Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Amalek

THE CHANGING CANONS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The CHANGING CANONS

The Ecumenical Councils of the Catholic Church

Changes in THE RESURRECTION STORIES

Arianism Versus the Council of Nicaea

"chuckles" :squeez:

A message from islamic-awareness:

"One of the more incontrovertible issues confronting any serious study of the Bible is the glaring historical vacuum of consensus over what constitutes a legitimate canon. Much like the early theological controversies, the Church was plagued from its very infancy with heated debates over what precisely qualified as "scripture". Indeed, the widespread division over the most basic elements of Christian faith led each of the major doctrinal factions to champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture".

The extent of this disagreement was only to intensify with the coming of the Reformation. The ensuing secession by Protestant Christians (themselves later to explode into literally tens of doctrinally distinct denominations) ensured that these major divisions would remain into perpetuity.

Perhaps not surprisingly, this less than flattering problem of multiple canons is conveniently exempted from the literature of missionary Christianity. The reasons for this range from humble ignorance (itself admittedly less humble in proportion) to the more subtle means of diplomatic guile so perfected by missionary propagandists. It is our aim to fill this factual void with a few helpful resources. Honest readers will conclude that it requires no stretch of the imagination nor any excercise of lofty reasoning to acknowledge some very serious problems in what Christians call "The Word of God".

It is our aim here to educate the Muslims about the evolution of Biblical Canon and to show that in the absence of any agreed set of books as "inspired" and the reasons of why they can be considered as "inspired", there is simply no reason to believe they are "inspired". Putting it quite succintly: one man's scripture is another man's apocrypha."

To Read Their Research Go Here: http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/

1. Early Lists Of The Books Of The New Testament

2. To Every Church A Canon...LOL

:angel:

Edited by Amalek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam walaikum wa rahmatullah akhi. The New Testament is truly a strange book with some bits and piece of Isa's (as) teachings but more jumbo that collapses under any objective criticism. But it is important for "born" Muslim brothers to know from former Christians like me, that the NT should not be approximated with or considered the injeel. I used to be Christian, and I tell you that this book is not the injeel. The New Testament gospels are merely exaggerated nonwitness accounts based on the injeel but is not part or partial of the injeel itself. Because we know today from scholars that the authors of the four gospels of Matthews, Mark, Luke, and John took sources out of an earlier gospel. Not a single one of the four Gospels in the NT predate 70 AD. So if we assume like the Christians that the NT gospels are authentic and original, then that would mean that the followers of Isa (as) went around for decades without any scripture, which would be completely preposterous to believe.

We as Muslims know that Allah (swt) sent the injeel directly to Isa (as) during Isa's (as) time on earth, and not 40 years after his ascension. All these authors in the bible who claimed to have received a revelation after Isa (as) ascended from earth are completely false. Because Allah (swt) never mentioned that he gave a gospel to anyone other than Isa (as) himself. Neither did Allah (swt) say that he revealed multiple gospels, for he made it clear in the Holy Quran that only one gospel came. So just by the mere fact alone that Christians have 4 gospels in 1 book, nullifies its authencity. No excuses can be made by Christians as to why they dont have scripture dated back to Isa (as). Isa (as) was literate according to their own bible, because in his younger days he used to go to the temple and read the Torah scrolls. So the likelihood of Isa (as) not leaving behind a single written instruction whether or not it be the littliest thing as a letter to a friend is a foolish concept meant to excuse the fact that they have nothing going back directly to Isa (as). And Christians may also use the excuse that the gospels and epistoles of the NT came from the disciples, but this is also not true because scholars who have textually criticized the Bible have shown us that not a single book came from any disciple. The "disciple" excuse does not fly. The disciples were the best of the people alive during the time of Isa (as), and may Allah (swt) venerate and honor the disciples, and may he punish the ones who falsely attributed books to these people in an attempt to gain credibility.

Edited by PeaceBeUponYou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is important for "born" Muslim brothers to know from former Christians like me, that the NT should not be approximated with or considered the injeel. I used to be Christian, and I tell you that this book is not the injeel. The New Testament gospels are merely exaggerated nonwitness accounts based on the injeel but is not part or partial of the injeel itself. Because we know today from scholars that the authors of the four gospels of Matthews, Mark, Luke, and John took sources out of an earlier gospel. Not a single one of the four Gospels in the NT predate 70 AD. So if we assume like the Christians that the NT gospels are authentic and original, then that would mean that the followers of Isa (as) went around for decades without any scripture, which would be completely preposterous to believe.

