"Which Bible is God's Word?"

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by AntennaFarmer, May 19, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Which Bible is God's Word?"

    That question was posed to me by a muslim some years ago as I tried to explain my faith. This particular individual was a co-worker and a moderate muslim. I gave a weak answer explaining that there was relatively little difference between the versions.

    Recently I ran across this web page called "Textual Integrity Of The Bible":

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/

    Quoting from that page:


    "If one can't establish the 'revealed' books' textual reliability, is there any point calling it as the Word of God?"


    The site seems to be (in part) a study in Bible textual criticism with an aim to discrediting the Scriptures as God's Word.

    My questions are: How do I answer the question "Which Bible is God's Word?" And, in light of this kind of information, how do I show that the Bible is reliable?

    A.F.
     
  2. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    I want to add that my question above is not an invitation to another flame war on the usual topics. Mine is a serious question. If you want to fight please take it elsewhere.

    A.F.
     
  3. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Every valid version.
     
  4. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Would you care to expand on that?

    A.F.
     
  5. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    James White recently debated Shabir Ally, a prominent Muslim apologist, on the integrity of the New Testament text, and has blogged extensively on this subject in the past year. (There are a few earlier posts in this category that you should look up as well, but just start at the bottom and read up.)

    The short version is that Muslims, not surprisingly, start from a position of unbelief in the New Testament and support their opinions with the "scholarship" of other unbelievers, most notably the agnostic textual critic Bart Erhman.
     
  6. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    From what I understand even Muslim scholars acknowledge that there are irreconcilable contradictions in the Quran.

    My answer therefore would be that though there are a very few uncertain passages in the NT it does not contradict itself either with or without them... while the Quran even perhaps as a more certain text with regard to its wording is self-contradicting.
     
  7. rsr

    rsr
    Expand Collapse
    <b> 7,000 posts club</b>
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    10,075
    Likes Received:
    102
    An interesting article on textual criticism of the Koran appeared in The Atlantic in 1999:

    WHAT IS THE KORAN?

    Much more disturbing for Muslims is the work of Christoph Luxenberg (a pseudonym, for obvious reasons), who maintains that the entire Koran is based upon mistranslations of sayings originally transmitted in Syriac — and that it was intended to be a commentary on the Peshitta.

    Luxenberg says, for example, that Sura 108 closely resembles the Peshitta at I Peter 5:8-9 — if you assume you're translating from Aramaic. "Indeed this sura, which is only three lines long, is one of the most difficult passages for the Arabian as well as the Western commentators. Luxenberg shows why: it is composed of transcriptions into Arabic writing of the Syriac New Testament text, i.e., there is almost no “Arabic” in the sura," according to reviewers Phenix and Horn.

    Luxenberg also maintains that the Koran contains references to Christian liturgy and the Lord's Supper — which has been mistranslated into Arabic.

    He also contends that the "72 virgins" reference also is a bit of garbled Aramaic that, properly translated, should be be about grapes instead.

    LINK TO FULL REVIEW
     
  8. Scott J

    Scott J
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2001
    Messages:
    8,462
    Likes Received:
    0
    How deeply have you studied this rsr?
     
  9. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    The ones that don't tell lies!
    A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3: "It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way - a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him." It is NOT written in Isaiah. "I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way" - is found in Malachi 3:1. The King James correctly reads: "As it is written in the PROPHETS"

    A better translation Easier to understand Psalms 119:160 says, "Thy word is TRUE..." John 17:17 says, "...thy word is TRUTH." Titus 1:2 clearly says, "God, that CANNOT LIE."
    How could the God of Titus 1:2 be the God of Mark 1:2,3 Either the translators of the other versions can't read or have never read Isaiah nor Malachi or somebody is tampering with God's Word to DISCREDIT IT.
     
  10. bound

    bound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    I hope I find you doing well Sir and at peace in the Lord.

    I can deeply appreciate your conviction in the KJV I have 3 of my own but please be aware that although verse 1:2 is Mal. 3:1 we find Isaiah 40:3 quoted in verse 1:3 and is given pride of mention because of his standing at the head of the prophetic canon. The fact of the mention of "Isaiah" in 1:2 is the accurate Gospel of Mark for the predominate number of source texts.

    Again I can deeply appreciate your conviction and deep love and affection for the KJV but the evidence suggests that the predominate number of source texts are accurate and not actually lies.

    Thank you Sir and God Bless.
     
  11. standingfirminChrist

    standingfirminChrist
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,454
    Likes Received:
    0
    As is written in the prophets is the correct translation, IMO.

    John Mark was stating the fact that more than one prophet made the prophecies in verses 2 and 3. He referenced Malachi in verse 2 and Isaiah in verse 3.

    Many MV's attribute both verses only to Isaiah, which is incorrect.
     
  12. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,216
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    I beg your pardon, but that is simply not true. The Greek manuscripts which read "Isaiah" are Aleph, B, L, Delta, 33, 565, 892, 1241, and 2427. Those reading "Isaiah" but with a variant are D, Theta, f1, 205, 700, 1071, 1243, and a single lectionary, 253.

    Those manuscripts reading "prophets" are A, W, f13, 28, 108, 579, 597, 1006, 1010, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, all the Byzantine manuscripts (100s of them) including the great Byzantine Uncials E, F, G, H, P, and Sigma and all the rest of the lectionaries (100s of them).

    If you honestly believe that then you will have to believe that "prophets" is the correct reading and "Isaiah" is a scribal gloss on the overwhelming weight of them manuscript evidence.
     
  13. Ransom

    Ransom
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    0
    william said:

    A blatant error is found in the NIV, NASV, NRSV, et al. in Mark 1:2,3:

    So?

    Do you even pay attention to what the thread is about, or do you just shuffle your KJV-only flash cards and post whatever macro comes out on top?
     
  14. bound

    bound
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    664
    Likes Received:
    0
    I beg your pardon, but that is simply not true. The Greek manuscripts which read "Isaiah" are Aleph, B, L, Delta, 33, 565, 892, 1241, and 2427. Those reading "Isaiah" but with a variant are D, Theta, f1, 205, 700, 1071, 1243, and a single lectionary, 253.

    Those manuscripts reading "prophets" are A, W, f13, 28, 108, 579, 597, 1006, 1010, 1292, 1342, 1424, 1505, all the Byzantine manuscripts (100s of them) including the great Byzantine Uncials E, F, G, H, P, and Sigma and all the rest of the lectionaries (100s of them).

    If you honestly believe that then you will have to believe that "prophets" is the correct reading and "Isaiah" is a scribal gloss on the overwhelming weight of them manuscript evidence.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Hi there!

    I will stand by my original assertion, although it was not my intension to upset anyone, but I will further illuminate my stand by saying once you cancel out duplicates and assign added value to more ancient texts you'll discover that the evidence, as it stands, will side with my assertion. I was not suggesting a literal number of texts but the evidence of the most ancient texts that we have.

    Authenticity is not measured by volume.
     
  15. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Would you care to expand on that?

    A.F.
    </font>[/QUOTE]Any version that follows its sources reasonably closely, and its sources are recognized as Scriptural manuscripts, is a valid version.

    Examples...KJV and NASV follow their Scriptural sources & are valid versions. The NWT has been altered to fit Jabroney False Witless doctrine, & doesn't always closely follow any recognized Scriptural mss; the TNIV has altered many Scriptures as they were written in Hebrew & Greek for the sake of "gender-Correctness"; therefore neither one is a valid version.
     
  16. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well lets go write more bibles cause we have ourselves a Prophet"I will stand by my original assertion" You Know I have learned alot from the BB and still have alot to learn as you all well Know but I sure dont Know what you are talking about! I thought that That the TR was settled as Beeig the recived Text Now there is More to Add to the Word I dont think so!
     
  17. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,216
    Likes Received:
    1,318
    Which manuscripts are you claiming are duplicates? And would you assign more "value" to a 5th century manuscript than you would to a manuscript from the 8th or 9th century?
    And which manuscripts are the "most ancient texts?" You do know the difference between a manuscript and a text, don't you? And if you did not mean "a literal number" why did you say "predominate number of source texts?"
    And what criteria do you apply to determine authenticity? You seem to have stated that "number" is the sole criteria you consider. If that is not so, please tell me what criteria you consider to be the determining factor in selecting the reading you consider authentic.
     
  18. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Folks we are getting quite a bit off topic here.

    The muslims seem to reject all versions of the Bible equally. How do I convince them that the Bible is God's word?

    I don't think a discourse in the relative merits of one version over another will help with my problem.


    A.F.
     
  19. AntennaFarmer

    AntennaFarmer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2005
    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ransom, I am having a look at the material you suggested. Thanks.

    A.F.
     
  20. william s. correa

    william s. correa
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    677
    Likes Received:
    0
    Preach Jesus or we are All doomed!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Loading...