The Bible has errors?

Bmzsp: The Bible has reportedly been written by various reported writers, as reported by my brother earlier.

The language and words of the reports may vary but the substance should not.

I agree.  The language and words are but forms of expression.  Confusion results, imo, when the form is perceived, but the meaning (substance) is not.  Too often, we substitute our own understanding, thus conforming that form or image to ourselves�forcing it to fit our understanding.

Yes.  Job 32:8 But  [there is] a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding  .

2Ti 3:16 All scripture  [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable  for doctrine, for reproof, for  correction, for instruction  in righteousness:

bmzsp: One has to find if any of the reported writer of a reported gospel, wrote or reported anything which the other reported writers either did not know or had never heard of.

Yes.  Similarly, unbroken light is invisible.  We can�t see it when it is whole.  But, when it is broken, we can see the parts (manifested as colors).  And, we need to gather all of the parts (colors) before we have the whole.    

bmzsp: A clue here: John wrote his own gospel and the other three had mostly no clue about what John reported.

I agree.  John, while still in his mother�s womb, recognized Jesus when He was still in His mother�s womb.  (The others were grown men before they recognized Him.)

Luk 1:41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: 42And she spake out with a loud voice, and said, Blessed [art] thou among women, and blessed [is] the fruit of thy womb. 43And whence [is] this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? 44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.

bmzsp: The other three writers had no knowledge that In the Beginning there was a Word, the Word was before God and the Word was God.

I disagree.  That�s not what John wrote.  The Word was not before God.  It was with God.   Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

bmzsp: Even Jesus himself was unaware of this, never knew and had never said anything like that.

John reports Jesus saying something similar.  Jhn 16:28 I came forth from  the Father, and am come  into  the world: again, I leave the world, and  go to  the Father.  Jhn 8:58 Jesus said  unto them, Verily, verily, I say  unto you, Before Abraham was, I  am.

I agree with what Ghazzali said in  another thread, at http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7521& ;PN=1 �The point is any non muslim would find numerous discrepancies in islam��If someone doesn't recognize the existence of the Sun, there is no point for him to discuss what happens inside it.�

Anyone who does not believe in the validity of or understand a particular religion, science, etc., will find discrepancies.  Earlier, I gave an example of cleaning a closet which illustrates this.

Andalus:  You should understand exactly what I stated: Stephen Turkel did not disprove the claim that the verse about John is a later "insertion". 

 

Yes. I understand what you stated.  I was trying to understand what you meant.  By stating that one site does not disprove its case, it gives the impression that the other site did.  If that were true, I would disagree.  And, I would be interested in seeing what proof you saw that I missed.

However, it could be that you had read the other site but were only addressing my post.  And, that if you read the other one, you would say that it did not prove its case, either.  If that were true, I would agree. 

That is the reason I ask for clarification of what I was to understand you to mean.  Am I to understand that you believe the other site did actually prove that the story was a later addition?  Or, are you merely pointing out that it is a draw�a difference of opinions?

 

Similarly, you quoted me:  To clarify, I have not taken issue with the passage in question. But with the way a position was presented�as fact that Bible scholars know something, which, if you want to read farther about it, go to this site, when the site does not state or even support the �fact� at all. 

 

And, then, you asked, So then you agree that the passage was a later insertion? Creative editing with your word of Gd?

Although you understood what I stated, you were seeking clarification of my position.  To you, it seemed that my not having taken a position left the impression that I agreed.  However, it could be that you were not interested in my focus (the reasoning that supports opinion) and wanted to change the focus to opinion.

 

There was no maniputlation on my part. He did obfuscate. In the end, he did not add anything of value to the topic and simply went on about nothing.

He discredited himself, I simply gave my observation 

I understand that that is the way you see it�your opinion.  That is the reason I pointed it out�so that opinion could be distinguished from the evidence. 

I had said: You do it again when you say, �The link is to one of many of his sophomric works which takes any critical reader for a ride�.

You give the appearance of having read much of Holding�s work.  Have you, really?

You ask:  define "much", and please state how "much" one must read before one may state that his work is sophomoric?

Anyone can state anything.  But, the validity of what one states rests upon the reasoning that supports what is stated.  By saying that the link �is one of many,� you give the impression that you have read many of his works.  Is that impression valid?  Have you read many of his works?  About how many?

Unfortunately, I have yet to find a single, solid, critical piece on the site.

Again, are you saying that it has less supportive evidence than the other site or that it is no more convincing than the other site? 

Perhaps you do not feel that you are being taken for a ride because you are unable to grasp the problems with his work, and you are willing to drink his "cool aid" without hesitation.

Actually, I can�t see how you can grasp the problems of his work if you cannot grasp the problems of your own communication.  You assume that I am drinking his �kool aid,� because I do not drink yours.  We need to test the validity of assumptions and opinions and rely upon sound evidence and sound reasoning, rather than persuasive words.

The link was a waste of time, and did not actually make a point related to the thesis. It simply went on, in the usual juvenile mode, about how there was no problem.

And, I am still curious if you see that as something that distinguishes it from the other site or something that it has in common with the other site.

Earlier you said:  The NT has been shown to have numerous insertions to help with the creative interpretations gooing on in the first 400 years of your faith

I asked: On what do you base that assertion?  What is an �insertion� to you?  Something that was not previously written?  Clarification? 

Your response:  I base the assertion on evidence that numerous insertions into the MSS (which is used to cut and paste your NT together), was committed by Christians in the first 400 years.

It sounds as though you mean something that was not previously written by men.  I would caution you to consider that such judgment would render the Koran an insertion to what was previously written.

I cannot stop at every line and quibble about the nuances of words. An insertion is an insertion.

It would be more expedient if you examined your thoughts for validity before presenting them as valid.

Earlier, I asked: What do you mean by �creative interpretations�?  Imagined?  Evolutionary, developing

You respond: Interpreting text with creativity. Just as the phrase suggests. You are quibbling.

While you see it as quibbling, I see it as seeking clarification.  Since you offer no explanation, I can only judge by what I have read of your posts, thus far,  I am inclined to think  that by �interpreting text with creativity,�  you mean �relying upon impression without first validating that impression�.  The reason I am inclined to think that is because, as I have pointed out, your statements have often left an impression of something else, prompting me to ask what you meant.  It is human nature to project ourselves on others, seeing in them the things we cannot recognize in ourselves.  That�s a good thing IF we, then, use what we see as a flaw in others to examine ourselves for the same flaw.  A better way is to first examine ourselves.

Earlier, I responded to your statement: �It seems, from all of the evidence we have, that you faith was not a single entity with everyone professing the same beliefs.�

No, faith is not a single entity, if you mean faith is devoid of progression.  Faith is progressive.  The progression is from hope to faith to knowing and then to doing.  And, there are stages of progression within each of those. 

You respond: You are obfuscating. A single entity of your faith meaning a religion that holds the core claims that are made by 20th century Christians who assert that these beleifs go back to the early Christians to the apostles, etc, etc.  Lets not appeal to bad sophistry

If you see facts being obscured, look carefully to see which of us is blending opinion with facts and which of us has made an attempt to focus on reasoning which will validate an opinion as factual.  (Note that Quran constantly appeals to reason.  A follower of it would, also.)

If you see an apple bud, an apple blossom, apple seeds, and the fruit of an apple all sorted, based upon that evidence, you might well say that there is no common core.  But, when you see them in the right order, and on the tree, you will know that not one of them could exist if it were not for the common core�the tree.

Earlier you said: What we find are numerous sects, each debting hard with the other to prove its personal ideas of very basic things like who and what Jesus was, and the nature of Gd

I responded: Are you suggesting that that is wrong?  �that we should not debate to prove our personal ideas of very basic things, like who and what Jesus was and the nature of God?   

You respond: Strawman. I never argued that debate is wrong. 

If that was not what you meant, what did you mean?  If that were not a condemnation, was it a commendation?  Or, what?  Why did you make that statement?  

Earlier, I said: I contend that if we do not argue the point and prove whether our personal ideas of very basic things are just, that we have nothing!

You respond: I am happy for you, although completely irrelevant.

You see it as irrelevant.  Because my opinion is irrelevant to you?  Or, because you do not see how it relates (is in response) to your statement about sects debating?

Earlier, you said: The result are numerous "creative editing" that took place from the hands of your early Christians in order for them to show to the other how the word of Gd agrees with them.

I responded: Let�s go with that.  Show me what you consider to be �creative editing,� and I will show you, if you are willing to see, the progression. 

You dismiss it with your opinion:  Thats missionariees for "show me a problem and I will spin it and give it a new label!".

Go with this: Do you deny that your witness MSS contain altered words and inserted words?

That might be progression, but it is progression of piouse fraud.

But, to respond to your question, Do you deny that your witness MSS contain altered words and inserted words?  I agree that the image (form) has changed, but not the word.  The engravened image is a landmark to guide us.  Muhammed spoke the same word that Jesus did.  He just used a different form of expression.

You say that the 4 surviving gospels survived  Because they agreed with the assumptions of the early church fathers.  It sounds as though you are implying that their assumptions.  If so, I would ask what those assumptions were, and how you came to that conclusion (what you base that upon�your reasoning).

Earlier, I asked: And, what are the few that you say miraculously survived?

You respond: It is a list. I will take the time to list them if you convince me that it will actually prove my point to you, and not allow you to set up for a barrage of irrelevant diatribe.

I would be interested in hearing of any of which I am not familiar�like the gospel of Peter.  I did a Google search and found it.  I couldn�t find any evidence to support your claim that it was once more widely read than the gospel of Mark, though.

Anyway, I can�t say that it will prove your point to me because I don�t know what your point is.  That�s the reason that I keep asking for clarification. 

Mark has three different endings. Please argue that "older MSS being fragmentary" proves "something". You are not actually make a conclusion, you are simply asserting something. I cannot read your mind. Mark has 3 different endings. This is a problem.

If you have 3 copies of a paper back book, and they all suffer fragmentation�the one that loses the last page will end differently than the one that loses the next to last page and both will differ from the one which loses only a portion of the last page.

They differ because: There are at least three different traditions,

There are different traditions, yes.  If a lawyer, a doctor, and an artist observe or hear the same thing, each will express it differently, because of their different traditions. 

and not a single "word of Gd" as proposed by Christians.

I can�t imagine anyone being so presumptuous as to think he has heard and understood all that God has ever said, and thus be qualified to make such a statement.

This distinguishes them from a reliable transmission.

By your standards, perhaps, and if everyone held your standards, they would be universally rejected.  So, the variable responsible for the difference of opinion is the standard of measure.

If segments from Jeremiah are removed between the three tradtions, then this is not so easy to "handwave" off as you just attempted. These differecnes are about what Gd says, or supposedly says, and the reliabilty of those who wrote it to maintain its validity.

On the contrary, if segments are removed, intentionally or accidentally, the message is not necessarily lost.  For instance, I think you can get the intended message even though I omit part of the form:    �I to store an bought food.�   But, not everyone has the same skill of �closure�.  Some people might not get the message from because that due to the flaws seen in the messenger (form carrying the meaning). 

Wow! I think you have spent too much time at Turkel's site.

Rest assured that I spent very little time there.

 

The "cannonized" works are in the part of your book you call the OT!

Hope this helps?

How can it possibly help to allude to something that I already said I was unaware of when you alluded to it the first time?  I might recognize it by another name, but until you designate what you are referring to, how am I to know? 

Until I know what it is that you are labeling �conjecture,� there�s not much point in asking you why you call it that.

Keep in mind I am not going to play games with you. I have a tight schedule. If you want to have a discussion, I am game. If you want to stop at every thread, and trade a line for a line and argue about semantics and irrelevant nuances, then I am not interested.

As lengthy as this has been, the only factual information I have gleaned from your discourse is that there is a Gospel of Peter.  My time is valuable, too.  I am more interested in reasoning than in opinion.

ysimjee wrote: I dont know how many "mistakes" the bible got. But what i do know, before i converted n when i was in school still.  When we used to go church, the bible the priest read from, the one we read from and the one the people next to us read from was never the same... But if you read the quran...  Well, everything is still the same from the time its been printed the first time.  Alhamdullilah no one can chance the Quran.

How come can you use that fake and ridiculous argument, which is still being found on many Muslim forums!

Translations vary from one translator to the other and from one language to the other.

If you go on any Muslim forum you will notice that people use translations and not Arabic, and that translations of the same verses may greatly vary from one another.

Besides translations of the Arabic Quran are sometimes rather clumsy and even wrong, which is not the case with translations from the Bible.








Edited by Cyril

For illustration purposes, let's look at a verse from the Koran (surah 4:11):

The Pickthal translation reads:

Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for) your children: to the male the equivalent of the portion of two females, and if there be women more than two, 

The Yusuf Ali translation reads:

Allah (thus) directs you as regards your Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more,

Clearly, the parts in red contradict each other (since Yusuf Ali includes the case of two daughters, while Pickthal excludes the case of two daughters).  This indicates that there must be two contradictory Arabic manuscripts for this portion of the koran.

Correct?