Why would God allow his holy book to be corrupted by man?

[zcaz]

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God incarnated and this is evident through comparison ..
_____________________________________________________________
Who saves the world?
"I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour." Isaiah 43:11

...the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world. 1 John 4:14
______________________________________________________________
The word and God are one
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God John 1:1

...the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us...John 1:14
______________________________________________________________
God is the first and the last
I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 41:4

Jesus said, "Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:17
______________________________________________________________
Only God is to be worshipped
... Then saith Jesus unto him... Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. Matthew 4:10

While [Jesus] spake these things unto them, behold, there came a certain ruler, and worshipped him... Matthew 9:18
______________________________________________________________
Who is the Messiah?
...unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder...and his name shall be called... The mighty God, The everlasting Father... Isaiah 9:6 (talking about god being the messiah)

The woman saith unto him, I know that Messias cometh, which is called Christ: when he is come, he will tell us all things. Jesus saith unto her, I that speak unto thee am he. John 4:25-26
______________________________________________________________

So here is clear cut evidence that Jesus in the Bible indirectly claimed to be God. If you reject this, you would have to believe that God allowed his word to be manipulated by man and or changed his mind when he gave Muhammad his revelation.

Wouldn't it make sense however, that the Bible claims Jesus is the only way to salvation, and Satan being the clever deceiver/copy cat that he is, gave a false revelation to Muhammad with the sole purpose of discrediting Jesus?

With so many Islamic organizations and movements out there hellbent on destroying Christians and Jews alike, it seems as if Islam is a 'wolf in sheeps clothing' where they do have good messages of peace but also a huge following of spiritual and political leaders who claim the Imam Mahdi is alive and is going to help in the uprising of Islam(sounds a lot like the Christian prophesied anti-christ).

I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm just wondering how Islam is justified in their beliefs that there is an almighty God, yet he allowed his word to be semi-perverted?

[Murad]

Is this to say that he was choosen to reestablish God's word without error?

There was no 'error' in the words of God, thats theologically impossible. People themselves changed & manipulated scripture, false man made doctrines were preached & concocted & lies were & still are attributed to God, such as him literally having family members (what else does "begotten son" mean?.)

"Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book (i.e., the Bible), but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.
(The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)""

A couple of faiths come to mind as being established to restore God's word without the curruption. LDS and JWs.

They are both Christian sects that share the same "Redemption" & "Original Sin" ideology, but the main differences are usually with previous doctrines such as "trinity" or the "hypostatic union" or the idea of "kenosis" etc...

I haven't read the Koran because I can't read the original language. I would suppose an English version would be suspect of corruption in translation at least.

The Yusuf Ali translation is a good one. The translation isn't 'corrupt', but it isn't necessarily 'pure' (because its been translated from one state into another).

Why would the Koran, in any language be exempt from error or changes?

"We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). (The Noble Quran, 15:9)"

Putting aside the fact that (theologically) its divinely protected from human interpolations, & that it contains no errors or contradictions, the compilation of the Quran was done under the authority of the Prophet & his disciples & were later re-confirmed by the disciple Umar (r.a) who obtained the original manuscripts from Hafsa (the wife of the Prophet).

Chapter 4, Verse 82:

"Do they not consider (ponder) on the Quran(Recitation)?
If it had been from anyone except Allah, they would
surely have found in it much discrepency
(contradictions)."

If the Quran was from a man, it would contain errors like the Bible:

How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?
(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26).
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2).

How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?
(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8).
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9).

When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?
(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4).
(b) Seven thousand (1 Chronicles 18:4).

How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?
(a) Forty thousand (1 Kings 4:26).
(b) Four thousand (2 Chronicles 9:25).

In what year of King Baasha's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?
(a) Twenty-sixth year (1 Kings 15:33 - 16:8).
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1).

Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?
(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26).
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5).

Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:
(a) 29,818 (Ezra).
(b) 31, 089 (Nehemiah).

How many singers accompanied the assembly?
(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65).
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67).

Who killed Goliath?
(a) David (1 Samuel 17:23, 50).
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19).

[EasternSP]

While the variances in the bible are perifreal or barely incidental to the central point of God's word, what changes in the bible affect the central theme of God's redeptive plan?
You mentioned something about a glass of tainted milk. I don't think that would be a good evaluation of the bible, knowing the central theme. The notion of the trinity I would tend to think is a modern day assessment of another term for the holy union. We aren't looking for the magic words here or a certain chant that makes the locks and shackles fall off. We are reading about inspired words of God, in other words, God insprired men to write down their experiences of him and his message. I see two things going on with the compilation of the bible. One, is God's message within the expressed words of the writer. Is it God's own designed story of how Moses got from being a child to taking the long walk up the mountain to his death or was it recorded events as God inspired men to write them down for history sake. They certainly aren't magic words in the train of thought.