I don't think that it would be preposterous at all. Think about it. Oral tradition is major thing among many middle eastern religions. The Jewish people have a written Torah (Torah Shebiktav), but they also have a vast Oral Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh). A striking similarity can even be found in Islam--Qur'an (written) and Hadith (which were originally oral). Considering that many of Yehoshua/Isa teachings were in a poetic Aramaic prose, I don't find the possibility of an "oral gospel" too far fetched. Look at what the scholars say--that the modern Gospels took sources out of an earlier gospel (which they label the hypothetical "Q Gospel"). They also have no trace of this hypothetical gospel or mention of it in anything from antiquity. This sounds like an oral tradition to me.

saalam and shalom!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think that it would be preposterous at all. Think about it. Oral tradition is major thing among many middle eastern religions. The Jewish people have a written Torah (Torah Shebiktav), but they also have a vast Oral Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh). A striking similarity can even be found in Islam--Qur'an (written) and Hadith (which were originally oral). Considering that many of Yehoshua/Isa teachings were in a poetic Aramaic prose, I don't find the possibility of an "oral gospel" too far fetched.

saalam and shalom!

I question how legit the oral Torah of the Jews is

It was only the Pharisees in second temple Judea who had it. No other Jewish sect did

Its interesting. Judaism has claims of being older so people normally assume muslims just copied Jews

Where as research nowadays is showing that in fact influence was the other way. Many midrash of the "oral Torah" were made up that took islamic ideas and then judeo-fied them

there's quite a few examples:

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BByalkut.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBnumb.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBrabbah.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html

there's a whole list here: http://www.google.com/search?q=midrash&amp...c-awareness.org

Due the isnad making up new hadith as the ages go by is impossible in islamic sources anyway, because the chain makes it so easy to catch anyone who's inventing stuff that wasn't there

Look at what the scholars say--that the modern Gospels took sources out of an earlier gospel (which they label the hypothetical "Q Gospel"). They also have no trace of this hypothetical gospel or mention of it in anything from antiquity. This sounds like an oral tradition to me.

We have to bare in my the amount of conjectural spinning takes places in these theories on the NT's origins

The fact of the matter is nobody believes Mathew, Mark, Luke and John ever even existed anymore. Rather the individual gospels were manufactured by multiple anonymous authors. We know next to the nothing where they were written, who wrote them, what theological affiliations they had and so forth

Every christian seminary also now teaches that none of the gospel writers ever met Jesus

And as muslims to us one of the most damning criticisms of the gospels are the mere lack of any chains of narrations, with which we could authenticate much of anything in the gospels. Without them the gospels come of as just one big hadith with no chains, which muslim sources would have tossed out were it in our collections

Then again most christians don't know this about their gospels. Little do they know they aren't books on a message of Jesus, instead they are arguments between various writers on who and what Jesus was

Ironic because Jesus' words don't even make up even 10% of the NT

Edited by Amalek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where as research nowadays is showing that in fact influence was the other way. Many midrash of the "oral Torah" were made up that took islamic ideas and then judeo-fied them

http://www.google.com/search?q=midrash&amp...c-awareness.org

We have to bare in my the amount of conjectural spinning takes places in these theories on the NT's origins

The fact of the matter is nobody believes Mathew, Mark, Luke and John ever even existed anymore. Rather the individual gospels were manufactured by multiple anonymous authors. We know next to the nothing where they were written, who wrote them, what theological affiliations they had and so forth

Every christian seminary also now teaches that none of the gospel writers ever met Jesus

Then again most christians don't know this about their gospels. Little do they know they aren't books on a message of Jesus, instead they are arguments between various writers on who and what Jesus was

Ironic because Jesus' words don't even make up even 10% of the NT

Last I checked every seminary (my denomination) across the country does NOT teach that "none of the gospel writers ever met Jesus." I'd like proof to back up your claim.

There are thousands of Bibical manuscripts, including around 250 complete manuscripts of the Gospels with a fragment from John even found in Egypt - that's how widely it was distributed. Based on the distribution of the Gospels alone, they were more numerous than all details of the Roman history at that time. That in itself is amazing when we consider that was at a time when the Roman authorities had every reason to stop the rise of Christianity and yet, even under the watch of the Jewish leaders Christianity was born and flourished.

Based on the fact that there is more than one account of the Gospels while the Quran is an account from one individual who came 600 years after Christ, then, when I repeatedly read claims of Biblical "corruption" from Muslims, the more convinced I become that the corruption surely has to be the Quran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I question how legit the oral Torah of the Jews is

It was only the Pharisees in second temple Judea who had it. No other Jewish sect did

Its interesting. Judaism has claims of being older so people normally assume muslims just copied Jews

Where as research nowadays is showing that in fact influence was the other way. Many midrash of the "oral Torah" were made up that took islamic ideas and then judeo-fied them

there's quite a few examples:

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BByalkut.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBnumb.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBrabbah.html

-http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/BBsheba.html

there's a whole list here: http://www.google.com/search?q=midrash&amp...c-awareness.org

LOL. Are you that paranoid? If Jews and Muslims have similar beliefs--then the Jews must have stolen it from the Muslims? Get over yourself dude. And where do your authors get their dates for the Midrash? I know Midrash was written down a bit later than the Mishna and Gemara, but their dates seem very late. Perhaps you could find out.

