Is bible corrupted?

JM · #1 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:37 AM

YouTube - Is The Bible Corrupted?

Any thoughts?

Gloria · #2 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

YouTube - Is The Bible Corrupted?

Any thoughts?

*sigh*

Gloria · #3 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:51 AM

So much energy spent on questions that have already been answered and myths from questionable sources. To say that none of the manuscripts in the history of Christianity match is laughable. If the Bible is ANYTHING...it's accurate.

Where on earth did they get the whole...lol...nevermind...Let's talk about the Quran. What are they saying about the accuracy Quran that a Christian can't say the Bible? Answer: Nothing.

I'm still listening and these kids are clowns...

JM · #4 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:51 AM

I know, I know...I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?

Gloria · #5 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JM

I know, I know...anything else?

Their reasoning as to why the Quran is accurate like...I mean...lol...sheesh, where do I begin? It's cute how they did the little skit thing going back and forth but I can't take them seriously because they aren't presenting NEW objections. There are some Christians who DON'T know about the Johannine Comma. I realize that. I completely understand that but many Christians DO know about it. I don't like that it's been included. I use a translation that doesn't include it. I get that but this does not MEAN that God has not presented himself as being triune. There are other passages that point to God in three persons.

Also the point about the Nazarines not believing that Christ was God...so what? What does this prove? We know that he was barely received as a prophet in his own town. We know this because it's included. This is hardly proof that he isn't God.

I can go on and on. It's weak. The entire presentation. Cute in the beginning, but weak.

Poimen · #6 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:00 AM

It looks like there is an intelligent response here:

YouTube - Is the Bible Corrupted?

Gloria · #7 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Poimen

It looks like there is an intelligent response here:

YouTube - Is the Bible Corrupted?

My smile is SO big right now. Amen, Amen, Amen, AMEN! God is awesome!

I love this. That guy is great in his knowledge of the history of the NT and in his knowledge of the Quran. Like I said...these questions they presented have already been answered. The whole no matching manuscripts thing is as I said "laughable." I have to repost this vid somewhere. Thanks Poimen!

JM · #8 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 10:11 AM

Thanks for the clip.

Thomas2007 · #9 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 12:40 PM

Hmmmm...this is reminiscent of my introduction to textual criticism about twenty five years ago by Christians. LOL

etexas · #10 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 02:13 PM

Great clip on post 6!

Poimen · #11 (**permalink**) 11-15-2007, 02:19 PM

Gloria and JM:

You are most welcome.

Jerusalem Blade · #12 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 09:36 AM

In post #4 Jason said this, "I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?

Was that addressed and answered by the gentleman who so ably withstood the detractors of the Bible?

In the Muslim's clip, they read from the NIV's margin at John 7:53-8:11 and elsewhere, how the NIV says "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." Or in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the NIV (and most modern Critical Text versions) read "who was manifest in the flesh", the margin reads "Some manuscripts God". Let me quote from another thread on this latter:

Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.

(This quote can be found in context in post #4 of What is the authentic New Testament Text?.)

I have often stated that the disparity in versions -- particularly the Greek manuscripts underlying them -- will be used against us by the opponents of the Christian faith. There is no glossing over them -- our detractors will ferret them out, as these Muslim chaps have. And how shall we answer them?

John 7:53-8:11 was discussed in this brief thread: John 7:53-8:11.

Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?

Thomas Weddle, welcome aboard! We look forward to seeing you on this section of PB.

JM · #13 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 12:22 PM

Steve, I thought of your warning when I viewed the clip by the Muslims.

Thomas2007 · #14 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 05:37 PM

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

Thank you for the welcome, you bring the point home. The gentlemen failed to defend against their assault and it cannot be defended against holding to the enlightenment view of Holy Scripture. (e.g., Solo Scriptura)

Further, the defense he did offer was impotent, because the Medina verses supersede the Surah, which he quoted. Islam obtained a subsequent demonic revelation that supersedes the Surah and instructs them to kill "the people of the book," if they don't submit to Satan.

You asked?

Quote:

Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?

That rock is in the Juridical Authority of Sola Scripture recognized during the Magisterial Reformation and defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8, and more explicitly defended in the Helvetic Consensus Formula. In terms of the magisterium, it is to be found only in the Authorized Version in the American Commwealth.

Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?

