Muslim gladiator wrote:
Look at this verse in 1 John 5:7
The trinity verses have been omitted from other Gospels versions although the KJV still have it.
1 John 5:7 (King James Version)
{7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.}
Compare it too
1 John 5:7 (New International Version)
{7For there are three that testify: 8the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement}
The comment on this verse which mad by more than one hundred Scholars is like this:
1 John 5:8 late manuscripts of the Vulgate testify in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one. 8 And there are three that testify on earth: the (not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century).
Kai replies:
We know that already, it was added into the manuscript family which KJV adopted.
NASV and others do not accept this verse, because, as I have stated earlier, we have so many documents which date even earlier that this manuscript family, that we realise it is an addition; probably a footnote.
We are honest about it, and whether the verse is supposed to be there or not, it does not effect the Bible in any way; as I said textual criticism does not prove Bible corruption.
My question is: are you Muslim honest about your Arabic manuscripts? So far a few Muslims have pointed out the problems and mistakes, and generally most Muslims want them to keep quiet.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Who put these verses after sixteen century Friend Kai. Who put that in the Book of God friend Kai?
Let us go to another version, NKJV
1 John 5:7-8 (New King James Version)
{7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness on earth:}
The comment on this verse which made by 130 respected Bible scholars according to NKJV's introduction is like that:
b. 1 John 5:8 NU-Text and M-Text omit the words from in heaven (verse 7) through on earth (verse . Only four or five very late manuscripts contain these words in Greek.
Again who was responsible for this mistake friend kai? Have you found some stuff like that in the Quran? Have you find a version of the Quran put additional verses like that? Have you found any translation of the meanings of the Quran put additional verses?
Who was responsible for putting those verses in manuscripts after sixteen century then introduce it for the Bible as word of God? Who was responsible for putting a whole verse while it is not in the main context?
Is that what the Quran saying?
Is the Spirit who is responsible for putting a verse in after 16th Century?
Read this Article who wrote by Daniel B. Wallace , Th.M., Ph.D. (Daniel B. Wallace has taught Greek and New Testament courses on a graduate school level since 1979. He has a Ph.D. from Dallas Theological Seminary, and is currently professor of New Testament Studies at his alma mater).
http://www.bible.org/page.asp?page_id=1186#P14_2015
Kai replies:
We already know that, it was added into the manuscript family which KJV adopted. NASV and others do not accept this verse, because, as I have stated earlier, we have so many documents which date even earlier that this manuscript family, that we realise it is an addition; probably a footnote.
We are honest about it, and whether the verse is supposed to be there or not, it does not effect the Bible in any way; as I said textual criticism does not prove Bible corruption.
My question is: are you Muslim honest about your Arabic manuscripts? So far a few Muslims have pointed out the problems and mistakes, and generally most Muslims want them to keep quiet.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Who put these verses after sixteen century Friend Kai. Who put that in the Book of God friend Kai?
Kai replies:
If you do not like addition, how about moving the Mishna commentary (which is not the Word of God) out of the Koran.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Again who was responsible for this mistake friend kai? Have you found some stuff like that in the Quran? Have you find a version of the Quran put additional verses like that? Have you found any translation of the meanings of the Quran put additional verses?
Kai replies:
Well let me just refer to Muslim scholars to answer that question
http://www.submission.org/tampering.html
Keep in mind now, that according to your own criteria, if I refer to a Muslim, ex-Muslim, anyone living in a Muslim community or a non-Christian, then what theses individuals say must be true.
In that case, according to this article the Koran was tampered with, and verses added since its very beginning
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
I have already posted you an explanation of Christian liberal theologies and its motives; I myself have studied Christian liberal theology for quite a while, and I am certainly not impressed.
These people have claimed monopoly upon academic theology and excluded the Christian, their motive is not even based upon facts or evidences but theories, and their motive is not built upon discovering truth either, but upon the success of Secularism or even money.
Friend Kai, if you do not want to believe the clear facts and scientists then there no reason for truth your Bible, because it came through scientists too. And really there is no reason to complete this conversion anymore.
Kai replies:
You forget that I am a student of theology, that I have studied for 17 years; that makes me a scientist of the Bible
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Those people spend all their life studying the Bible.
Kai replies:
This is were you are wrong; theology is hardly the Bible and its texts, but theories about the Bible and the text; I STUDY THEOLOGY SO I NOW FAR BETTER THAN YOU CAN EVER IMAGINE.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Those people can speak languages you can not speak.
Kai replies:
How do you know?
After such a statement don’t ask me whether I do or not; just tell me how you know
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Those people can four languages (English, Hebrew, Aramaic plus Greek).
Kai replies:
As I theological student, this is what I am studying
As a matter of fact that am engaging in four languages
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Those people see the real manuscripts which you have never seen.
Kai replies:
What are you talking about, all those manuscripts can be red on copies
Muslim gladiator wrote:
So, if you do not truth in them while they are saying the truth. So, sorry, you chatting here is not depend on scientific behavior. If you can not see the sun and others can see it, then problem in your eyes, not in the sun.
Kai replies:
Now if you keep on this nonsense (in this case attacking me personally, or attacking a strawman) I will close this thread, BECAUSE HERE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT FOLLOWING ANY SCIENTIFIC BEHAVIOR; or that perhaps exactly what you are.
If you can not debate without getting personal and attacking a strawman, THEN YOU ARE BREAKING THE RULES ON THIS FORUM. IS THAT CLEAR?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Well it is a fact that the Sinaiticus does not include ‘Son of God’, yet it is also a fact that both Alexandrius and Vaticanus contain it. Hence there is no reason why the original should not include ‘Son of God’.
Friend Kai, What are talking about? Which fact should we believe? The fact some original manuscripts do not have it? Or the Fact that other manuscripts have it? Who was responsible for that? Who wrote the manuscripts with those additions? Or who wrote those manuscripts without them? Is word or God? Can you understand what does that mean?
Is means it can not be changed like that?
Kai replies:
Well if most manuscripts contain that, and these manuscripts are spread around, then only assumption would be that the one or two other manuscripts have omitted it, perhaps by mistake.
But then again DO YOU TRUST YOUR OWN SCHOLARS THAT CERTAIN MANUSCRIPTS PRESUMABLY APPEARING AS MECCAN ARE FORGERIES BECAUSE THEY APPEAR AMONG THE MEDINAN?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
If a famous person has a memo and you played in it like that? He will sue you in the front of the Court? What is about if you play in the book of God? Who is responsible? Who should we believe, Manuscripts with additional words or without it?
Kai replies:
So if a word e.g. in Matthew is added, then according to your presumption, the whole of Matthew is corrupted; and then I should believe in the Koran instead, which howeve states anyeay that Matthew is correct.
I fail to understand your logic!
Does that mean that you doubt the Koran?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Even if in the prayer words its self, you can find some additional words in some manuscripts rather than others.
Matthew 6:13 (New American Standard Bible)
{13'And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from evil. [For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.}
The NASB was shy to tell the people that there are some words in the prayer is not in the earlier manuscripts so it put it between brackets without any comment. But NIV was more honest with itself and it writes it with this comment put:
Matthew 6:13 (New International Version)
{13And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from the evil one.[a]'}
Matthew 6:13 Or from evil; some late manuscripts one, / for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
The question again, who add these additional words to the verse? What else have been add and it is discovered yet?
Kai replies:
Again, you are simply attacking a translation
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Personally I don’t see the reason why the entire Mark 16 should not belong to the teachings of the apostle Peter and dictated by Mark.
Because simply friend Kai that is what Quran said from more than 1400 years?
The Translation of the Meanings of the Quran by Pickthall
[2]
{Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, "This is from Allah," that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.}
Is that what indeed happened?
Kai replies:
My first question is: who are these people? Christians? No! Jews? Perhaps! All Jews? No!