[EasternSP]

Question for Murad.
What was Muhammad's upbringing in faith?
Did he have a conversion point that brought him to Islam?
Was there a specific reason that Allah choose him to write the Koran?

He came from a Pagan backround who made up a different God for every day of the year. Making up Gods to worship was common ground.

Can you point me to your source of information on this Ball Pean?

Muhammad read the Bible, and felt God was something else entirely, and that Jesus was someone else entirely, and that Jesus never suffered a crucifixion. He proclaimed that God would never allow one of his "beloved Prophets" to suffer in such a way. SO Muhammad made up his own version of who he thought God "should" be instead of the one in the Bible. His claims have nothing to do with the truth, as the truth did not concern him in the least. He was making up a God for people to worship. That is Paganism. That is what Pagans do. They just make the stuff up. That is where he came from. A land of people's that were Paganists. Just making up stuff.

Is this established fact Ball Pean? I think when we make a statement about what happened somewhere, we are obligated to provide our source of information. I know that you weren't there to learn that yourself about Muhammad.

[Murad]

Question for Murad.
What was Muhammad's upbringing in faith?
Did he have a conversion point that brought him to Islam?
Was there a specific reason that Allah choose him to write the Koran?

He came from a Pagan backround who made up a different God for every day of the year. Making up Gods to worship was common ground.

Can you point me to your source of information on this Ball Pean?

Muhammad read the Bible, and felt God was something else entirely, and that Jesus was someone else entirely, and that Jesus never suffered a crucifixion. He proclaimed that God would never allow one of his "beloved Prophets" to suffer in such a way. SO Muhammad made up his own version of who he thought God "should" be instead of the one in the Bible. His claims have nothing to do with the truth, as the truth did not concern him in the least. He was making up a God for people to worship. That is Paganism. That is what Pagans do. They just make the stuff up. That is where he came from. A land of people's that were Paganists. Just making up stuff.

Is this established fact Ball Pean? I think when we make a statement about what happened somewhere, we are obligated to provide our source of information. I know that you weren't there to learn that yourself about Muhammad.

Muhammad(pbuh) was illiterate, how can an illiterate man read? Again EasternSP, don't worry about Ball Pean, he has no knowledge of Islam, only hate because it disagrees with his traditional upbringing.

Regarding your earlier post:

While the variances in the bible are perifreal or barely incidental to the central point of God's word, what changes in the bible affect the central theme of God's redeptive plan?
You mentioned something about a glass of tainted milk. I don't think that would be a good evaluation of the bible, knowing the central theme.

The theme is irrelevant when we discuss the Bible's authenticity.
If it has obvious errors (such as contradictions), how can you possibly be sure that there are no other errors?

If Gods word is flawless:

Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of God is flawless

Then objectively, that would mean the Bible cannot be the "Word of God", or rather, relied as "True".

The notion of the trinity I would tend to think is a modern day assessment of another term for the holy union. We aren't looking for the magic words here or a certain chant that makes the locks and shackles fall off. We are reading about inspired words of God, in other words, God insprired men to write down their experiences of him and his message.

Being "Inspired" does not mean that the writers personal perceptions & bias' would be left out of the inscription does it? The majority of the Gospels were written by hearsay, just read the Gospel of Matthew & see himself being described in 3rd person:

As Jesus went on from there, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the tax collector's booth. "Follow me," he told him, and Matthew got up and followed him.
(Matthew 9:9)

I see two things going on with the compilation of the bible. One, is God's message within the expressed words of the writer. Is it God's own designed story of how Moses got from being a child to taking the long walk up the mountain to his death or was it recorded events as God inspired men to write them down for history sake.

Either the Bible was "Inspired" by God, meaning everything inside it was written by the inspiration of God. Or there are bits & pieces of Gods word here & there, which option do you prefer?

If you choose option 1, that would be a false option because of the contradictions i pointed out.

If you choose option 2, that would mean theologically, your faith is in doubt & the Bible is not "Holy".

[EasternSP]

When I was on active duty in the Marine Corps, there were many times I would relate the commanders orders to my subordinates. In the course of passing the word to numerous groups, I would describe the commanders orders in various ways to get the point across. Because my repeated words were not exactly verbatim of how the troops were to get from point A to point B or to perform a specific task, does that mean the original order was corrupted?
God's word centers on the grace of God and his plan to heal our sin. How many ways can that be said. What difference does it make if the troops captured 7000 horses or 700. The consistant part is God's central focus of redeeming us from our sins, to come into his presence. Nowhere does he change his plan of redemption. He tells us how we can try to win salvation by personal behavior, knowing that nobody will make the grade.

