01-15-2005, 11:53 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-15-2005, 11:57 AM by reepicheep.)
Reply to Anyabwile RE: Biblical corruption.
The first point you seem to be making is that there are translation problems with certain English language versions of the bible. I agree. But I don't agree that this is a corruption.
You cannot "prove" corruption by looking at English translations. You must go to the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and see if there are any corruptions there.
Let's consider an example from the Koran, Surah 4:11. Here are two versions of part of this verse from different English translations:
YUSUFALI:
> Allah (thus) directs you as regards your
> Children's (Inheritance): to the male, a portion equal
> to that of two females: if only daughters, two or more...
PICKTHAL:
> Allah chargeth you concerning (the provision for)
> your children: to the male the equivalent of the
> portion of two females, and if there be
> women more than two,...
In these two translations, the parts in red are contractory. i.e., Yusufali includes the case "number of women = 2", while Pickthal excludes this case (i.e., number of women must be 3 or more). Do you think this contradiction proves that the Koran is corrupted? Why is it, you think, that Yusufali and Pickthal translated this passage differently? Which of these versions is correct?
To investigate this apparent contradiction, we must obviously go back to the original Arabic. Likewise, when investigating so called "biblical corruptions", we can't look only at English language translations.
Your second point seems to be: in some cases, the oldest manuscripts in existence (in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Latin, or other ancient languages) differ in some respects with each other. I concede that this is the case. But the vast majority of the differences are insignificant. In fact, I know of no instances where these differences in ancient manuscripts would change the overall message of the Bible.
Take John 6:36, as an example. In the "The New English Bible", this verse is translated as:
> But you, as I said, do not believe although
> you have seen.
But there is a footnote in this bible which says that some of the oldest Greek manuscripts read:
> But you, as I said, do not believe although
> you have seen me.
My position is that insignificant differences such as this one do not change the message contained in the Bible. If there are particular passages for which you think there exist significantly different ancient manuscripts, then let me know the details and I'll investigate.