The "Original" Manuscripts.

[Faith Hope Charity]

In the Name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit - One God now & forever. Amen.


May the peace of Christ be with you!

I remember that I told you on the other threads that if you get emotional while discussing this topic then I guess I have to drop is as I dropped 'trinity' subject.

Nah, let's keep going, Mate ;)


My only request is that you please try to respect (not accept) the integrity of the Holy Bible & the Christian faith. No absurd claims that your assumptions are facts. Ask questions. Express your opinions. Challenge me. But please don't pretend to be a biblical scholar :lol:


Okay, so where shall I start??? I'm assuming you're not actually going to read any documents, therefore, I'll have to post a lot of information (I'll try to keep it to a minimum).


Today's Bibles match the ancient manuscripts, no question. There are over 5000 fragments of Scripture which date back to the 1st Century AD. Nothing has been added or removed. Because they were continually translated in different languages, there are slight variations, e.g. one version says "Jesus Christ" & another says "Christ Jesus". That's how minor the alterations (if you can even call them that) are. The original expression can be deduced beyond any reasonable doubt. The essential message was never distorted.


I know this is far fetched, you don't have to believe it... but it's actually 100% true :D The adultery passage (St John 8) was temporary concealed only by the Alexandrians because they feared their women might consider it a licence to adultery. When the Church canonised the books of Scripture in the 4th Century AD, every copy was identical & remains so.


As for St Mark's Gospel, to cut a long story short (pun), the longer ending is canonical. It appears in all the ancient manuscripts except for two Greek ones (B & Aleph), however, the scribes who wrote these two unicals left a blank column at the end of verse 8 indicating that a conclusion exists but they chose to omit it. It was most certainly included in the Latin Vulgate - the official translation produced by St Jerome.


Ummm... I think that pretty much covers everything. Yalla, I'm anticipating round two :thumb: Please be humble, Wael.


I'm off to read the Bible now :)


God bless.

[Dan]

Bismillah


"And Wel...I went back and read the link you posted.


You admitted that the compiled oldest Quran text was not written by the hand of Mohammed. You said that the Quran was passed down orally etc."


#1 Muhammad was illiterate so how could he write them with his own hands.


#2 He employed scribes to write down revelations as they came. These were "compiled" into one book during the reign of the first Kahlifa. "Compiled" meaning the Qur'an already existed in beginning to end form in the memories of the Campanions. (Really hard for a written society to understand an oral... they still exist though so it one wants to learn more about the memorization abilities of these societies it can be learned about.)


#3 The "compiler" during Abu Bakr's rule was the closest personal scribe of the Prophet, Zaid ibn Thabit.


sorry to be off topic but the verocity of the Qur'an was being questioned so I thought I would offer this info. If this leads to further straying, I'll start another topic... again.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:


Assalamo Alikum

My only request is that you please try to respect (not accept) the integrity of the Holy Bible & the Christian faith. No absurd claims that your assumptions are facts. Ask questions. Express

I totally respect your beliefs, including the Bible, but I do not see that it was perfectly preserved; and there are many evidences on what I am saying, if you wish i can post them here for your study.

your opinions. Challenge me. But please don't pretend to be a biblical scholar

I never did, I am only quoting what some <b>Biblical scholars </b> have said concerning this subject but sadly you don’t even bother to listen to them. A N D by the way I do not intend to challenge you.

Today's Bibles match the ancient manuscripts, no question. There are over 5000 fragments of Scripture which date back to the 1st Century AD. Nothing has been added or removed. Because they were continually translated in different languages, there are slight variations, e.g. one version says "Jesus Christ" & another says "Christ Jesus". That's how minor the alterations (if you can even call them that) are. The original expression can be deduced beyond any reasonable doubt. The essential message was never distorted.

Words are really nice, but to prove them it is next to impossible.


It is true that there are 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, 5,000 of which were written in the original Greek language. <b>Of these thousands of manuscripts, no two manuscripts are identical.</b> so how did you come to know which one is the accurate word of God?


