Christian/Muslim ThreadsScholar Bart Ehrman confess that the Bible we have is ....Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: The Catholics included some of these books fairly late; despite the fact the Jews never considered these books to Canonized. There is no evidence that early Christian accepted these book either. It is true however, that certain early Christians were no able to differentiate between canonized and non-canonized, which is the reason why some lists or discoveries in certain locations possessed more books (apocrypha) or less canonizised since the canonized had not circulated there yet. The site also states that the Canon was not completed before Council of Carthage in 397 A.D That is partly true, however only in a sense that Christians everywhere had to publicly proclaim which books were a part of the Canon. All these books were read and accepted and used before any of the councils: 1. Justin Martyr (writing year 133 AD) refers to the Four Gospels, the Book of Acts and the Epistles 330 times. 2. Irenaeus (living late second century) refers to the Gospels 1038 times, Acts 194 times, Paul’s Epistles 499 times, the General Epistles 23 time and the Book of Revelation 65 times, with a total of 1819 times. 3. Clement of Alexandria (living 150-212) refers to the Gospels 1017 times, Acts 44 times, Paul Epistles 1127 times, Revelation 11 times, the General Epistles 207 times, with a total of 2406 times. 4. Origin (living 185-254) refers to the Gospels 9231 times, Acts 349 times, Paul Epistles 7778 times, the General Epistles 399 times, Revelation 165 times, with a total of 17.922 times. If the critic is correct in concluding that the New Testament books were merely fabrications up to middle fourth century, then how come (1) Clement of Alexandria (year 150-212) cites from all New Testament writings except three books. Or to take an even earlier example, (2) that of Ignatius (year 70-110 AD) who wrote seven letters containing quotes from: Matthew, John, Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Philippians, Galatians, Colossians, James, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy and I Peter. This proves (just to mention two cases) that whole of the New Testament was in the hands of early theologians based in various locations in the first and second century. Secondly this gives additional evidence to the reliability of the New Testament Biblical text. It has been estimated that the quotations of the early theologians of the New Testament text up to the fourth century covers the whole of the New Testament except eleven verses. Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: I can you a Muslims who virtually knows nothing about the Christian, decide and determine how much I know or not. Let me just post the link here:
A few things to point out; the rabbis revised a translation not the actual Hebrew The excluded the late Jewish books, which are the Apocrypha, which often were associated with Septuagint, and which are some of the books the Catholic church included. It is a fact that the Christians kept using the Septuginta, however, they still used the Hebrew original; if you red my posting you would have noticed that I referred to Origin’s Hexapla, which contained the Hebrew text and several Greek translations. History also reveals that e.g. Jerome and others used the Hebrew in the fourth and fifth century. If you want a good book on this issue, read The Canon of the Book, by F.F. Bruce. And why were they excluded, because there is simply no evidence that these were ever accepted by the Jews or the early Christians.
So if you trust these scholars enough to post their site, DOES IT MEAN YOU AGREE WITH THE LAST STATEMENT? Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Basically The Torah was recognized as 5 books and as divine and canonical, and attributed to Moses before the Babylonian exile. We see this from historical writings. The rest is divided differently from the so called English Bible, they are referred to as the Prophets and the Hagiographa (the sacred writings). The prophets comprise two sections, the 8 historical books Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings. Then the oracular books: Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah and the Twelve Minor prophets. The Hagiographa comprises of eleven books: the lyrical and wisdom books: Psalms, Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs and Lamentations, then the historical books: Daniel, Esther, Ezra-Nehemiah and Chronicles. The same tradition adds the book of Ruth to is prefaced to Psalms. Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Did you ever read the Talmud? I have! There is no way in which the Talmud even can be compared to the written word. Secondly, the Talmud is the additional laws and idea by men, not a revelation! Thirdly, Jesus rejected the sayings of the elders And forthly the Old Testament makes no mention of an oral tradition Moses is continually told to write And what he writes is continually commanded to be kept intact and red The Old Testament refers to itself as authoritative (Ex.24: 7) (2 Kg.22-23) (2 Chr.3) (Neh.8: 9, 14-17; 10: 28-39; 13: 1-3). The Pentateuch is specially revered by all the books (Josh.1: 7ff) (8: 31) (23: 6-8) (1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14: 6; 17: 37) (Hos.8: 12) (Dan.9: 11-13) (Ezra 3: 2-4) (1 Chr.16: 40) (2 Chr.17: 9; 23: 18; 30: 5; 18; 31: 3; 35: 26. It presents itself as the work of Moses (Num.12: 6-8) (Deut.34: 10-12) God spoke to Moses orally and Moses wrote it down (Ex.17: 14) (24: 4) (7) (34: 27) (Num.33: 2) (Deut.28: 58) (61) (29: 20-27) (30: 10) (31: 9-13) (19) (22) (24-26). The prophetical literature began more or less with Samuel and was also considered authoritative (1 Sam.10: 25) (1 Chron.29: 29) (2 Chron.9: 29; 12: 15; 13: 22; 20: 34; 26: 22; 32: 32; 33: 18). The latter prophets engaged in writings as well (Is.30: 8; Jer.25: 13; 29: 1; 30: 2; 36: 1-32; 51: 60-64) (Ez.43: 11) (Hab.2: 2) (Dan.7: 1) (2 Chron.21: 12). There were reasons for writing it down, to send it to other places (Jer.29: 1) (36: 1-8; 51: 60) (2 Chron.21: 12) and to preserve it (Ex.21: 12; 17: 14), as a witness (Deut.31: 24-26) for the time to come (Is.30: 8). Oral tradition is unreliable, as it changes and suffers additions (just consider the literature of the Hadith). It may have taken some time for some books to have become officially famous and recognized to be added to the Canon, however a book like the Torah was recognized within the lifetime of Moses. Sometimes endings were added to a book such as the end of Deut, speaking about Moses death, indeed Joshua or Samuel might have been responsible for that. Joshua embodies the covenant of its last chapter, 24: 1-25 originally written by Joshua, and Samuel embodies the document on the manner of the kingdom (1 Sam.8: 11-18), originally written by Samuel himself (10: 25). Also not all writers were prophets, some were inspired, such as psalmists (2 Sam.23: 1-3) (1 Chron.25: 1) and wise men (Eccl.12: 11) (Job 38: 1; 40: 6) (Prov.8: 1-9: 6). The canon also frequently refers to other sources to back itself up (Josh) (1 Kg.11: 41; 14: 29; 2 Kg.1: 18; 8: 23) (2 Chron.16:11; 25: 26; 27: 7; 28: 26; 35: 27; 36: 8) (1 Chron.9:1; 2 Chron.24: 27) (2 Chron.20: 34; 32: 32) The Old Testament books also recognize other Old Testament books to be inspired (Psalm 149: 9) (Is.34: 16) (Dan.9: 2). I simply don’t see any reason to believe in a Canon Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Exactly bro Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Exactly which are essential for understanding the text; AS I HAVE ALREADY SAID, THE TALMUD ARE THE SAYINGS LATER JEWS NOT AN ORAL EVIDENCE OF THE ORIGINAL TORAH. YOU ARE CONFUSING MATTERS Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: You are orbiting in the same circle bro, these books all comprise the ideas and thoughts of later Jews, not the original Torah; they are not authoritative, not a part of the Canon, and are therefore rejected as Scripture by Christians. Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Let me again repeat myself: because they are not a part of the Hebrew original; neither can it be proven that the Alexandrian Greek speaking Jews considered them authoritative. Jesus rejected this body of idea (Matthew 15) Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: The correct order of books, does not change the context And why should we attach the Talmud, the Mishnah and the Gemara. The Talmud is rabbinical speculation, and the Mishnah is a commentary. It would be sort of adding Tabari or a Yusuf Ali’s comments to the Koran! I tell you what: you add the comments of Yusuf Ali to the Koran, then we might consider to add the Mishnah. Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: I know, I don’t like it; does books according to historical assessments should not be there, but then again, they do not change the truth of the Bible, nor corrupt its message. Hence it does NOT PROVE BIBLE CORRUPTION AND THEREFORE VERIFIES WHAT THE KORAN STATES, THAT THE BIBLE HAS NOT BEEN CHANGED. Muslim gladiator writes: Kai replies: Does the Hebrew Old Testament contain the Apocrypha? No! Does the Hebrew Old Testament contain the Talmud? No! Does the Hebrew Old Testament contain the Mishnah? No! So is it similar to e.g. NIV and KJV and NASV? YES! But then again I am confused, what do you mean similar to mine? We use and read the same Hebrew original as the Jews! Muslim gladiator wrote:Quote: Kai replies: You do realise that the site you are quoting rejects Jesus as a prophet and a Messiah and the motive of the replies are based upon that. Hence if this website is true, and you seem to think so, WHY ARE YOU A MUSLIM? We are getting in to Christian-Jewish debate here, and that is a lengthy debate (we will deviate from the topic), which is why we have another section on this forum dealing with that. If you want to debate Christianity and Judaism go to that section, if you want to debate Islam and Christianity by all means stay here. Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: The Roman Catholic church added these books until the Council of Trent (1546 AD) why should Christian then include these books? The Ortodox, Armenien and the Ethiopian, do not contain all these books, yet they commit the same mistake; however and I will quote myself again, the addition of some of these books do not necessarily change the fact that Jesus, is the Son of God, God, that he died and resurrected! Again, concerning the Hebrew original, we use the same Hebrew as the Jews, so in what sense do we differ? Could you please elaborate on this! Here is a respondse against the use fo the Apocrypha as authoritative Scripture http://www.bible.ca/catholic-apocrypha.htm Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Exactly what facts? Could you please show me where the site states that the Alexandrian Jews accepted the Apocrypha as authoritative? Let me again suggest you to read the book: The Canon of the Book, by F.F. Bruce, a leading scholar in this area of study. Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Where did they say that? And secondly, by making such a claim, and even though you were right, have you considered the historical implications? I guess not, and this excludes you as scholar! Muslim gladiator wrote: Quote: since Septuagint was mainly emphasized upon by some Greek Christians not by Jews. All the Bible's translations made by Greek Christians not by Jews. Matt Gospel have been written in a very good Greek way. Kai replies: What has this got to do with the subject Even the Koran is written is fairly good Arabic, because later Muslim scholars sat down and rewrote what they claimed to have compiled:
So why does the Koran have good Arabic, because of Muhammad or because of later adding and changing?
Kai replies: The fourth century Canon did not include the Apocrypah, what are you getting at? Seems like you are loosing the picture. The Apocrypah was not added unitl the until the Council of Trent (1546 AD), by the Catholic church! Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Do you want to put the words in my mouth. We Christians use the Hebrew Bible, in fact I have one home; I use! Come back to your senses bro! Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Then you have lost the full picture! The Jews were reluctant to use the Septuagint because of the Christians. But how do you prove that the Jews left the Hebrew text because of Christianity. How do you prove that the Christians even corrupted the Hebrew Bible? These are serious claims! I EXPECT YOU TO BRING UP THE ACTUAL SOURCES, NOT A WEBSITES CLAIM, BUT THE SOURCES TO PROVE YOUR POINT. WHAT MAKES ME UPSET HERE, IS NOT THAT YOU ARE DEBUNKING MY FAITH BY PRESENTING EVIDENCES, IN FACT YOU ARE PROVING NOTHING, BUT MAKING CONTINOUS SERIOUS CLAIMS; WHICH I THEN HAVE TO VASTE MY TIME CORRECTING. Yes the old KJV contains thes passages, but AGAIN consider HISTORY, it was translated in a time of were it was unavoidable otherwise. But every KJV I have read, clearly points out that the books are there merely for providing a historical grasp of the intermediate period between the Old and New Testament, and in no way present material of revelation. Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: No sense, I just provided you with historical evidence, which I am still awaiting from you Even though the Catholics believe that their Bible is the Word of God, it is still only an oppinioin But the fact is that the books which Vulgate contains which are acceptable by all Christians are still intact and non-corrupted, and the Apocrypha does change that. Hence the Bible is still uncorrupted! Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Just use the Hebrew if you are in doubt! Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Exactly what are your referring to and what does the line actually mean, please clarify yourself. Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Yusus Ali’s and every other translation of the Koran are translations, scholars who attempt to translate its word in the most efficient accuracy; that is a translation. Whether you call it translation or meaning, it is still a translation in the same way as NIV and NASV This is just word play Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: What are you trying to say here, please clarify yourself Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: In the same way as Sura 5 ADDS THE MISHNAH; GOD NEVER REVEALED THAT And how many translations of the Koran do you have, both in English, Urdu, Danish, German, etc, are all these EVIDENCE THAT THE KORAN HAS BEEN CORRUPT? OH MAN!!!!! Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: This is still only a word play, whether you write on the cover translation or meaning, they are translations! Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Again claims and insult What has been changed, the passages which are disputed in the Greek, are not necessarily additions, Christians are simply honest enough about stating that so or so verse may not have been included in the original. Yet they do not corrupt the text to exclude the Christianity as the truth, AND THAT IS STILL THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE TO FACE |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame