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  
Jafar moh

Bible corrupted? Or it's explanation distorted?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Straight forward question:

What does one think of the possibility that the words and verses of the Bibles may not have actually been changed or corrupted-- but the way it was interpreted and broken down in explanation by forefathers during that time was corrupt? The majority Shia belief (including that of Allama Tabatabai) says that it was the apostle Paul who was the first to bring in the doctrine of the Trinity and the Atonement of Christ, ones that aren't quite explicitly mentioned in the NT bible ( ignoring the KJV version, that already has it's own controversial issues in the christian population in general) except for the possible verses that could have been interpreted to show this ideology. Are there references to prominent Shia scholars who definitely believe that the words of the Bible aren't the same as they are right now from before (meaning they were changed)?

Salam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jafar

Paul is a very prominent man in Christianity and it seems likely that he has had influence on Christian theology. But he never mentiones the trinity, this was formed long after Paul died. The Gospels were also written after Paul died.

The Muslim idea that the Gospels were corrupted originates in the belief that Jesus brought the same message as did Muhammed. Since the Gospels does not entirely match the Quran, the Gospels must be corrupted. 

The solutian is very simple. The Gospel writers have an opinion about Jesus that differs from that Muhammed had 600 years later. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, andres said:

Hi Jafar

Paul is a very prominent man in Christianity and it seems likely that he has had influence on Christian theology. But he never mentiones the trinity, this was formed long after Paul died. The Gospels were also written after Paul died.

The Muslim idea that the Gospels were corrupted originates in the belief that Jesus brought the same message as did Muhammed. Since the Gospels does not entirely match the Quran, the Gospels must be corrupted. 

The solutian is very simple. The Gospel writers have an opinion about Jesus that differs from that Muhammed had 600 years later. 

So you admit trinity was added in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andres said:

Hi Jafar

Paul is a very prominent man in Christianity and it seems likely that he has had influence on Christian theology. But he never mentiones the trinity, this was formed long after Paul died. The Gospels were also written after Paul died.

The Muslim idea that the Gospels were corrupted originates in the belief that Jesus brought the same message as did Muhammed. Since the Gospels does not entirely match the Quran, the Gospels must be corrupted. 

The solutian is very simple. The Gospel writers have an opinion about Jesus that differs from that Muhammed had 600 years later. 

Muslims have to believe the bible is corrupted to keep the obvious fact that quran teaches the complete opposite of bible. If bible is the word of God and Jesus died and innocent unblemished blood was shed for our sins, as is taught in both torah and NT.

Islam crumbles and they realize they been deceived about God's loving gift for us.

Once in a lifetime gift they can't receive it after death.

Edited by tek40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's why Jesus came to give the good news of the Kingdom of God coming down

Jesus open a path through his shed blood for reconciliation between men and God.

Our sins forgiven through his blood.

Luke 4:43 but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tek40 said:

Muslims have to believe the bible is corrupted to keep the obvious fact that quran teaches the complete opposite of bible. If bible is the word of God and Jesus died and innocent unblemished blood was shed for our sins, as is taught in both torah and NT.

Islam crumbles and they realize they been deceived about God's loving gift for us.

Once in a lifetime gift they can't receive it after death.

 

Just now, tek40 said:

That's why Jesus came to give the good news of the Kingdom of God coming down

Jesus open a path through his shed blood for reconciliation between men and God.

Our sins forgiven through his blood.

Luke 4:43 but he said to them, “I must preach the good news of the kingdom of God to the other towns as well; for I was sent for this purpose.”

sigh, you clearly do not understand what my question was trying to portray. Trust me when I say I have had my fair share of time looking into whether the bible is corrupt... but in the mean time I can give you this:
 

Christianity from the very start was brought down with the same message - to spread the Word of God and to submit to Allah without any partners. Allama Tabatabai in Tafsir Al-Mizan says that the Injeel of Jesus was pretty much identical to 'the other two revelations', that being the Torah and Quran:

Specifically, Allama Tabatabai says:

First: The Injil mentioned in this verse - and it means Good News - was a book revealed to 'Isa (a.s.); it was not merely a "good news" without a book. But Allah has not given any detail in His Book as to how it was revealed, contrary to what He has done regarding the Torah and the Qur'an. He says about the Torah:

He said: "O Musa! Surely I have chosen you above the people with My messages and with My words, therefore take hold of what I give to you and be of the grateful ones. "And We wrote for him in the tablets admonition from everything and clear explanation of all things...(7:144-5). ...he took up the tablets, and in the writing thereof was guidance and mercy for those who fear for the sake of their Lord (7:154).

