Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Jesus In Islam
#51

Hey Umm_Zachariah,


I understand what problems Muslims have with the Christian view of Jesus; got that part since it's practically drilled into you from the very 1st time you meet a Muslim or visit a Muslim web site.


Still, in nothing you said did you state how you honor or respect Jesus. Ok, so Muslims don't worship prophets... that's fine. Christians don't believe in "prophet-worship" either. If we didn't believe that Jesus was God manfiested in the flesh, we wouldn't worship Him either. I don't worship Moses or Ezekiel or Obadiah.


Point is that it seems like little more than "lip service" to me as there is nothing notable that indicates this "respect". Some have said that the fact that Muslims say "peace be upon him" every time His name is said is proof. But Jesus doesn't need that. No person who has already died and passed on needs anyone to pray for them. They are already in heaven or hell (Of course Jesus returned to His rightful place in Heaven), so what does that phrase really mean? IMO, nothing.


Some say that because Muslims bow in prayer as Jesus did that THAT's proof. But again, no, because practically every major teaching that came forth from His mouth is ignored by Muslims, because His message has been abrogated by Islam. In fact, the whole history surrounding Him is re-written with a Muslim slant and that has got to be the worst DISrespect. So, whether or not Muslims "worship" Jesus is of no consequence to me; I'm not saying Muslims should do that.


If someone were to come along and say that Muslims have it all wrong about Muhammad, that Muhammad was actually a Bahai in terms of belief, wouldn't you consider that insulting? To try to rewrite the history of the prophet you love so much? That's how it feels to me to have Jesus insulted by this historic revisionism of who He really is and was.

Reply
#52

Muslimah wrote:


> the fact that the Messenger salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam


> was illiterate is essential, since there is no way he couldve


> composed the Quran.


I don't accept that logic.


Since the Greek poet Homer was blind, he was obviously unable to read and write (i.e., he was illiterate). Does it follow from this that Homer couldn't have written the Iliad or the Odyssey?


Likewise, if we accept as fact that Mohammed was illiterate, it does not logically follow that he couldn't have composed the Koran.

Reply
#53

Hi Ronniv,


Let's continue...


<i>''If we didn't believe that Jesus, pbuh, was God manfiested in the flesh, we wouldn't worship Him either.''</i>


I understand that, since it is what Islam teaches - there is not such a belief in Islam so neither is there any need to turn away from worshipping only One Creator. So here we seem to agree.


Yes, you may understand it as 'lip-service' when it concerns the prophets since we DO NOT worship them, just repeating to make myself clear. And when you don't physically turn to them, then it maybe called to use 'lip-service' but you forget the intention how this is done, how the persons heart is included. In Islam you cannot DO only lip-service, physically worship or pray, IF you don't have your heart with you, in whatever you do. It has to be a combination to be valid. And when you are a true believer, you combine all of these possibilities to worship, honour, pray when you submit yourself to all the acts you do. Including saying 'peace be upon him' - you feel in your inner heart the mighty respect that persons namne gives you. And THAT is respect or honour, but NOT worship.


Just to clarify - I see you misunderstand the phrase 'phub, peace be upon him'. It is NOT a prayer to try to intermediate to place this person in Paradise, (we Muslims do say Paradise), it is like wishing this persons soul peace and tranquility.


Let me clarify some more. You say <i>''Some say that because Muslims bow in prayer as Jesus, pbuh, did that THAT's proof. ''</i>


We do not follow Jesus, pbuh, in the sense that you try to put it, since he was sent to the Children of Israel, for them to follow him.


But when you mention prayer, it IS interesting to note, that praying like he did and like Muslims do, also Jews used to do. So the proof for me in that, is that this is praying ordained by our Creator, to all of us, whoever we are. It is the true way to pray/worship/submit to Him.


I do NOT worry a bit that there will be any rewriting when it concern Islam, its Prophet, pbuh, or the last edition revealed by Him, SWT, the Qur'an. But I am aware of that there will always be attempts to try to change them, but know that the true message of our Creator is engraved in the hearts of the believers and the Qur'an is protected by Allah, SWT Himself.


