Customer Discussions > Islam forum

Where is the evidence that just about all bible scriptures have been tampered with?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-23 of 23 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Dec 21, 2011 7:02:14 AM PST
Islam alleges that bible scriptures have been tampered with and hence to be dismissed as unreliable.
What is this allegation based upon?
Which scriptures?
What has been changed?
From what to what?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 22, 2011 2:09:08 AM PST
TN says:
Exactomundo.

I raised same points. No answer from Muslims, because there is none that is supportable or supported by evidence.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 22, 2011 2:40:20 AM PST
dear TN

it appears that you are correct.

it is easy to make the allegations but not to stand up in court and defend them. a bit like gossip?

COME ON, ISLAM. SHOW YOURSELF WILLING. THE WORLD AWAITS YOUR EVIDENCE.

mr neil

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 9:05:52 AM PST
As a matter of fact, Mr. Neil, there's an enormous amount of evidence that most of the Bible material has been tampered with, much of it was myth-mongering in the first place, and the "pastoral" epistles of Paul are outright demonstrable forgeries. (To get started on the mountainous evidence, check out Robin Lane Fox's "The Unauthorized Version," or any of the Dead Sea Scrolls research by Robert Eisenman or Hyam Maccoby.) However, you'll never get any Muslim to tell you anything about the who what when where how and why, because 1) practically none of them ever read the Bible in the first place and they don't want to admit it, and 2) they're trying to "prove" thereby that the Koran is somehow the real thing, when in fact the Koran is such an ungodly chaotic self-contradictory mess that it couldn't be dictation from God, history, fairy-tale, or anything else but a collection of lies -- and some of it was clearly plagiarized from earlier Chriastian and Jewish and Zoroastrian sources.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 10:21:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2011 10:55:55 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
By the 7th AD century the Jewish and Christian biblical scriptures were in their final form having been canonized in the intervening centuries.

However, that is not the case with Jewish scripture in the 1st century AD. At that time beyond a core of the Pentateuch, psalms and prophets there were books which were or were not considered authoritative depending upon which Jewish group was doing the choosing. In many instances the actual texts themselves shifted and changed, for example as scribal commentary was incorporated into the authoritative text. There were also several authoritative textual traditions in use by Jews, the oldest of which appears to be the Septuagint (LXX). There were authoritative Dead Sea Scrolls textual versions and the version that in time was adopted by Rabbinical Judaism, the Massoretic Text (MT). There were even what some scholars characterize as "wild texts" highly unorthodox form of Jewish scripture.

.

Allow me to offer a word of caution to both of you TN and NoY, do some quality reading on this topic before you aggressively pursue this line of argument.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 10:23:28 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
Hmmm, Robin Lane Fox, the gardening dude ...

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 10:43:52 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 23, 2011 10:59:28 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
Until he died in 2007 Dr. Bruce Manning Metzger, a professor at Princeton Theological Seminary, was roundly acknowledged to be something of the world's foremost expert on the historical canonization of the New Testament. Dr. Metzger served on the board of the American Bible Society and United Bible Societies. He was a scholar of Greek New Testament, New Testament Textual Criticism and was a contributor to the Revised Standard Version (RSV) of the Bible which is considered by many to be the most faithful translation of the best source documents. I use the Catholic edition of the Revised Standard Version.

The Ignatius Bible: Revised Standard Version - Second Catholic Edition

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 11:24:54 AM PST
TN says:
It would be foolish to get into the argument of "my source is better than your source".

BTW, where did i ever say my sources are better? I never mentioned them, except now this: the authors spend - still spending - their life on the study of the bible and write anonymously.

It's those who claim things without evidence that bother me. And they will never convince that way.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 11:32:31 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
I didn't question your sources. I offered a word of caution to do some quality reading on this topic before you aggressively pursue this line of argument. ... and I don't mean that gardening guy at the Financial Times. Have you read anything by Dr. Metzger?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 23, 2011 5:40:14 PM PST
dear DGS

thanks for your suggestions

mr neil

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2011 7:54:52 AM PST
Nope, once again: the Cambridge don in classics dude, also authored "Pagans and Christians," and several biographies of Alexander.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2011 8:08:33 AM PST
Entirely welcome, sir -- and Merry Xmas to all. The point of the books in question as regards this particular forum is this -- that while most sane and reasonably knowledgeable people would agree that Christianity has on the whole been a more morally salutary religion than Islam, that doesn't necessarily mean it's any "truer." And it's REALLY rather astonishing that whenever Christians and Muslims get into the "my religion is truer than yours" stuff the discussion goes nowhere, while the people who are in the best position to argue Islam into the ground are atheists -- which is probably why people like Ibn Warraq and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have to live with death threats because of Islam's obscene death-for-apostasy rule.

Personally I think Christians should stop pounding the let's-hate-Darwin-and-historical-Jesus-scholars drums, realize that they've got a REALLY dangerous enemy at their doorstep, and play the good cop while Dawkins and his ilk play bad cop.
Anyone with any doubts about this should watch the Youtube debate between Tariq Ramadan and the late Christopher Hitchens, who finally got the chance to get one of his wishes before he died -- cutting Ramadan a new one on stage.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2011 8:58:24 PM PST
\\Islam alleges that bible scriptures have been tampered with and hence to be dismissed as unreliable.
What is this allegation based upon?\\

How do you know?

