.

I am interested in this subject and will, God willing, look into some of your recommendations, none of which meet the criterion of evidence I asked for, however these questions should be incredibly simple for you to answer, being a knowledgeable Muslim and by your willingness to discuss such topics on a Catholic forum, if the Muslim claim of biblical corruption were true.

As you, a knowledgeable Muslim can not answer such simple questions to support the Muslim assertion of biblical corruption which is critical to Islam, I must logically conclude that Islam has no evidence and it is little more than a refusal to see the facts, or to have the courage to admit it, and is nothing more than wishful thinking on the part of Muslims.

Thanks for the recommendations. I recommend you do some research on this subject so you will be able to recognize fact from the fiction propagated by Islam.
 
Justice, read the link given by Daniel to realize how absurd was Bucaille’s reasoning…if i want to read a book, it certainly won’t be Bucaille’s books …i asked you many times already to read the link …
 
George Waters:
You have claimed the Bible is corrupt and I have repeatedly asked you to answer my two questions with a simple yes or no and, if yes, to cite your sources. You have refused to answer yes or no and continue to make excuses as to why you can not answer my questions. As r.gonzales used to say, bring your evidence if you are indeed truthful.
Click to expand...
Dear George Waters,

IMHO, I already gave you more than enough proof which proves the corruption in the text of the books of the Old and New Testaments beyond any reasonable/shadow of doubt.

As far Old Testament, it’s internal evidence itself is sufficient enough to prove it’s unreliability.

Jeremiah 8:8-10
Douay Rheims Bible

8 How do you say: We are wise, and the law of the Lord is with us? Indeed the lying pen of the scribes hath wrought falsehood .
9 The wise men are confounded, they are dismayed, and taken: for they have cast away the word of the Lord, and there is no wisdom in them.
10 Therefore I will give their women to strangers, their fields to others for an inheritance: because from the least even to the greatest all follow covetousness: from the prophet even to the priest, all deal deceitfully.

We all know the first five books of OT, are known as “Books of Moses”, but it is not sure who was the actual author of all these books. In the 5th “Book of Moses”, Moses is talking about his own death:

Deuteronomy
Chapter 34:5-7

**So there, in the land of Moab, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said; and he was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial. Moses was one hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were undimmed and his vigor unabated. **
[usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy34.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/deuteronomy/deuteronomy34.htm])

Obviously the author of this “Book of Moses” is not Prophet Moses. Even a child with basic common-sense can recognise the corruption.

After discussing/analysing the importance and merits of the Pentateuch [The first five “Books of Moses”]:, here is what your Catholic **New American Bible ** has to say:

"However, even this analysis of the Pentateuch is **an over-simplification ** , for it is not always possible **to distinguish with certainty ** among the various sources. The fact is that each of these individual traditions incorporates much older material. The Yahwist was himself a collector and adapter. His narrative is made up of many disparate stories that have been reoriented, and given a meaning within the context in which they now stand; e.g., the story of Abraham and Isaac in Gen 22. Within the J and P traditions one has to reckon with many individual units; these had their own history and life-setting before they were brought together into the present more or less connected narrative.

This is not to deny the role of Moses in the development of the Pentateuch. It is true we do not conceive of him as the author of the books in the modern sense. But there is no reason to doubt that, in the events described in these traditions, he had a uniquely important role, especially as lawgiver. Even the later laws which have been added in P and D are presented as a Mosaic heritage. Moses is the lawgiver par excellence, and all later legislation is conceived in his spirit, and therefore attributed to him. Hence, the reader is not held to undeviating literalness in interpreting the words, “the LORD said to Moses.” One must keep in mind that the Pentateuch is the crystallization of Israel’s age-old relationship with God.
[usccb.org/nab/bible/pentateuch.htm]](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/pentateuch.htm])

In other words, though there are things of/about/related to Moses in the Pentateuch but the text as a whole is unreliable because the author(s) is/are unknown. So this is what a learned Muslim believe that it is not a Word of God nor inspired Word of God per se

There are so many other things, I can copy-paste here. But you should study and research for yourself and I also gave you links.
Atleast what you can do is read the footnotes/introductions of your Bibles and do a comparision with other versions of the Bibles. Only this internal study will be more than enough to convince you BIble’s corruption.

Last thing, I will show you…

cont.​
 
Last thing, I will show you what Catholic Encyclopedia has to about the New Testament (under a subtitle:TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT):

IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT
** No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author–all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the scared writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence. More than 150,000 different readings have been found in the older witnesses to the text of the New Testament–which in itself is a proof that Scriptures are not the only, nor the principal, means of revelation. In the concrete order of the present economy God had only to prevent any such alteration of the sacred texts as would put the Church in the moral necessity of announcing with certainty as the word of God what in reality was only a human utterance. Let us say, however, from the start, that the substantial tenor of the sacred text has not been altered, not withstanding the uncertainty which hangs over some more or less long and more or less important historical or dogmatical passages. Moreover–and this is very important–these alterations are not irremediable; we can at least very often, by studying the variants of the texts, eliminate the defective readings and thus re-establish the primitive text. This is the object of textual criticism.**[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm])
[CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: New Testament]](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm#IV])

Not to mention many footnotes such as:
**((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.)) **
[Mark 16:9-20; NIV - [The earliest manuscripts and some - Bible Gateway]](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark 16:9-20;&version=31;])

or:

a. **1 John 5:8 Late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century) **

[1 john 5; NIV - Faith in the Incarnate Son of God - Bible Gateway]](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1 john 5;&version=31;#fen-NIV-30617a])

God Bless you.​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top