Regards

Reply
#54



Quote:Submission.org
- <i>That is in case anyone actually cares to read what *I* post.  I'm often accused of being <b>desperate</b> and making things up.  Then when I post links to <b>Muslim</b> sources, no one has a response to that.  These are MUSLIMS who make compelling arguments and give evidence for the conclusions that they make.</i>

I'm not sure going to Submission.org for your info is a good move. If it's the same website i think it is, and i may be wrong. Isn't this website by the guy who claimed to be the final final messanger of Allah, claimed Christians and Hindus should worship together and came up with the number 19 thing. Also he said the Hadiths are vastly corrupted and shouldn't be followed, neither should the Prophet (Peace be upon him) only the Qur'an.


<i>"Dr. Khalifa called on the Muslims to follow the Quran alone and to disregard all the fabrications and lies that filled the Hadith and Sunna books."</i> - Submission.org


What's weird is the Qur'an actually says to follow the Prophet (peace be upon him) how can we follow the Prophet without Hadith or Sunnah. The Qu'ran says to follow the Prophet (peace be upon him) several times..i will dig the verses if needed. The thing is with the sects, they trip over themselves when they imply Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) made a mistake. Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) sent the Angel to the wrong person. Or Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says follow Mohammed but don't really follow him. Becuase the Qur'an is always there to go back to, the only thing they can do is say that Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) made a mistake. For example this submission.org guy took out two chapters from the Qur'an which he claimed were put in by others, because they knocked his number 19 theory out. Yet Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) says the Qur'an will be guarded from corruption. So one again....Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) has made a mistake. These deviants always have this problem with the Qur'an never changing, it makes things very difficult for them.


Eventually the guy got busted for very bad things involving younger members of the opposite sex. I visited it a few months back and it seems they have hidden his name deep but it's still there and it's still the same nutball. But then he kind of done it for himself with the whole...he is the Messanger or the Covenant..he said Mohammed (Peace be upon him) was the last Prophet of Quran but not the last messanger....


<i>"Few years before his death, Dr. Khalifa declared that he is the messenger of the covenant , Messenger of the Covenant, prophesied in the Quran in 3:81. He presented a lengthy document with proofs of his messengership from the Quran. He defended the fact that the Prophet Muhammed was the LAST Prophet according to the Quran but not the LAST messenger"</i>


Sorry for going off the topic but i can't let that website be posted here without at least some kind of explination on what they are about. There are new Muslims reading these pages.


I mean still biting on the whole illiterate thing is real tedious now, it's bizzare you're still on it, but regardless. I wouldn't go to this site. This guy even has his own followers who worship him as the Prophesised last messanger. I mean come on. Obviously i'm assuming you didn't know this Ronni so just some advice. I wouldn't go to a Mormon website and bring quotes so let's try and stay on the ball at least. No?....ah whateva


I'm out.

Reply
#55

...after i post this... :rolleyes:


Yeah he said the Hadiths are vastly corrupted and shouldn't be followed. This was to make his views easier to accept as the so-called final Messanger of Allah(Subhanahu wa ta'ala) that he claims he is. This guy also done his own online translation of the Qur'an almost similar to This True Furquan thing, no where near as blatant i admit but still vastly adjusted (two chapter being taken out for one). Admitedally his version of the Qur'an is avoided by everyone but him and his followers...but yeh i even almost got duped by him early early on when i was looking into all of this, just something didn't seem right about him when i was reading about him...


I'll trust you on this one and assume you didn't know this about submission.org as they do hide it well. So no blame there, just some advice. To be honest i don't know how to put this without sounding harsh but you guys obviously don't care about feelings so i'll just be honest... the more i read about Christianity and The Bible and it's complete and proven corruption, the more i understand why you come here every single day upset and frustrated. Honestly the more i learn about your book, it explains your actions and continual posting on a Muslim website daily. You just used to hide the whole frustration and worry you have for your religion a lot better.

Reply
#56

Anyabwile wrote:


> the more i read about Christianity and The Bible and it's


> complete and proven corruption...


What corruption? Proven by who? Details, please.

Reply
#57

Anyabwile,


No I didn't know that information about that site. I thought it was a reputable one. I wouldn't have quoted from someone who is that sectarian if I had known it. Like I wouldn't quote the Nation of Islam to try to critique TRUE Islam.