And no it wasn't the only the Pharisees who adhered to the Oral Tradition. It can be argued (and rightly so) that the Essene and Netzarim had Oral Tradition. The only group that outright rejected the Oral Law were the Tzadukim, the Sadducees, and later the Karaites. Yehoshua/Isa even agreed with their authority! Matthew 23:1-3 states:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach
.

Just the existence of the Oral Torah is rational because there are many vague parts of the written Torah. For instance, it says we should not work on Shabbat. Okay. The Torah doesn't define what "work" is though. Oral Law does. When the Torah is giving instructions to build the Mishkan, Tabernacle, it describes what is to be built. The Oral Torah goes into detail how it is to be built. In fact, the Torah scroll doesn't even have vowels! The pronunciation and trope (cantillation) are passed down orally!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

I don't think that it would be preposterous at all. Think about it. Oral tradition is major thing among many middle eastern religions. The Jewish people have a written Torah (Torah Shebiktav), but they also have a vast Oral Torah (Torah Shebaal Peh). A striking similarity can even be found in Islam--Qur'an (written) and Hadith (which were originally oral). Considering that many of Yehoshua/Isa teachings were in a poetic Aramaic prose, I don't find the possibility of an "oral gospel" too far fetched. Look at what the scholars say--that the modern Gospels took sources out of an earlier gospel (which they label the hypothetical "Q Gospel"). They also have no trace of this hypothetical gospel or mention of it in anything from antiquity. This sounds like an oral tradition to me.

I will have to largely agree with this notion. I am of the opinion that the Injeel mentioned in the Qur'an is, in fact, an oral teaching, dictated by God to Jesus (as) to his Apostles and disciples. There are a number of reasons why I have reached this conclusion. The first being what is written in the Qur'an concerning the Injeel:

(bismillah)

"And He will teach him (Jesus) the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and Injeel" (3:48)

"And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was revealed before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Injeel, wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was revealed before it in the Torah - a guidance and admonition to those who ward off evil" (5:46)

So the Injeel is essentially the teaching by God given to Jesus (as).

"So they set out and went from village to village, preaching the gospel and healing people everywhere." (Luke 9:6)

Verses like these are all over the New Testament, where Jesus and his Apostles are described to be "preaching the Gospel". They obviously don't mean Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, but rather the "Good News" bestowed unto Jesus (as) and preached by him. The 4 we have today are just Gospels according to their authors, which we don't know who they are for certain, since they are written anonymously and decades after the alleged crucifixion.

It's likely the true followers of our Messiah Jesus (as) are the ones that had either known him personally, or those who had adhered to the teachings of Ahl 'Imran (de ja vu anyone?): James, as the leader of the Movement, and Jude, as the brother of Jesus (as), or alternatively, Peter, the apostle of Jesus (as).

Something one must consider though is that the four Gospels were not the only pieces of writing available to the early Christians. There were dozens of Gospels and Apocalypses written by different authorities (some of which were, of course, fabrications or alterations) that were passed around, copied and recopied in early Christendom. Though, many of these writings were either put away or destroyed when the New Testament was finalized.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL. Are you that paranoid? If Jews and Muslims have similar beliefs--then the Jews must have stolen it from the Muslims? Get over yourself dude. And where do your authors get their dates for the Midrash? I know Midrash was written down a bit later than the Mishna and Gemara, but their dates seem very late. Perhaps you could find out.

read the links. they have dates for all of them

there wasn't one official date for writing the midrash its an on going process

thing is its all dependent on Chazal. You HAVE to believe Chazal were honest in everything they wrote, that's where the legitmacy of Judaism begins and ends

And no it wasn't the only the Pharisees who adhered to the Oral Tradition. It can be argued (and rightly so) that the Essene and Netzarim had Oral Tradition. The only group that outright rejected the Oral Law were the Tzadukim, the Sadducees, and later the Karaites. Yehoshua/Isa even agreed with their authority! Matthew 23:1-3 states:

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach
.

Matthew 15:1, 2, 7-11; and Mark 7:4-8 show Jesus seemingly rejecting the oral Torah

Just the existence of the Oral Torah is rational because there are many vague parts of the written Torah. For instance, it says we should not work on Shabbat. Okay. The Torah doesn't define what "work" is though. Oral Law does. When the Torah is giving instructions to build the Mishkan, Tabernacle, it describes what is to be built. The Oral Torah goes into detail how it is to be built. In fact, the Torah scroll doesn't even have vowels! The pronunciation and trope (cantillation) are passed down orally!

What I find interesting about the Ethiopian Falashas, or Beta Israel as they call themselves, is that while they have a tradition of being Jews, they have had no concept of an "Oral Torah" upon which so much Rabbinical Judaism (i.e. the Mishnah/Talmdu) depends. Point being an oral Torah isn't unanimous among Jewry

there are plenty arguments that can be made from a Jewish perspective against an oral Torah: http://offthederech.blogspot.com/2006/01/d...ing-kuzari.html

perhaps the best argument I have read against the oral Torah is here written by a former believing orthodox Jew:

http://www.talkreason.org/articles/letter1.cfm#oral

Edited by Amalek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear it all the time, but never is such a claim substantiated

What are you talking about? It happens here a lot. For instance some say Islam has a role in role in politics and different hadiths are used in the debate. An even better example is husbands beating their wives. Scholars have written hadiths that are diametricly opposed to one another on the matter, they are interpretations of the Koran. It is something you "hear it all the time" because it happens all the time.

Peace

Satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are thousands of Bibical manuscripts, including around 250 complete manuscripts of the Gospels with a fragment from John even found in Egypt - that's how widely it was distributed. Based on the distribution of the Gospels alone, they were more numerous than all details of the Roman history at that time. That in itself is amazing when we consider that was at a time when the Roman authorities had every reason to stop the rise of Christianity and yet, even under the watch of the Jewish leaders Christianity was born and flourished.

Based on the fact that there is more than one account of the Gospels while the Quran is an account from one individual who came 600 years after Christ, then, when I repeatedly read claims of Biblical "corruption" from Muslims, the more convinced I become that the corruption surely has to be the Quran.

No offense. But your reply makes me thing you have never read any critical opposition to your position

There are around 5700 manuscripts, not a single one agree with another on much of anything. The story of the adulteress for instance isn't in any of the older manuscripts yet christians still deceivingly have it in their bibles today.

When editing of the bible does take place, then it does for other reasons. An example of Bible translators watering down horrific passages for instance:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (King James Version)

10When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. 11And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. 12And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it: 13And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: 14But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Vs

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 (New International Version)

10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies.

Then there are the contradictions and infighting in the gospels themselves. All books are written for or against some point of view, and the books of the Bible are no different. Bible book authors were often motivated to write because they wanted to challenge or correct those who had written before them. The Bible is a war-zone, and its authors are the combatants. Paul said of Peter, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11). Jeremiah condemned the entire religious establishment of his time the very same people that other Bible authors held in highest esteem: prophets and priests are frauds, every one of them (Jer. 8:10). Luke felt the need to write another gospel even though many writers have undertaken to draw up an account of the events (Luke 1:1). Luke obviously felt that Mark s gospel was filled with errors and edited it freely. Not even Mark s account of the words of the dying Christ was left unaltered.

And that's what we know of the canonical gospels alone.

What if Marcion's canon-which consisted only of Luke's Gospel and Paul's letters, entirely omitting the Old Testament-had become Christianity's canon? What if the Ebionites-who believed Jesus was completely human and not divine-had ruled the day as the Orthodox Christian party? What if various early Christian writings, such as the Gospel of Thomas or the Secret Gospel of Mark, had been allowed into the canonical New Testament?

Perhaps you do not know of the now-familiar story of the tremendous diversity of early Christianity and its eventual suppression by a powerful "proto-orthodox" faction. The proto-orthodox Christians won out over many other groups, and bequeathed to us the four Gospels, a church hierarchy, a set of practices and beliefs, and doctrines such as the Trinity.

We know only about some of the movements and Scriptures that were lost, such as the Ebionites and the Secret Gospel of Mark

It is a FACT that there was no such thing as a monolithic christianity before the 4th century.

But once again this does nothing to redeem the fact that all the gospels are written by anonymous writers who never met or knew Jesus. Even if you did have a plethora of manuscripts which agreed with one another (which you don't anyway), it doesn't excuse where these gospels come from

Fact is there are ZERO chains of narrations for the gospels. So its impossible to verify the accuracy of much of anything in them. Having many manuscripts doesn't absolve that

Plus the oldest complete manuscripts are the Codes Vaticanus and Codes Sinaiticus, both of those are dated 4th century, and they for example have the sheppard of Hermes, which your bible today don't have

Really if there was any preservation of scripture, why is it that every church whether the angelican or the orthodox, catholic, etc have a different canon? You would think they would all have the same bible if it was so thoroughly preserved. ----- Muslims through out the centuries have never disagreed on what constitutes the Quran. Even Jews today are divided on only 10 lines in their Torah

here is a good short video on just a few of the corruptions (and again these are the ones we know about, without any chains of narration we just don't know which are legit and which were made up):

^^Its funny watching Jay Smith get exposed as well

now if you want links on the corruption of scripture I'll be happy to provide them

Edited by Amalek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What are you talking about? It happens here a lot. For instance some say Islam has a role in role in politics and different hadiths are used in the debate. An even better example is husbands beating their wives. Scholars have written hadiths that are diametricly opposed to one another on the matter, they are interpretations of the Koran. It is something you "hear it all the time" because it happens all the time.

That reply alone tells me you don't have a grasp of what you are saying my friend

Scholars DON'T write hadiths. Hadiths were already written and codified LONG ago. That was your first mistake

Its true there is debate of how much Islam must be in politics, but that is a political not theological question. These are questions of how to accomodate modernity and Islam. You seem to be confused about Wilayet-e-Faqih, which while being a political model made by muslims isn't an Islamic one, in the sense there are is nothing in the Sunnah for it. Its a model based on today on how we should rule ourselves. There are other models such Baqir Al Sadr's model

Perhaps you should have said there are disagreements between scholars, which is true. Its not possible for 1.5 billion people to agree on every single thing on every minutia of thought

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Amalek,

This is an interesting statement from Post 1.

Quote

"One of the more incontrovertible issues confronting any serious study of the Bible is the glaring historical vacuum of consensus over what constitutes a legitimate canon. Much like the early theological controversies, the Church was plagued from its very infancy with heated debates over what precisely qualified as "scripture". Indeed, the widespread division over the most basic elements of Christian faith led each of the major doctrinal factions to champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture". --- End of quote.

The canon of Scripture of the NT was decided in the second century with the exception of some of the shorter letters at the back. The accepted books were decided as a result of Marcion who came to Rome about AD 140 and wanted to promote his book of Scriptures as "The Gospel" which consisted (1) of the Gospel of Luke which he edited in accordance with his own viewpoint, (2) and ten Epistles of Paul, as he recognized Paul as the only Apostle of Christ.

I quote from the Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary:

--- 'The publication of Marcion's canon --- was a challenge to the orthodox leaders. If they refused his canon, it was incumbent on them to define the canon which they accepted. They replied to his challenge by saying, in effect, they did not reject the OT writings; they accepted them as Holy Scripture, following the example of Christ and the apostles. Along with them they accepted the NT writings --- not one Gospel only, but four (one of the four being the authentic Greek Gospel of Luke); not ten epistles only of Paul, but thirteen; not epistles of Paul only, but of other apostolic men as well. They also accepted the Acts of the Apostles, and appreciated more than ever its crucial importance as the pivot of the NT. Acts links the fourfold Gospel with the apostolic writings because it provides the sequel to the former, and the historical background to much of the latter. Moreover it provides irrefutable evidence of the genuineness of Paul's apostleship. It bore witness at the same time to the apostleship of Peter and others. But the very fact that Acts attested both the apostleship both of Paul and of Peter and his collegues gave it all the greater value in the eyes of orthodox churchmen. From this time it came to be called "The Acts of the Apostles." --- Acts does at least record something about most of the apostles or apostolic men to whom are ascribed the epistles which they accepted as authoritative.

Thus from the second half of the second century onwards, the Church acknowledged a NT of the same general dimensions as ours. For a considerable time there was some questioning about a few of the books at the end of the NT. But after generations of debate about the few "disputed" books in relation to the "acknowledged" books, we find the 27 documents which make up our NT today listed by Athanasius of Alexandria in AD 367, and not long afterward by Jerome and Augustine in the west.' --- End of quote.

--- There have not been other canons to the NT. Sometimes single books are printed, or the four Gospels, but this doesn't constitute a 'canon of Scripture.' --- Also the many English translations and versions do not change the original text of Greek and Aramaic, in which they were written and preserved. --- About translations I will quote again from the Zondervan Bible Dictionary:

--- 'The OT and NT were very early in translations. The OT was translated into Greek between 250-150 BC., and other translations in Greek appeared soon sfter the beginning of the Christian era. The NT was translated into Latin and Syriac about 150 AD and into Coptic about 200. In subsequent years versions appeared in the Armenian, Gothic, Ethiopic, Geogian, Arabic, Persion and Slavonic languages. --- End of quote. --- (All of these were translated and distributed before 600 AD).

--- There is much more info, but the most noteworthy is that the 'scholarly' Jerome was commissioned to produce a new Latin translation of the whole Bible which he finished about 400 AD. This was the Latin Vulgate, which was used in Churches from then till the 16th century when, after the English language was common, was translated into the Douay version, which was the official Bible of the Roman Catholic Church.

About the same time King James of England collected some 47 Bible scholars and linguists and commissioned them to translate from the original Greek, as well as, no doubt, the Latin Vulgate, a Bible for the common people, and the result was the King James Version.

I have various copies of the KJB and a copy of the Douay, and the Scriptures are the same except for their choice of words which is common in translations.