Let me repeat myself:
First point, there are various passages which indicate a local corruption of the Torah; however there are elements which need to be considered:
The Koran claims that some Jews were dishonest about scripture, but not all:
Sura 3:199 states:
"And there are, certainly, among the People of the Book, those who believe in God, and that which has been revealed to you, in that which has been revealed to them, bowing in humility to God. They will not sell the signs of God for miserable gain. For them is a reward with their Lord, and God is swift in account."
Sura 3:113-114:
"Not all of them are alike. Some of the People of the Book are an upright people. They recite the signs (or verses) of God in the night season and they bow down worshipping. They believe in God and the last day. They command what is just, and forbid what is wrong and they hasten in good works, and they are of the righteous.
In other words even though some Jews would have corrupted Scripture, such practice did not apply to all and hence we do not have a overall corruption of Scripture, only local ones.
Secondly, the passage you quoted is not quoted in its context:
Surah 2, Verse 79)
{[79] Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, "This is from Allâh," to purchase with it a little price! Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for that they earn thereby. }
If you look at the previous verse, it reveals that we are dealing with a local corruption, not a general one:
"Among them are unlettered folk who know the Scripture not except from hearsay. THEY BUT GUESS." [S. 2:78]
OBVIOUSLY IF THESE PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW SCRIPTURE, HOW COULD THEY CORRUPT THEM?
What is even more interesting is that, this same group of Jews, do not only tamper with the Torah, THEY TAMPER WITH THE KORAN AS WELL:
"Can you (O men of faith) still earnestly desire that they (the Jews) will believe in you? And verily a party (fariq) among them hear the Word of God, then they pervert it knowingly after they have understood it. And when they meet the believers they say, `We believe,' but when they meet each other in private they say, `Why do you tell them what God has revealed to you (in the Torah), that they may engage you in argument about it before their God? What do you not understand?' Do they not know that God knows what they conceal and what they make public?" [S. 2:75-77, c.f. S. 4:44-47]
(Of just such wrath) as We sent down on those who divided (Scripture into arbitrary parts),- (So also on such) as have made Qurán into shreds (as they please). Therefore, by thy Lord, We will, of a surety, call them to account, For all their deeds. S. 15:90-03
Hence if we are going to apply Sura 2: 78-79 to overall Bible corruption, we have a few problems:
1. The corruption is local, caused by a group of Jews, who do not know Scripture.
2. It would contradict passages in the Koran which reveal that the Islamic attitude to Christian and Jews should be a full acceptance of their Scriptures.
3. IF THE BIBLE HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BY THESE INDIVIDUALS, THE KORAN IS MOST PROBABLY CORRUPTED AS WELL.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Yet lets say those who dispute it were correct, lets say that some early Christians did include it to round off the Gospel.
then you should decide What the original text probably was? That is the main questions Friend Kai?
Kai replies:
Well, I did; go back and read my post
Muslim gladiator wrote:
That means anyone can add anything to the Bible and say that is the word of God then the Scripture will just words of Human beings not from God?
Kai replies:
No, as I have already pointed, Christians have throughout the centuries, even from its earliest time been careful to deal with additions. We have been honest about the matter, and the ending of Mark 16 is on of those passages. That does not necessarily mean that the text was added, but simply that some Christians have proposed that idea.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
In John 8:1-11
There is an interesting story about the woman who committed adultery and how Jesus let her free.
The story shows how Jesus was kind and let and very nice to the woman although she committed a sin, anyways,
But, before I go further, this story was always one of the things which took some of my thinking when I was youth. Especially those words by Jesus "“He who is without sin among you, let him throw a stone at her first.”. According to this theory we should not judge anyone in the world. All of us have sins. So we can not sue others and those teaching against the law of life so, it is impossible this speech could be related to Jesus.
Second, in Law of Moses (Deu 22:22-30) Jews should stone both man and the woman whom commit adultery. Where is the man in the story? Did they find her commit adultery with none?