As far as you saying that I come here "upset and frustrated", let me <b>assure you</b> and anyone else who thinks that that I am in NO WAY WHATSOEVER frustrated with my faith. As a matter of fact, I am furthering my knowledge of the Bible and it's Divine Revelation by taking some seminary courses on it. I love my faith. I love my walk with God. I love that I can speak to my Creator and He loves me enough to communicate back to me. I love my wonderful Christian husband who leads our household according to the Bible. I love how the Word (the Bible) has stood the test of time regardless of whatever attacks have come against it. I love the fact that despite lies that are filling the world about the Bible's tampering and corruption, it still stands strong and it still continues to be proven to have Life-giving and Life-changing power to millions and millions of people all over the world. I love to hear the testimonies of people who have been healed of sicknesses and diseases becuase they stood on the Word of God. I love to hear of people who put away their drunkenness or have been set free from drug-addition because of the life that was spoken to them through the Bible.


Hopefully that was enough to let you know that I am not doubtful, frustrated, angry, upset, or anything even halfway close concerning my faith.


The fact that I like to engage in dialogue and ask *real* questions does not mean that I am somehow "searching" for something else. I <b>HAVE</b> my assurance of salvation and life-eternal with my Creator. No other religion out there provides such an assurance; no other provides the ability for me to speak directly to God and He speak directly back to me. So, why would I be "searching" for anything else? Quick answer: I wouldn't.


I started off a few years ago at least trying to learn about Islam rather than reject it without reason. I still learn about the religion, but hey, I also learn about Hinduism (got a Hindu co-worker); I learn about the reasons why atheists reject belief in God; I learn about Sikhism and Bahai and Jehovah's Witnesses. So what? Doesn't mean I'm searching for a new religion to follow because I'm missing something in my own.


There is absolutely nothing that I am missing in my life; I am complete and whole.


In this thread, I did not intend to go into all of that, but it's becoming a bit old for people to assume that Christians are somehow frustrated or feeling vulnerable when it comes to their faith. I know it may be hard for some Muslims to accept any other possibility but that, but it's true. Any true Christian is totally content and totally confident in their faith.

Reply
#58



Quote:What corruption?  Proven by who?  Details, please.

The bible is supposed to be the word of God or Divine revelation. I am saying above it is proven that the original divine message that Christians say is in the bible, has been corruped by men. And you are saying to me "what corruption?" Like you don't know the bible is corrupted. You may be a brand new Christian i don't know. So i'll actually assume, you don't know the bible is corrupted...


First...because if you don't know the Bible has been corrupted, this will be an extremely long post and i don't want to sit here pasting all i've researched. Ok personally i suspect you really <b>do</b> know it has been corrupted, but seeing me type it simply hurt. But i will give you the benefit of the doubt. First...let's look at the definition of corruption Merriam Webster definition of corruption = <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct</i> I am saying the bible is corrupt because men have tampered with what was originally the Divine word of God.


If you're one of those and i have i admit very recently come across those who think the <b>entire </b>Bible is the word of God (even ronnie doesn't agree with this, as said in another post) Then this is even better because i would really really like to speak with you, and would apoligise for calling you a Moron so we could really speak. If you're a brand new Christian then i don't really want to do this, there's better ways. But if you're just saying "what corruption? what proof" yet you know what corruption and proof, and because you're a very stupid person, then i'll stick with calling you a Moron, becase that is it's exact definition...a very stupid person.


I will highlight in red according where it has been tampered, and thus where the Bible is corrupt. "What proof?" the proof the Church of england found in 1870? historical fact?, The historical fact as agreed with me by the authors of the revised standard version. And every historian and Christian scholar i have ever....<b>ever</b> heard comment on the authenticy of the Bible. Of course Christian scholars say it is Gods words in there, Inspired men writing Gods word, It's still God, but they <b>all</b> say that in some way it is a departure from the original or form what is pure or correct = corrupt.


So way back, this is where my "interest" in the authenticy of the Bible began... reading this preface in a bible i had, this preface to my memory is from the most popular version or most sold version of the bible this is why i chose it. I may well be wrong but on this point it doesn't really matter. It is the bible right? The revised standard version. I already have this pre highlighted etc so i'll just paste the whole lot and we can start. So we'll start where i started when i first got into the corruption of the bible and maybe you will understand what i mean by corrupt, and we can end it here...or debate further.


So I will highlight in red according where it has been tampered, and thus where the Bible is corrupt. So remember, the Bible in it's original form or even according to Christians is supposed to be the word of God at least in some way or another. If it has been tampered with and changed from it's original form, then it has been corrupted...


-------------


<i>"The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version, published in 1901, which was a revision of the King James Version, published in 1611.</i>


The first English version of the Scriptures made by direct translation from the original Hebrew and Greek, and the first to be printed, was the work of William Tyndale. He met bitter opposition. He was accused of willfully perverting the meaning of the scritptures
and his New Testaments were ordered to be burned as "untrue translations." He was finally betrayed into the hands of his enemies, and in October 1536, was publicly executed and burned at the stake.


Yet Tyndale's work became the foundation of subsequent English versions
, notably those of Coverdale, 1535; Thomas Matthew (probably a pseudonym for John Rogers), 1537; the Great Bible, 1539; the Geneva Bible, 1560; and the Bishops' Bible, 1568. In 1582, a translation of the New Testament, made from the Latin Vulgate by Roman Catholic scholars, was published at Rheims.


The translators who made the King James Version took into account all of these preceding versions; and comparison shows that it owes something to each of them.
It kept felicitous phrases and apt expressions, from whatever source, which had stood the test of public usage. It owed most, especially in the New Testament, to Tyndale.


The King James Version had to compete with the Geneva Bible in popular use; but in the end it prevailed, and for more than two and a half centuries no other authorized translation of the Bible into English was made. The King James Version became the "Authorized Version" of the English-speaking peoples.


The King James Version has with good reason been termed "the noblest monument of English prose." Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for "its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression … the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm." It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt.


<b>Yet the King James Version has grave </b>defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that these <b>defects are so many and so serious </b>as to call for revision of the English translation.
The task was undertaken, by authority of the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bible was published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published in 1901.


Because of unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two decades between 1881 and 1901, <b>which tampered with the text of the English Revised </b>Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes. In 1928, this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of education and publication.


The Council <b>appointed a committee of scholars to have charge of the text </b>of the American Standard Version and to undertake inquiry as to whether further revision was necessary. For more than two years the Committee worked upon the problem of whether or not revision should be undertaken; and if so, what should be its nature and extent. In the end the decision was reached that <b>there is need for a thorough revision of the version </b>of 1901
, <b>which will stay as close to the Tyndale-King James tradition as it can</b> in the light of our present knowledge of the Hebrew and Greek texts and their meaning on the one hand, and our present understanding of English on the other.


In 1937, the revision was authorized by vote of <b>the Council, which directed that the resulting version should</b> "embody the best results of modern scholarship as to the meaning of the Scriptures, and express this meaning in English diction which is designed for use in public and private worship, and preserves those qualities which have given to the King James Version a supreme place in English literature."


Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with <b>making the revision</b>, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board of fifty representatives of the cooperating denominations. The Committee has worked in two sections, one dealing with the Old Testament and one with the New Testament. Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the other section; and the charter of the Committee requires that all changes
be agreed upon by a two-thirds vote of the total membership of the Committee. The Revised Standard Version of the New Testament was published in 1946. The publication of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was authorized by vote of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. in 1951.


The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament, only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.


The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the "Masoretes") of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel-signs, which were added by the Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been done. No notes are given in such cases, because the vowel points are less ancient and reliable than the consonants.


Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text was standardized.
Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions (translations into Greek, Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin), which were made before the time of the Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text. In every such instance, a footnote specifies the version or versions from which the correction has been derived, and also gives a translation of the Masoretic Text.


Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of the original text.
Such corrections are indicated in the footnotes by the abbreviation Cn, and a translation of the Masoretic Text is added.


