View Single Post
Old 10-14-2010, 01:59 AM   #12
Theorsell

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
512
Senior Member
Default
The New Testament was originally written in Greek, the Gospel according to Matthew may be the only exception to the rule. Of course the translation from Jesus' Aramaic words to Greek can be a problem for a Non-Christian. I believe that the original Greek of the NT is just as inspired as Jesus' Aramaic preaching.

The Original message is still there! There isn't a single manuscript that could question the essential doctrines of Christianity.
Thats exactly my point - the reliability of the translation alone is based on belief, This is problematic for non-christians, especially Muslims, because we demand proof of authenticity of even our own holy books - thats why Muslims have taken extreme effort to authenticate and classify all of our texts - christianity has failed in the authentication department, and in my oppinion - is proof of the lack of divine protection on the religion. It seems when the facts dont support christian arguments, they simply fall back on the argument 'I have the Holy Spirit and you dont".




It is true that the are some human errors in copying the text, but what makes the text reliable is that we know about these errors. We have so many manuscripts that we can spot some words or verses that can be questionable. You know about some of them NOW - but which aspects of the faith are you not aware of that have been fabricated? Lets take 666 vs. 616 - This is not a salvational issue, but its a pretty big deal, If everyone is looking for the AC to have 666 - but he shows up with 616, this could be a problem.


The date of canonization is wrong. If I remember correctly the year 367 is the year when the 27 books of today's NT were first mentioned in a same list and as the canonical books of the NT. BUT the Muratorian canon from the year 180 gives us a list of the canonical books and there are just some books that are disputed, for example the MC mentions the four gospels as canonical and all Pauline letters. So the canon was pretty much the same already in the second century. We can go even earlier with the Church Fathers who quote the books of the NT as the Word of God. I didnt mention the mauratorian fragment because it mentions several books that you dont consider to be divine - and the cannon was not the same as today in 180 (in fact to use the wrod cannon is misleading because the bible wasnt cannonized until the council of carthage) - the fragment does mention the four gospels but it does not include the Epistle to the Hebrews, 1 and 2 Peter, nor James - in addition it includes the Shepard of hermas and The Wisdom of Solomon and a gnostic book called the Apocalypse of peter - any Bible printed today, that made the claims of the Mauratorian Fragment would be discounted as heretical by mainstream christians. In addition, the MF does not mention some other books that were added to the list of NT books by Polycarp, Iraeneus and Eusibus - books like the Epistle of Barnabas.


You probably realise that this argument is based solely on the presupposition that Jesus Christ was just a prophet. God has always delivered his revelation through humans so I see problem with that that the revelation was written under the authority of the apostles of Jesus who were messangers of God. Not True - this argument does not take into account the Islamic perspective on jesus(AS) - Even if Jesus(AS) was divine in nature - the NT was still revealed in a dramaticly different way then previous Holy books in the Abrahamic lineage - for a milenia - Prophets were given divine decrees which they were to pass on to their respective nations - these men were confirmed as Prophets by the Jews, and were permitted to perform Miracles - when it comes to the revelation of the NT - it was revealed to men who never claimed themselves to be Prophets, nor were they considered Prophets by their contemporaries - even today, in a christian list of Prophets, the apostles are not mentioned in that list. Also, Paul never met Jesus(AS), he never sat with him, he never spoke to him - yet his writtings too are considered the word of God by christians. never in human history has God revealed His Word to man in the manner in which the NT was revealed - another example of the NTs inaccuracy, all of the errors and blasphems contained with in it aside - based on the Abrahamic sytem, the NT can not be considered the Word of God


Could be, because the Qu'ran claims that Muhammad is prophesied in the NT?

7:157 "Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful." As a Muslim, the only thing we can gleam from this for sure is that the parts of the Bible that were not corrupted - are parts that uphold the absolute Truth - and if it is mentioned the coming of the Messenger of Allah - Then this is absolute truth - but we can only know what is corrupted and what is not by judging the bible by the light of the Quran.
Theorsell is offline


 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:02 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity