Corruption of the Bible

[Mishael]

58 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said:

For the claim of words (who believe all major versions as word of God) removed if you look into john 3:13 the verse according to KJV is below:

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

now RSV

 No one has ascended into heaven but he who descended from heaven, the Son of man.

 

notice the words " which is in heaven is removed".

 

Does that change the meaning of the verse or the theology of Christianity?

[Mishael]

قَالَ رَبِّي يَعْلَمُ الْقَوْلَ فِي السَّمَاءِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَهُوَ السَّمِيعُ الْعَلِيمُ

21:4 

In Warsh the Surah begins with قل not قال notice the difference is more then just dialect, the whole meaning has changed now.

[GandalfTheWise]

@OneGodBeliever

Here is an overview of some of the relevant issues regarding the Bible.  I'm just going to try to lay out the background without introducing my opinions (except in places I explicitly say "I think...").

I am using the terms "church" to refer to all Christians, "congregations" to refer to local groups of Christians, and "groups" to refer to larger more regional associations of Christians.  "Groups" would included modern denominations and the more ancient regions where one particular congregation (say Jerusalem or Rome) might have a lot of influence on congregations in the surrounding area.  I will also use the term authoritative to mean that a writing is accepted being an undisputed authority in matters of faith and conduct.  I will use the term useful to mean that a writing was found to have some type of value though not being considered authoritative.

The vast majority of all Christians and groups accept the standard 66 books as being authoritative.  That is, of all of the Christian writings that existed, these 66 books alone were used extensively and trusted by the church at large as being authoritative for matters of faith and conduct.  In addition, there were other Christian writings that various congregations and groups accepted as being useful for matters of faith and conduct.  This includes the 14 books known as the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical books as they are also known).  These are writings that date between the OT and NT times.  In addition, some groups accept some writings from NT times (sometimes called NT apocrypha) as useful.    So, in summary, one could safely say that virtually all Christians, congregations, and groups accept the 66 books as being authoritative.  In addition, there are various Christians, congregations, and groups that accept other books from the OT and NT apocrypha as being useful.  Also, to my understanding, there are some smaller and more isolated groups that hold some books from the OT and NT apocrypha as being authoritative.   I've heard conflicting reports on whether some groups like the Catholic church view the OT Apocrypha as authoritative or useful.

Ultimately, for most Christians, the books outside of the 66 authoritative ones have various degrees of usefulness.  While most Protestants would reject the OT apocrypha as not being authoritative, many Protestant scholars consider those books useful from a historical standpoint to better understand what was happening in the time between the OT and NT.  Many Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a high respect for the writings of many of the church fathers with regard to matters of faith and conduct.  I think that the best way to approach what Christians mean by canon is using the idea of which books are considered authoritative and to what degree non-authoritative books might be useful.  I think that the issue is not so much which books are "rejected", but rather the degree of authority or usefulness ascribed to each book.  For example, there is a book (called the book of Enoch) that is considered authoritative only by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches but at best regarded as having some limited historical usefulness by most Christian groups.

With regard to "corruption", I'll try to keep the following discussion to the main points without getting lost in details.  I'll freely admit that I am much more familiar with NT texts than OT.  Much of what I say about the NT would apply in some sort of similar manner to the OT.

It is a historical fact that the thousands of existing partial and complete manuscripts of the Greek NT have differences between them.  The vast majority of these are minor and do not affect the meaning.  Many are reversed words (for example "Jesus Christ" versus "Christ Jesus") and others are matters of updated spellings or language usage to reflect changes in Greek over the centuries.  As a practical matter, there are not any serious matters of faith that are affected by any of these.  In general, Christians have taken two approaches to these differences, the first is to accept each manuscript as a real NT that was used by a congregation or group, and the second is to search for which particular manuscript is the perfect one.

In the first approach, Christian scholars consider each different variation from different manuscripts as a witness to a particular reading.  Each passage in the NT is considered separately.  The general idea is that each manuscript reflects what a congregation or group had as their NT.  The credibility of the witnesses are considered (such as is this the only reading like that, when did was it written, etc.)   The goal is to try to determine as best as possible what the original words were of the NT.  In this view, this is an ongoing work of the church that each generation of Christians will contribute to.  This approach is basically based on the belief that God works through human imperfection in the church throughout the ages.  It is also based on the belief that God did not leave any group or congregation without an authoritative NT to use.

In the second approach, Christian scholars need to determine which text (in its entirety) is the same as the original words of the NT.  Some Christians, congregations, and groups believe that this was already brought about by God once and for all.  In this view, the church's responsibility is to use that one preserved perfect NT text as its sole authority.

