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: The Holy Gospel did not evolve! Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 74 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 22 May 2011 at 8:21pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Sure, go ahead, but I'm not sure if it would be understood out of context.


Perhaps you are right.  In any case, it was a good statement.

In an attempt to return to the topic at hand and not Jack's insecurities, everyone who wants to participate in this thread should post only if it has to do with the actual topic.  We have gotten off track here, and I think it may be deliberate on Jack's part.  It is getting more and more obvious that he at least does not have any response to the points raised.  Perhaps someone else does.   
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 23 May 2011 at 2:16pm

Dear Ron,

I asked, "Do you never stand up for others, Ron?

You responded with, "That's what I'm doing right now.  Islamispeace has done nothing in this discussion that justifies your animosity toward him."

Right.
 
You continued, "From where I sit, it sure looks like you are grasping at this straw because you have no good answer to the points he has raised."
 
That's nice.
 
You concluded, "In that case, IMHO he wins by default."
 
Congratulations to him.  How about you take up his assertions if you think they are winners, and we'll see just how far you get with them...
 
I then asked, "Cognitive dissonance?"

You responded with, "Look it up."

I am about as interested in this phrase as you seem to be by the effort you put into writing a definition for the term.  Prove to me that the Holy Bible evolved.  So far, you have failed.  Use IslamisPeace's arguements if you think so highly of them.  If you don't take them up, then you do not have confidence in them as winners, as I do not. 
I'll be waiting.
 
Jack Catholic
 


Edited by Jack Catholic - 23 May 2011 at 2:20pm
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2256
Quote islamispeace Replybullet Posted: 25 May 2011 at 2:23pm
All this denial in the face of the evidence by certain parties is like the following:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2Rdf0n_Lsg

Denial or no denial, Kevin Bacon was indeed in "Footloose" and the Gospels have indeed evolved.  LOL

Seriously though, the evidence is here.  Perhaps people who still believe the Gospels have not evolved should respond to this evidence instead of stalling and wasting time with meaningless posts. 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2425
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 25 May 2011 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by Jack Catholic

Dear Hasan,
 
I have seen Protestant versions of the Holy Bible in my life time being rewritten and changed to make them "more accurate," and some of these are what I have seen used in Christian Muslim debates on U-Tube, and refered to here on Islamicity Forums, but I have never seen a Catholic version of the Holy Bible which has been rewritten such that the meaning has been changed.  Can you show me some verses of a Catholic version of the Holy Bible which has been altered since, say, 800 years ago, or perhaps since 1500 years ago?  I'll eagerly await...
 
You wrote, "And you know if anything contradicts, it cannot be from God, period."
 
What does this mean when applied to the Holy Qur'an, which is known to contain contradictions? 
 
Example:   in Sura 2:97 the Qur'an claims to be a confirmation of the earlier revelation (as it does in many other verses), while in Sura 16:101 the Qur'an is viewed as "substituting" the earlier revelations. And the people call him a forgerer exactly because it does not fit together with the established revelation of God."
 
If contradiction in the Holy Qur'an does not nullify the Holy Qur'ans being from God, how can one say that the same does nullify the Holy Bible's comming from God?  Think about it...
 
God Bless you, Hasan,
 
Jack Catholic
Jack,
first, let us not jump into a different boat, let us keep with the topic on hand. However, I do not mean to make you feel that you have a point neither, because you don't. What you are refering to from the Quran in those two verses is talking of same thing, only that one is confirming that those earlier scriptures are not false but from God, while the second verse you quoted refers to those revelations came in succession, one followed by another, all from God.
In 2:97 we are told that earlier scriptures like Gospel and Torah were from God. And that is to make it clear for believers that it was God who sent those books before to prophets that came before, simple as that.
The second quote you are reffering to simply says the same thing that God sents one revelation followed by another. For example the revelation that God sent through David (pbuh), the Torah was for that particular era. Then God sent a new revelation Gospel, through another teacher or a prophet, Prophet Jesus (bpuh) for that era. Similarly, God sent the Quran through Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) and declared it to be the Final revelation sent to guide all mankind till the end of this world. We, those of us who live after its revelation, fall under its jurisdiction and will be judged by it regarless of our acceptance or rejection of it as God's revelation, according to which we are to shapr our lives.
 