Our Great God, the Lord of Hosts, favored us and Providentially established the Law Word of His Son with the Divine Rights of an Immanent Sovereign over His Church. It's absolutely beautiful. But nobody seems to care, they don't want to be ruled by the Ancient of Days, after all, His speech is "archaic." It offends their itchy ears. 2 Timothy 4:3

When the English and American Church withdrew its voluntary submission to the Juridical Authority of Holy Scripture in the established Bible of English Common Law at the turn of the 20th century, and spawned the radical individualism of a democratic faith, then it no longer has a political defense against highly doctrinaire political religions.

In turn, England and the United States fell under humanism in its developing continuity with the Church's submission to a new enlightenment magisterium. Because man becomes, under humanism, his own god, no law can then govern gods, who are their own law.

As Calvin noted, without laws civil magistracy "cannot subsist, as, on the other hand, without magistrates laws are of no force. No observation, therefore, can be more correct than this, that the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a speaking law." Calvin, Institutes, Bk IV, Ch XX, xiv; II, p 787

What this means is that the modern enlightenment based Christian Church holding to Solo Scriptura as a disestablished substitute of Sola Scriptura, has become nothing more than wordless Christian mimes, in terms of the magisterium. They have their individualistic preference, but no law, and no basis for the political protection of the Faith, once delivered to the Saints, and their families.

This is very serious, now we are no longer arguing against the manifest confusion wrought in the Church by enlightenment criticism, but the American society has opened its arms to Islam consistent with the principles of equalitarianism of its democratic faith. We recently elected a Congressman that took his oath of office on the Koran, we also have a Presidential candidate that was raised in the Muslim faith while living in his hometown of Jakarta Indonesia.

I pray the Lord will grant us His Grace of repentance because I tremble for my countrymen, lest we reap what we have sown consistent with Romans 13.

Quote:

"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

For now satan, who erects his kingdom on the twin pillars of error and ignorance, has an entire army of his children which are dedicated to establishing his kingdom by whatever force is necessary to envision it. They have set themselves against us and are utilizing Romanist Richard Simon's weapon of textual criticism apologetically to advance their faith.

They are not ashamed of their heritage like American Christians, and they are not ashamed to force the establishment of their faith.

What is most ironic and even more frightening, is the only organized defense that I know of against the Muslim attack on Solo Scriptura, is James White who has set himself up against the established Bible.

Quote:

"The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord."

In the end, brother, I can only echo our Lord's word: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

etexas · #15 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerusalem Blade

In post #4 Jason said this, "I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?

Was that addressed and answered by the gentleman who so ably withstood the detractors of the Bible?

In the Muslim's clip, they read from the NIV's margin at John 7:53-8:11 and elsewhere, how the NIV says "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." Or in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the NIV (and most modern Critical Text versions) read "who was manifest in the flesh", the margin reads "Some manuscripts God". Let me quote from another thread on this latter:

Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.

(This quote can be found in context in post #4 of What is the authentic New Testament Text?.)

I have often stated that the disparity in versions -- particularly the Greek manuscripts underlying them -- will be used against us by the opponents of the Christian faith. There is no glossing over them -- our detractors will ferret them out, as these Muslim chaps have. And how shall we answer them?

John 7:53-8:11 was discussed in this brief thread: John 7:53-8:11.

Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?

Thomas Weddle, welcome aboard! We look forward to seeing you on this section of PB.

We answer them by THE Bible....the King James! No Muslim can beat the King Jimmy!

Jim Johnston · #16 (**permalink**) 11-18-2007, 07:26 PM

An excerpt from a post I did on Islam

Quote:

... Put differently, the Muslim will claim that the Bible we have is not the Bible the Qur’an was talking about. We have a corrupted version of the Bible today. How should we respond to this out the Muslim surely will take?

First, we should note that while it is understandable that Christians would change (or add) passages reporting a crucifixion and Jesus being begotten by the Father, it is not clear why they would change some minor historical formalities such as who Abraham's father was? Or, why would the evil Christians and Jews change that Jacob pledged to serve Laben for 7 years in exchange for Rachel from what the Qur’an reports - that Moses served Jethro for Zipporah? These are most probably due to human error (remember Mohammad grew up in a largely verbal culture and probably only heard verbal accounts of the biblical stories. It is easy to see why he would mistake little details like these rather than it being intentional deceit on the part of Christian cover-up artists. On the other hand, though, our Muslim apologist friend can respond that if someone were smart enough then certainly they would even change minor details. Granted. So now we can only pile more evidences upon the Muslim.

The Bible is the most well attested book of antiquity. For example, Homer's Iliad has about 643 copies (which is the most documented secular work). This pales by comparison to the roughly 5,366 Greek manuscripts. Or, take Plato's works. Dr. Greg Bahnsen, who had to study Plato and textual criticism of his works while obtaining his Ph. D. writes, "Our earliest extant manuscript of a work by Plato dates from right before 900 A.D. ("Oxford B," found in a Patmos monastery by E. B. Clarke), and we must remember that Plato is thought to have written roughly 350 years before Christ -- thus leaving us with a gap of over twelve centuries. By contrast, the earliest fragments of the New Testament date less than fifty years after the original writing; the bulk of our most important extant manuscripts dates from 200-300 years after original composition." The Bible used to be ridiculed for mentioning a tribe of people called the "Hittites." Now, thanks to archeological findings, the Hittites are one of the most well known ancient civilizations. The Bible has, time and time again, been vindicated from the charge of "unreliability." Time Magazine even had to admit that, "After more than two centuries of facing the heaviest scientific guns that could be brought to bear, the Bible has survived -- and is perhaps the better for the siege. Even on the critics' own terms -- historical fact -- the Scriptures seem more acceptable now than they did when the rationalists began the attack."

Lastly, a serious case can be made for the dating of all New Testament documents before 70 A.D., which would make it written well within the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Not only is there serious internal evidence, such as no mention of the fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecy that he would destroy the temple (which was destroyed in 70 A.D.), even liberal scholar A.T. Robinson points out that the New testament was probably completed before 70 A.D.. Indeed, no less a world renowned textual scholar than Kenyon had to say about the translation and the reliability of our documents:

“The Number of manuscripts of the new testament, or early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved is some one or the other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”

Still, the Muslim can resist this as some vast global conspiracy on the part of deceitful infidels. So are we done? Should we hang up our hats and let the reader decide who has the best evidence? Well, we're not quite done with Islam; let's keep it on the mat for a bit longer. At this point we will now return to our internal critique showing that according to the Qur‘an, the Bible has not been corrupted.

An embarrassing sura for the Muslim is sura 10:94.. In this sura we read: "But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.” What we have here, then, is Muhammad telling people who doubted the veracity of his teachings to ask those who had the book before him (Jews and Christians) if what he was teaching was true. The problem here is that since the texts we have today are substantially the same as the manuscripts circulating in Muhammad's day, we would have Muhammad directing questioners to a corrupted text! If the Bible had been corrupted then why would Muhammad send his followers to verify his teachings from a corrupted text? This sura, then, testifies to an uncorrupted Bible. This is not some isolated text, either. The Qur'an claims "Before thee, also, the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration: If ye realize this not, ask of those who posses the message (sura 21:7)." But those who “possessed the message” back then just happened “to posses” the same “message” that we posses today. There is simply not one shred of evidence testifying that a Bible completely foreign to the Bible we posses today was the Bible used by Christians in Muhammad’s day.

It is also interesting to note that the Qur'an calls the Bible the "Word of God" (sura 2:75). Regarding the word of God being able to be changed, or texts altered, the Qur'an has this to say:

"No change can there be in the words of Allah" (sura 10:64).
"There is none that can alter the words of Allah" (sura 6:34).
So if we have changed the Bible, or altered it, then it is not true that "No one can change (or alter) the Word of God." Therefore, if we have changed the Bible then the Qur'an is false, and if we have not changed the Bible then the Qur'an is false!

We should also pause and ask why Allah would let mankind go without his other two revelations? If, as Muhammad says, they could be used to verify his message then why would God not allow them to be preserved? Indeed, the “inspired Apostles” (sura 21:7) tell us that all Scripture is profitable for the man of God that he may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2 Tim. 3:16-17). Why would Allah let us go without 2/3 of his revelations which are profitable for the follower of God? This has a two-fold effect: (1) Christians who doubt Muhammad cannot verify his message anymore, and (2) followers of God are without 2/3 of God’s revelation to man. Indeed, it seems like a waste of time for God to have revealed the old and new testaments if no one has been able to make use of them for the last 1500 years!

