spiderman1917 Posted June 2, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 117 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 1,028 Content Per Day: 0.34 Reputation: 810 Days Won: 2 Joined: 02/24/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2016 ...that the story of the adulterer was added http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html What do I say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
other one Posted June 2, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 29 Topic Count: 598 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 56,127 Content Per Day: 7.56 Reputation: 27,855 Days Won: 271 Joined: 12/29/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2016 He says it's missing from three of the texts, but never tells us how many texts it was in.... usually when people do that they have a hidden agenda. I would not worry about the article unless i knew the whole story Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted June 2, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 107 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,820 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 4,806 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, spiderman1917 said: ...that the story of the adulterer was added http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html What do I say? Hi, Spiderman.... Let me help you out a little as to what to say. First, let me tell this. The study of how we can best and most closely get modern versions of the Bible to resemble the originals is called textual criticism. To me, it's a fascinating line of study. And I include the King James in this list because the King James, like the rest is not the original. We call the originals the autographs. The autographs have been gone for centuries upon centuries. We rely on several ancient texts and each time new and older texts are discovered, it's very important to do comparisons. I guarantee you that this Muslim friend of yours is NOT a valid textual critic. He is just mimicking something he has read in order to discredit the Bible. In fact, that's a common thread amongst Islamic people who want to discredit the Bible. They claim we have no autographs and that there is too much textual variance for ANY version of the Bible to be true. They are wrong, of course. Actually, there are three passages in the Bible that probably are NOT part of the autographs: The ending of Mark - Mark 16:9-20 The story of the adulterous woman - John 7:53 - 8:11 And what is called the Johannine Comma (comma meaning "clause" not punctuation mark) - 1 John 5:7-8 These two verses, to my knowledge, are only found in the King James and the New King James A lot of Bibles today have them listed separately, or as footnotes, or bracketed with an explanation as to why. Sometimes when Christians hear this for the first time - it can rattle them or shake them. That should not be. Only the autographs are Holy Ghost breathed and inspired. Not copies or translations. All copies and translations have copyist errors and translation frailties. HOWEVER, the Bibles that we have today - you can be rest assured - contain the infallible Word of God. God's Word is forever trustworthy and true. None of those three passages I listed above contain contradictory statements to the rest of the scriptures. They contain no error. Should they be IN our Bibles? Probably not. But they did make it there and I personally believe that if these passages were "corruptible" that God would not have allowed them to be part of what is canonized. Our Bibles today contain God's authority and accuracy - despite minor copyist problems here and there and some needs for better choices of word translations. Second - what do you say to people like this? They won't care about anything I just told you. They bring these things up to discredit the Bible and to discredit Christians. What should you say? Tell them that whether or not these passages were in the original autographs has no bearing on your faith that we have the complete Word of God in our Bibles. Tell them that these passages do not contradict any other part of the Word of God and do not teach any new revelation that cannot be found elsewhere in God's Word and while many people recognize that they were not part of the autographs that your faith is not shaken and that your firm foundation on the Bible is still firm. Tell them that you are grateful to studious men and women of God who for centuries have intensely investigated and researched the textual variances of our most trusted manuscripts and that when humans get involved, disagreements will take place. But ultimately, God is in control and the Bible, including these passages in question, does not contradict itself and you are content to read the Bible as it is and to grow from it. Edited June 2, 2016 by Jayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OakWood Posted June 2, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 7 Topic Count: 867 Topics Per Day: 0.24 Content Count: 7,331 Content Per Day: 2.00 Reputation: 2,860 Days Won: 31 Joined: 04/09/2014 Status: Offline Birthday: 04/28/1964 Share Posted June 2, 2016 9 hours ago, spiderman1917 said: ...that the story of the adulterer was added http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html What do I say? Tell him that according to Islamic doctrine a woman's testimony is only valid if there are also four reliable male witnesses. According to Muslim scripture the ONLY witness to Mohammed being a