Kai replies:
We are not told, so we simply don’t know
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Jesus was not required to make a line of the floor with his finger, Jesus always was so smart and he was so good in Law of Moses. He was best teacher for it, so he could just ask? Where is the man? As no man, so there is no problem then.
Kai replies:
Of course there is the possibility that he got away; perhaps these religious leaders simply launched their strictness upon women, which was a normalcy of the day; or perhaps the man was brought their too, but John did not record that.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
When I tried to investigated this verse between eighteen different Holy Bibles from different countries, that is what I found,
Kai replies:
God job, did you look at the Greek text too
Muslim gladiator wrote:
John 8 (New Life Version) puts the verses from 1 to 11 between brackets without any comment. And as I said before, it is a general rule among the translators, putting phrase between brackets mean it is not in the main context or it is just for explanations.
John 8 (Holman Christian Standard Bible) put this comment:
John 8:11 Other mss omit bracketed text
Kai replies:
So there is not common consent; then why are you so sure it was added?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
John 8 (New King James Version) put a lot of comments put 11 comments in between some words in these verses and some are not.
John 8 (Contemporary English Version) was clear about this issue and it put this comment,
Kai replies:
Big deal!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
John 8:11 don't sin anymore: Verses 1-11 are not in some manuscripts. In other manuscripts these verses are placed after 7.36 or after 21.25 or after Luke 21.38, with some differences in the text.
Kai replies:
No that it makes any difference! But could you give me the names of those manuscripts
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Mr. Bart Ehrman (The chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, U.S.A.) assures the verses in John 8:1-11 are not in the earliest manuscripts of Gospel John. Plus the fathers of the earlier Church until the 12th Century did not comment on it too.
Kai replies:
That is why I say, you can trust the Christian Scripture, as Christian theologians have always been honest and open about it; a character which you lack in Islam!
Muslim gladiator wrote:
So, how did it come inside the Bible? Does the Holy Spirit still came to the People and asked them to put some new verses inside the Bible after one thousand and two hundred years.
Kai replies:
A few cases may think so, but their words will never be added to the Bible, if that is what you assume
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies:
Now I am virtually lost, you referred to Ehrman earlier to confirm that churches until the 12 th century did not refer to it; then why do you now propose that it was added in 16 th century; COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF HERE?
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Then Christians have been honest enough since the very beginning to point out that the particular verses are dubious. They have copied and later printed the text, yet pointed out that these verses should be approached with caution. In fact almost every translation will point this out.
Honest, that is why there are about 80, 0000 manuscripts no one like each other. That is why there are long endings and short endings for Gospel of Mark. That is why you can find in some manuscripts words like "Son of God" Mark 1:1 while it is not in other manuscripts. Honest to put 11 verses at the end of Gospel Mark although it is not included in the earliest Patristic evidence (Clement of Rome, Origin, Eusebius and Jerome). Honest to put 11 verses in Gospel John 8:1-11. Is the honestly in your eye friend kai?
Kai replies:
You seem to make a drop into an ocean!
In textual criticism we discover that some words are added or missing or placed in different order; these are minor things and no way present the addition of later doctrines.
In textual criticism we discover above 30.000 of these cases.
Yet they do not reveal 30.000 cases, but the copy of the same case through centuries.
Scholars estimated therefore a few hundred cases.
These cases do present doctrine but use of words, such as: temple or house of God, bless or praise, so in what sense does this effect the Book.
As to the passages you refer to as editions such as the ending of Mark, John 8, and one verse in Acts 8 and 1 John 5; these simply prove nothing of your assumption that the Bible is corrupted.
In fact we cannot say for sure whether these passages were not originally concluded
Secondly, Christians from earliest times have been honest enough to admit their doubts about the passages
Definetily then, if these same Christians consider 99 procent of the New Testament to be corrupted, they would have revealed so.
Muslim gladiator wrote:
Quote:
Because, Christians have always been honest about pointing out mistakes
Mistakes in what friend Kai, is the word of God? How could you know that you have discovered all the mistakes?
Kai replies:
Well ask the same question to Shabir Ally about the Koran?