Jesus's teachings corrupted?

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
I agree that there are errors in the translations of Bible. Surely there are additions of comments and interpretations to the Translations, But that does not prove the Text of Bible in original languages are corrupted.
Do you believe that all the Translations of Quran are perfect? is there any translations of Quran that one can claim is without error? I don't think so.

You are missing the point here. Using different word/meaning for 'Translation' is not a problem. But adding/removing 'translated words/statements/verses' to the English version which didn't even exist in the earlier manuscripts is the problem - that is the corruption. And that is admitted by Biblical scholars as I have shown in my first post here : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3161291-post18.html

Not to mention if anyone doubt the meaning in the English translation of the Qur'an they can look at the original Arabic Qur'an to verify. But even the earlier manuscripts that exist of the Bible is not the original in the original language - they are copies of copies of copies of copies .... so they cannot be compared in any way.

InvestigateTruth said:
Regarding Trinity, that is widely known to be an addition of a church. It is not in the Bible original language.
The Bible is clear regarding oneness of God, and the station of Jesus.

Try telling that to the majority of the Christians and also please let me know where I can find the original Bible for reviewing

Jayhawker Soule · Nov 28, 2012

outhouse said:
Jayhawker Soule said:

outhouse said:

Jayhawker Soule said:

outhouse said:

Its a field of study some have tapped into like Crossan/Reed/Borg but I find it still leaving many unamnswered questions.

Click to expand...

Name one book by any of them that you've actually read.

Click to expand...

quit avoiding the context of the debate for attacking the messenger, my information stands correct on this.

Click to expand...

Name one book by any of them that you've actually read.

Click to expand...

deal with the material in the thread first

Let's first address your credibility. Whether it be this thread and many others, I have yet to see the slightest indication that you have actually read one or more of the the authors that you so enjoy name-dropping into your posts. That you have throughout this process refused to name a single text could reflect a certain honesty on your part, but it would be far more beguiling if you'd stop pretending to a knowledge and sophistication that you simply do not possess. Why not take a break and pick up a library card?

InvestigateTruth · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
You are missing the point here. Using different word/meaning for 'Translation' is not a problem. But adding/removing 'translated words/statements/verses' to the English version which didn't even exist in the earlier manuscripts is the problem - that is the corruption. And that is admitted by Biblical scholars as I have shown in my first post here : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3161291-post18.html

I am not missing a point. I agree with you.

Not to mention if anyone doubt the meaning in the English translation of the Qur'an they can look at the original Arabic Qur'an to verify.

Not necessarily. Because Muslims usually use their understanding from Hadithes to know what Quran says. The fact is many of the Arabic Words can have multiple meanings, which are different from each other. That is why the different sects and schools of thoughts in Islam, usually Translated the Quran in different ways. And still a Muslim tends to use a translation that agrees with His sect beliefs.

But even the earlier manuscripts that exist of the Bible is not the original in the original language - they are copies of copies of copies of copies .... so they cannot be compared in any way.

Here you are missing a point.
Just because they are copies of copies of copies does not PROVE they are corrupted.

You can prove the Bible is corrupted, ONLY if you had access to the original Bible, then show they are different from what they have today.
But there is no proof that there was an Original Bible.

This is from a Christian website, which I think what they say in this paragraphs are correct:

"However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts."
Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?

Try telling that to the majority of the Christians and also please let me know where I can find the original Bible for reviewing

Again I think you are missing another point my friend.
Just because the majority of Christians interpret Bible verses using Trinity doctrine, does not prove that interpretation is correct.

The fact remains, Trinity doctrine is not part of the Bible in original languages. It was an additional doctrine that was added later, and ALL Christians agree about this fact.

Again another point, you are talking about "the original Bible". There is no proof that "the original Bible" that you are talking about, was different than the Bible that exist today in original languages, even if there was an Original One.

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
Not necessarily. Because Muslims usually use their understanding from Hadithes to know what Quran says. The fact is many of the Arabic Words can have multiple meanings, which are different from each other. That is why the different sects and schools of thoughts in Islam, usually Translated the Quran in different ways. And still a Muslim tends to use a translation that agrees with His sect beliefs.

Not really - you are talking about interpreting the Qur'an - that is an entirely different thing. Every single copy of the Qur'an still has the same number of verses in it where as there are actually different versions of the bible that exist today - each one with different number of books (not only different number of verses). So don't be comparing apples to oranges.

InvestigateTruth said:
Here you are missing a point.
Just because they are copies of copies of copies does not PROVE they are corrupted.

You can prove the Bible is corrupted, ONLY if you had access to the original Bible, then show they are different from what they have today.
But there is no proof that there was an Original Bible.

This is from a Christian website, which I think what they say in this paragraphs are correct:

"However, any unbiased document scholar will agree that the Bible has been remarkably well-preserved over the centuries. Copies of the Bible dating to the 14th century A.D. are nearly identical in content to copies from the 3rd century A.D. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, scholars were shocked to see how similar they were to other ancient copies of the Old Testament, even though the Dead Sea Scrolls were hundreds of years older than anything previously discovered. Even many hardened skeptics and critics of the Bible admit that the Bible has been transmitted over the centuries far more accurately than any other ancient document.

There is absolutely no evidence that the Bible has been revised, edited, or tampered with in any systematic manner. The sheer volume of biblical manuscripts makes it simple to recognize any attempts to distort God’s Word. There is no major doctrine of the Bible that is put in doubt as a result of the minor differences that exist between manuscripts."
Has the Bible been corrupted, altered, edited, revised, or tampered with?

And here's from another source that says it is corrupted in addition to all the differences that I have already stated.

"Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways." [1]

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don’t have the first copies of the originals. We don’t even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament."

[1]http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-changed-the-bible-and-why-bart-ehrmans-startling-answers/

Feel free to live in your state of denial, all you want.

InvestigateTruth said:
Again I think you are missing another point my friend.
Just because the majority of Christians interpret Bible verses using Trinity doctrine, does not prove that interpretation is correct.

The fact remains, Trinity doctrine is not part of the Bible in original languages. It was an additional doctrine that was added later, and ALL Christians agree about this fact.

Again another point, you are talking about "the original Bible". There is no proof that "the original Bible" that you are talking about, was different than the Bible that exist today in original languages, even if there was an Original One.

It is funny how you tell me that without the original I cannot prove that it got corrupted and then you turn around and say that 'Trinity doctrine is not part of the Bible in original languages' even thought the originals are not accessible.

As Bart Ehrman stated, even in the copies of manuscripts there are enough errors and contradictions to show that it is corrupted and of course the biggest problem is that the Original does not exist. But once again if you know where the Original is in the original language, please let me know so I can review it and verify that Trinity doctrine that you claim was not there was really not there

Note that I do not agree with the Trinity doctrine either but I can be sure of that even from the copies of manuscripts that exists because they are corrupted. But you are the one convinced that it is not corrupted, so the onus is on you to show that the original didn't have it either. Be my guest.

Shiranui117 · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
From more than 100 scholars who worked on the The New International Version (NIV) translation.
About John 7:53-8:11, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:538:11. A few manuscripts include these verses, wholly or in part, after John 7:36, John 21:25, Luke 21:38 or Luke 24:53.]
John 7:53-8:11 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and many - Bible Gateway

About Luke 22:43-44, here's what NIV says :
Luke 22:44 Many early manuscripts do not have verses 43 and 44.
Luke 22:43-44 NIV - An angel from heaven appeared to him - Bible Gateway

About Mark 16:9-20, here's what NIV says :
[The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 920.]
Mark 16:9-20 NIV - The earliest manuscripts and some - Bible Gateway

Translational changes regarding crucifixion event

The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, Which of the two do you want me to release for you? And they said, Barabbas. 22 Pilate said to them, Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ? They all said, Let him be crucified!

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 Which of the two do you want me to release to you? asked the governor. Barabbas, they answered. 22 What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah? Pilate asked.They all answered, Crucify him!

By Dr. Jerald F. Dirks, who used to be a Pastor and has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.
Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah? So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

If you don't believe me, take it to one of the Christian Scholars who knows the language and familiar with earlier manuscripts. And the reason, NIV at least uses Jesus Barabbas because it goes to a earlier manuscript for translation.

Bible says it is corrupted

Finally, with all due respect, modern day Bible and biblical scholarship testifies to this very fact itself as is evident from the following statement :
Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

One of the Bible commentaries has to say this about this statement: "They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such." [2]. I am noting 2 other commentaries([3] and [4]) below which agrees with this view.

[2]http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm

[3]http://gill.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
were the scribes employed in writing out copies of the law, when either it was not heard or read, or however the things it enjoined were not put in practice; or the pen of the scribes was in vain, when employed in writing out false copies of the law, or false glosses and interpretations of it, such as were made by the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time, and the fathers before them, by whose traditions the word of God was made of none effect: and so
the Targum,"therefore, lo, in vain the scribe hath made the lying pen to falsify;''that is, the Scriptures.

[4]http://kad.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
The words are not to be limited in their reference to the efforts of the false prophets, who spread their delusive prophecies by means of writings: they refer equally to the work of the priests, whose duty it was to train the
people in the law, and who, by false teaching as to its demands, led the people astray, seduced them from the way of truth, and deceived them as to the future.

Hence, either Jeremiah 8:8 is true or it might be one of those corrupted/altered statements. Either way, it is an evidence to the fact that the modern day Bible is not as was revealed by God Almighty but rather has been altered by people. So there's enough proof from Christian scholars about the interpolation and changes done to the original not to mention all the mistakes/contradictions that shows the discrepancies which are man made.

p.s : I mean no offense or disrespect to you or your faith by any of my comments or arguments - those are presented only as evidences to support my arguments.

Now, I don't have time to watch that hour-long video right now, but if I may ask, what do you think are the implications of the whole "Jesus Barabbas" vs. "Jesus the Christ" issue? It's a very interesting point you raised, but I'm not sure what you were getting at.

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

Shiranui117 said:
Now, I don't have time to watch that hour-long video right now, but if I may ask, what do you think are the implications of the whole "Jesus Barabbas" vs. "Jesus the Christ" issue? It's a very interesting point you raised, but I'm not sure what you were getting at.

That Jesus Christ was never crucified someone else was (in his place).

Shiranui117 · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
The fact remains, Trinity doctrine is not part of the Bible in original languages. It was an additional doctrine that was added later, and ALL Christians agree about this fact.

Uhh, yeah, hate to burst your bubble here, but this Christian here doesn't believe that the Trinity was an additional doctrine that was added later. MILLIONS of Christians believe that the Trinity was an original teaching revealed by Christ to the Apostles, and is very much Biblically based. Hundreds of millions of Christians would vehemently disagree with your idea that "all" Christians acknowledge that the Trinity was a later addition to the Faith.

Shiranui117 · Nov 28, 2012

Shiranui117 said:
Now, I don't have time to watch that hour-long video right now, but if I may ask, what do you think are the implications of the whole "Jesus Barabbas" vs. "Jesus the Christ" issue? It's a very interesting point you raised, but I'm not sure what you were getting at.

That is a very interesting idea, and the first Biblical defense of the Islamic teaching of Jesus being spared crucifixion that I've ever seen. Very well done.

But the next question: How do we know which Jesus was which?

Jesus was called both Messiah AND Son of the Father, right? (Keep in mind that "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"; both mean the same thing)

LegionOnomaMoi · Nov 28, 2012

Jayhawker Soule said:
Thanks. What do you mean by 'corrupted?'

I mean that there are a number of biblical scholars who believe that Jesus' message was fundamentally altered at some point such that the accounts of Jesus' teachings, mission, and message do not correspond to what Jesus actually said, did, and intended his actions and sayings to mean. So, for example, Crossan places great weight on the egalitarian nature of Jesus' message: all are welcome at the table. But the idea of 12 followers who were sort of "chief" disciples, and especially the idea that Simon Peter was the leader of these elite, is then untenable, and Crossan denies that there ever were any 12 disciples.

Then there are those, beginning in particular with Bruno Bauer and followed by Koester, Pagels, and others who argue that the gnostic nature of Thomas, the controversial secret gospel of Mark, and certain elements of the Johannine and Pauline texts show that Jesus' real message was more about uncovering hidden spiritual truths, and Jesus himself more mystic than a cynic philosopher (contra Crossan, Mack, Vaage, etc.). However, with Pagels in particular, it's hard to understand how much of the gnostic message goes back to Jesus. Crossan follows Koester (or goes beyond Koester) on an early dating of Thomas, but his Jesus is a cynic egalitarian who would have fit rather well in the 1960s "counter-culture".

And as for the one responsible (for finding, or perhaps creating) the Secret Gospel of Mark, he (Morton Smith) concentrates on Jesus as a miracle & wonder-worker.

What all of the above tend to have in common, but which is most stressed by Borg, is the non-eschatological Jesus. Jesus as "spirit-filled" is the key to understanding this "healer, sage, revitalization movement founder, and prophet". Knock off the profit, and Borg's Jesus could be running a "new-age" commune combining an eclectic mix of Eastern practices with a modernized, Western interpretation.

On the other side of the fence we find Schweitzer's eschatological Jesus, whose mission was to prepare for the imminent kindgom of god (although what that means isn't exactly clear, and has become less clear after a century of commentary). Horsley (more than any other I know of) alters this in a somewhat subtle way but with drastic results: rather than a Jesus seeking to prepare the way for the kingdom through preparing the Jewish people, we have a political revolutionary who is preparing not just the Jewish people, but Israel itself. Jesus was most concerned with an earthly and political restoration of Israel, following in the footsteps of the Maccabees and the subsequent returning of authority over Israel to Jewish hands.

Most distressing of all, however, are those like Walter Grundmann or Paul Fiebig (who, among other horrific works, delivered the infamous lecture Neues Testament und Nationalsozialismus during the 30s when the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei was in full swing and in which Jesus is compared to Hitler).

With the exception of Horsely, all of the above share at the very least a non-Jewish Jesus, usually one who would be rather out of place in the 1st century but fit quite well in a more modern one.

Additionally, all of the above put great weight on particular components of the Jesus tradition (whether we actually have these or not, e.g, Crossan's "Cross Gospel") and ignore most of the canonical gospes in order to recover a Jesus alien to the gospel authors (who admittedly don't always portray the same Jesus either). Some (Crossan, Borg, Funk, Koester, Pagels, and perhaps more than any Mack) not only try to recover this lost figure from the gospels which have distorted him, but also state that this distortion was a systematic and deliberate attempt by some elements in the early Jesus movement to stamp out the "true" meassage of Jesus for one reason or another.

Corruption, then, can mean two things (not mutually exclusive): on the one hand, corruption can mean simply that our sources only retain hints of Jesus' true message (fellowship, socio-political revolution, inner light and spirit, etc.) and that the addition of other elements has fundamentally distorted the "real" Jesus. On the other hand, there are those who include the above, but add to it (and explain the mechanisms through which this happened) a process of a proto-orthodoxy (to borrow Ehrman's term) seeking to ensure that one (inaccurate) version of the "good news" was spread and stamping out those who more faithfully represented Jesus' central mission.

outhouse · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
They believe the Book is inspired by God, meaning that the Authors of Bible were inspired by God, then they wrote it. This belief is no different than the belief in the existance of God who is powerfull to reveal His Words by inspiring men.

that is mythology not history

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

Shiranui117 said:
That is a very interesting idea, and the first Biblical defense of the Islamic teaching of Jesus being spared crucifixion that I've ever seen. Very well done.

But the next question: How do we know which Jesus was which? Jesus was called both Messiah AND Son of the Father, right? (Keep in mind that "Christ" is the Greek equivalent of "Messiah"; both mean the same thing)

Note that NIV corrected the translation from Christ to Messiah (the anointed one) - so there must be a reason for that. If they meant the same in the original, they wouldn't have changed it.

So now it is between Jesus the Son of the Father and Jesus the anointed one. How many anointed ones could be there ? Could be many as that word has been used for others in the Bible. How many people were there who were known as the Son of the Father(God) ? Just one - Jesus Christ.

So now it should be clear that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' or Jesus Christ and crucified another 'Jesus' (the anointed one).

Jayhawker Soule · Nov 28, 2012

An impressive response. Thank you. (But Morton Smith?)

Jayhawker Soule · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
Note that NIV corrected the translation from Christ to Messiah (the anointed one) - so there must be a reason for that. If they meant the same in the original, they wouldn't have changed it.

How would you translate Christós?

InvestigateTruth · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
Not really - you are talking about interpreting the Qur'an - that is an entirely different thing. Every single copy of the Qur'an still has the same number of verses in it where as there are actually different versions of the bible that exist today - each one with different number of books (not only different number of verses). So don't be comparing apples to oranges.

No, I am not talking about just interpretations. I am talking about Translations.

For example, Quran 3:7:

"He it is who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.(Sura 3:7 [1])
In the verse quoted above, there is a stop between except God and And those who.. and reading this way the verse attributes the knowledge of the Qur'an's hidden meanings to God alone. By removing the stop it becomes:" ...no one knows its hidden meaning except God and those who are firmly grounded in knowledge, they say" which suggests that those firmly grounded in knowledge can extract these hidden meanings.
Both forms are valid in the Arabic language; Sunni Muslims usually read the verse with the stop, while Shi'a Muslims usually read it without the stop.

This is just an example. effectively, when the Quran can be translated in different ways, that means always it is possible that a way be wronge and another way be correct. This allows corruption in the original meaning of the Words of Allah. How do you know what was the intention of Allah? He wanted to use stop, or not?

And here's from another source that says it is corrupted in addition to all the differences that I have already stated.

"Through his studies, Ehrman determined that the Bible was not free of mistakes:We have only error ridden copies, and the vast majority of these are centuries removed from the originals and different from them, evidently, in thousands of ways." [1]

"Not only do we not have the originals, we dont have the first copies of the originals. We dont even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, and many thousands of places . . . Possibly it is easiest to put it in comparative terms: there are more differences among our manuscripts and there are words in the New Testament."

[1]http://dangerousintersection.org/2006/10/22/who-changed-the-bible-and-why-bart-ehrmans-startling-answers/

So, as you say, there are different opinions regarding if Bible is corrupted or not. So, no proofs!

Feel free to live in your state of denial, all you want.

Feel free to think you proved Bible is corruted.

It is funny how you tell me that without the original I cannot prove that it got corrupted and then you turn around and say that 'Trinity doctrine is not part of the Bible in original languages' even thought the originals are not accessible.

The Trinity is an interpretation. Just like Muslims think Islam is the Last Revelation.

As Bart Ehrman stated, even in the copies of manuscripts there are enough errors and contradictions to show that it is corrupted and of course the biggest problem is that the Original does not exist. But once again if you know where the Original is in the original language, please let me know so I can review it and verify that Trinity doctrine that you claim was not there was really not there

There are many reasons that Bart Ehrman mistook.
I quote:
"Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that the New Testament has been altered by scribes and religious leaders to reflect their own brand of religious belief. However, a critique of Dr. Ehrman's Misquoting Jesus, shows that he grossly exaggerates New Testament textual differences and fails to cite textual critics who disagree with his undocumented claims about possible changes. Contrary to Dr. Ehrman's assertions, it is clear that the New Testament canon was already accepted by the Church by the early second century, and textual comparison shows that no major doctrinal statements were changed or added after that time."
Misquoting Jesus: Does Bart Ehrman Prove the New Testament is Corrupt?

...But you are the one convinced that it is not corrupted, so the onus is on you to show that the original didn't have it either. Be my guest.

My friend you are missing another point.
If you are accusing Bible of being corrupted, it is YOUR job to prove that.
That is like, if a person claims, that another person is corrupted, or is comitted Murder. The person who claims that, needs to prove this, otherwise, the other person remains wihout guilt. If you accuse, it is your job to provide the evidence. So far you have not.

InvestigateTruth · Nov 28, 2012

Shiranui117 said:
Uhh, yeah, hate to burst your bubble here, but this Christian here doesn't believe that the Trinity was an additional doctrine that was added later. MILLIONS of Christians believe that the Trinity was an original teaching revealed by Christ to the Apostles, and is very much Biblically based. Hundreds of millions of Christians would vehemently disagree with your idea that "all" Christians acknowledge that the Trinity was a later addition to the Faith.

I don't think you understood what I am saying. Sure most christians "Believe" the Trinity doctorine is Truth.
That is not what I said.
I mean, The Word Trinity is not found in Bible. What is found in Bible, is, Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The Trinity is a doctrine that tries to explain what is the station and relation of Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit. This doctrine was added many years by a church, trying to explain the divinity of Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit, and Trying to reconcil with the God, in OT, which is Only ONE. But Christians believe it is the correct way to understand the Son, Father, Holy Spirit.