Now, I did not examine those manuscripts by myself, I did not ask Muslims to teach me about those Scriptures, but I did ask reliable Christian Bible Scholars who admits that the Bible of today is not really what was originally written, and some of them even said that the message itself was distorted.

I know this is far fetched, you don't have to believe it... but it's actually 100% true The adultery passage (St John 8) was temporary concealed only by the Alexandrians because they feared their women might consider it a licence to adultery. When the Church canonised the books of Scripture in the 4th Century AD, every copy was identical & remains so.

But we are talking about <b>recent discovery</b> FHC, <b>Bart Ehramn</b> done his reseach a couple of years ago, he learned Greek and studied the manuscripts <b>and found that this story "and many other verses" do not exist at all</b>.

As for St Mark's Gospel, to cut a long story short (pun), the longer ending is canonical. It appears in all the ancient manuscripts except for two Greek ones (B & Aleph), however, the scribes who wrote these two unicals left a blank column at the end of verse 8 indicating that a conclusion exists but they chose to omit it. It was most certainly included in the Latin Vulgate - the official translation produced by St Jerome.

How can you contradict what Bible scholars have said? Now are you pretending to be a bible scholar? :conf06:


Salam


Wael

[Faith Hope Charity]

In the Name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit.

I totally respect your beliefs, including the Bible, but I do not see that it was perfectly preserved; and there are many evidences on what I am saying, if you wish i can post them here for your study.

You have a funny way of showing respect, bro :P Anyways... please feel free to post your findings & we'll discuss. I must admit though, I'm very picky about sources so chose wisely ;)

I never did, I am only quoting what some <b>Biblical scholars </b> have said concerning this subject but sadly you don’t even bother to listen to them.

I'll hear them out but at the end of the day I trust the Church & only the Church. By all means, stick to your preferred theories but please don't impose them on me :)

Words are really nice, but to prove them it is next to impossible.

I guess if you study hard enough, you'll come to know the truth about the ancient manuscripts. Read! Read! Read! There's plenty of evidence out there. The fact that we even have these manuscripts is a miracle! During the persecution of the Early Church, Nero attempted to burn all copies of the Bible. Thanks be to God he failed.

It is true that there are 24,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, 5,000 of which were written in the original Greek language. <b>Of these thousands of manuscripts, no two manuscripts are identical.</b> so how did you come to know which one is the accurate word of God?

The Church! She's been given sole authority from above to teach, govern & sanctify. The Church Fathers pretty much memorized Scripture off by heart & taught the Good News orally for centuries, so it would've been a walk in the park for them to sought through the manuscripts & eliminate the fake gnostic writings.


"no two manuscripts are identical" - but the ones that were used to produce the canon in the 4th Century AD are identical to the Bible sitting comfortably beside me right now :)

Now, I did not examine those manuscripts by myself, I did not ask Muslims to teach me about those Scriptures, but I did ask reliable Christian Bible Scholars who admits that the Bible of today is not really what was originally written, and some of them even said that the message itself was distorted.

It's fine by me that you support those biblical scholars. My biblical scholars & I tend to disagree with you guys. That's where the buck stops for us.

But we are talking about <b>recent discovery</b> FHC, <b>Bart Ehramn</b> done his reseach a couple of years ago, he learned Greek and studied the manuscripts <b>and found that this story "and many other verses" do not exist at all</b>.


How can you contradict what Bible scholars have said? Now are you pretending to be a bible scholar? :conf06:

Simple! Because Mr Ehramn & his gang contradict what the Pontifical Biblical Commission over at the Vatican say. I know whose side I'm on :thumb:


No biblical scholar who steps out in public & declares "I agree with everything the Church says" will score attention, right? Like Dan Brown, Bart Ehramn will have his five minutes of fame & Holy Mother Church will remain on top like always :) Praise Jesus!


Peace & blessings!

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:


Assalamo ALikum,

I'll hear them out but at the end of the day I trust the Church & only the Church. By all means, stick to your preferred theories but please don't impose them on me

I don’t care at all whom you trust or what you believe in FHC… you are now not focusing in responding to my posts, instead, you are just showing us how much you love your Church no matter what happened, but this doesn’t resolve our problem.

I guess if you study hard enough, you'll come to know the truth about the ancient manuscripts. Read! Read! Read! There's plenty of evidence out there. The fact that we even have these manuscripts is a miracle! During the persecution of the Early Church, Nero attempted to burn all copies of the Bible. Thanks be to God he failed.

I did not deny that you have some <i>‘ancient’ </i> manuscripts in existence today, but those ‘<i>ancient</i>’ scriptures <b>are not the original writings which God revealed to His prophets</b>, to prove my point further please <b>READ READ READ </b> Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible


Some quotes for your reference:

<b>THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church </b> has published a teaching document <b>instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.
</b>

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are <b>warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect “total accuracy” from the Bible. </b>

<b>But the first 11 chapters of Genesis, in which two different and at times conflicting stories of creation are told, are among those that this country’s Catholic bishops insist cannot be “historical”. At most, they say, they may contain “historical traces”. </b>

The Bible is true in passages relating to human salvation, they say, but continue:<b> “We should not expect total accuracy from the Bible in other, secular matters.” </b>

<b>Similarly, they refute the apocalyptic prophecies of Revelation, the last book of the Christian Bible, in which the writer describes the work of the risen Jesus, the death of the Beast and the wedding feast of Christ the Lamb.</b>

Now you said:

The Church! She's been given sole authority from above to teach, govern & sanctify.quote]
Then follow the Church’s teaching on what they’ve said in the above article. That "<b>that some parts of the Bible are not actually true</b>
"


Salam


Wael

[Faith Hope Charity]

In the Name of God - Creator Redeemer Sanctifier.


May the peace of Christ be with you!

I don’t care at all whom you trust or what you believe in FHC… you are now not focusing in responding to my posts, instead, you are just showing us how much you love your Church no matter what happened, but this doesn’t resolve our problem.

Aya problem? Ma fi problem :D


Please keep in mind that in Catholicism, Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition go hand in hand, therefore, I can't separate the two.


When opening the Bible, you can't pretend like you're the first person in history to do so. The 4th Commandment - honour your mother & your father - applies. We must honor the Church as well as the Early Fathers (past Bishops, Theologians, etc) who have come before us & written endless commentaries on Scripture.

I did not deny that you have some ‘ancient’ manuscripts in existence today, but those ‘ancient’ scriptures are not the original writings which God revealed to His prophets

Haha! How do you know that the ancient manuscripts don't match the originals? I wouldn't bet on it if I were you. God's word can't change.

to prove my point further please READ READ READ Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

Prove your point further? When did your point begin to be proved? :lol:


You know that best lies are the ones that contain truth. There's about 2% of truth in that article & 98% of lies. I echo everything "quoted" by the Catholics. I reject the rest which is nothing short of journalistic sensationalism.

Then follow the Church’s teaching on what they’ve said in the above article. That "that some parts of the Bible are not actually true"

Ruth Gledhill is the Church??? :o :blink: :rolleyes:


Stick to your day job, Wael ;)


God bless you.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:

When opening the Bible, you can't pretend like you're the first person in history to do so. The 4th Commandment - honour your mother & your father - applies. We must honor the Church as well as the Early Fathers (past Bishops, Theologians, etc) who have come before us & written endless commentaries on Scripture.

So why don’t you honor and respect other learned Christians who clearly contradicts your Church? Just because they are not belongs to the Catholic Church then they are wrong? That makes no sense at all.

Haha! How do you know that the ancient manuscripts don't match the originals?

I’ve already shows you what Christian scholars have said about this matter, the original writings were not preserved and they don’t exist today, so you can’t compare them with today’s Bible, plus many verses of today’s Bible does not match at all with the manuscripts which the Vatican or Jerusalem holds today. You can either take it or reject it, you can even deny it if you wish, <b>but you can’t prove something else. </b>

God's word can't change.