prophet (ie the only witness that saw an angel talk to Mohammed) was his wife Khadija - therefore there is not one reliable witness that can testify to Mohammed's credibility as a prophet. Tell him that Islam respects all the prophets of the Old Testament, and every prophet of God was spoken to directly by God himself except for Mohammed who was (allegedly) spoken to by an angel and was never spoken to directly by God himself. Tell him that according to Islam both the Jews and the Muslims have corrupted and twisted the Bible so God sent them the Q'uran as a corrected version and promised that it would be protected from ever being changed or corrupted again. Ask him why Muslims think that God was too weak or stupid to allow the Bible from being corrupted in the first place? Tell him that if just one version of the Q'uran has been changed then Allah has failed to keep his word, and then tell him that there are many variations of the Q'uran, all of which can be found in different parts of the World. Tell him that the Q'uran is meant to be the infallible truth directly from God himself, dictated to Mohammed line for line by an angel. Ask him then why one verse of the Q'uran claims that God created the World in six days and another claims that God created the World in eight days. Why would God forget how long it took him to create the World if he is infallible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ezra Posted June 26, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 134 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 8,142 Content Per Day: 2.35 Reputation: 6,612 Days Won: 20 Joined: 11/02/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted June 26, 2016 On 6/1/2016 at 10:52 PM, spiderman1917 said: ...that the story of the adulterer was added http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html What do I say? Just say that the Koran has large chunks of Bible truth missing also. As to the claim about the Pericope, it is missing from the MOST CORRUPT Bible manuscripts only. It is undoubtedly an integral part of Scripture and Dean Burgon exposed the lie with a dissertation on the subject back in the 19th century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARRELX Posted June 28, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 132 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 93 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted June 28, 2016 A Muslim is predisposed to believe the Qur'an no matter what. They have no objectivity at all. Tell this Muslim that the whole Qur'an is a product of third hand witneses first of all. Allah gave the Qur'an to Mohammed, who spoke it to his followers, who wrote it down and then after Mohammed's death, the followers notes were collected and that is the Qur'an they have now. The Bible is a first hand witness, copies of the original author's. Also there are over 40 or so different authors of the Bible compared to the one composing the Qur'an. One witness cannot overule 40. So the Bible has more credibility then the Qur'an. Also the accounts in the Qur'an are from the Talmud and an Apocryphal Gospel rather then the actual scriptures, showing that Mohammed did not get his revelation from anyone but was a fraud. Also every prophet in the Old Testament prophesied of Christ whereas Mohammed has no support in the scriptures. Mohammed was a prophet because Mohammed said so. Jesus was the Messiah because the prophets of the Old Testiment said so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwikphilly Posted June 28, 2016 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 96 Topic Count: 307 Topics Per Day: 0.08 Content Count: 18,136 Content Per Day: 4.63 Reputation: 27,817 Days Won: 327 Joined: 08/03/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted June 28, 2016 Blessings Spiderman I can't really comment without knowing a few things,,,,,,,,you say"some muslim' told me,,,,,,etc....& give is a link to Christianity Today,did this muslim fellow give you this link? Odd that he would be reading Christianity Today,I just don't understand how the Topic came up,who is he in relation to you & what is the context of the conversation,,,,I mean it is not usual that some muslim would walk up to a total stranger to simply give them a website? So how could I advise you to say one thing or another?Too quickly people respond by trying to defend the Word of God which needs no defense or to refute what the other persons beliefs are,sort of a retaliation,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, I don't believe it is the best way to spread the Gospel So,I would love to hear how the conversation took place,what your relationship to this person is & when do you get the opportunity to talk with him,,,,,I would love to have more information to get a better idea about the best way to talk to him,I'm wondering,what did you say? I'm sutre you didn't say"I'll get back to you",right?Sometimes I think we put too much thought(self) into preparation instead of simply trusting the Holy Spirit to lead us & guide us as to our responses,the best preparation is being firmly established in Gods Word,it is the Holy Spirit that convicts a man's heart With love-in Christ,Kwik Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DARRELX Posted July 10, 2016 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 8 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 132 Content Per Day: 0.05 Reputation: 93 Days Won: 0 Joined: 06/26/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 10, 2016 