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
If you are accusing Bible of being corrupted, it is YOUR job to prove that.
That is like, if a person claims, that another person is corrupted, or is comitted Murder. The person who claims that, needs to prove this, otherwise, the other person remains wihout guilt. If you accuse, it is your job to provide the evidence. So far you have not.

I have already given enough proof of Bible's corruption straight from the Bible - you are free to choose to ignore it. Until you can show me the original Bible for reviewing your claims, please don't bother responding.

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

Jayhawker Soule said:
How would you translate Christós?

I was quoting someone who is knowledgeable about Hebrew/Greek as well as the manuscripts of the Bible and I have provided the video as my source. I have neither claimed nor pretended to know those languages. And that's why I stated that you can ask a Christian scholar who knows the language to verify. Acting condescending does not help in any discussion.

InvestigateTruth · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
Bible says it is corrupted

Finally, with all due respect, modern day Bible and biblical scholarship testifies to this very fact itself as is evident from the following statement :
Jeremiah 8:8 (New International Version)
"How can you say, 'We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,' when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?"

One of the Bible commentaries has to say this about this statement: "They have written falsely, though they had the truth before them. It is too bold an assertion to say that "the Jews have never falsified the sacred oracles;" they have done it again and again. They have written falsities when they knew they were such." [2]. I am noting 2 other commentaries([3] and [4]) below which agrees with this view.

[2]http://clarke.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm

[3]http://gill.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
were the scribes employed in writing out copies of the law, when either it was not heard or read, or however the things it enjoined were not put in practice; or the pen of the scribes was in vain, when employed in writing out false copies of the law, or false glosses and interpretations of it, such as were made by the Scribes and Pharisees in Christ's time, and the fathers before them, by whose traditions the word of God was made of none effect: and so
the Targum,"therefore, lo, in vain the scribe hath made the lying pen to falsify;''that is, the Scriptures.

[4]http://kad.biblecommenter.com/jeremiah/8.htm
The words are not to be limited in their reference to the efforts of the false prophets, who spread their delusive prophecies by means of writings: they refer equally to the work of the priests, whose duty it was to train the
people in the law, and who, by false teaching as to its demands, led the people astray, seduced them from the way of truth, and deceived them as to the future.

Hence, either Jeremiah 8:8 is true or it might be one of those corrupted/altered statements. Either way, it is an evidence to the fact that the modern day Bible is not as was revealed by God Almighty but rather has been altered by people. So there's enough proof from Christian scholars about the interpolation and changes done to the original not to mention all the mistakes/contradictions that shows the discrepancies which are man made.

p.s : I mean no offense or disrespect to you or your faith by any of my comments or arguments - those are presented only as evidences to support my arguments.

You just think you have proven Bible is corrupted.
The fact is Jeremiah 8:8 is not saying the Text of Bible is corrupted.
"The Lying Pen of Scribes Handled it Falsely" denotes, thay had written false interpretations to handle the Laws.
That's just like today, there are many interpretation Books about Quran, trying to explain the Laws of Quran. According to different sects of Islam, Many of these Books are corrupted.

loverOfTruth · Nov 28, 2012

InvestigateTruth said:
You just think you have proven Bible is corrupted.
The fact is Jeremiah 8:8 is not saying the Text of Bible is corrupted.
"The Lying Pen of Scribes Handled it Falsely" denotes, thay had written false interpretations to handle the Laws.
That's just like today, there are many interpretation Books about Quran, trying to explain the Laws of Quran. According to different sects of Islam, Many of these Books are corrupted.

I did not come up with that - I have provided 3 different Bible commentaries. Once again feel free to deny it.

InvestigateTruth · Nov 28, 2012

loverOfTruth said:
I have already given enough proof of Bible's corruption straight from the Bible - you are free to choose to ignore it. Until you can show me the original Bible for reviewing your claims, please don't bother responding.

Well, you believe Quran is the word of God. You cannot even prove, one singlle contradiction in fandamental teachings of Bible and Quran.
Sure, you can claim there are differecnes. But There are solid arguments, that, with correct interpretations, both Quran and Bible are teaching the same.

Jesus's teachings corrupted?

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee

Well-Known Member

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee

Pronounced Shee-ra-noo-ee

Veteran Member

Atheistically

Well-Known Member

-- untitled --

-- untitled --

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member