True, God’s word will never change, <b>but God’s words are not with you right now in today’s Bible. </b>

Prove your point further? When did your point begin to be proved?
You know that best lies are the ones that contain truth. There's about 2% of truth in that article & 98% of lies.

Ok let see what else could be a lie!! :)


I bet you have heard about Bruce Metzger ? who after studying the writings of all the Apostolic Fathers viz., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, the Didache, fragments of Papias, Barnabas, Hermas of Rome, and the so-called 2 Clement, Bruce Metzger concludes:

"For early Jewish Christians the Bible consisted of the Old Testament and some Jewish apocryphal literature. Along with this written authority went traditions, chiefly oral, of sayings attributed to Jesus. On the other hand, authors who belonged to the 'Hellenistic Wing' of the Church refer more frequently to writings that later came to be included in the New Testament. At the same time, however, they very rarely regarded such documents as 'Scripture'.
Furthermore, there was as yet no conception of the duty of exact quotation from books that were not yet in the full sense canonical. Consequently, it is sometimes exceedingly difficult to ascertain which New Testament books were known to early Christian writers; our evidence does not become clear until the end of second century." [Metzger, The Canon Of The New Testament: Its Origin, Significance & Development p. 72-73.]

Consider the following admission as well:

"The original copies of the NT books have, of course, long since disappeared. This fact should not cause surprise. In the first place, they were written on papyrus, a very fragile and perishable material. In the second place, and probably of even more importance, the original copies of the NT books were not looked upon as scripture by those of the early Christian communities." [George Arthur Buttrick (Ed.), The Interpreter's Dictionary Of The Bible, Volume 1, pp. 599 (Under Text, NT).]

There we have it. <b>The NT books were not looked upon as scripture by the early Christians. </b>


Yalla, repeat what you have said in your previous post (i.e <i>There's about 0% of truth in what they said</i>).


Ah before I forget, let me also quote what Abdurrahman Robert Squires said:

"It is interesting to see that a non-Christian scholar says that: "of all the synoptic manuscripts which can be dated to the fourth century or earlier, only two (P45and P75, both of the third century) contain more than a chapter." This can be verified by spending a little time at the Table of Greek Manuscripts page “Source

It's true -ALL of the other pre fourth century manuscripts contain only a few verses!!!"


Christians give the impression as if they possess 5000 complete Biblical manuscripts, that is simply not the case. What you really possess is small bits and pieces here and there with a couple of verses on them. As Robert Squires mentions, all of the pre fourth century manuscripts contain only a few verses.


Call it a lie yalla…

I echo everything "quoted" by the Catholics. I reject the rest which is nothing short of journalistic sensationalism.

I did not only quote what news papers have published, I also quoted what Christians scholars and learned Christians have said about this matter.


Salam


Wael.

[Faith Hope Charity]

In the Name of the Father & of the Son & of the Holy Spirit - One God now & forever. Amen.

So why don’t you honor and respect other learned Christians who clearly contradicts your Church? Just because they are not belongs to the Catholic Church then they are wrong? That makes no sense at all.

Wael, you & I are in the same boat. Do you believe that men were once stars that fell from the sky & humans will be reincarnated several times before the end of time??? These are the conclusions that Alawites/Druze draw from the Holy Qur'an. Same thing, man! Respecting scholars is easy but accepting their views is tough.

I’ve already shows you what Christian scholars have said about this matter, the original writings were not preserved and they don’t exist today, so you can’t compare them with today’s Bible, plus many verses of today’s Bible does not match at all with the manuscripts which the Vatican or Jerusalem holds today. You can either take it or reject it, you can even deny it if you wish, <b>but you can’t prove something else. </b>

:banghead: Why don't you go bug Drama students about the authenticity of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet? Please give me a break, dude!

True, God’s word will never change, <b>but God’s words are not with you right now in today’s Bible. </b>

So where are God's words, Wael? Please give me directions to the true Gospel.