The discovery of the meaning of the text, once the best readings have been established, is aided by many new resources for understanding the original languages. Much progress has been made in the historical and comparative study of these languages. A vast quantity of writings in related Semitic languages, some of them only recently discovered, has greatly enlarged our knowledge of the vocabulary and grammar of Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic. Sometimes the present translation will be found to render a Hebrew word in a sense quite different from that of the traditional interpretation. It has not been felt necessary in such cases to attach a footnote, because no change in the text is involved and it may be assumed that the new rendering was not adopted without convincing evidence. The analysis of religious texts from the ancient Near East has made clearer the significance of ideas and practices recorded in the Old Testament. Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain. Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we have given an alternative rendering in a footnote. If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a note. It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated. To record all minority views was obviously out of the question
.


A major departure from the practice of the American Standard Version is the rendering of the Divine Name, the "Tetragrammaton." The American Standard Version used the term "Jehovah"; the King James Version had employed this in four places, but everywhere else, except in three cases where it was employed as part of a proper name, used the English word Lord (or in certain cases God) printed in capitals. The present revision returns to the procedure of the King James Version, which follows the precedent of the ancient Greek and Latin translators and the long established practice in the reading of the Hebrew scriptures in the synagogue. While it is almost if not quite certain that the Name was originally pronounced "Yahweh," this pronunciation was not indicated when the Masoretes added vowel signs to the consonantal Hebrew text. To the four consonants YHWH of the Name, which had come to be regarded as too sacred to be pronounced, they attached vowel signs indicating that in its place should be read the Hebrew word Adonai meaning "Lord" (or Elohim meaning "God"). The ancient Greek translators substituted the work Kyrios (Lord) for the Name. The Vulgate likewise used the Latin word Dominus. The form "Jehovah" is of late medieval origin; it is a combination of the consonants of the Divine Name and the vowels attached to it by the Masoretes but belonging to an entirely different word. The sound of Y is represented by J and the sound of W by V, as in Latin. For two reasons the Committee has returned to the more familiar usage of the King James Version: (1) the word "Jehovah" does not accurately represent any form of the Name ever used in Hebrew; and (2) the use of any proper name for the one and only God, as though there were other gods from whom He had to be distinguished, was discontinued in Judaism before the Christian era and is entirely inappropriate for the universal faith of the Christian Church.


The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that was marred by mistakes
, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries of manuscript copying
. It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589, who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon a few medieval manuscripts. The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from the tenth century, and he made the least use of it because it differed most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus.


We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the New Testament, and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better than for any other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was originally written.


The revisers in the 1870's had most of the evidence that we now have for the Greek text, though the most ancient of all extant manuscripts of the Greek New Testament were not discovered until 1931. But they lacked the resources which discoveries within the past eighty years have afforded for understanding the vocabulary, grammar, and idioms of the Greek New Testament. An amazing body of Greek papyri has been unearthed in Egypt since the 1870's—private letters, official reports, wills, business accounts, petitions, and other such trivial, everyday recordings of the activities of human beings. In 1895 appeared the first of Adolf Deissmann's studies of these ordinary materials. He proved that many words which had hitherto been assumed to belong to what was called "Biblical Greek" were current in the spoken vernacular of the first century A.D. The New Testament was written in the Koiné, the common Greek which was spoken and understood practically everywhere throughout the Roman Empire in the early centuries of the Christian era. This development in the study of New Testament Greek has come since the work on the English Revised Version and the American Standard Version was done, and at many points sheds new light upon the meaning of the Greek text.


A major reason for revision of the King James Version, which is valid for both the Old Testament and the New Testament, is the change since 1611 in English usage. Many forms of expression have become archaic, while still generally intelligible—the use of thou, thee, thy, thine and the verb endings -est and -edst, the verb endings -eth and -th, it came to pass that, whosoever, whatsoever, insomuch that, because that, for that, unto, howbeit, peradventure, holden, aforetime, must needs, would fain, behooved, to you-ward, etc. Other words are obsolete and no longer understood by the common reader. The greatest problem, however, is presented by the English words which are still in constant use but now convey a different meaning from that which they had in 1611 and in the King James Version. These words were once accurate translations of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures; but now, having changed in meaning, they have become misleading. They no longer say what the King James translators meant them to say.


Thus, the King James Version uses the word "let" in the sense of "hinder," "prevent" to mean "precede," "allow" in the sense of "approve," "communicate" for "share," "conversation" for "conduct," "comprehend" for "overcome," "ghost" for "spirit," "wealth" for "well-being," "allege" for "prove," "demand" for "ask," "take no thought" for "be not anxious," etc.


The Revised Standard Version of the Bible, containing the Old and New Testaments, was published on September 30, 1952, and has met with wide acceptance. This preface does not undertake to set forth in detail the lines along which the revision proceeded. That is done in pamphlets entitled An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the Old Testament and An Introduction to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament, written by members of the Committee and designed to help the general public to understand the main principles which have guided this comprehensive revision of the King James and American Standard versions.


These principles were reaffirmed by the Committee in 1959, in connection with a study of criticisms and suggestions from various readers. As a result, a few changes were authorized for subsequent editions
, most of them corrections of punctuation, capitalization, or footnotes. Some of them are <b>changes of words and phrases made in the interest of consistency, clarity, or accuracy of translation.
</b>


The Revised Standard Version Bible Committee is a continuing body, holding its meetings at regular intervals. It has become both ecumenical and international, with Protestant and Catholic members, who come from Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.


The Second Edition of the translation of the New Testament (1971) profits from textual and linguistic studies published since the Revised Standard Version New Testament was first issued in 1946. Many proposals for modification were submitted to the Committee by individuals and by two denominational committees. All of these were given careful attention by the Committee.


Two passages, the longer ending of Mark (16.9-20) and the account of the woman caught in adultery (Jn 7.53-8.11), are restored to the text, separated from it by a blank space and accompanied by informative notes describing the various arrangements of the text in the ancient authorities. With new manuscript support, two passages, Lk 22.19b-20 and 24.51b, are restored to the text, and one passage, Lk 22.43-44, is placed in the note, as is a phrase in Lk 12.39. Notes are added which indicate significant variations, additions, or omissions in the ancient authorities (Mt 9.34; Mk 3.16; 7.4; Lk 24.32,51, etc.). Among the new notes are those giving the equivalence of ancient coinage with the contemporary day's or year's wages of a laborer (Mt 18.24,28; 20.2; etc.). Some of the revisions clarify the meaning through rephrasing or reordering the text (see Mk 5.42; Lk 22.29-30; Jn 10.33; 1 Cor 3.9; 2 Cor 5.19; Heb 13.13). Even when the changes appear to be largely matters of English style, they have the purpose of presenting to the reader more adequately the meaning of the text (see Mt 10.8; 12.1; 15.29; 17.20; Lk 7.36; 11.17; 12.40; Jn 16.9; Rom 10.16; 1 Cor 12.24; 2 Cor 2.3; 3.5,6; etc.).


The Revised Standard Version Bible seeks to preserve all that is best in the English Bible as it has been known and used through the years. It is intended for use in public and private worship, not merely for reading and instruction. We have resisted the temptation to use phrases that are merely current usage, and have sought to put the message of the Bible in simple, enduring words that are worthy to stand in the great Tyndale-King James tradition. We are glad to say, with the King James translators: "Truly (good Christian Reader) we never thought from the beginning, that we should need to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better."



The Bible is more than a historical document to be preserved. And it is more than a classic of English literature to be cherished and admired. It is a record of God's dealing with men, of God's revelation of Himself and His will. It records the life and work of Him in whom the Word of God became flesh and dwelt among men. The Bible carries its full message, not to those who regard it simply as a heritage of the past or praise its literary style, but to those who read it that they may discern and understand God's Word to men. That Word must not be disguised in phrases that are no longer clear, or hidden under words that have changed or lost their meaning. It must stand forth in language that is direct and plain and meaningful to people today.
It is our hope and our earnest prayer that this Revised Standard Version of the Bible may be used by God to speak to men in these momentous times, and to help them to understand and believe and obey his Word.





-------------


"What corruption?"


So first off...let's go from here.

Reply
#59



Quote:No I didn't know that information about that site.  I thought it was a reputable one.  I wouldn't have quoted from someone who is that sectarian if I had known it.  Like I wouldn't quote the Nation of Islam to try to critique TRUE Islam.