[catalyst]

The Koran was written by a man who had no faith in God,

How can you say that? The writer of the Koran exhibit as much apparent faith in God as the writers of any other claimed revelation from the god. The language you choose betrays an us and them kind of attitude. Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, Hinduism and all the rest are all different faiths. Sure, in one sense, Islam could be called anti-Christ, but only in the sense that Christianity could be called an enemy of the Prophet or the Sikh Gurus.

Only God's people will come back to rule the world.

Odd thing that. Just about every religion going claims that they are the ones who are God's people. And none of them demonstrate it.

THe NT is 4 books dedicated to the happenings and teachings of Jesus Christ. 2 books were written by eye witnesses to his entire ministry, 1 book was pretty much written by dictation by another Apostle, and 1 book is based on 1000s of eye witness accounts. THe books were written and circulated in the the towns where many witnesses still lived, so the writers had everything to lose by lying, as there were many people who would scrutinize what was stated.The Koran was written(by dictation) by an uneducated, illiterate, lying pirtate, murdering, slave trading, woman beating/raping pedophile, who lied about God to gain the love of the world OVER that and INSTEAD of God, and made Jesus out to be a false prophet who decieved people into believing he suffered and defeated death. THe Koran is a piece of junk. It is not worthy of the sleaziest gossip magazine ever created.


Not sure why it is all capitl letters here. Not trying to yell here. Just stating the facts.

Mr Ball Pean,

It's unfortunate for those of faith, that "facts" invariably never equate to a truth.

It is claimed that some books of the NT are eye witness accounts of the works and ministry of bible jesus. This however is nothing more than speculation, based purely on faith. If you can prove otherwise, I would be more than happy to entertain your argument. Until that time however, MY arguement is more sound than yours.

To help you with this, you have to understand a few things. The Gospels originated in a Greek literary form called "pseudepigraphia" that was popular in the late 1st century and the 2nd century. A pseudepigraph is an uplifting spiritual story (not necessarily a truth) told "in the voice of" a religious figure from the past. The aim is spiritual guidance --- the veracity of the story, and even the historical reality of the nominal author are irrelevant. There were hundreds of such "Gospels" written by early Christians (and there were MANY, prior to the christ concept you know and understand now). They could perhaps be thought of of fans of literature, somewhat like writers of "fanfiction" in this day and age. As such, might think of them as "fan literature" of messianic religion. Many were destroyed at the time the Bible (as we know it) was assembled, but hundreds still exist: again though, nothing ORIGINAL from the time bible jesus supposedly lived nor anything within them to prove that particular god/man lived at all. Of course there was no publication, so each text is different, but they embody common Christian themes, often with a Gnostic or even Pagan interpretation of events, because when push comes to shove, whether you like it or not, modern christianity is nothing more than a mish-mash of earlier faith beliefs. John and Revelations are two such examples.

Also, the NT is made up of 27 books, not of 4.

Finally, as far as the Quaran goes, all I see it as, is just that "also ran" religion replacing a chosen prophet with another. As such, whether the chosen prophet to have "faith" in is the Quaran's Muhammud or the NT's jesus, both are as dodgy as the other.

Thank you for your time.

[Jrosemary]

The Koran was written(by dictation) by an uneducated, illiterate, lying pirtate, murdering, slave trading, woman beating/raping pedophile, who lied about God to gain the love of the world OVER that and INSTEAD of God, and made Jesus out to be a false prophet who decieved people into believing he suffered and defeated death. THe Koran is a piece of junk. It is not worthy of the sleaziest gossip magazine ever created.

Moderator Final WarningThis is another example of an offensive, unsubstantiated attack on Islam. I have explained, repeatedly, that you are welcome to debate the merits of Christianity vs. Islam in a civil fashion. This is your final warning before your name comes up for probation.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jacob Simonsky]

Interesting question. I'll try to stick with that and not to drift into "my religion is better than your religion".

God allows corruption for the same reason that He allows anything else. God allows corruption because perfection is not attainable where men are concerned. God designates a prophet knowing full well that His Word will have to pass through the fallible mind of a man before it is finally written for all to read. Perfection cannot make this transition intact. Something is lost.

Jesus did not write anything Himself that we know of. Too bad. God used the disciples for this. They did the best they knew how. For us to say that what ever they wrote is the infallible Word of God is to deny that these men had personalities subject to the same weaknesses of us all.

Corruption in the Old Testament is widespread. There are all sorts of contradictions which would never be there if it were intended to be perfect. Sure I can produce samples of these errors if you cannot find them by yourselves.

Both the Holy Koran and the Holy Bible include passages which, if followed explicitly, would have us behave savagely towards each other. Need I cite Leviticus here? The difference between Islam and Christianity is mostly due to the fact that Christians have largely left behind these outdated parts of The Word where some of Islam has not. The very fact of the existence of verses which allow stoning are proofs of the imperfection of both of these Holy Books.