On 6/27/2016 at 6:07 AM, Ezra said: Just say that the Koran has large chunks of Bible truth missing also. What it does mention about Scripture is twisted to fit Mohammed's claims of prophethood. The actual sources that Mohammed relied on was the Talmud and an apocryphal Gospel circulating at that time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheMatrixHasU71 Posted July 12, 2016 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 6 Topic Count: 21 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 1,573 Content Per Day: 0.51 Reputation: 723 Days Won: 0 Joined: 12/10/2015 Status: Offline Share Posted July 12, 2016 On 02/06/2016 at 9:03 AM, Jayne said: Hi, Spiderman.... Let me help you out a little as to what to say. First, let me tell this. The study of how we can best and most closely get modern versions of the Bible to resemble the originals is called textual criticism. To me, it's a fascinating line of study. And I include the King James in this list because the King James, like the rest is not the original. We call the originals the autographs. The autographs have been gone for centuries upon centuries. We rely on several ancient texts and each time new and older texts are discovered, it's very important to do comparisons. I guarantee you that this Muslim friend of yours is NOT a valid textual critic. He is just mimicking something he has read in order to discredit the Bible. In fact, that's a common thread amongst Islamic people who want to discredit the Bible. They claim we have no autographs and that there is too much textual variance for ANY version of the Bible to be true. They are wrong, of course. Actually, there are three passages in the Bible that probably are NOT part of the autographs: The ending of Mark - Mark 16:9-20 The story of the adulterous woman - John 7:53 - 8:11 And what is called the Johannine Comma (comma meaning "clause" not punctuation mark) - 1 John 5:7-8 These two verses, to my knowledge, are only found in the King James and the New King James A lot of Bibles today have them listed separately, or as footnotes, or bracketed with an explanation as to why. Sometimes when Christians hear this for the first time - it can rattle them or shake them. That should not be. Only the autographs are Holy Ghost breathed and inspired. Not copies or translations. All copies and translations have copyist errors and translation frailties. HOWEVER, the Bibles that we have today - you can be rest assured - contain the infallible Word of God. God's Word is forever trustworthy and true. None of those three passages I listed above contain contradictory statements to the rest of the scriptures. They contain no error. Should they be IN our Bibles? Probably not. But they did make it there and I personally believe that if these passages were "corruptible" that God would not have allowed them to be part of what is canonized. Our Bibles today contain God's authority and accuracy - despite minor copyist problems here and there and some needs for better choices of word translations. Second - what do you say to people like this? They won't care about anything I just told you. They bring these things up to discredit the Bible and to discredit Christians. What should you say? Tell them that whether or not these passages were in the original autographs has no bearing on your faith that we have the complete Word of God in our Bibles. Tell them that these passages do not contradict any other part of the Word of God and do not teach any new revelation that cannot be found elsewhere in God's Word and while many people recognize that they were not part of the autographs that your faith is not shaken and that your firm foundation on the Bible is still firm. Tell them that you are grateful to studious men and women of God who for centuries have intensely investigated and researched the textual variances of our most trusted manuscripts and that when humans get involved, disagreements will take place. But ultimately, God is in control and the Bible, including these passages in question, does not contradict itself and you are content to read the Bible as it is and to grow from it. And really just because some passages are missing from some texts does NOT have to mean they were never part of the originals. The problem here is the fact that we have nothing more than fragments of the originals so we have no business saying that this or that was 'probably' not in the autographs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jayne Posted July 13, 2016 Group: Royal Member Followers: 16 Topic Count: 107 Topics Per Day: 0.04 Content Count: 3,820 Content Per Day: 1.30 Reputation: 4,806 Days Won: 2 Joined: 03/31/2016 Status: Offline Share Posted July 13, 2016 10 hours ago, TheMatrixHasU71 said: And really just because some passages are missing from some texts does NOT have to mean they were never part of the originals. The problem here is the fact that we have nothing more than fragments of the originals so we have no business saying that this or that was 'probably' not in the autographs Actually, we do not have fragments of the originals. The originals - have been 100% and completely gone for centuries. The literal piece of parchment that Paul wrote on and that Moses wrote on are no more and have been no more. We don't even have the first copies or the first copies of copies. That's where textual criticism - meticulous study and research to determine as best we can what the originals actually said - comes in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts