Answers from the Christians

fredifreeloader wrote: ak_m_f wrote: fredifreeloader wrote: quran 22: 65, which says that it is allah who�is stopping�the sky falling on the earth?� is this supposed to be scientific?� how could the sky fall on the earth? 22:65 See you not that All�h has subjected to you (mankind) all that is on the earth, and the ships that sail through the sea by His Command? He withholds the heaven from falling on the earth except by His Leave. Verily, All�h is, for mankind, full of Kindness, Most Merciful. Main Entry: heav�en Pronunciation: 'he-v&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English heven, from Old English heofon; akin to Old High German himil heaven 1 : the expanse of space that seems to be over the earth like a dome Maybe God is talking about Ozone layer? [IMG]height=17 src="smileys/smiley36.gif" width=17> well akmf, if its the ozone layer hes talking about, hes going to be out of a job soon the way things are going, as its disappearing fast, and therell soon be nothing to stop falling!

Let me tell you someting. Quranic Arabic is the purest from of Arabic. As it was passed to many Arab tribes in it times, the translators may have not translated some words right. For example in English language Americans spell foto, but british spell photo. Same with synonyms, same word having different meanings like shade.
Shade can means shade from the sun, or the colour shade etc. The word "heaven" in this verse is translated from the Arabic word "Samaa". According to Abdullah Yusuf Ali, the famous commentator, "Samaa" can have four meanings: 1.Something high, 2. A roof, a ceiling, 3.the canopy of heavens, 4. rain or cloud. In this context he says the "Rain" is a more appropriate translation.

akmf - ive been looking at that diagram you posted, to see if i can find anything wrong with it.  but i cant see anything wrong with it, it seems very scriptural

Sheer narrow-mindedness You didn't read my answer carefully.

Greetings George.

I will make some comments below. I apologize if my tone seems abrupt and unfeeling or unfriendly. I must write quickly due to finals, work, and the rest of life. I have no malice or attitude of insult in my intention or in my words.

Peace

 

George wrote: zulqarnain wrote: But can the christians tell me, what do you think about the fact the the church altrerd the original text of the Bible. Why then do you still believe in it? Why don't you want to see God's own original messages and teachings in writing? I did quite a study on textual critisim of the New Testament.  There was some editing.  One edit that I can remember is about the virgin birth of Jesus.  The writer gave the impression in one of the verses that Jesus' father may have been Joseph.  It was changed to make the text clearer.  This was done because the church was fighting adoptionism--people who said that Jesus became the Son of God by adoption.  They did not believe in the virgin birth.

Christianity was never a single "homogenous" belief system, but was made up of differing groups with ideas about the very nature of Jesus that were in conflict. The "proto-orthodox" won, not because they were right, but because of circumstance. The fact that so many differing views existed into the third and fourth century tells me that none one actually had a legitimate claim to the historical Jesus or even to his message.

The group you inherited your beliefs from also commited piouse fraud with the MSS. It was not just the groups whom you consider to be heritics.

George wrote: No editing affected any Christian doctrine.  We know all of this because we have so many copies of the New Testament, about 5400 Greek, the rest in many languages--about 24,000 copies in all.  The process involves comparing them and dating them.  This way all misspellings, left out verses, and glossess can be identified.

You are repeating the common line.

The common reply to the piouse fraud commited by "Holy Ghost" filled Christians to their own MSS about "it does not effect Christian doctrine" is a bit of a "strawman".

Here is an analogy.

You are being put on trial for "such and such thing". You and your counselor find out that the prosecutor is using evidence that has been tampered with. Your counselor takes this information to the judge showing that the prosecutor's evidence has been tampered with. The prosecutor looks suprised that you and your counselor are complaining and is mystified that you have a problem with his evidence. The prosecutor tells you and the judge, "Sure, it was tampered with, but it was our witnesses that did the tampering so what's the problem!?".

I am sure you would not agree. This is what you are asking us all to accept.

1) The proto orthodox chose the gospel account narratives amongst hundreds in existence with "presumptions" in their mind that they superimposed onto their quest for "official gospels". These presumptions were never proven, nor did they ever have any actual document or offical "tradition" that provided them with any bases to make a real claim about Jesus.

2) They (proto-orthodox) and the myriad of groups who all had claims of authenticity about Jesus, yet remained in conflict with one another, each fudged the accounts (MS) in order to dress them up so that they might reflect their own theolgical "supposition". The fact that they had to resort to piouse fraud by "dressing up" their "word of Gd" proves they had nothing substantial or concrete to go on to prove their own claims.

 3) Your "24,000" copy number does not reflect the entire picture. Copies of copies of copies, much of which come from after 5 CE in no way validates any claim that the NT you have in your hands is true account of Jesus. The fact that pious fraud took place in both the choosing of the narrative accounts and the "creative editing" that took place afterwords by various sects is proof. The fact that 3 centuries after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus, various groups were at a stand still in theolgical debate and had to resort to MS "editing" to help bolster their theological beliefs against their rivals, tells me that a lot of people had a lot of different beliefs but did not really know anything particular or historical. Just my observation.

George wrote:   One particular scholar who is recognized as one of the best who worked on this project--Bruce Metger--was asked if his faith was affected by his analysis.  He said not in the least.  He went on to say that his faith in the integrity of the New Testament had been strengthened.

Yes, and his student, now a major scholar Bart Ehrman has put forth even more evidence that is antithetical to the evangelcial claims. And he is also a Christian. And that Christians still are having to debate and research the idea of a true "NT", after 2000 years, tells me that your doctors still do not actually know. This is why I praise Allah for His final message, and His Servant, the best of man, His Prophet and Messenger, Muhammad, may Allah grant him peace and blessings, and his family. I pray that Allah guides the millions of wonderful Christians, many of whom devote themselves to Gd and to doing good.

Peace