And He says especially for the Qur'an:

The Faithful Sprit has descended with it, upon your heart that you may be of the warners, in plain Arabic language (26:193-5). Most surely it is the Word of an honoured messenger, the possessor of strength, having an honourable place with the Lord of the Throne, one(to be) obeyed, and faithful in trust (81:19-21). In honoured books, exalted, purified, in the hands of scribes, noble, virtuous (80:13-16). Although Allah has not mentioned anything regarding revelation of Injil and its particulars, yet the verse under discussion mentions its revelation to 'Isa (a.s.) side by side with the coming down of Torah on Musa (a.s.), and revelation of the Qur'an on Muhammad (may Allah's blessings be on him and his progeny) and it proves that Injil too was a book like the other two.

-- copied and pasted my own comment from a previous thread. This goes to show that no, Islam does not believe the Quran teaches opposite of the Bible. What most of the majority muslim belief says is that the trinity and the atonement of Christ are not even biblical. So Sure the Quran teaches opposite the teachings of these two doctrines, but it does not teach opposite the Bible (Islamically).

 

The entire point of this thread was to see different opinions about whether or not THE BIBLE VERSES WERE CHANGED, OR WAS IT THEIR INTERPRETATION THAT WAS CHANGED. Do you see the difference? I'm really not here to debate about who and what is corrupt, and I definitely suggest you take a little extra time looking into the Quran. Tafsir Al-Mizan can be a very big help to you, if you care to look into it. http://www.almizan.org/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its really all a discussion of hearsay.  Tek quotes the Bible, Jafar, you have posted commentary from Allama Tabatabai.  To really understand truth in the topic, more information would be needed.  More than mere words on paper, be them from any form of scripture or tafseer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also can't answer your question, because the bible I believe is the Word of God and we believe the Writers were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Truth Humans were the ones managing it but that goes for all religion.

I hold the fact that God is in control just like he was in control of placing all the events in our lives and Jesus going to the cross.

So, what's in the torah and NT is what God wants in it. I don't have a time machine and can't go back and see what happened since the creation of bible but I trust God that what's in my hand is what he wants in my hand.

The same can be said for Quran which has been dealt by men and throughout time and the original was burned and destroyed by Caliph Uthman from what I read. Who knows if it was preserved. There is also the fact that the words were originally printed in branches and thoughts of men....

and let's not discount history that we don't know what could happen.

I am not trying to attack quran just saying there are many possibilities and you believe it was preserved word of God by faith as do we of our book..

That's why only God can preserve the message he wants to give.

To say that our books is distorted or not true message or whatever people try to imply would not that make God a God of mistakes unable to stop men from corrupting and giving a false message.

The bible does have different interpretations just like quran but mostly the message is the same with minor wording differences as far as I have observed.

Edited by tek40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like Andres said the trinity word is never mentioned in bible by Paul its a word men used to describe the relationship between God, Word and Holy Spirit.

throughout NT and Torah you can see God his Word and Holy Spirit..

so it really doesn't make sense to say Paul brought in doctrine of trinity.

 

Edited by tek40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyway im not quite understanding what your saying just think it's strange they believe that Trinity and atonement is Pauls teaching when it's there a lot in NT.

If I'm not answering you correctly i'm sorry I am not sure what your saying but originally I was quoting Andres

Edited by tek40

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andres said:

Hi Jafar

Paul is a very prominent man in Christianity and it seems likely that he has had influence on Christian theology. But he never mentiones the trinity, this was formed long after Paul died. The Gospels were also written after Paul died.

The Muslim idea that the Gospels were corrupted originates in the belief that Jesus brought the same message as did Muhammed. Since the Gospels does not entirely match the Quran, the Gospels must be corrupted. 

The solutian is very simple. The Gospel writers have an opinion about Jesus that differs from that Muhammed had 600 years later. 

See: Acts 9 --if the Eleven didn't think Paul was an apostle, why should you or me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points about the Old Testament:

In addition to "popular stories" like Esther and Daniel  -same as the 19th Century Ben Hur by Gen. Wallace- that were added to the literature; the Old Testament was essentially "re-written" during the Maccabean Era, 2nd Century BCC/BCE

And from the archaeology, there is currently the "Missing 1000 years" in Biblical chronology. You can get a hint at http://biblicalarchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=24 dated 1993.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

See: Acts 9 --if the Eleven didn't think Paul was an apostle, why should you or me?

