Is the bible today the true word of God?

[pandora]

Quote

Lool you are something all that and I have not answered your questions?? You do not even know who wrote your bible I asked you, no answer
I asked you where the original gone no answer
I asked you where did Jesus claim divinity no answer, and then you tell me where are my answers??

Thanks for explaining the meaning behind those verses, long answer to tell me what I heard from Christians before it is parable or metaphor, anything in the bible cause a problem it is parable or metaphor

How about answering my questions now??

So please stop avoiding the answer and address these points, I will not answer anything else until you address these points.

Here we are again
Now at which stage is it inspired and infallible

The scribe stage
The translation stage
Then who decide what goes on in the bible

So it which stage the bible is inspired, and infallible free from errors and contradictions?

According to Christians themselves each stage contained errors, if you want examples I can give you, many.

Let’s say for the sake of argument each stage was free from errors and reached us perfect, no errors or contradictions.

Then we have the New Testament that raises loads of other questions

• The early Church Fathers. (they didn't consider New Testament as inspired scripture!)
• who are the gospels writers? We have first names but nobody is sure who are they?
• Who is John in particular? chapter 21 assumed by another author by that particular chapter at least
• Do you have any original manuscripts left??? None, apart from one fragment small with couple line in it !!! Just one out of thousands!
• “Of the approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree exactly in all particulars. Confronted by a mass of conflicting readings, editors and translators had to decide which variants deserve to be included in the text and which should be relegated to textual notes”

And there are many more points, I can write without even pin pointing the many errors and contradictions.

The fact that Jesus never claimed divinity in all his sayings.

I am sure you will go off topic again !

Ok..my patience at an end.. Forget it Huria. You cannot play fair. You ridicule scripture, you make ridiculous claims with no evidence.. And when asked to bring proof that you say you have to hand then you will not do so. Three little questions I ask.. Just three. Yet you bombard me with a long list of points and demand I answer each and everyone. If I do answer you dismiss it out of hand.!!!! I thought we could have got somewhere and achieved some level of understanding through dialogue. I see now that is not your aim.

What on earth is the point you want to make.? If I say "oh you are right and the Bible has errors because men wrote the words" will you then answer by questions? NO.. I don't believe you will because you have nothing. No proof of your claims of Bible corruption because no proof exists except that which is born in your minds.

Get this.. It doesn't matter to a Christian what muslims think or believe about the Bible. Because it means nothing to you... Yet means everything to us. To you your Book to me mine..

I wish you well on your chosen path. Peace.

[pandora]

Quote

Here we are again
Now at which stage is it inspired and infallible

The scribe stage
The translation stage
Then who decide what goes on in the bible

So it which stage the bible is inspired, and infallible free from errors and contradictions?

The Bible itself claims to be written under “Inspiration” from the Holy Spirit. God revealed Himself through Prophets to speak to a much larger audience.... Mankind. In the same way some one would pick up a pen as an instrument to achieve a goal.. The pen becomes the tool in the hand of the writer, the prophet is God’s pen in revelation. To illustrate ... if I wrote my name on a piece of paper with a pen... who wrote the name? Me or the pen?... The pen does not have the power to write on its own thus I am the force or spirit behind the pen..just as God is the Force or Spirit behind the Prophets. The Holy Spirit is the means by which God conveys understanding.

We've already established the Bible ( unlike the Quran) is a collection of books. As the prophets received revelation the books were collected in manuscript form. The original manuscript, written by the prophet is known as the autograph. The autograph is inspired by God from the first generation. The autograph is then copied to additional manuscripts. As the manuscripts wear out over time from use and environment.... the manuscript is again copied onto a new scroll. This process of copying the old manuscript to a new manuscript is known as manuscript transmission. Over a period of time the manuscripts from accepted prophets were collected. This collection of manuscripts is known to us as the Bible.... Which is what we have today.. Whatever you may think or believe to the contrary. You quibble about words changed here and there and seek to show this in some way proves the Bible has been changed to the extent that the original message has been lost.. Or changed beyond recognition. You have no proof of this what so ever. Do you even ask yourself how man could even achieve a hoax on this scale? Even in today's world it would be an impossible task as the sheer number of manuscripts available are held in different locations by different groups of people. Imagine 2000 years ago it would be an even bigger ask. But the biggest obstacle of all in your premise.. And the most obvious.. Is that to believe this claim that the Bible has been changed means one has to view God as an impotent, weak God unable to protect His word from change by His creation!!!! Do you not see how ludicrous a scenario that is?

The Bible can only have been produced under divine inspiration.. Mankind could not have produced a coherent account of Creation.. Mankind's fall and Gods ultimate plan for our redemption to bring us back to where we were always meant to be with God the Father... Without the will of God... Without the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit and without His Word Jesus... That's what we have in the Bible. There are no contradictions in the Word of God that effect the central theme of His message.

BTW... God decides everything.

Peace.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

You quibble about words changed here and there and seek to show this in some way proves the Bible has been changed to the extent that the original message has been lost.. Or changed beyond recognition. You have no proof of this what so ever. Do you even ask yourself how man could even achieve a hoax on this scale? Even in today's world it would be an impossible task as the sheer number of manuscripts available are held in different locations by different groups of people. Imagine 2000 years ago it would be an even bigger ask.

Actually Muslims don't say that the original message has been FULLY lost, yes corruption occurred either by addition or omitting or substitution, but there is still some truth either in the Bible or in other non canonical books, which is another issue of the basis of your canon, but it is not our subject now, actually there is a clear gap in manuscripts which is about 150 years between the time of Jesus and the age of the oldest present manuscript, which is not accepted in Islamic standards as we don't know what happened to the scriptures during this time which is really a long period of time, especially when we find other issues proving corruption.

Quote

But the biggest obstacle of all in your premise.. And the most obvious.. Is that to believe this claim that the Bible has been changed means one has to view God as an impotent, weak God unable to protect His word from change by His creation!!!! Do you not see how ludicrous a scenario that is?

Well, there is no promise by God that He shall protect the Torah or the Gospel, but He promised to protect the Quran, and when He talked about the Torah and Gospel, He told that He left this mission to the People of the Book to test them:
44. Surely, WE sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to US, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of ALLAH, and because they were guardians over it. . (Holy Quran 5:44)
And this was very clear even in the Bible itself:
Deu 4:1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you. Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
This verse clearly tells that corruption in the Bible can happen, and it is not impossible because if it was impossible, there would have been no need that God warns them against it. The same as God ordered us not to murder or steal, does this mean that if someone murdered or stole that God is impotent or that He cannot control His creatures?

[pandora]

Quote

Actually Muslims don't say that the original message has been FULLY lost, yes corruption occurred either by addition or omitting or substitution, but there is still some truth either in the Bible or in other non canonical books, which is another issue of the basis of your canon, but it is not our subject now, actually there is a clear gap in manuscripts which is about 150 years between the time of Jesus and the age of the oldest present manuscript, which is not accepted in Islamic standards as we don't know what happened to the scriptures during this time which is really a long period of time, especially when we find other issues proving corruption.

And you see no problem at all with this belief you have? The question has to come back to how do you prove what was changed, by whom and indeed why? I do not understand how you do not see that these are important questions to ask. I have faith in God who I believe is well able to protect His message... That's all His message.. It is just not logical to suppose that God could protect some of His message yet allow some to be corrupted.. There by leaving us without correct guidance. Why would a Holy God do this? As a test?? That is even more illogical.. Seeing as God is omniscient God would know the outcome thus rendering the test obsolete before it started.. You are right, this is not about Bible canon.. So leave that for another time. Yet you continue to miss the point that Gods message cannot be changed. The onus is rather on yourselves to prove these claims you make against the Bible since I have the utmost faith that the core message the Bible contains is unaltered in essence from its conception and for all eternity.
Gap in manuscripts of 150 years? Really... I respectfully ask you to read the link I provide here :

http://www.normgeisler.com/articles/...0Testament.pdf

Quote

Well, there is no promise by God that He shall protect the Torah or the Gospel, but He promised to protect the Quran, and when He talked about the Torah and Gospel, He told that He left this mission to the People of the Book to test them:
44. Surely, WE sent down the Torah wherein was guidance and light. By it did the Prophets, who were obedient to US, judge for the Jews, as did the godly people and those learned in the Law, because they were required to preserve the Book of ALLAH, and because they were guardians over it. . (Holy Quran 5:44)
And this was very clear even in the Bible itself:
Deu 4:1 And now, O Israel, hearken unto the statutes and unto the ordinances, which I teach you, to do them; that ye may live, and go in and possess the land which Jehovah, the God of your fathers, giveth you. Deu 4:2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of Jehovah your God which I command you.
This verse clearly tells that corruption in the Bible can happen, and it is not impossible because if it was impossible, there would have been no need that God warns them against it. The same as God ordered us not to murder or steal, does this mean that if someone murdered or stole that God is impotent or that He cannot control His creatures?

I really do not see how you come to that conclusion from that verse.. It is plainly admonishing any who believe they can change Gods words with impunity. God gave man free will, we are at the mercy of Satan who lords over this world even when we do not realise it.. There is a world of difference between man sinning.. (Which we all do every day.. Even small sins are a weight against us.. ) and God choosing not to protect His word when it's quite clear throughout the Bible that God claims His word is incorruptible and will last for eternity,

Peter 1:23 "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and abideth forever."
Psalm 12:6-7 "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation forever."
Ps. 111:7-8 "The works of his hands are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness."
Is. 40:8 "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."
Ps. 117:2 "... the truth of the Lord endureth for ever. Praise ye the Lord."
Ps. 119:152 "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that thou hast founded them for ever."
Ps 119:160 "Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

We also have the Living Word of God Jesus who said..

Matthew 24:35 "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

I wonder that mankind puts too much emphasis on the written word and in the process losing the most important aspect of the message. Personally, I don't stress as much importance on the written words as the message those words convey.. They were conveyed by men.. Albeit men inspired by God but men none the less. God knows our weakness so surely would ensure that words alone are not all there is to God. Don't misunderstand, I enjoy reading my Bible and it brings me great peace and understanding.. My guidance comes from the living Gospel that is Jesus... And that truly brings me closer to God.

Peace.

am I to continue with Huria's questions? Or has Huria given up? Or maybe Huria is preparing his evidence. :)

[huria]

Pandora in another thread says

Quote

Honestly, a tip for you. Do not use the King James Version..at least not the original version if you have to use it at all choose the revised version. King James no doubt meant well, but there are many textual errors.. Hence why it's been revised :) you should cross reference with other translations if you wish to compare. I doubt you would find any great degree of difference in the central message. Which is what Gods word is about.. The message.. And that is something that cannot be corrupted by the hands of men. I know that because God makes that claim. . .

So translations contain errors, you consider these translations word of God.
Let me see how the central message cannot be lost if we omit a word from that sentence
The verse says I am NOT God
Translators will translate it I am God
No central meaning lost here!!

[pandora]

Quote

Pandora in another thread says



So translations contain errors, you consider these translations word of God.
Let me see how the central message cannot be lost if we omit a word from that sentence
The verse says I am NOT God
Translators will translate it I am God
No central meaning lost here!!

Huria, enough already, you are being ridiculous!!! Muslims claim for the Quran that the original Quran in Arabic is the defining one and all translations into other languages are to be known as translations. As Arabic does not have some of the equivalent words in say .. English for example. Would that be considered a textual error or variation? Does that possible textual variant detract in any way from the central message of the Quran?