Now going back to the subject, let me first explain what I mean by a contradiction. Quran says God is One, who is not born of anyone nor God has any physical children. Now the Quran is consistant with that teaching.
The Bible as we know it today, teaches that God is One, but it does not stay consistant with that, in particular when my Christian friends like you insist that God has a son, a physical son, who is sitting next to him as God?
The Quran says, God does not have a equal, there is no one who is like God. You would not find anything in the Quran that will contradict that teaching.
You and those who believe like you say that God's son who is also God, is equal to God. And antother being called "Holy Gost" is also God, who is equal to God. Unfortunately for you again, the Bible contradicts that claim too. Upon studying you will find that the same Bible says that neither the "Son of God" nor the "Holy Ghost" are equal to God instead they are subject to God, and dependent upon God, while God does not depend on anyone as we the beleivers believe.
Quran says that salvation is achieved through submission to the will of God, folowing His commands and seeking His forgiveness. The Quran is consistant with that teachings throughout.
You and those who believe like you claim God came on earth to kill himself so people like you could be redeemed of their sins and forgiven.  But when you read the Bible you find things that contradict that teachings. Anyone who knows the Bible a bit will know that all of what I wrote above is 100% correct.
 
You admit of Protestant Bible evolving, but before the split, Bible had gone similar transformation by major rewriting phases. Nobody,  but God knows of exact changes, but we do see clearly that there has been changes of which you yourself admit in case of Protestant Bible. If you are not fimiliar with those majot rewriting phases of the Bible under 'mother church" please let me know, I will point out of what I know.
 
Truth is the only thing, accepting of which is the only guarantee toward the salvation.
Hasan
 


Edited by honeto - 25 May 2011 at 3:22pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 25 May 2011 at 8:45pm
Dear Hasan,
 
About the "contradictions" of the Blessed Trinity, which are truly off topic as you rightly said that the contradictions of the Holy Qur'an are, I'd simply like to point out to those who, like you said, know a "little" about the bible that what appears to be contradiction truly is not.  My evidence follows from a poem called, "The Blind Men and the Elephant," by John Godfrey Saxe.  The point I am trying to make by sharing part of this entertaining poem is that what appears to be contradiction is truly the correct observation of the item in question (the elephant), but with incorrect conclusions:
 
"It was six men of Hindustan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind)
That each by observation
Might satisfy the mind."

"The First approached the Elephant
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side
At once began to bawl:
“Bless me, it seems the Elephant
Is very like a wall.”

"The Second, feeling of his tusk,
Cried, “Ho! What have we here
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear.”

"The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Then boldly up and spake:
“I see,” quoth he, “the Elephant
Is very like a snake.”

In this poem, each observation was entirely correct, and the comparison was also correct, though to one who knows only a little about the elephant, the poem appears to contain contradictions.  Now to one who truly "knows" the elephant, the observations definately are not contradictions, but truly reveal  the full elephant (read the whole poem to see this for yourself).  And so it is with the New Testament of the Holy Bible.  What appears to you who knows a "little" about NT to be a contradiction, to me the same is but a revealing of the full mysteriousness of Yahweh, whom you call Allah.  But I wont go into this more, as it truly is a digression.
 
Yes, I am interested in those major rewriting phases under "Mother Church," as I have never heard of such things.  You would do me a favor in sharing what you know so that I might investigate the truth a little further.
 
Thank you, Hasan, and God Bless you,
 
Jack Catholic 
IP IP Logged
honeto
 
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 20 March 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2425
Quote honeto Replybullet Posted: 26 May 2011 at 11:30am
Dear Jack,
you can only compare a man's work (the poem above)  with other men's work, and I have no comments on that.
 
Let me ask you this, what makes you to conclude that Protestant Bible has evolved and what makes you think that the Catholic Bible did not?
 