The major difference is that the canon of the OT in the Douay has a number of extra books, which were deemed by some scholars to be mainly of historical value, but were not included in the KJB. Nor have they been included in other English translations.

I have read these extra books and while they are good to read, they don't add anything, or take away anything from the 66 book canon of the Bible.

I regularly use the New King James Version which merely updated the language from the old English style, with which the Douay was written as well, and has been updated to modern speech.

The advantage of the NKJV is that it was produced after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and many of them disciphered. There is a long supplement on the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as many new Archialogical finds. They have found complete scrolls or fragments of every OT book but Esther, but the Scripture is the same as what was written in the OT we have today.

God has preserved His word.

The Ten Commandments given to Moses and taught to the people to memorize and to write on their gates and doorposts have been preserved for us still to observe today.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't you all spend your time studying your own scripture and stop trying to discredit others. Your intent is ugly even where I sit. Laying someone else low does not aise you up. Christ you sound like kids in a playground.

GROW UP.

Peace

Satyaban

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Satyaban,

I'm sorry, I didn't think that what I quoted from Church history would be offensive.

It is because I do study our own Scriptures, and the authors, that I feel it is important to present what has been documented.

If a critic studies what critics say, they just become a critic with references.

If a person studies the Bible and its history, they become enlightened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Amalek,

This is an interesting statement from Post 1.

Quote

"One of the more incontrovertible issues confronting any serious study of the Bible is the glaring historical vacuum of consensus over what constitutes a legitimate canon. Much like the early theological controversies, the Church was plagued from its very infancy with heated debates over what precisely qualified as "scripture". Indeed, the widespread division over the most basic elements of Christian faith led each of the major doctrinal factions to champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture". --- End of quote.

WOW

Placid you soooooooo wrong its not even funny

I suggest you check out those links I just showed you

Copy and pasting christian historical revisionism will win you no points here

If there were refutations, missionaries would have provided them by now.

You are free to see those links and check out for yourself how your scriptures have changed

The advantage of the NKJV is that it was produced after the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and many of them disciphered. There is a long supplement on the Dead Sea Scrolls as well as many new Archialogical finds. They have found complete scrolls or fragments of every OT book but Esther, but the Scripture is the same as what was written in the OT we have today.

God has preserved His word.

This alone tells me you are clueless about the changes in scripture

Only an ignoramous in this day and age would say the Dead Sea Scrolls show the scriptures were preserved. The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the exact opposite; that monumental changes have been happening to the scriptures over time

I will copy an older post from this section of the forum to illustrate your faulty argument:

So, some comparisons then. Taken from here:

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/dss.htm

MT = Masoretic Text

DSS = Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q referring to the fourth cave at Qumran)

LXX = Septuagint

SP = Samaritan Pentateuch

QUOTE

1&2 Samuel

For the past two centuries textual critics have recognized that the Masoretic Text (MT) of 1&2 Samuel has much textual corruption. The Samuel MT is shorter than the LXX and 4QSama. The Samuel MT has improper word division, metathesis, and other orthographic problems. Certain phrases and clauses go against the Hebrew grammar rules. Parallel passages vary from each other (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.227-8).

In 1952 Roland De Vaux and Lankester Harding found manuscripts of Samuel under three feet of debris in Qumran Cave 4. 4QSama shows that the Old Greek Bible (LXX) was based on a Vorlage similar to 4QSama. Josephus agrees with 4QSama in 6 places against the MT and LXX. Josephus, 4QSama, and LXX share about three dozen readings against the MT (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.229).

Where the book of Chronicles parallels 1 Samuel, the readings of Chronicles follow 4QSama rather than the MT 42 times. Only one time does Chronicles agree with the MT. Over 100 times 4QSama does not agree with any ancient reading (See Charlesworth, 2000, pp.230-31).

The Book of Samuel varies widely and frequently from the Masoretic Text. 4QSama preserves a number of superior readings that help correct errors in the Masoretic Text (DSS Bible, 213). Let's look at some of these.

One dramatic example is in I Samuel 11 where the MT and KJV left out the first paragraph. The Longer reading in the DSS explains what happens in this chapter. It says:

"Nahash king of the Ammonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right eye of all of them and brought fear and trembling on Israel. Not one of the Israelites in the region beyond the Jordan remained whose right eye Nahash king of the Ammonites did not put out, except seven thousand men who escaped from the Ammonites and went to Jabesh-gilead" (The Dead Sea Scroll Bible translated by Abegg, Flint, and Ulrich page 225). Then verse one of I Samuel 11 starts.

1 Samuel 14:30

There is a mis-division of words here in the MT. The 4QSama divides it differently which makes better sense. The MT has hkm htbr rather than hkmh hbr in the 4QSama.

1 Samuel 14:47

There is a singular instead of a plural noun in 4QSama. 4QSama is the better reading.

1 Samuel 15:27

There is an omission of the subject in the MT. According to 4QSama Saul is the subject who grabbed the garment, not Samuel.

1 Samuel 17:4

How tall was Goliath? The MT says, "six cubits and a span" while 4QSama says, "four cubits and a span." People don't usually grow to be over 9 foot tall, so the "four cubits"(7 feet) seems the most reasonable height of Goliath.

1 Samuel 26:22

The MT preserves two variant readings by combining them while the 4QSama just records the one correct word. The MT has an ungrammatical reading.

Biblical Texts that need to be changed as a result of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Genesis 1:9

4QGenk has added "and dry land appeared" indicating that the longer reading of the LXX is from an ancient Hebrew text that the MT lost by haplography. The LXX addition says, "and the waters below heaven gathered into their gathering place and dry land appeared" (See Charlesworth, 2000, p.200).

Genesis 4:8

Genesis 4:8 leaves us with the unanswered question about What did Cain say to Abel? The Samaritan Pentateuch and the LXX have what Cain said. The LXX says, "Let us go out into the field." 4QGenb does not have this reading, but scholars think the sentence dropped out because of scribal error (Ibid., 15).

Exodus 1:3

4QExodb in Exodus 1:3 has "Joseph and Benjamin" while the MT, SP, and LXX have only "Benjamin." Frank Cross thinks 4QExodb reading should be preferred (Ibid., 201-203).

Deuteronomy 32:8

4QDeutj and the LXX say, "according to the number of the sons of God" while the MT and SP say, "according to the number of the sons of Israel." "Sons of Israel" does not make sense here. This is probably a theological change. The 4QDeutj and the LXX seem to preserve the older reading that implies a god, or guardian angel for each nation.

Joshua 8:34-35

4QJosha locates the paragraph about Joshua's construction of an altar (Joshua 8:30-35, MT) at the beginning of Joshua 5. The LXX locates this paragraph at Joshua 9:7-8. Josephus follows the 4QJosha tradition which is probably the earliest or original order of Joshua.

Judges 6:6-11

4QJudga is different from the MT and the LXX in that it lacks Judges 6:7-10. These missing verses are said to be a literary insertion added by an editor. Here is clear evidence of scribal expansion of the MT.

Psalms

There are a number of additional Psalms in the DSS than in our Bible. Psalms 1-89 are basically the same as ours in the DSS (Psalm 32, and 70 are absent). From Psalm 91 on there are radical differences in arrangement, and/or in different Psalms that have never been seen before (Psalm 90 is not preserved). There are a total of 15 different Psalms which are not included in our present Bible, nine of which were completely unknown. None of the Psalm scrolls found has our present day arrangement of the Book of Psalms.

Psalm 22

Psalm 22:17 in the MT "like a lion are my hands and feet" which does not make sense. The LXX and 5/6HevPs read "They have pierced my hands and feet."

Psalm 145 is an alphabetical psalm. Each verse begins with the next letter in the alphabet, but "N" verse is missing in the MT and KJV. In the DSS it is there, so somehow a scribe left this verse out.

Ezekiel

The oldest known texts of Ezekiel are from the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scroll Bible states, Small fragments from six manuscripts of Ezekiel were found at Qumran and another atop Masada. All of them and the traditional Masoretic Text fairly uniformly attest the same textual tradition. Only seven minor variants are clearly preserved, though reconstruction according to spatial requirements indicates that in two places (5:13 and 23:16) the scrolls may have had a shorter text than the Masoretic Text" (page 407).

If anyone wishes for further study into the changes then go here:

this list, which gives substantially more cases of agreement between the LXX and the DSS in distinction to the Masoretic: http://www.geocities.com/r_grant_jones/Rick/Septuagint/spappendix.htm

^^^ (there's around 200 or so instances listed on there where the LXX and the Masoretic disagree in the Torah, yet the DSS supports the LXX version).

Its clear and apparent why the LXX or Septuagint is closer to the DSS (Dead Sea Scrolls) than the Masoretic text. This is because the changes happened gradually over time. And because the Septuagint is closer in time to the creation of the Dead Sea Scrolls, we see that the changes in the Masoretic version aren't present in the in the DSS. If we found a Torah scroll before the DSS, then likely it would have changes as well

The Ten Commandments given to Moses and taught to the people to memorize and to write on their gates and doorposts have been preserved for us still to observe today.

LOL. Yeah that's why there are two contradicting version of the 10 "commandments" in the Torah

FYI there is NO such thing as 10 commandments in the Torah

The idea of 10 commandments is purely a christian invention, with no support from the Torah and is a result of church fathers dealing with a hebrew document they have no clue about

In the Torah, these words are never referred to as the Ten Commandments. In the Torah, they are called Aseret ha-D'varim (Ex. 34:28, Deut. 4:13 and Deut. 10:4). In rabbinical texts, they are referred to as Aseret ha-Dibrot. The words d'varim and dibrot come from the Hebrew root Dalet-Beit-Reish, meaning word, speak or thing; thus, the phrase is accurately translated as the Ten Sayings, the Ten Statements, the Ten Declarations, the Ten Words or even the Ten Things, but not as the Ten Commandments, which would be Aseret ha-Mitzvot.