Corruption is not the later changing of what started out to be a perfect instructional but making changes to a scripture can indeed be considered an act of corruption. The Bible was first codified about three hundred years after the passing of Jesus but at the reformation reasons were thought of that would allow great changes (corruptions) to the existing texts. Who dares to change the Word of God and then brazenly declare that the new product is the infallible Word? When they are asked this they will dodge the question by saying that it is "essentially" perfect.

The Koran exists today in the exact form that it was first written. Unlike in Christianity it has not been subjected to changes by man. This is one great difference between Islam and Christianity. Islam protects it's book where Christianity allows changes without comment.

God allows all this. Why? Because of the reason humanity "fell" in the first place. God made the earth for all of us but He made an imperfect planet. Then God made human souls and put them into human bodies on the earth. The two facets of humanity exist together in a single unified whole. Body and spirit. The body tends to imperfection while the spirit attempts to persuade other paths. In between is our free will. God intends for us to choose and to thus advance finally to the end with is the final salvation of us all.

To make the choices more meaningful God sends His messengers to widely separated groups on the planet with His message customized for each. His intent is that we should learn by ourselves to reconcile our differences and to form a unified and cooperative one. What we do though is to attempt to bring others in the world to our religion. We suggest to others that our Word of God is superior to their Word of God. In this we are childish and blind.

We corrupt all that we touch it seems. We make difficult what should be so simple and easy. We do this by insisting that our religion trumps other religions. We should remember that before any religion God was. After the end of the earth religions will be no more. God will still be however. We also will still be. At that point in our travels we will have long since come to realize that there was never any reason to fight after all and that the competitive inclinations were only of the earth. In heaven there is only cooperation and no one argues or fights or insists that only their way is the right one.

OK so I refuse to squabble while I am here on earth because I look forward to the day when I am no longer here. What a waste of energy. We corrupt, on a daily basis, everything that comes to us from God yet He allows us this freedom because how else are we to advance ourselves? Obedience is far inferior a means than learning by experience. Obedience gains us nothing. Thinking and understanding takes us beyond fighting. Only thus will we ever leave corruption behind.

Final note. Most of those who call themselves Christians insist upon the perfection of the Bible but apparently they mean that to support the central theme while ignoring the many typos and contractions that library of books contains. If we are to be satisfied that God wants us to repent and be redeemed then both Islam and Christianity are in agreement for they both acknowledge Jesus though in different roles. God is God. Both Islam and Christianity know this simple fact. Divinity in a man is demonstrated by the absence of any requirement that others follow or believe or worship him or anything else. Divinity does not behave in any such way. Jesus has no preference or ambition in this area. God does not have any religious preference. It is we, and those who wrote of the disciples, that insist upon painting a portrait of Jesus as though he were a medieval king by calling him "lord" and so on. God did inspire Jesus but it is we who made His instructions in religions. This is a cause of divisiveness extraordinaire which we should recognize.

[Jacob Simonsky]

Question for Murad.
What was Muhammad's upbringing in faith?
Did he have a conversion point that brought him to Islam?
Was there a specific reason that Allah choose him to write the Koran?

He came from a Pagan backround who made up a different God for every day of the year. Making up Gods to worship was common ground.

Can you point me to your source of information on this Ball Pean?

Muhammad read the Bible, and felt God was something else entirely, and that Jesus was someone else entirely, and that Jesus never suffered a crucifixion. He proclaimed that God would never allow one of his "beloved Prophets" to suffer in such a way. SO Muhammad made up his own version of who he thought God "should" be instead of the one in the Bible. His claims have nothing to do with the truth, as the truth did not concern him in the least. He was making up a God for people to worship. That is Paganism. That is what Pagans do. They just make the stuff up. That is where he came from. A land of people's that were Paganists. Just making up stuff.

Is this established fact Ball Pean? I think when we make a statement about what happened somewhere, we are obligated to provide our source of information. I know that you weren't there to learn that yourself about Muhammad.

The original records of Muhammad and his companions exist in unaltered form for anyone to read. They take care to list witnesses to what happened. Before you suggest that Muhammad read the Bible you should take the trouble to find out that Muhammad could not read at all. A simple internet search will give these to you.

The error you make is to begin a discussion by insisting that your religious beliefs are superior to that of others. This is hardly an equitable or fair method because it leaves no room for intellect.

[Murad]

The error you make is to begin a discussion by insisting that your religious beliefs are superior to that of others. This is hardly an equitable or fair method because it leaves no room for intellect.

Exactly, there is no way one can debate with such a person intellectually & objectively.

Im Murad, pleasure to meet you James.