As far as my take on the fact that Bible, Catholic or otherwise has evolved, changed, altered or trannsformed from being books that were God's revelations to what men put together based on their own capacities, interests and intentions many centuries later.
These are the words of a Catholic source regarding the history of 'the Bible':
"The original writings from the Apostles themselves (the autographs) no longer exist. This is due partly to the perishable material (papyrus) used by the writers, and partly to the fact that the Roman emperors decreed the destruction of the sacred books of the Christians (Edict of Diocletian, A.D. 303). "
In 382 Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome, the leading biblical scholar of his day, to produce an acceptable Latin translation of the Bible from the several divergent translations then in use. His revised Latin translation of the Gospels was delivered to the Pope in 384.Later, he decided the Septuagint was unsatisfactory and began translating the entire Old Testament from the original Hebrew, completing it ~405. The remainder of the New Testament was from older Latin versions, perhaps slightly revised by Jerome.
Jack, the fact is that there is so much information out there on the internet most of which is in agreement with the fact that changes, alterations, substractions, additions took place. And since we don't have an original to go back to, to see what was lost, we cannot be certain which part is original and which is not. But one thing is certain after all this fact finding that there is no original, and what is left with us is altered versions based on fact that there are descripencies. Now it is up to the person, the individual to decide after knowing the facts which way they want to go, for which they will be held responsible.
 
For a believer like myself, who is not interested in scholarly perspective, rather simple facts and simple truth enough to make one a believer, just a few such facts are enough to differentiate between what is trustworthy vs what is doubtfull. If there is any doubt in something, wise move would be to leave it instead of sticking to it.
 
Here is some more of what I read:

(1.) The Revision of the Old Latin Version of the N. T. —15. Jerome had not been long at Rome (a.d. 383) when Damasus consulted him on points of Scriptural criticism (Ep. xix. " Dilectionis tuae est ut ardenti illo strenuitatis ingenio … vivo sensu scribas"). The answers which he received (Epp. xx., xxi.) may well have encouraged him to seek for greater services; and apparently in the same year he applied to Jerome for a revision of the current Latin Version of the N. T. by the help of the Greek original. Jerome was fully sensible of the prejudices which such a work would excite among those "who thought that ignorance was holiness" (Ep. ad Marc, xxvii.), but the need of it was urgent. "There were," he says, "almost as many forms of text as copies" ("tot sunt exemplaria pene quot codices," Praef. in Evv.). Mistakes had been introduced "by false transcription, by clumsy corrections, and by careless interpolation" (id. ), and in the confusion which had ensued the one remedy was to go back to the original source (Graeca veritas, Graeca origo). The Gospels had naturally suffered most. Thoughtless scribes inserted additional details in the narrative from the parallels, and changed the forms of expression to those with which they had been originally familiarized (id.). Jerome therefore applied himself to these first ("haec praesens praefatiuncula pollicetur quatuor tantum Evangelia"). But his aim was to revise the Old Latin, and not to make a new version. When Augustine expressed to him his gratitude for "his translation of the Gospel" (Ep. civ. 6, "non parvas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quo Evangelium ex Graeco interpretatus es"), he tacitly corrected him by substituting for this phrase "the correction of the N. T." (Ep. cxii. 20, "Si me, ut dicis, in N. T. emendatione suscipis …."). For this purpose he collated early Greek MSS., and preserved the current rendering wherever the sense was not injured by it ("… Evangelia … codicum Graecorum emendata collatione sed veterum. Quae ne multum a lectionis Latinae consuetudine discreparent, ita calamo temperavimus (all. imperavimus) ut his tantum quae sensum videbantur mutare, correctis, reliqua manere pateremur ut fuerant;" Praef. ad Dam.). Yet although he proposed to himself this limited object, the various forms of corruption which had been introduced were, as he describes, so numerous that the difference of the Old and Revised (Hieronymian) text is throughout clear and striking. 

I only mean to show you what is a fact out there, I don't know what is in your heart, and I don't mean to argue with you on this. I am 100% convinced based on these facts about the history of the NT, that it did go through transformation, evolution or whatever you call it where humans were invloved in rewriting, altering, erasing, adding, reinterpreting its contents. In my believe it is this transformation that makes it void to be taken as God's word. Because God forbade men to change His Word.
Also as a proof of such transformation in the case of the NT we see such a huge number of inconsistenties only characteristics of human mind, and not of the Devine, who knows All, and do not contradict.
May God guide to teh right path those of us who really seek it from Him, Ameen.
 
