The bible is corrupt?

[dolphinlove]

Ive heard time and time again on here from muslims that the bible is corrupt.
Ok, if its corrupt, show us the passages that are corrupt.
This is not a hard question to ask.
So please try and answer it.

:coffeeread:

 

[hamba2han]

Just find all of the contradicting verses in the Bible and you will then discover your corrupted passages.

 

[The_John]

Just find all of the contradicting verses in the Bible and you will then discover your corrupted passages.

So far all the contradictions within Sacred Scripture that I have found has not been found within the Bible but within the various interpretations of it.

 

[allischalmers]

Just find all of the contradicting verses in the Bible and you will then discover your corrupted passages.

Show me one, you can’t because there are none

 

[inJESUS]

If they are to quote the corrupt passages, they’ll have to quote most of the NT.

 

[a_priori]

What does "corrupt"mean in this context?

 

[hamba2han]

Show me one, you can’t because there are none

There are actually too numerous to list but to show just one passage from BibleGateway.com:

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons.
10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping.
11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.
12 Afterward Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country.
13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.
14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen.
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.
16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues;
18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”
19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God.
20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

 

[hamba2han]

BTW, Mark 16:18 says that the believers will not suffer any harm even if they “pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all”.

Are there to be found any believing Christians alive today who would care to put this verse to the test?

 

[The_John]

BTW, Mark 16:18 says that the believers will not suffer any harm even if they “pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all”.

Are there to be found any believing Christians alive today who would care to put this verse to the test?

Obviously you have have read your own literalist sense into this text, as a Catholic Christian on the other hand I have read the literal sense of the text.

In New Advent it reads

18 They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay their hand upon the sick: and they shall recover.

Again

So far all the contradictions within Sacred Scripture that I have found has not been found within the Bible but within the various interpretations of it.

 

[hamba2han]

Obviously you have have read your own literalist sense into this text, as a Catholic Christian on the other hand I have read the literal sense of the text.

In New Advent it reads

18 They shall take up serpents: and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them. They shall lay their hand upon the sick: and they shall recover.

Again

Does not this sentence mean anything at all to you?

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))

How can you place your faith in a passage which is NOT to be found in the most reliable early manuscripts of your scripture?

 

[inJESUS]

Does not this sentence mean anything at all to you?

Absolutely not first because not all manuscripts are full manuscripts.The manuscripts that contain it are nearly as old as the manuscripts that don’t. So, argument from silence. You read a sentence and you think it’s the end of the world. This is called textual criticism where the absence of something in some manuscripts does not mean they are not authentic. There are much more criterias to determine authenticity, includind citations, translations, and other manuscripts.

In Favour of Mark 16:9-20

Codex Alexandrinus (A) - (5th c. uncial, Byzantine in Gospels)

Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) - (5th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (D) - (5th/6th c. uncial, Western)

K (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

W (5th c. uncial, generally thought to be Caesarean in Mark 5:31-16:20)

X (10th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Delta (9th c. uncial, Alexandrian)

Theta (9th c. uncial, Caesarean)

Pi (9th c. uncial, Byzantine)

f1 and f13 (total of 16 Caesarean texts, 11th-14th c.)

28 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

33 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

565 (9th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

700 (11th c. miniscule, Caesarean)

892 (9th c. miniscule, Alexandrian)

1010 (12th c. miniscule, Byzantine)

The Byzantine textual set

Some of the Greek lectionaries

and more importantly, we refer to the Church Fathers. Irenaeus quotes Mark 16:19 (~177 AD), and Tatian the Assyrian included the ending in his Diatesseron, (~175 AD). Tertullian refers to Mark 16:19 around 215 AD, and Tregelles reports that Hippolytus (~235 AD) quotes Mark 16:18-19 at least twice. In Cyprian’s account of the 7th Council of Carthage (256 AD), he records a strong allusion made by Vincentus of Thibarus to Mark 16:17-1818. The Apostolic Constitutions (3rd-4th c. AD) quote Mark 16:1619, as well as alluding to Mark 16:15 twice.

So should we believe the church fathers citations in addition to many manuscripts or arguments from silence?

 

[inJESUS]

Since Muslims have difficulty understanding that Jesus left no book but a Church in different lands established by different apostles, surely it doesn’t dawn to them that we rely on the Church fathers of different lands and churches for our faith, not merely on the NT because the apostles weren’t distributing books but preaching and sending letters and appointing disciples after them who as well kept the tradition, that is why it is called Petristic tradition.

Yet Muslims think that if some manuscripts lack this or that, then it’s a proof of whatever. Poor historical studies and ignorance of the Church in addition to relying on Muhammad’s mistake that Jesus was given a book. Lack of history and ignorance are a leathal weapon.

 

[inJESUS]

What happens if a Quranic aya is missing according to an authentic hadith? teh Islamic myth of preservation collapses and hence the Quran collapses.

Allah sent Muhammad (saw) with the Truth and revealed the Holy Book to him, and among what Allah revealed, was the Verse of the Rajam (the stoning of married persons, male and female, who commit adultery) and we did recite this Verse and understood and memorized it. Allah’s Apostle (saw) did carry out the punishment of stoning and so did we after him. I am afraid that after a long time has passed, somebody will say, ‘By Allah, we do not find the Verse of the Rajam in Allah’s Book’, and thus they will go astray by leaving an obligation which Allah has revealed. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 8, p.539).

To avoid the problem, some will tell you this verse is not in the Quran because it was abrogated ! which begs the question, why are the other abrogated verses still in the Quran?

Our faith does not rely on what Muslims rely on otherwise their book is doomed. Our faith relies on the Church Jesus established. Either you believe the apostles who established the Church in different lands , or you don’t; therefore either you trust in the testimony of these apostles passed by the Church, or you don’t. We do because we believe in Jesus and His apostes and his promise ; Muslims don’t because they follow a man who had nothing to do neither with the apostles nor apostolic fathers nor apostolic churches nor anything apostolic.

So when a Muslim will have difficulty accepting his own literature proving the changes in the Quran which might damage the Quran itself, we Christians have a totally different idea of scriptures and revelation and preservation and arguments like the ones presented by Hamba2han pose absolutely no threat to our faith…but since Most Muslims are ignorant of the Church history, it’s no surprise they keep bringing up things to which our eyes don’t even blink and which are deemed very important by Muslims because they apply their standards, not ours, and they happen to be ignorant about the Church history, thanks to Muhammad who told them Jesus was given a book.

 

[Eucharisted]

I think it’s hilarious that the only corrupt thing about the Bible is the way Muslims interpret its verses - such as the Islamic claim that the Paraclete (Advocate) which Jesus speaks of is Mohammed.

 

[inJESUS]

I think it’s hilarious that the only corrupt thing about the Bible is the way Muslims interpret its passages - such as them saying the Paraclete is Mohammed.

actually they have a dilema. On the one hand the Quran says Muhammad is found in the previous scriptures, on the other hand they claim the Bible is corrupt. In other words, the best Allah could do to Muhammad is to prove his mission from a corrupt book that is why they don’t have problem attributing divinity to Muhammad if he were the paraclete just because they need to find about him somewhere…or maybe the Paraclete passages are half corrupt half valid and Allah knows best.

 

[The_John]

Does not this sentence mean anything at all to you?

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do NOT have Mark 16:9-20.))

How can you place your faith in a passage which is NOT to be found in the most reliable early manuscripts of your scripture?

First - What is the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses that do not have and or support Mark 16:9-20?

Second - The only thing wrong with Mark 16:9-20 is from your interpretation of it - it seems you have taken a literalist sense of the verses while the Catholic Church understands and teaches the literal sense of the verses.

Third - I do not place my faith in any passage alone but within the Church and the apostolic witness of the good news of Jesus Christ. It is through this faith that I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Snow]

Show me one, you can’t because there are none

II Kings 24:8
Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he became King and he reigned three months in Jerusalem
II Chronicles 36:9
Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem

 

[Snow]

What does "corrupt"mean in this context?

It generally refers to changes or alterations to the original text that occur during the transmission… copying, translating, etc, both deliberate and unintentional.

 

[Dameedna]

Obviously you have have read your own literalist sense into this text, as a Catholic Christian on the other hand I have read the literal sense of the text.

So a literalist sense is not real until you claim you are catholic?

What is a literalist sense then?

 

[Snow]

First - What is the most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses that do not have and or support Mark 16:9-20?

“16:9-20 The Ending(s) of Mark. Four endings of the Gospel according to Mark are current in the manuscripts. (1) The last twelve verses of the commonly received text of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts (א and B), from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis (it k), the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts (written A.D. 897 and A.D. 913). Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses; furthermore Eusebius and Jerome attest that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them. The original form of the Eusebian sections (drawn up by Ammonius) makes no provision for numbering sections of the text after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts which contain the passage have scribal notes stating that older Greek copies lack it, and in other witnesses the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional signs used by copyists to indicate a spurious addition to a document.” Bruce Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart, 1971), pages 122-126.

Second - The only thing wrong with Mark 16:9-20 is from your interpretation of it - it seems you have taken a literalist sense of the verses while the Catholic Church understands and teaches the literal sense of the verses.

No - that’s not what’s wrong with it. At issue is whether or not it is an interpolation.