On top of this issue, is the translation of Greek texts into modern languages.  Some Christians take the view that translations are by nature imperfect and that looking at a series of them will give greater insight into the meaning of the Greek text.  Other Christians take the view that there can only be one correct translation from Greek into a language and that particular correct translation is authoritative.

So, in summary you have this.  Virtually all Christians take the standard 66 books as authoritative, and various groups and congregations attribute some degree of authority or usefulness to other books.   Some Christians see textual variation as a part of how God involves each generation of Christian in the transmission of scripture across the ages; other Christians see textual variation as errors from a perfect preserved copy the church has already identified.  Some Christians see translation as an ongoing effort to better understand the Greek text; other Christians see translation as a once-for-all task that was already correctly accomplished.   For most Christians, most modern translations of the Bible are considered authoritative.  For some Christians, only particular translations (or a single translation) are authoritative. 

For Christians who believe only a single translation into English is authoritative, they will likely agree if you say that modern versions are corrupt and unreliable.  However, they will never agree with you that the particular perfect one has anything wrong with it.  For Christians who believe most modern translations are authoritative, they will point to alleged examples of corruption and unreliability and contradiction and simply respond that we already know about those and none of those things affect our relationship with God.

<Now my explanation of what it is that is distinct about Christianity>

For most Christians, it is not a matter of having perfect knowledge and the right opinions on everything, it is about knowing God and walking with Him.  It is about seeing His hand at work in our lives and others' lives.  Our trust and confidence is in God Himself because of what we've seen Him do in our lives and others.  You will find at its core that Christianity is primarily about what God has done and is doing in us and others.  There's much debate among Christians about how or why God does things, but much general agreement that He actively reaches out to us and is changing us into the people He created us to be.  While there might be disagreement among Christians regarding the authority of particular translations or texts, you will find strong agreement that each of those people actually reads their Bible and learns from it.  They would all agree that God reveals Himself and teaches through it.  Ultimately, for the Christian, it is about God's Spirit moving inside of us and guiding us to a better knowledge and relationship with Him.

The core issue for Christians is not that God revealed Truth once millennia ago, but rather that He is revealing Himself on an ongoing basis to each and every person who will respond to Him.  The distinctiveness of Christianity is found at the beginning of the book of Acts.  God sent His Spirit to all the individual Christians to go out in the world. It was no longer about Moses or special prophets getting a revelation for everyone else, it was about God's Spirit dwelling inside every individual Christian.  It was no longer about trying to find the right teacher to follow who had a special revelation from God, it was about having God do that in each and every Christian's life.   He wants to reach out, transform, and have a personal relationship with each of us.  The NT uses profound language to describe this.  We can call our heavenly Father, Dad.  Jesus called his disciples brothers and friends.  We are not Christians because we join a congregation and hold the right opinions about things.  We are Christians because God reached out to us, revealed Himself to us, and put His Spirit to live inside of us.  We are Christians because we walk with a tangible sense of God's presence in our lives because a loving Creator wants to have a direct relationship with His creation.

 

[OneGodBeliever]

52 minutes ago, Mishael said:

Does that change the meaning of the verse or the theology of Christianity?

So removing the words which are included in original manuscripts is OK? You are not serious right? As long as its written in bible Jesus died for your sins/Jesus is lord, everything else that is changed/removed matters not? I am amazed by ur reply like its nothing. If a sentence was removed I will think about its authenticity dearly. Same way they removed the verse, how can you be sure they did not add something too for instance Jesus being a man to God?

[Mishael]

8 minutes ago, OneGodBeliever said:

So removing the words which are included in original manuscripts is OK? You are not serious right? As long as its written in bible Jesus died for your sins/Jesus is lord, everything else that is changed/removed matters not? I am amazed by ur reply like its nothing. If a sentence was removed I will think about its authenticity dearly. Same way they removed the verse, how can you be sure they did not add something too for instance Jesus being a man to God?

You still can't even answer my question on the Quran. Lol you think Christians just believe Jesus is lord and that he died for our sins and that's sums up Christian theology. Revising a verse doesn't mean removing it since it can still be available on other translations or copies and they will all still have the same meaning. If the meaning is different or contradictory in two different Bible versions then that makes a problem if not then it doesn't matter.

[Debp]

19 hours ago, OneGodBeliever said:

To add can you answer what was the language Jesus spoke & what language original bible is?

Jesus spoke Aramaic....the OT was written in Hebrew, the NT written in Greek.

19 hours ago, OneGodBeliever said:

I have asked a question but have not received an answer

https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/221132-corruption-of-the-bible/?do=findComment&comment=2790862

 

The meaning is the same.....since the Lord descended from Heaven, the meaning is that He was already there.   Just two ways of saying the same thing.

[Debp]

20 hours ago, OneGodBeliever said:

No Christian scholar believes they were disciples but came hundreds of years later after Jesus.

I don't know where you are getting your information from..... Christian scholars acknowledge the disciples as having lived during Christ's life, death and resurrection. 

You are trying so hard to discredit the word of God that you are making very peculiar statements that go against history and common sense.

[OneGodBeliever]

6 minutes ago, Debp said:

I don't know where you are getting your information from..... Christian scholars acknowledge the disciples as having lived during Christ's life, death and resurrection. 

You are trying so hard to discredit the word of God that you are making very peculiar statements that go against history and common sense.

My friend Jesus spoke Aramaic and the bible is in Greek language which Jesus never knew.

 

Now the verse 1John 5:7 which I think is most important verse for Christians:

For three who bear record in heaven, the father, the word and the holy ghost & these three are one.

This is not to be found in RSV and also verse 8 is removed too in ESV. Why?

[Debp]

19 hours ago, GandalfTheWise said:

@OneGodBeliever

Here is an overview of some of the relevant issues regarding the Bible.  I'm just going to try to lay out the background without introducing my opinions (except in places I explicitly say "I think...").

I am using the terms "church" to refer to all Christians, "congregations" to refer to local groups of Christians, and "groups" to refer to larger more regional associations of Christians.  "Groups" would included modern denominations and the more ancient regions where one particular congregation (say Jerusalem or Rome) might have a lot of influence on congregations in the surrounding area.  I will also use the term authoritative to mean that a writing is accepted being an undisputed authority in matters of faith and conduct.  I will use the term useful to mean that a writing was found to have some type of value though not being considered authoritative.

The vast majority of all Christians and groups accept the standard 66 books as being authoritative.  That is, of all of the Christian writings that existed, these 66 books alone were used extensively and trusted by the church at large as being authoritative for matters of faith and conduct.  In addition, there were other Christian writings that various congregations and groups accepted as being useful for matters of faith and conduct.  This includes the 14 books known as the Apocrypha (or Deuterocanonical books as they are also known).  These are writings that date between the OT and NT times.  In addition, some groups accept some writings from NT times (sometimes called NT apocrypha) as useful.    So, in summary, one could safely say that virtually all Christians, congregations, and groups accept the 66 books as being authoritative.  In addition, there are various Christians, congregations, and groups that accept other books from the OT and NT apocrypha as being useful.  Also, to my understanding, there are some smaller and more isolated groups that hold some books from the OT and NT apocrypha as being authoritative.   I've heard conflicting reports on whether some groups like the Catholic church view the OT Apocrypha as authoritative or useful.

Ultimately, for most Christians, the books outside of the 66 authoritative ones have various degrees of usefulness.  While most Protestants would reject the OT apocrypha as not being authoritative, many Protestant scholars consider those books useful from a historical standpoint to better understand what was happening in the time between the OT and NT.  Many Catholics and Orthodox Christians have a high respect for the writings of many of the church fathers with regard to matters of faith and conduct.  I think that the best way to approach what Christians mean by canon is using the idea of which books are considered authoritative and to what degree non-authoritative books might be useful.  I think that the issue is not so much which books are "rejected", but rather the degree of authority or usefulness ascribed to each book.  For example, there is a book (called the book of Enoch) that is considered authoritative only by the Ethiopian and Eritrean Orthodox churches but at best regarded as having some limited historical usefulness by most Christian groups.

With regard to "corruption", I'll try to keep the following discussion to the main points without getting lost in details.  I'll freely admit that I am much more familiar with NT texts than OT.  Much of what I say about the NT would apply in some sort of similar manner to the OT.

It is a historical fact that the thousands of existing partial and complete manuscripts of the Greek NT have differences between them.  The vast majority of these are minor and do not affect the meaning.  Many are reversed words (for example "Jesus Christ" versus "Christ Jesus") and others are matters of updated spellings or language usage to reflect changes in Greek over the centuries.  As a practical matter, there are not any serious matters of faith that are affected by any of these.  In general, Christians have taken two approaches to these differences, the first is to accept each manuscript as a real NT that was used by a congregation or group, and the second is to search for which particular manuscript is the perfect one.

In the first approach, Christian scholars consider each different variation from different manuscripts as a witness to a particular reading.  Each passage in the NT is considered separately.  The general idea is that each manuscript reflects what a congregation or group had as their NT.  The credibility of the witnesses are considered (such as is this the only reading like that, when did was it written, etc.)   The goal is to try to determine as best as possible what the original words were of the NT.  In this view, this is an ongoing work of the church that each generation of Christians will contribute to.  This approach is basically based on the belief that God works through human imperfection in the church throughout the ages.  It is also based on the belief that God did not leave any group or congregation without an authoritative NT to use.

In the second approach, Christian scholars need to determine which text (in its entirety) is the same as the original words of the NT.  Some Christians, congregations, and groups believe that this was already brought about by God once and for all.  In this view, the church's responsibility is to use that one preserved perfect NT text as its sole authority.

On top of this issue, is the translation of Greek texts into modern languages.  Some Christians take the view that translations are by nature imperfect and that looking at a series of them will give greater insight into the meaning of the Greek text.  Other Christians take the view that there can only be one correct translation from Greek into a language and that particular correct translation is authoritative.

So, in summary you have this.  Virtually all Christians take the standard 66 books as authoritative, and various groups and congregations attribute some degree of authority or usefulness to other books.   Some Christians see textual variation as a part of how God involves each generation of Christian in the transmission of scripture across the ages; other Christians see textual variation as errors from a perfect preserved copy the church has already identified.  Some Christians see translation as an ongoing effort to better understand the Greek text; other Christians see translation as a once-for-all task that was already correctly accomplished.   For most Christians, most modern translations of the Bible are considered authoritative.  For some Christians, only particular translations (or a single translation) are authoritative. 

For Christians who believe only a single translation into English is authoritative, they will likely agree if you say that modern versions are corrupt and unreliable.  However, they will never agree with you that the particular perfect one has anything wrong with it.  For Christians who believe most modern translations are authoritative, they will point to alleged examples of corruption and unreliability and contradiction and simply respond that we already know about those and none of those things affect our relationship with God.

<Now my explanation of what it is that is distinct about Christianity>

For most Christians, it is not a matter of having perfect knowledge and the right opinions on everything, it is about knowing God and walking with Him.  It is about seeing His hand at work in our lives and others' lives.  Our trust and confidence is in God Himself because of what we've seen Him do in our lives and others.  You will find at its core that Christianity is primarily about what God has done and is doing in us and others.  There's much debate among Christians about how or why God does things, but much general agreement that He actively reaches out to us and is changing us into the people He created us to be.  While there might be disagreement among Christians regarding the authority of particular translations or texts, you will find strong agreement that each of those people actually reads their Bible and learns from it.  They would all agree that God reveals Himself and teaches through it.  Ultimately, for the Christian, it is about God's Spirit moving inside of us and guiding us to a better knowledge and relationship with Him.

The core issue for Christians is not that God revealed Truth once millennia ago, but rather that He is revealing Himself on an ongoing basis to each and every person who will respond to Him.  The distinctiveness of Christianity is found at the beginning of the book of Acts.  God sent His Spirit to all the individual Christians to go out in the world. It was no longer about Moses or special prophets getting a revelation for everyone else, it was about God's Spirit dwelling inside every individual Christian.  It was no longer about trying to find the right teacher to follow who had a special revelation from God, it was about having God do that in each and every Christian's life.   He wants to reach out, transform, and have a personal relationship with each of us.  The NT uses profound language to describe this.  We can call our heavenly Father, Dad.  Jesus called his disciples brothers and friends.  We are not Christians because we join a congregation and hold the right opinions about things.  We are Christians because God reached out to us, revealed Himself to us, and put His Spirit to live inside of us.  We are Christians because we walk with a tangible sense of God's presence in our lives because a loving Creator wants to have a direct relationship with His creation.

 

I would especially like to call attention to the last paragraph.....we have not only forgiveness of sins but a relationship with God.  Sin through Adam  separated us from God, but through Christ we are reconciled to our Heavenly Father.

Ours is not a religion based on trying to earn Heaven, but rather it is about being reconciled to God, cleansed of our sins and having the assurance that God love us and we are His children.

[Debp]

20 hours ago, OneGodBeliever said:

We will discuss Quran later. Let's stick to the topic.

OneGodBeliever, you are fighting so hard against the Bible that I believe you will eventually become a Christian.   God will draw you and reveal the truth to you.  This has happened many times, even to Muslim terrorists....they have become believers in Jesus as their Savior and Lord, and now even preach the faith.