Do you believe the New Testament is the Word of God? This is important because if you do, let's continue to analyze them. But if you pick and choose the ones you want, it will be hard to know which you will and which you won't. I sincerely hope you do believe the entire New Testament is the inerrant Word of God. Answer this first as it will form the basis of our discussion
No, I do not believe the New Testament in its current form is the Word of God. I believe there is ample evidence that verses have been added, things have been changed, and a Council's approval of Paul's book 300 years after Jesus left is not sufficient for me to believe Paul was inspired by God.
Look at the Bible. Some books of the Bible begin by telling the reader very explicitly that they are the words of God.
Compare the beginning of Jonah which states:
"Now the Word of the Lord came unto Jonah the son of Amittai, saying..."
And it continues. Tells the reader quite clearly the origin of the words. Compare this beginning to the beginning of Luke which states:
"For as much as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us,
Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word
It seemed to me also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus."
There are 2 very distinct differences.
In the Book of Jonah we have a clear cut beginning that these words came from God. At the beginning of Luke, he makes no claim as to being commanded by God to write the words he writes. He states, in so many words, that because he had a good understanding, he decided to write about it.
What's more is that Luke's Book isn't even a book!! It's a letter to "Theophilus." There's no arguing that away. He's not speaking to the world but to his friend, Theophilus. Later in Luke we find him asking for a garment that he left at Theophilus's house.
So the Muslim stance towards the Bible is that Christians have added books that were never God's words to begin with and have inconsistently interpreted their own book.
I'll get a bit more to the former later but to the latter, an excellent example can be seen if we compare a copy of the KJV to any other version on the Market.
Jesus in many places in the Bible is called "Savior." Others are referred to as Saviors as well. God, David, Solomon, etc. are all called Saviors in the KJV of the Bible.
What's clear is that there's a Greek word that translates into savior.
However, if we take a look at any other version of the Bible, the translators have done something clever. Any time a verse is speaking about Jesus or God, they translate the Greek word for "Savior" as "Savior." However, anytime a verse speaks about anyone else as being a "savior," the word is changed to "deliverer."
Now, Savior and Deliverer both mean the same thing. However, by cleverly translating "Savior" only when it refers to Jesus and God, the translators give the English reader the impression that there is only One Savior and that is Jesus = God. However the deception is clear when we compare any copy of the Bible to the KJV where the translators of that era were honest enough to use the same term to apply to all people it is used in Greek. (For many examples, please ask.)
Now, often I find when people learn that Muslims don't believe in the entire Bible, they feel no need to discuss with them since they believe, as you stated, that we take only what suits us. For this discussion, I'm going to assume everything in the Bible is true, not because I believe it but because I realize it's the only way I can communicate with you.
The Problem with your position is the Christian believes in all the verses. They believe they are all true. So they should be able to back them up or explain them if they do believe they are God's words.
As far as demonstrating the Bible is not entirely from God, that is a different matter one that I would gladly go into if you felt the need to cover that area before we continue. As I posted earlier, I listed several contradictions in the Bible that are clear as day. The Marcan Appendix is acknowledged to have been added several centuries after the book was written. John 5:7 has now been removed and also been admitted by Scholars as being a much later insertion.
In fact, the words "Only Begotten Son" are now being changed since Scholars understand and realize that the translation is inaccurate. For proof, see below:
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
John 3:16
The above is the King James "translation" of John 3:16. If we were to open up the Revised Standard Version of the Bible on this exact same verse we would find it now translated as
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only son, ...."
What is going on here? The RSV is the work of thirty two Biblical Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations. They produced the RSV in an effort to correct the "many" and "serious" errors they had found in the King James Bible. So why have they scrapped the word "begotten" from this cornerstone of Christian preaching? The reason is because they have decided to be honest with us when translating this verse.
The Greek term for "begotten" in ancient Greek is "gennao" {ghen-nah'-o} as found for example in Matthew 1:2. In the verses under consideration, however, the word used was not "gennao" but "monogenes" {mon-og-en-ace'}.
"Monogenes" is a Greek word which conveys the meaning "unique" and not "begotten." Thus, the true translation of this verse is "His unique son."
Some of the more honest translations of the Bibles, such as the New Testament by Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith (published in 1923) have indeed given the same translation as that of the RSV. However, such "tell it as it is" Bibles were not generally met with a lot of enthusiasm since they forced the reader to face the fact that much of what the translators of the KJV have "translated" for them was not in fact part of the Bible.
So as you can see, to refer to Jesus as the "Only Begotten son" is now completely inaccurate. This is a realization and discovery of the 20th Century. Let's look at what a book written in the 7th century has to say on this subject:
"And they say 'God Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. Not one of the beings in the heavens and the earth but must come to the Most Compassionate as a servant. He has taken account of all of them and has numbered them all exactly. And every one of them will come to him singly on the day of judgment. On those who believe and work deeds of righteousness, will God most gracious bestow love. Verily, We have made this [Qur'an] easy in your tongue [O Muhammad] that you might deliver glad tidings to those who seek refuge [in God] and warn with it a people who are contentious. And how many a generation before them have we destroyed! Can you find a single one of them or hear from them so much as a whisper?"
If you don't answer anything of this post I beg you to answer this: How is it that Christians believed that Jesus was the "only begotten son of God" for 14 centuries and the Qur'an denied this for 14 centuries before being proven right? How is it that the author of the Qur'an knew? I just find it rather ironic if anything to say the least that in our modern days we realize an error of translation only to find it's "been known" all along by some Prophet many of the West are ignorant of from the 7th century.
Now you started with these verses and I ask you, one at a time, did Muhammad fulfill every one of these versus? Plug his name in instead of Comforter. Does it work?
Yes and I can back each one up. I thought I did already but from glorifying Jesus to testifying to teaching to speaking only what he heard, Muhammad (Pbuh) fulfilled every single one.
Now, let's take the counter argument, you can insert "The Holy Spirit" in each one and come out with it making sense? Did the Holy Spirit speak only what he heard? Did he teach new things to come? Was he the last Prophet that the Jews were expecting after Jesus?
Peace and Blessings of God, The Most Gracious, Most Merciful Be Upon You,
Ray |