The Aseret ha-Dibrot are not understood as individual mitzvot; rather, they are categories or classifications of mitzvot. Each of the 613 mitzvot can be subsumed under one of these ten categories, some in more obvious ways than others. For example, the mitzvah not to work on Shabbat rather obviously falls within the category of remembering the Sabbath day and keeping it holy. The mitzvah to fast on Yom Kippur fits into that category somewhat less obviously: all holidays are in some sense a Sabbath, and the category encompasses any mitzvah related to sacred time. The mitzvah not to stand aside while a person's life is in danger fits somewhat obviously into the category against murder. It is not particularly obvious, however, that the mitzvah not to embarrass a person fits within the category against murder: it causes the blood to drain from your face thereby shedding blood.

Your church fathers would have known this, and would have avoided this theological disaster for Christianity, were they not busy killing Jewry

Edited by Amalek

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a little more on the NT Scriptures and how they were preserved:

--- I am interested in the angel Gabriel because he came to bring the truth to Muhammad. --- Therefore when Surah 3:3 was given, saying: ‘He hath revealed unto thee, Muhammad, the Scripture with truth, confirming that which was revealed before it, even as He revealed the Torah and the Gospel.’ --- He, Gabriel, would know the truth, would he not?

Surah 3 was given about AD 625 so the ‘truth’ that Gabriel brought would be updated to then, would it not?

We generally agree that the NT books were written basically in the first century. The common writing paper was Papyrus, which was not very durable, and through use and age, the copies didn’t last long. --- They were continually being copied and distributed and thousands of fragments have been found, --- BUT THAT IS NOT IMPORTANT.

A copy of most of the books was compiled as early as AD 140, and all were there in the second half of the century, according to my Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary. Then later, (quote): ‘We find the 27 documents which make up our NT today listed by Athanasius of Alexandria in AD 367, and not long after by Jerome and Augustine in the west.’ (End of quote). The 27 books of the NT were confirmed by the Church councils of both east and west about AD 393. --- BUT THAT IS NOT SO IMPORTANT.

The NT was translated to Latin about AD 150, and later, --- (Quote from BD): ‘The Latin Vulgate was produced by the scholarly Jerome. He translated from the original Hebrew and Greek. He was commissioned in AD 382 by Pope Damasus to make an official revision of the Old Latin Bible. His work was completed in AD 405.’ (End of quote).

Latin was a common language for many Jews and was kind of adopted by the Christians. If you remember, Luke recorded that the inscription on the cross was written in Greek, Latin, and Hebrew, Luke 23:38. The Latin Vulgate was used for over 1000 years until the Douay Version, translated from the Vulgate, became ‘the Authorized Roman Catholic Bible’ in English. --- THIS IS IMPORTANT.

I have a copy of the Douay Version and it is quite comparable to the authorized King James Version. Both are written in the Old English language. The Latin Vulgate would have been used in AD 625 by Christians and others, so, --- THIS IS IMPORTANT.

In addition to the Greek and Hebrew NT, there were other translations at the time, (quote from BD): ‘The Coptic versions were made for Christians in the second or third century. The Ethiopic version was made in the fourth or fifth century. The Gothic version was prepared by Ulfilas about AD 350. The Armenian Version, beautiful and accurate, was made for Christians of eastern Asia Minor about AD 400. Other translations were made in, Georgian, Arabic, Persian, and Slovanic languages.’ (End of quote). --- THIS IS IMPORTANT.

If all of these were available in that time frame, before AD 625, wouldn’t the angel Gabriel know about them and know the languages? If these versions did not all say the same thing, there would have been no end of arguments among the people groups and the theologians of the day. And Gabriel, bringing the truth, would have had to distinguish between one and the other if there were differences, would he not?

I believe that when Gabriel said, ‘the Gospel,’ he was referring to the updated version to AD 625, don’t you? Or do you think he was referring to some lost or oral teaching that was obscure?

If we accept the fact that Gabriel brought the truth to Muhammad, we have to accept that he would naturally be referring to the previous truth in the Book they already had, which would be applicable in AD 625.

Placid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amalek, maybe there were Oral Torah to explain the written Torah, just as Muslims have hadith to explain Al-Quran.

The main problem is maybe there are no ilm al-rijal in Oral Torah so it is difficult to differentiate the original & accurate ones apart of the fabricated & inaccurate ones. The problem is added by the fluidity of the Tanakh text itself (i.e. textual differences)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...