Triablogue: Islam: The Muslim Message, Menace, and Meltdown

Jerusalem Blade · #17 (**permalink**) 11-19-2007, 03:58 AM

Hello Thomas,

Please help me understand the terms you are using (below I have lifted some out of your post); if you would state the principles of your paradigm it would help me to more readily grasp the particulars of it.

Quote:

...the Juridical Authority of Sola Scripture recognized during the Magisterial Reformation and defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8...

Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?...

...the English and American Church withdrew its voluntary submission to the Juridical Authority of Holy Scripture in the established Bible of English Common Law at the turn of the 20th century...

Thanks for forbearing and accommodating my slowness to understand!

Steve

Thomas2007 · #18 (**permalink**) 11-19-2007, 04:41 AM

Dear eTexas,

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

We answer them by THE Bible....the King James! No Muslim can beat the King Jimmy!

I would ask that you reconsider the threat of Islam, it is not merely a religious issue of individual opinion, I'm certain you understand that. We need the LORD of Hosts doing battle for us. He has ordained certain institutions that represent His power, but one has to obey the law that he has established and ordained to be over you, before He does battle for you. He's very jealous and He doesn't break His Law, as you well know.

I believe it takes more than citing Scripture, the Authorized Version is a silent magistrate today, that has no voice. We need the power of God's law, not just His words.

"For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." 1 Corinthians 4:20

Rushdoony has this to say about Islam:

Quote:

The essence of Islam is a political order, and the purpose of Moslems is properly the achievement of this "rule of God" in and through a political order. The role of Mohammed was religious precisely because it was political to the core, and non-Christian religions are primarily political and are derived from the concept of a divine political order, an order which is itself the source of morality and religion. Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order, p 9

You simply can't fight a religious enemy whose argument is that their religious authority, the Koran, is and must be the foundation of society as a whole and uses the sword to advance its faith, based upon citing Scripture. We must have the power of God's words.

The Muslims are using a good argument that will advance their cause greatly, and no family is safe, when a religion can breed terrorists in your neighborhood. When you open a Bible, generally any modern version, and it says in multiple places that it's not reliable and trustworthy, that is a good argument for their doctrine of "Sola Scriptura."

We will lose every last bit of Liberty we have and then they will begin outlawing our Worship, that is inevitable on our present course.

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" 1 Peter 4:17

etexas · #19 (**permalink**) 11-19-2007, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas2007

Dear eTexas,

Quote:

Originally Posted by etexas

We answer them by THE Bible....the King James! No Muslim can beat the King Jimmy!

I would ask that you reconsider the threat of Islam, it is not merely a religious issue of individual opinion, I'm certain you understand that. We need the LORD of Hosts doing battle for us. He has ordained certain institutions that represent His power, but one has to obey the law that he has established and ordained to be over you, before He does battle for you. He's very jealous and He doesn't break His Law, as you well know.

I believe it takes more than citing Scripture, the Authorized Version is a silent magistrate today, that has no voice. We need the power of God's law, not just His words.

"For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." 1 Corinthians 4:20

Rushdoony has this to say about Islam:

Quote:

The essence of Islam is a political order, and the purpose of Moslems is properly the achievement of this "rule of God" in and through a political order. The role of Mohammed was religious precisely because it was political to the core, and non-Christian religions are primarily political and are derived from the concept of a divine political order, an order which is itself the source of morality and religion. Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order, p 9

You simply can't fight a religious enemy whose argument is that their religious authority, the Koran, is and must be the foundation of society as a whole and uses the sword to advance its faith, based upon citing Scripture. We must have the power of God's words.

The Muslims are using a good argument that will advance their cause greatly, and no family is safe, when a religion can breed terrorists in your neighborhood. When you open a Bible, generally any modern version, and it says in multiple places that it's not reliable and trustworthy, that is a good argument for their doctrine of "Sola Scriptura."

We will lose every last bit of Liberty we have and then they will begin outlawing our Worship, that is inevitable on our present course.

"For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?" 1 Peter 4:17

I was only speeking of what bible to use if one MUST talk to them. frankly, given that they are Heathen Animal Dogs....I do not speak to them...at all.

Thomas2007 · #20 (**permalink**) 11-19-2007, 02:16 PM

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

I guess I don't fully know where to begin because I don't know what you don't understand.
Can you be more specific, there are a lot of first principles here, so I don't know where to
even begin.

Cordially In Christ,

Thomas