Ok let see what else could be a lie!! :)


I bet you have heard about Bruce Metzger ? who after studying the writings of all the Apostolic Fathers viz., Clement of Rome, Ignatius, the Didache, fragments of Papias, Barnabas, Hermas of Rome, and the so-called 2 Clement, Bruce Metzger concludes:

May Bruce Metzger rest in peace.

There we have it. <b>The NT books were not looked upon as scripture by the early Christians. </b>


Yalla, repeat what you have said in your previous post (i.e <i>There's about 0% of truth in what they said</i>).

Actually, there's about -2% of truth in all that :lol:


Wael, you're bringing out the worst in me :angry2: I don't like putting others down but in this case I feel as though I'm obliged to defend the Church & the Holy Bible from their critics. Rather than me bag them out (:lol), I'll post some snippets from a Catholic website. Believe it or not, you're one of about a million anti-Catholics who've objected to these matters :)


This stuff comes out of a modernistic application of the historical critical method of biblical study. It's rubbish. In a nut shell, here is why:



1. The thesis presumes that the early Church did not know what really happened with regards the events of the Gospels.


2. The Gospels were not written by Sts. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, but were written by unknown authors or groups of authors over time.


3. Dogma can't tell us about Christ, we need liberal modernistic theologians to tell us what the writers of the Gospels really mean. The pope isn't infallible, but they are.


This modernistic "higher criticism" method which seeks to dissect (read: destroy) Scripture by assuming that they want to find out when passages were inserted etc. They come from an pre-conceived notion that the Gospels are fabrications of later generations and they unashamedly assume the "prestigious" mission of sifting out the "real" Gospels.


But if we apply secular standards of finding the authors of the Gospels, (i.e. studying internal evidence (peculiarities in the text which point to the identity of the writer) and external evidence (what other people said about the author) there is no way to doubt that Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John are the authors.


These heresy-bearers will insist, against the infallible Magisterium of the Church, that Scripture contains errors, and with all audacity claim they want to correct it.


The end result is a big mess, because all these "scholars" can give you is their own interpretation and speculation, and no one can arrive at any facts. In reality, this is the goal of these Modernists, to cast doubts on Scriptures, destroy them, then & re-write them as they want, so that they can live a sinful life. This method of destroying Scripture is very efficient in making people lose their faith, because if people lose faith in one article of Scripture, they will soon abandon it altogether. If there's one mistake in Scripture, it's not inspired, and it's not worthy of out trust.

Christians give the impression as if they possess 5000 complete Biblical manuscripts, that is simply not the case. What you really possess is small bits and pieces here and there with a couple of verses on them. As Robert Squires mentions, all of the pre fourth century manuscripts contain only a few verses.

Christians give the impression as if they possess 5000 complete Biblical manuscripts, that is simply not the case. What you really possess is small bits and pieces here and there with a couple of verses on them. As Robert Squires mentions, all of the pre fourth century manuscripts contain only a few verses.

It's a miracle in itself that we even have these fragments. When we compare those bits & pieces to their corresponding verses in today's Bible, we realize that they agree word for word, which is why we can be certain that the rest agree too :)


All this chit chat about Scripture & not one reference to a verse :blink: Jesus Christ tells us that creation will pass away but His eternal words won't (St Mt 24:35). I'llleave you with that :thumb:


God bless.

[wel_mel_2]

Bismillah:


Just one point to mention before ending up this topic:


We get the Qur’anic interpretations from Muhammad pbuh directly. So there is no doubt among Muslims Alhamdulelah.

:banghead: Why don't you go bug Drama students about the authenticity of Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet? Please give me a break, dude!

Ok I will give you a break, please don’t get upset.


Topic ended here insh a Allah.


Salam


Wael.

[Curious Christian]

We get the Qur’anic interpretations from Muhammad pbuh directly. So

No you don't.


You get them from people who supposedly orally passed it down from generation to generation etc.


The Church gets it's interpretation of the bible from the Holy Spirit.


The New Testament and Catholic Church was proclaiming the same truths it does to this day hundreds of years before the Quran was ever written down.