Hasan 


Edited by honeto - 26 May 2011 at 12:15pm
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"
IP IP Logged
Jack Catholic
Male Christian
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 24 March 2010
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 369
Quote Jack Catholic Replybullet Posted: 27 May 2011 at 12:04am

Dear Hasan,

You asked me, "Let me ask you this, what makes you to conclude that Protestant Bible has evolved and what makes you think that the Catholic Bible did not?"
 
My answer:  "I don't believe either has evolved.  No one has been able to show conclusive proof that it has."
 
Though the poem be man's work, it is no more man's work than the "Catholic source regarding the history of 'the Bible' which you have quoted.  If you see no value in the poem I used to illustrate a point, than by the same reasoning, we may not see any value in the "man's work" you use as a source to prove that the Holy Bible evolved.
 
The poem shows how the observations of men might appear to be contradicting, when in reality they do not, but rather they do reveal different aspect of one and the same truth.
 
About "man's work," how can you be sure that the Holy Qur'an is not "man's work?"  With all due respect to Islam, Muhammad was a man and the words that came out of his mouth were man's recolection of what he thought God had told him.  Muhammad often could not remember what he had said were the words of God at earlier times.  He often had to be reminded by others as to what he had said before. 
 
Another thing about "man's work." Those who memorized what Muhammad had said did not really agree.  There were  four different versions of the Holy Qur'an when the man Uthman (I say man, because that is what he is) compiled his "correct" version (man's work) of the Qur'an and burned the others.  The others were compiled by Mas'ud, Ubuyy B. Ka'ab, Hafsa, and Zaid.   When Uthman compiled his "correct" version, he used Zaid's version as a source (Zaid who had spent less time with Muhammad than the other three), then when he was finished, he ordered the other versions be collected and burnt.  Mas'ud responded to the command to have his version burnt,

"How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?" "Am I," asks Abdullah, "to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?" (Masahif" by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

So from all of this I ask you why you will accept "man's work" in your religion, but not acept it in discussion on any other religion and its truthfulness?
 
The poem's purpose is to show that what sounds like contradiction to one with only a "few facts" is really not to one who takes the time to know more than just a "few facts."
 
You said, "For a believer like myself, who is not interested in scholarly perspective, rather simple facts and simple truth enough to make one a believer, just a few such facts are enough to differentiate between what is trustworthy vs what is doubtfull."
 
I challange you to know more than just a few simple facts about both Muhammad, the angel he spoke to, and the book that we call the Holy Qur'an.  Perhaps these are not what you think they are.  And the Holy Bible and the Holy Trinity, I challange you to know more than just a "few facts."  Perhaps these are not eactly what your "just a few facts" have led you to believe.
 
The quote you read to me about St. Jerome does not show evolution of the Holy Bible so much as to me it tells the story of one who is working with source material to make sure that his work is accurate.  What a different conclusion I get from the same data that you looked at.  Sounds a lot like the story of the "Six Men of Hindustan Who Went To See the Elephant," doesn't it?
 
Can you show me by analysis how the quote you gave is evidence of evolution and not evidence of improving the accuracy of St. Jerome's work?
 
Upon rereading my post, I must say that I hope you do not take offense at the wording of my post, or think that I am angrey, for I am not.
 
Hey, God Bless you, Hasan, as always,
 
Jack Catholic
IP IP Logged
Ron Webb
Male Humanism
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 January 2008
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1827
Quote Ron Webb Replybullet Posted: 27 May 2011 at 10:26pm

Originally posted by Jack Catholic

The poem shows how the observations of men might appear to be contradicting, when in reality they do not, but rather they do reveal different aspect of one and the same truth.

I have read that little story before, though never as a poem and I don't think ever as an analogy for the Trinity.  It's somewhat amusing to use it in this context because in fact each of the six men is wrong.  None of them is describing the elephant; each is describing only a part of the elephant.  Therefore the analogy only works if you assume that it is wrong to describe Jesus as God.  He is no more God than a tusk or a tail is an elephant.  He is only a part of God, and a distinct part from the Father and the Ghost.

That actually would make sense; but somehow I don't think it's an explanation that Catholics would agree with. Wink

Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 74 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