Jesus's teachings corrupted?

[loverOfTruth]

It depends. Some of the later books (such as the wisdom literature) seem to have originated as books. Others have traveled the path from orality to textuality and, where differences are found, it can be extremely hard to know whether we are dealing with redacted text or parallel oral traditions. How tall was Goliath? The proto-Masoretic says one thing and the Septuagint another. To ask which is true is, in my opinion, neither meaningful nor answerable.

In this example, it might not matter but in many other scenarios(which affects fundamental teachings and doctrines) it really matters and problematic if it cannot be answered. And also in the minor cases where it doesn't really matter that much but when you add the numbers of those inconsistencies and discrepancies, it raises huge questions as to the authenticity and credibility of such a book.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why is this so important to you?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Why is this so important to you?

I thought this thread was about the corruption of those texts - so that's all I was talking about

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Fair enough.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Just because people don't know what happened somewhere along the line, does not mean that there was no original unless you believe in magic. And that is precisely why it is problematic.

But that does not also prove there was an original one.
So, why talking about something you cannot prove?

Because we do not have accurate history dating back to Jesus, we do not know for sure which is from him and which is not.

I understand that. But this does not prove the Text is corrupted. It is possible, the disciples were inspired by God, as well as being with Jesus. Thus they said the Truth.

And there's enough proof of corruption, contradiction and discrepancies among the surviving copies to claim that it has been corrupted.

There is no agreement about that. No proofs, as it can be shown those appearant contradiction and discrepancies is due to misinterpretations.

Not to mention when the Biblical scholars who translated NIV themselves say things like 'The earliest manuscripts and many other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53—8:11.'

That means, it was still possible to find out if something was added as commentery.

there shouldn't be an iota of doubt that things were added to the modern copies or in other words it was corrupted by people.

I think you are exagerating small inaccuracies that could have been found in order to claim it is corrupted. But you should realize, finding a few inaccuracies, does not prove corruption in the fundamental teachings. Do you realize that? Try looking at it without bias. Without pre-judging.
The fact is, you don't know if it is corrupted or not. You just feel you cannot trust it.
But that trust can rely on Power of God. He could ensure that His revelation is maintaned for the people as a guidance.
ALL Four Gospels agree on fundamental teachings.
I would expect you as a Muslim, should trust Quran, when it confirms Injil and Torah for the people Living At The Time of Muhammad.

I think you got the idea that Bible is corrupted and not trust worthy from some of your religious leaders. Did you not? They are the one who in order to justify Islam, they started to claim Bible is corrupted. Did they not?
Did early Muslims, the companions of Muhammad, believe Bible is corrupted? or they believed ONLY it was misinterpreted?

What I found out from History, was that, Muhammad and the early Moslems did not believe that the Injil and Torah were corrupted.

The word that quran uses in the verses, which Moslems often refer to as indication of changes to Books, is "Tahrif".
According to Moslem Scholar Amin Ahsan, there are 4 types of tahrif,
which mainly means misinterpretation, and twisting the meaning, and not changing the actual Text.

Tahrif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In fact, there are evidence that, Prophet Muhammad and early Moslems, believed that the meaning of them were twisted and misinterpreted, but not the Texts.

Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, the Muslims believed that the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Books. For example:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning” – with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.


In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word “tahrif” should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. “Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation”. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).

300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.


It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted.
Source:
http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/

Thus as regards to the verses in Quran which Moslems often refer to as corruption of Bible, it seems to me, those verses of Quran are mistranslated.

For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:


"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/41/default.htm

The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.

Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.

One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46

It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.

Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79

This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.

As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:

"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/default.htm

Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. They forgot to follow the teachings. It does not say, the actual text was distorted.


Therefore, why wouldn't you go with what Prophet Muhammad taught, and what His True Companions believed, in order to reach to original Islam. I think Many Muslims agree The Islam that exist today, are mere sects with many additional ideas and Tafseers that are man-made.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

... , it raises huge questions as to the authenticity and credibility of such a book.

Would you consider it comparable to ...

Textual criticism of the Quran is a beginning area of study, there is no higher criticism of the Quran. In some countries textual criticism can be seen as apostasy.

Muslims consider the original Arabic text to be the final revelation, revealed to Muhammad from AD 610 to his death in 632. In Islamic tradition, the Qur'an was memorised and written down by Muhammad's companions and copied as needed. However, it is well known to scholars that: "written versions vary enormously in materials, format and aspect".

In the 1970s, 14,000 fragments of Qur'an were discovered in an old mosque in Sanaa, the Sana'a manuscripts. About 12,000 fragments belonged to 926 copies of the Qur'an, the other 2,000 were loose fragments. The oldest known copy of the Qur'an so far belongs to this collection: it dates to the end of the 7th–8th centuries. The important find uncovered many textual variants not known from the canonical 7 (or 10 or 14) texts.

The examination of Gerd R. Puin who led the restoration project revealed, "unconventional verse orderings, minor textual variations, and rare styles of orthography and artistic embellishment." Recent authors have also proposed that the Koran may have been written in Arabic–Syriac.

- wiki

 

[loverOfTruth]

But that does not also prove there was an original one.
So, why talking about something you cannot prove?

I understand that. But this does not prove the Text is corrupted. It is possible, the disciples were inspired by God, as well as being with Jesus. Thus they said the Truth.


There is no agreement about that. No proofs, as it can be shown those appearant contradiction and discrepancies is due to misinterpretations.

That means, it was still possible to find out if something was added as commentery.

I think you are exagerating small inaccuracies that could have been found in order to claim it is corrupted. But you should realize, finding a few inaccuracies, does not prove corruption in the fundamental teachings. Do you realize that? Try looking at it without bias. Without pre-judging.
The fact is, you don't know if it is corrupted or not. You just feel you cannot trust it.
But that trust can rely on Power of God. He could ensure that His revelation is maintaned for the people as a guidance.
ALL Four Gospels agree on fundamental teachings.
I would expect you as a Muslim, should trust Quran, when it confirms Injil and Torah for the people Living At The Time of Muhammad.

I think you got the idea that Bible is corrupted and not trust worthy from some of your religious leaders. Did you not? They are the one who in order to justify Islam, they started to claim Bible is corrupted. Did they not?
Did early Muslims, the companions of Muhammad, believe Bible is corrupted? or they believed ONLY it was misinterpreted?

What I found out from History, was that, Muhammad and the early Moslems did not believe that the Injil and Torah were corrupted.

The word that quran uses in the verses, which Moslems often refer to as indication of changes to Books, is "Tahrif".
According to Moslem Scholar Amin Ahsan, there are 4 types of tahrif,
which mainly means misinterpretation, and twisting the meaning, and not changing the actual Text.

Tahrif - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In fact, there are evidence that, Prophet Muhammad and early Moslems, believed that the meaning of them were twisted and misinterpreted, but not the Texts.

Upto 315 years after Muhammad, the recorded Historical evidence show that, the Muslims believed that the intention of Quran was to say that the Jews and Christians had misinterpreted the Text of their Books. For example:

Al-Bukhari reported that Ibn ‘Abbas (Cousin of Muhammad) said [the Jews] alter and add although none among Allah’s creation can remove the words from His book, they alter and distort their apparent meaning” – with this Hadith it is clear that those who walked with the Prophet (PBUH) believed the text of the Torah was original, while holding the view that the Jews perverted their interpretation.


In the year 796 Abu l-Rabi Muhammad ibn al-Layth (a courtier to Kalif Harun al-Rashid ) penned a letter to Constatine VI stating that the word “tahrif” should be read as the Jews had distorted their sense. “Whoever looks in the books of the prophets will find Muhammad (PBUH) mentioned, but the people of the book have obscured these references by changing their interpretation”. Ibn al-Layth categorically denies the possibility of passages having been added to, or omitted from, the scriptures, and he then goes on to use the text of the Torah as proof of the authenticity of the Torah (a belief both he and the kalif share).

300 year after Muhammad still, Abu Bakr Muhammad ibn al-Tayyib al-Baqillani was of the opinion that the words of Moses were still extant in their Hebrew original and that the Jews had inadvertently made mistakes in their translations.


It is only in later years, that some of Moslems started to say the actual text of the injil or Torah were corrupted.
Source:
http://www.judaism-islam.com/islam-teaches-torah-is-corrupted-tahrif-but-what-does-that-mean/

Thus as regards to the verses in Quran which Moslems often refer to as corruption of Bible, it seems to me, those verses of Quran are mistranslated.

For example the verse 5:41, here is the translation by Muhammad Asad correctly:


"O APOSTLE! Be not grieved by those who vie with one another in denying the truth: such as those who say with their mouths, "We believe," the while their hearts do not believe; and such of the Jewish faith as eagerly listen to any falsehood, eagerly listen to other people without having come to thee [for enlightenment]. They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context, saying [to themselves], "If such-and-such [teaching] is vouchsafed unto you, accept it; but if it is not vouchsafed unto you, be on your guard!" [Be not grieved by them-] for if God wills anyone to be tempted to evil, thou canst in no wise prevail with God in his behalf. It is they whose hearts God is not willing to cleanse. Theirs shall be ignominy in this world, and awesome suffering in the life to come-" 5:41

http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/41/default.htm

The Verses that Quran revealed regarding "Tahrif" It has to do with writing certain Books and Interpretations regarding Injil or Torah, at the time of Muhammad. You would know that if you do your research as to what was the reason those verses were revealed historically.

Yes, There are verses in Quran that talk about "Modification" and alteration by the Religious Leaders. however, those refer to misinterpretations of ONLY particular cases.

One of them is concerning the penalty of adultery, when the prophet was to explain the penalty of Adultry to some Jewish leaders.
Which the Quran reveals "They distort the meaning of the [revealed] words, taking them out of their context" See Quran 4:44-46

It is clear, in that instance, by perverting the Text is meant "Misinterpretation" and "twisting" as the Torah still contains the verse that says punishment for adultery is death by stone.
Another example is: "A part of them heard the Word of God, and then, after they had understood it, distorted it, and knew that they did so." Quran 2:75
This verse, also indicates that the meaning of the Word of God hath been perverted, not that the actual words in the Text of Bible are changed.

Another example,: "Woe unto those who, with their own hands, transcribe the Book corruptly, and then say: ‘This is from God,’ that they may sell it for some mean price." Quran 2:79

This verse was revealed regarding the Jewish leaders who were living at the time of Muhammad. For they had written false interpretations to refute the claims of Muhammad.

As regrads to 5:13 and 5:14, I believe this is the correct translations, by Asad:

"Then, for having broken their solemn pledge, We rejected them and caused their hearts to harden-[so that now] they distort the meaning of the [re-vealed] words, taking them out of their context; and they have forgotten much of what they had been told to bear in mind; and from all but a few of them thou wilt always experience treachery. But pardon them, and forbear: verily, God loves the doers of good."
http://www.islamawakened.com/quran/5/13/default.htm

Thus again, Quran is saying they distorted the meaning of the Text. They forgot to follow the teachings. It does not say, the actual text was distorted.


Therefore, why wouldn't you go with what Prophet Muhammad taught, and what His True Companions believed, in order to reach to original Islam. I think Many Muslims agree The Islam that exist today, are mere sects with many additional ideas and Tafseers that are man-made.

Please feel free to live in your world of denial - I have no intention to waste my time on this.

I'll just answer the only worthy question you have put there even though I have stated this to you in the past in another thread.

Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

 

[InvestigateTruth]

I know precisely what you were talking about.


If you ask any Christian who believes in the Trinity (i.e. every mainstream Christian, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox alike), we will all tell you the same thing: The Trinity was not a later addition added many years later. It was a doctrine understood and taught by the Apostles, taught by Jesus, and only CLARIFIED, not ADDED, by later Councils. The history of belief in the Trinity reaches clear back to the Apostles, and we can prove it through their writings, and the writings of the students of the Apostles. That is what any mainstream Christian will tell you.

Ok, I understood.

Well, this is what Wiki says:

"About a century later, in 325, the First Council of Nicaea established the doctrine of the Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed, which described Christ as "God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father".
Trinity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


So, you believe, that clarification, known as "doctrine of the Trinity" was established about 300 years after Jesus. Is this correct?
Sorry, my knowedge of early Christian History is limitted. So, prior to the first 300 years, were the Christians in agreement as regards to the station of The Son, Father, Holy Spirit. Did the early Christians prior to establishment of "doctrine of the Trinity" all agree that these 3 are all equally and fully God?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Would you consider it comparable to ...

​

Not at all.

Because of the nature of the Arabic script, in which short vowels were not indicated and consonants of similar form were only sometimes distinguished by pointing. Even today people who know good arabic can read without the vowels but many people from the indian sub-continent can't. So if you don't know arabic it might look different to you given the missing symbols on the words, but that doesn't mean they read a different Qur'an. Also, some differences are due to permissible different pronunciations. For example, al-baqira in place of al-baqara etc.

It doesn't change the Qur'an at all like the Bible. Every Qur'an has the same number of verses and same meaning regardless of these differences.

Sir Williams Muir states, " There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess the text which Muhammad himself gave forth and used".
Sir William Muir continues, "There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text". [1]

Sir William Muir was an Orientalist specialising in the history of the time of Muhammad and the early caliphate and have no reason to favor the muslims.

Also, the fact that the companions of the Prophet(pbuh) spread out across the lands after his death – and hundreds of thousands entered Islam through them in different places and those people in turn propagated the Qur'an as they learned from the companions and yet anywhere in the world you go today, you still have the same exact Qur'an (in Arabic of course) - that in itself is a strong proof of the preservation of the Qur'an, which obviously cannot be said for the Bible. So there's no comparison.

[1]Proof of The Preservation of the Quran

And now that I have answered your question ... I think we are derailing the thread.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Sir William Muir was an Orientalist specialising in the history of the time of Muhammad and the early caliphate and have no reason to favor the muslims.

And, from what I can tell, a reasonably competent one. He was also a single voice writing in the mid 1800s.

But, yes, we are straying off topic. We can leave the rest to a post on textual criticism of the Qur'an (or the critical lack thereof).

 

[loverOfTruth]

And, from what I can tell, a reasonably competent one. He was also a single voice writing in the mid 1800s.

But, yes, we are straying off topic. We can leave the rest to a post on textual criticism of the Qur'an (or the critical lack thereof).

Sure.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please feel free to live in your world of denial - I have no intention to waste my time on this.

I'll just answer the only worthy question you have put there even though I have stated this to you in the past in another thread.

Narrated Ubaidullah: "Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!" (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461)

I think there are a few things we should consider.
When we refer to a Hadith, or a Verse of Quran, there is usually a story behind it.
We need to know the context, and why that particular verse was revealed, or to who the particular verse or Hadith is refering.
The Hadith you are refering, there is also a verse in Quran with similar words:

"So woe to those who write the Book with their hands, and then say, ‘This is from Allah,’ that they may sell it for a little price. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings." Quran 2:79

Do you see the similarity of the Verse and the Hadith?

We need to ask ourselves, is this verse or Hadith refering to people living at the time of Muhammad, or long before, or future?

I think refering to the context of the verse, looking at a couple of verses before and after it, we see, it is addressing some of the people of the Book, who were living at the time of Muhammad:

"CAN YOU, then, hope that they will believe in what you are preaching - seeing that a good many of them were wont to listen to the word of God and then, after having understood it, to pervert it knowingly? For, when they meet those who have attained to faith. they say, "We believe [as you believe]" - but when they find themselves alone with one another, they say. "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you, so that they might use it in argument against you, quoting the words of your Sustainer? Will you not. then, use your reason?" Do they not know, then, that God is aware of all that they would conceal as well as of all that they bring into the open? And there are among them unlettered people who have no real knowledge of the divine writ, [following] only wishful beliefs and depending on nothing but conjecture."
Quran 2:75-78
al-Baqarah 2:75

Because, paying attention and seeing the context, and considering the grammer of the verbs, it is Not past tense. It is Present Tense. Which means, it is refering to people who were present at the time of Muhammad.
For example, considering this part of verse: "Do you inform them of what God has disclosed to you"
That is clear, it is about informing people at the time of Muhammad, not thousands of years before when the Scribes were writing Bible Texts.
Thus, so, far, it is estanlished that the verse is refering to some of the Jews at the time of Muhammad.
But does the verse or Hadith talking about 1. corrupting and changing the Text of Injil and Torah? Or 2. it is talking about writing books and interpretations at the time of Muhammad, and saying to others, that is from God?
How do you know which is the case? 1 or 2?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think there are a few things we should consider.

Like staying on topic. Let's both endeavor to do better. :yes:

 

[Desert Snake]

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 7:53—8:11. 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 9–20.]
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!”

From : [youtube]2m4KW-dysKk[/youtube]
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)
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.

^. an example of some possible changes or ...what'' 'fiction''?

Basically there is no proof that the Bible is corrupted.
At most the Bible scholars can agree on just a few insignificant inaccuracies, which does not prove any errors in any doctrines and fundamental teachings, such as Crucifixion of Christ, God, life after death, Judgment Day,,,etc. or the Laws.

This is essentially my opinion, concerning this. I believe that the Bible is accurate for the beliefs, ie, if one does not adhere to the Epistles, than they are inaccurate to be adhering to the Gospels, only, and so forth. The only way one could do that, is if they clearly recognize and accept the validity of the rest of the NT, religiously. //doesn't have to be for them, but, in general.

 

[Desert Snake]

Therefore, if one does not adhere to the entire NT, they cannot actually refute the religious concepts in it, but should keep their own theology in a separate label, or set of beliefs.

 

[Muffled]

Again and again on the forums people make the assertion that Jesus's teachings were corrupted by Biblical authors, however this seems to be mostly an opinion. Are there some famous Biblical scholars that hold this view, and what, basically, is the reason for having this viewpoint?

I believe even if famous Biblical scholars held that view it would only be conjecture (fantasy) if there were no solid evidence..

 

[Muffled]

What isn't Speculation and how would you define something that wouldn't be speculative, including the idea that the NT contains the unadulterated teachings and sayings, or that earlier (mostly lost) works like Gospel to the Hebrews didn't contain what was closer to the original and had some stuff clipped out?

For a little example, take John 7:58-8:11, the "pericope adulterae" which isn't in any known early manuscript though is mentioned by some Church Father writings from the 4th century? Would that be proof of anything or just more speculation?

I believe an assumption is made that texts were always found whole and that nothing was ever added by the author.
I believe the fact that a church father wrote about it early stands as pretty good evidence that it belongs in the text.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

the great universal church admits that it depends more on tradition than on the Bible, so the original teachings of Jesus have definitely been corrupted

 

[Muffled]

the great universal church admits that it depends more on tradition than on the Bible, so the original teachings of Jesus have definitely been corrupted

I believe that has to be assessed on a case by case basis. Some traditions might be in harmony with the teaching of Jesus.
Additionally although the Roman Catholic church claims universality there is a Protestant church which has a different view of traditions.