Yet somehow you see textual variants in translations of the Bible somehow completely changes and corrupts the central message to such an extent that God had to send another Prophet with a completely different central message. That may be ok for Allah but it sure does not apply to YHWH the God all the Prophets worshipped... YHWH is all powerful and perfectly able to protect His message from corruption from His humble creation... Man.

All Gods words in their Original form are true and their message is incorruptible. We have faith in God to stand by His Word.. Jesus..and His message remains the same no matter what words of men are used. You can take that to the bank!!!!

Are we done here?

Peace

[pandora]

@ Huria.. In continuation of your many questions... :)

Quote

Then we have the New Testament that raises loads of other questions

• The early Church Fathers. (they didn't consider New Testament as inspired scripture!)
• who are the gospels writers? We have first names but nobody is sure who are they?
• Who is John in particular? chapter 21 assumed by another author by that particular chapter at least
• Do you have any original manuscripts left??? None, apart from one fragment small with couple line in it !!! Just one out of thousands!
• “Of the approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

exactly in all particulars. Confronted by a mass of conflicting readings, editors and translators had to decide which variants deserve to be included in the text and which should be relegated to textual notes”

With regards to the topic of manuscript evidence, I feel there is enough said already on this and other recent threads. So I don't feel there is anything to be gained by travelling old ground on that one. Case in point, the Bible still holds greater manuscript evidence than any other work of its kind and antiquity ... Including the Quran. So maybe it would be more productive to look at what we do have rather than what you assume to be missing.

With regards to the Early Church Fathers, I confess it is not a topic I know a great deal about... So on this occasion I beg your leave to resort to a copy and paste job and attach an article which I feel explains the role of the Early Church Fathers in a fairly clear and concise way.

Question: "Who were the early church fathers?"


Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.


The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.


The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.


So, what did the early church fathers believe? The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them. The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church. The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.


The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry. Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these spurious documents was evident. If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church. So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.


The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”


The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/early-ch...#ixzz32NxGCrix

There is a wealth of agreement that the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century. Could you maybe pinpoint what you are aiming at? Do you mean because this Gospel claims to be an eye witness account.. Believed to be .. The Disciple whom Jesus loved... Well, the Bible does claim the Jesus was probably closest to John. We may never know for certain but many theologians throughout the ages maintain that John should be attributed to John the Disciple of Jesus.




If we're going to dispute the position that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John we need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is there a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship? Sometimes one just has to have faith that if something seems right.. Then chances are it is probably right.. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary.

To to be continued.....

[Burninglight]

Well said. The Point is that even though there are differences in the 5000 Greek copies; the differences are insignificant to the central gospel message. At least we have the copies to compare and contrast. We didn't have a Christian Uthman who burned all original copies so we could check and get the gist of the doctrine intended. But keep in mind none of the differences a significant. They all agree Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and is the only way of salvation.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

Well said. The Point is that even though there are differences in the 5000 Greek copies; the differences are insignificant to the central gospel message. At least we have the copies to compare and contrast. We didn't have a Christian Uthman who burned all original copies so we could check and get the gist of the doctrine intended. But keep in mind none of the differences a significant. They all agree Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and is the only way of salvation.

I am not sure where you got the claim that Uthman burnt all original Quran copies, and for sure you don't have a single original manuscript for the Bible as all manuscripts are too late.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

@ Huria.. In continuation of your many questions... :)


With regards to the topic of manuscript evidence, I feel there is enough said already on this and other recent threads. So I don't feel there is anything to be gained by travelling old ground on that one. Case in point, the Bible still holds greater manuscript evidence than any other work of its kind and antiquity

Well you already admitted in my conversation above that you have no evidence that the Bible was kept pure within the 150 years gap between manuscripts we have now and the time of Jesus, how come you are say again that the Bible holds great manuscript evidence?
As for the early church fathers, you'd better read this article which tells that they had many unorthodoxy opinions:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/church-fathers-bible/