Paul was not one of the 12 disciples. The meaning of the titel "apostle" varies.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Two points about the Old Testament:

In addition to "popular stories" like Esther and Daniel  -same as the 19th Century Ben Hur by Gen. Wallace- that were added to the literature; the Old Testament was essentially "re-written" during the Maccabean Era, 2nd Century BCC/BCE

And from the archaeology, there is currently the "Missing 1000 years" in Biblical chronology. You can get a hint at http://biblicalarchaeology.org/bookstore/product.aspx?id=24 dated 1993.

The many books in Old Testament were written, not rewritten, about 500-150BC. Built on oral tradition many stories belong to the category myths. Some of these the Quran has inherited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, andres said:

Paul was not one of the 12 disciples. The meaning of the titel "apostle" varies.

You didn't read Acts or contrast it with Galatians. Paul and the early Church claim he is like the Eleven -another lie.

6 hours ago, andres said:

The many books in Old Testament were written, not rewritten, about 500-150BC. Built on oral tradition many stories belong to the category myths. Some of these the Quran has inherited.

No. Quran reveals that times and places were changed. Archeological evidence has borne some of this out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hasanhh said:

You didn't read Acts or contrast it with Galatians. Paul and the early Church claim he is like the Eleven -another lie.

Can you show scriptures ? thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

You didn't read Acts or contrast it with Galatians. Paul and the early Church claim he is like the Eleven -another lie.

Paul was a dedicated missionary. Does not matter what you call him. Apostle is an apropriate descriptio. Everybody, Paul inclusively, know he was not one of the 12 disciples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, hasanhh said:

No. Quran reveals that times and places were changed. Archeological evidence has borne some of this out.

The stories in the Bible about Noa, Abraham, and Moses are mythological tellings that the Quran has inherited from the Torah, written 2.500 years ago. 3.000 years ago semite tribes were all polytheists. Archeolocigal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, andres said:

The stories in the Bible about Noa, Abraham, and Moses are mythological tellings that the Quran has inherited from the Torah, written 2.500 years ago. 3.000 years ago semite tribes were all polytheists. Archeolocigal evidence.

Can you please explain me, when you say Bible, what do you exactly mean by that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, BornShia said:

Can you please explain me, when you say Bible, what do you exactly mean by that?

The Bible is a collection of Jewish and Christian writings from between ca 600BC-100AD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2016 at 3:29 PM, Ali al-Abdullah said:

So you admit trinity was added in?

The trinity was added as a doctrine by the Nicene creed in 325AD. not by Paul.

The fact that Paul has been accused of so many things by Islamic scholars is just one example of how scriptures are still being corrupted.

Kinda answers the original question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/9/2016 at 8:51 PM, tek40 said:

anyway im not quite understanding what your saying just think it's strange they believe that Trinity and atonement is Pauls teaching when it's there a lot in NT.

If I'm not answering you correctly i'm sorry I am not sure what your saying but originally I was quoting Andres

no, my apologies, i misconstrued your comments. You answered adequately; my thread is a bit of an awkward read admittedly 

 

On 8/10/2016 at 0:54 AM, andres said:

Trinity was never added in. It is stiĺl not mentioned in the Bible. It is a theological attempt to explain the relation between God, Jesus and the Spirit.

does this mean it is possible that - if Jesus was God, would one not be subject to judgement or hell if they did not believe in the Trinity since it isn't exactly 'biblical' ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

no, my apologies, i misconstrued your comments. You answered adequately; my thread is a bit of an awkward read admittedly 

no apologies necessary..

Quote

does this mean it is possible that - if Jesus was God, would one not be subject to judgement or hell if they did not believe in the Trinity since it isn't exactly 'biblical'

I can say for one that when I first came to faith I never knew anything about God, his Word and his Spirit but after he revealed it to me through scriptures.

Is it necessary for salvation? I haven't read where you need to believe trinity for salvation. I do believe that's his nature and he'll show you if you ask, like he revealed to me.

The thing you do need for salvation is believe Jesus died for your sins and his blood was shed.

You can't have a relationship with God with your sins.... They can only be forgiven by the blood of Lamb God's gift..

Once you accept that God can come into your life and the separation will be gone.

Just like the Jews needed blood sacrifice in the torah for atonement of their sins...You need Jesus atonement..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To avoid missunterstanding:

Trinity is not, and never was, mentioned in the Bible. After decenniums of controversy and discussions the Church in the 4th century decided that every Christian should believe this was so. Christisn creed still mentions itrinity but I doubt that the present Pope, who is a progressive guy, would condemn Christians that question the old dogma.

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jafar moh said:

does this mean it is possible that - if Jesus was God, would one not be subject to judgement or hell if they did not believe in the Trinity since it isn't exactly 'biblical' ?

Different Christians will have different experiences, but at least in contemporary protestant views, whether or not you were to get into heaven, isnt, or couldnt be, dependent on whether or not youre a trinitarian.

His grace is considered to extend further than any grace you or I could give. His love for humanity, is considered something along the lines of boundless. To the extent that His love and Grace wouid even be for people who at the present time, may not even believe in His message.

And in recognition of this and what He has done, despite our flawed nature and our shortcomings and sins, we can live at peace in our hearts and minds.

Thats pretty much how it goes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

The trinity was added as a doctrine by the Nicene creed in 325AD. not by Paul.

The fact that Paul has been accused of so many things by Islamic scholars is just one example of how scriptures are still being corrupted.

Kinda answers the original question.

I thought this was interesting because you can even find Sunni scholars claiming corruption of Islamic literature (creating Shia Islam) as well. 

Everyone just seems to have a problem with anyone who isn't in their camp and 99% of the time it all appears baseless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iavswn said:

The bible has been altered. It's well documented.

The Bible consists of many books. Are you claiming they all have been altered? If not so, which ones have not been?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muslims have a great problem here. The Quran speak about the Injeel, but nowhere it says that the Christian Gospels have been corrupted. Muslims having read the Bible however notice the difference, conclude the Gospels must be corrupted versions of the Injeel. Actually the entire Bible must be a corruped version of the Quran, that is believed to have existed since the beginning of the world. The thought that the Quran is inspired by the Bible, and that Muhammed did not get all details right, is unthinkable, because the Quran is the true word from God.

It is true that there are passages in the Gospels (and the entire Bible) that are questioned to be original, but not at all in such extent that the originals would match the Quran. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2016 at 10:06 AM, andres said:

Muslims have a great problem here. The Quran speak about the Injeel, but nowhere it says that the Christian Gospels have been corrupted. Muslims having read the Bible however notice the difference, conclude the Gospels must be corrupted versions of the Injeel. Actually the entire Bible must be a corruped version of the Quran, that is believed to have existed since the beginning of the world. The thought that the Quran is inspired by the Bible, and that Muhammed did not get all details right, is unthinkable, because the Quran is the true word from God.

It is true that there are passages in the Gospels (and the entire Bible) that are questioned to be original, but not at all in such extent that the originals would match the Quran. 

The Qur'an uses the word Injeel to mean two different things. One is the revelation given to Jesus, which clearly can't be the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The other sense in which the word Injeel is used is to mean the teachings of Jesus in the Christian scriptures. It's certainly not 'the Bible', or even the New Testament.

And no, we don't believe the Bible is a corrupted version of the Qur'an. I have no idea where you got that from.

The idea that the Muhammad was taking inspiration for the Qur'an from the Bible, but simply got some details wrong is pretty laughable since the Qur'an clearly attacks some major Christian beliefs like the Trinity, Jesus being God, Jesus being crucified, God having a son, etc. These are hardly 'details'.

Now, what you are expecting us to believe is that the author of the Qur'an thought that the Bible wasn't corrupted, but at the same time directly contradicted major teachings of the Bible. How is that possible? You might say that he didn't know what was in the Bible, but then somehow he knew about all these Biblical stories in detail. Additionally Christians say that the Qur'an contains a whole host of non-Canonical Christian and Jewish literature. So it sounds like the author of the Qur'an had quite the impressive library. But yeah, he didn't know that the crucifixion of Jesus was in Christian scriptures, and was telling them that these were infallible...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2016 at 0:42 PM, iCambrian said:

Different Christians will have different experiences, but at least in contemporary protestant views, whether or not you were to get into heaven, isnt, or couldnt be, dependent on whether or not youre a trinitarian.

His grace is considered to extend further than any grace you or I could give. His love for humanity, is considered something along the lines of boundless. To the extent that His love and Grace wouid even be for people who at the present time, may not even believe in His message.

And in recognition of this and what He has done, despite our flawed nature and our shortcomings and sins, we can live at peace in our hearts and minds.

Thats pretty much how it goes...

You can only believe this stuff by ignoring vast swathes of what is in the Bible. And if you aren't going to believe in those parts, there is no reason to believe in any of it. The pick-and-mix approach to religion is intellectually dishonest, and incapable of defence.

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...