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2011 9:03:03 PM PST
\\COME ON, ISLAM. SHOW YOURSELF WILLING. THE WORLD AWAITS YOUR EVIDENCE.\\

Take it to the Christian forum where the atheists have hella info for ya.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2011 4:59:32 AM PST
dear bookish

we're looking for objectivity
rather than rants.

mr neil

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 25, 2011 8:54:31 AM PST
\\we're looking for objectivity
rather than rants.\\

You're only in this forum to rant. All the information you claim to be looking for is right there on Christianity forums, provided by atheists.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2011 5:57:55 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 26, 2011 7:19:46 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
Why yes again, that very author of " Pagans and Christians" is indeed the garden section guy for the Times. He also an Oxford scholar who currently teaches Ancient History at Oxford. He has also taught Greek and Latin literature and early Islamic history. Robin Lane Fox isn't a Biblical scholar nor does he appear to be one of the many specialist in related areas of study that might justify your reliance upon him in this instance. I did some checking and Robin Lane Fox seems to be without influence among scholars in fields related to New Testament research. He does not seem to be cited by any New Testament scholars. I found that R. L. Fox was relied upon as a resource only for his work on pagan Antiquity here: Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Ancient Society and History) An excellent scholarly resource in its own right BTW.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2011 6:13:49 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 26, 2011 7:18:02 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 24, 2011 8:08:33 AM PST Daniel G. Schaeffer says: "Personally I think Christians should stop pounding the let's-hate-Darwin-and-historical-Jesus-scholars drums,"

Ard Fhaidh
This brings to recall an interview, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, conducted by Hershal Shanks with the Cardinal-Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on the Catholic Church regarding modern critical biblical scholarship in which the interviewee, Joseph Ratzinger, pointedly declared that the Catholic Church "had no intention of committing intellectual suicide" and therefore accepts and relies upon modern critical research and methodology. Sadly MSM seems to determined to ignore, misunderstand and/or misrepresent Joseph Ratzinger's powerful critique of our post-modernist intellectual world.

Ratzinger has a very good handle on two REALLY dangerous enemies at our doorstep.

Here is a question for you Daniel, what is the Catholic Church's long held position about Darwinism?

Dawkins is a clown by the way. ;-)

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 26, 2011 6:43:34 AM PST
thanks bookish
you're so gentle
mr neil

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2011 8:18:34 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Dec 27, 2011 8:20:33 AM PST
Well, that's obvious -- that Darwin can be accepted -- as long as one accepts the concept of an immortal soul entering the zygote at the moment of conception. What I was referring to was the Christians -- of whom there are quite a number, and I've met quite a number -- who simply can't face up to Darwin at all. By this point Darwin is not negotiable.

And Dawkins is a clown? That's a totally unwarranted insult, and it smacks of the ad hominem argument. Dawkins may be entertaining, but underneath he's relentlessly logical, remarkably knowledgeable, and deadly serious -- and for the most part, right. But that's for another thread.

And as regards R. L. Fox -- you don't have to be a Christian to know enough to show that attempts to prove the historicity of the Gospels are always ideologically slanted and a total waste of time, any more that you're under the obligation to be a Muslim so you can accept ludicrous nonsense about the barack flying through the air. As I said -- there's a lot we're going to disagree on, more than we agree on.

In reply to an earlier post on Dec 27, 2011 8:46:00 AM PST
And a BTW -- the only danger that I can see out of Dawkins and his ilk is -- to the Vatican's bank accounts. Unless you're making the claim that he's a personal danger to me, insofar as he might tempt me to jump with both feet flying into the brimstone pits so I can have drinks with Hitchens, Mark Twain, et al. -- and take in a few sets by Robert Johnson and Jimbo.

The sort of intellectual atheism Dawkins espouses will never be very popular, and does NOT lead to Auschwitz, no matter what his more hysterical detractors say.

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:12:28 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
"The sort of intellectual atheism Dawkins espouses will never be very popular, and does NOT lead to Auschwitz, no matter what his more hysterical detractors say."

Why of course not! Dawkins and the other New Atheists are so eager to reassure ... nonetheless the road leading to Auschwitz begins at the gates of the Bastille and proceeds along the very paths the New Atheists tread ...

In reply to an earlier post on Jan 1, 2012 5:20:01 AM PST
Ard Fhaidh says:
Robin Lane Fox isn't a Biblical scholar nor does he appear to be one of the many specialist in related areas of study that might justify your reliance upon him in this instance. I did some checking and Robin Lane Fox seems to be without influence among scholars in fields related to New Testament research. He does not seem to be cited by any New Testament scholars. I found that R. L. Fox was relied upon as a resource only for his work on pagan Antiquity here: Constantine and the Bishops: The Politics of Intolerance (Ancient Society and History) An excellent scholarly resource in its own right BTW.

And it you are a Post-Modernist you know that attempts to undermine the historicity of the Gospels are always ideologically slanted constructs ... ;-)

A History of the Synoptic Problem: The Canon, the Text, the Composition, and the Interpretation of the Gospels (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library)
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Islam forum
Participants:  5
Total posts:  23
Initial post:  Dec 21, 2011
Latest post:  Jan 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions