Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 34 Next >>
Author Message
believer
 
Guest Group
Guest Group


Joined: 08 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1397
Quote believer Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:27pm

So all the verses in the Quran about the Torah and Gospel are a lie?!?
 
 
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:52pm
"You can read the various translations of the Bible and see that the main theme exists and has not been erased or burned.  LOL!!"
 
"The criteria for being included in the NT as Scripture was – Apostleship by Jesus, writings that had already been accepted and were being read aloud in services by the believers, consistency with other Scripture and contradiction-free, writings created during the Apostolic age, and orthodoxy with Church beliefs."
 
I think you are forgetting the Apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels, some of which are used to this day by various churches, yet not deemed orthodox enough to be included in the NT. This is just another example of corruption, men picking and choosing which scriptures to include based upon what went along with Church beliefs.
 
Apostleship by Jesus? Which Apostles actually wrote the Gospels? No one knows, that is why they are titled "According to". The real authors are not known.

 



Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 02 March 2009 at 2:56pm
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Shasta'sAunt
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member


Joined: 29 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1930
Quote Shasta'sAunt Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2009 at 3:53pm
"If a massive corruption of the Bible has taken place, when did it occur? If it happened after Mohammed arrived with the Quran, that would solve one of the problems I listed above. But there were already thousands of manuscripts of the Bible we use today – all around the world by that time."
 
It doesn't have to be a "massive corruption of the Bible". Changing a few words here and there can change the entire meaning of the text. 
 
The Bible, especially the NT, has had numerous changes, some in recent history. I will give a few examples.
 
You have only to look at the King James Version:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
 
The Revised Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
 
The English Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
 
Takes on a WHOLE different meaning. But not as much as the following verses:
 
King James Version 1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
New Living Translation:
So we have these three witnesses
 
the Spirit, the water, and the blood--and all three agree.
 
Revised Standard Version:
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
 
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
 
HUGE difference......
 
All of these versions, and many more, of the Bible are currently in print and in use around the world today. Which is the actual Word of God?
 


Edited by Shasta'sAunt - 02 March 2009 at 3:54pm
“No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.”
Eleanor Roosevelt
IP IP Logged
Nur_Ilahi
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 19 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1031
Quote Nur_Ilahi Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2009 at 8:57pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis

 
5. Anybody in christian history could simply stand up and claim communication with God, and be titled a Saint, and be allowed to mix thier opinions with Christianity. After Prophet Muhammad's death, anybody claiming prophethood or sainthood is sent to the loony-bin - rather than be revered.
 
 
Chrysalis, a very good post.
 
I like those words that I highlighted in red.
 
In other words, Christians should send St Paul to the same treatment.
 
 
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 02 March 2009 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by honeto

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
Quote Mansoor_ali Replybullet Posted: 03 March 2009 at 4:11pm

 To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption in Bible?

 

The Gospel of Mark:

Note:   This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. 
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?


A new captured image of this book's corruption:

mark16_corruption.jpg%20%2854552%20bytes%29

 

(http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31;)


The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?

If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.

 

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost(From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here.  First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel".  Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person?

 
IP IP Logged
Apollos
 
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 29 January 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 426
Quote Apollos Replybullet Posted: 03 March 2009 at 7:40pm

To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption in Bible?

 

The Gospel of Mark:

Note:   This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. 
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not.

It is more likely that Matthew or one of Paul's letters is the earliest but I don't think that point is worth arguing about now. The testimony of the early church that is referred to above includes testimony from John’s disciples. I think that is very good evidence and testimony. Additionally, you are quoting a commentator’s opinion about there not being “direct internal evidence”. In other words, the text itself does not come out and say that Mark wrote this as the secretary for Peter. The contemporaries said that it was, the language style is consistent with Peter and there are several details in the account that only Peter would have known.

And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

There is no need to talk to people with different opinions on the matter when we have manuscripts and quotations of the NT books much earlier than this time. True they weren’t compiled into a collection called the NT until around this time frame but the writings themselves can be traced back much earlier. E.g. – we have a fragment of John’s gospel that is within 10-15 years of the original.


The above text reads:
"The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

There are some who believe that these verses aren’t original. But remember the amazing word patterns I mentioned? They are evident in these verses and some patterns are destroyed by removing them. I take that as an indication that they are authentic. But let’s say they aren’t and lets say at a minimum that one of the versions of Mark is corrupted. This means we have identified the area of concern and there is no reason to say “hey – everything must be corrupted!”. When we find an electrical short in a house we don’t say that. We use tools to identify the problem, fix it and in doing so confirm that the overall system is intact. If this minor “potential corruption” was all Muslims were claiming, I would say: “OK, lets talk about it”. But the type of corruption that is being asserted is massive.

Apollos

IP IP Logged
Hayfa
Female  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 07 June 2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2370
Quote Hayfa Replybullet Posted: 04 March 2009 at 10:10am
And i don't think that the Bible is an issue for most Muslims or Islam. Frankly the majority are too busy working and living to notice.
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 34 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com