Ok this is good no problem. On the outside the site is very good. When i was searching for the truth i came across it and thought nothing of it as i said so always try and double check when quoting. Which is what i will try to do now if i ever quote a Christian scholar, if they are not considered Christian by Christians and you know what i mean here generally, then i'm not interested in quoting them. I want to speak with and quote Christians.




Quote:.  I love my faith.  I love my walk with God.  I love that I can speak to my Creator and He loves me enough to communicate back to me.  I love my wonderful Christian husband who leads our household according to the Bible.  I love how the Word (the Bible) has stood the test of time regardless of whatever attacks have come against it.  I love the fact that despite lies that are filling the world about the Bible's tampering and corruption, it still stands strong and it still continues to be proven to have Life-giving and Life-changing power to millions and millions of people all over the world.  I love to hear the testimonies of people who have been healed of sicknesses and diseases becuase they stood on the Word of God.  I love to hear of people who put away their drunkenness or have been set free from drug-addition because of the life that was spoken to them through the Bible.

It would appear from reading my posts that i hate Christians and i hate the Bible. No doubt you think this, i wouldn't be suprised because sometimes i will respond to someone according to how they come at me. This is something i should maybe chill on but i think you personally have been very offensive toward Islam with some of the comments and the way you write them. You will see and hopefully admit that when we intiially began posting again to each other recently i was trying to be a polite as possible...look back. So my increased tone is due to how i see you've been responding.


All you say above about how you are happy etc etc is fine. My mother is like this, i don't sit with her and show her where and how the Bible is corrupt. I'm not actually a heartless monster. If she belives the things like you do above. Good household, God speaks with you, life changing Bible etc then trust me, By Allah (Subhanahu wa ta'ala) I would never say to a Chrsitian who comes to me with such peace and happiness in their religion "RIGHT OK WELL IM GLAD YOU'RE HAPPY BUT LET ME SHOW YOU WHERE THE BIBLE IS WRONG" And then present to this person who is happy and content wiht their religion a 1000 page study with historical documents and facts as to why the bible is corrupt. I just wouldn't do that, it's not my style and there's no point. Belive it or not i don't as a Muslim set out to make Good Christians happy with their faith unhappy.


However if a Christian is going to come at me with negative statements about the Qur'an and also tell me in actual words "my bible isn't corrupt show me" then this kind of takes down the curtain of silence i had toward the Christian, and signals the start of debate, freindly debate, but debate.


Do you see what i mean? If i was speaking to you as a Christian and you was saying to me something along the lines of "I love the Bible, i love it's word, it's power, i love how it heals and the goodness it gives" etc etc then i would never bang into a debate with you. In fact what i have actually said in these kind of situations is something like "well good i can at least talk with you, Athiests are much harder work" or something like that, you see what i mean? I would say God Bless and move on, or just let you continue and probably talk about the madness of Athiesm with you. But as soon as you was to say "But the Qur'an is wrong here and here" or "the bible is not corrupt and no one can prove it" then this starts off something different.


This is how <b>you </b>come across as a Christian....the one who says the Qur'an is not the word of God, and the one who claims the bible is not corrupt (i would now assume) So therefore this opens debate. No i don't know why someone who is happy in their religion would put so much time and passion daily into responding, and in a harsh way either. It's a contradiction to me. But what i'm trying to say is i would respond to you how you respond to me. I hope you understand what i'm saying, if so we can both tone down each others posts to one another, something i would be fine doing. Let's see anyway.

Reply
#60

Bismillah


as salam alykom brothers and sisters


I think ronniv's position is very clear as well as reepicheep


well just to end up this debate, ronniv we have no problem if u continue being Christian that is between u and Allah, if u also dont understand what we post for u that is also ok, because in all cases we post replies that are not already addressed for others to read.


One last thing, the site u linked in not an authentic Muslim source after I read it. They belong to a sect called Quranyeen well I dont want to get u into this.


This is the tafsee of the Ayah that proves Mohamed salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam was illiterate.


http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=29&tid=39959


However, if u debating that Mohamed salla Allah a`lyhee wa sallam composed the Quran of course u can think this way and we can Insh a Allah produce proof. Not necessarily after bringing u the proof that u understand or believe it. That is totally up to u.


http://www.islamsms.com/en/modules.php...article&sid=100

Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 20 Guest(s)