home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
- From: jodar@chaph.usc.edu (Nicholas Jodar)
- Subject: The 'Holey' Bible....
- Originator: zeeshan@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Zeeshan Hasan -Moderator)
- Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
- Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:03:25 GMT
- Message-ID: <1h74i7INNjg8@aludra.usc.edu>
- Lines: 551
-
- [Note to Moderator: This is in answer to all of these 'the Bible
- has no errors and/or is free of tampering' claims.]
-
- Assalaamu Alaikum,....
-
-
- ***********************************
- DISCREPANCIES IN THE NEW TESTAMENT:
- ***********************************
-
- 'There are claimed contradictions that theologians have not resolved to every
- atheist's satisfaction. There are textual difficulties with which scholars are
- still wrestling. [After how many thousands of years?] Only a Bible illiterate
- would deny these and other problems.'
-
- -- 'The Plain Truth,' July, 1975
-
- -----------------------------------
-
- The Qur'an says the Bible is screwed with. Here is some of the evidence.
-
- The following is a list of some of the discrepancies found
- within the New Testament (using the 1952 RSV, the most accurate
- translation I have thus far). Many of these discrepancies
- are found in more than one place, but I've only listed one. (I
- don't have THAT much time to kill. :-) There's even more stuff
- I could go over in the OLD Testament....) This file is still
- being compiled, but I figured I could post it now (it's about
- two-thirds done) in answer to the many false statements made
- in recent postings.
-
- It is quite obvious from the following that, not only was the
- Bible written by men, but that such men, unlike the Prophets (AS)
- that have gone before, were not all inspired by GOD (if any were);
- the writers of the various books often disagree. What is
- disturbing is that so many Christians don't seem to reading their
- Bible very closely. The Church isn't helping, either. They
- (along with the Israeli Government) have consistently blocked
- research of all ancient manuscripts uncovered.
-
- I hope that the following will be informative, and that others,
- inshallah, will be encouraged to study the Bible with as much
- dedication as I have. For the most accurate translation
- available, I suggest 'Knoct's Concordance of the Greek Translation.'
- Note, also, that the American Bible Society puts out a version
- of the 1611 KJV which, while containing inaccuracies, has many
- helps and additional information to those in pursuit of the Truth.
-
-
- Auzu Billahi Min Ash-Shaitan Nirajeem. Bismillah...
-
-
- -Brother Abdul Qadir
-
- *************************************************************************
-
- Christians Confess!
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Dr. W. Graham Scroggie of THE 'Moody Bible Institute' of Chicago, in his book
- 'Is the Bible the Word of God?' (under the heading 'It is Human, Yet Divine,'
- (page 17) says:
-
- 'Yes, the Bible is human, though some, out of a zeal which is not according to
- knowledge, have denied this. Those books [making up the Bible] have passed
- through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by
- the hands of men, and bear in their style the characteristics of men.'
-
- -------------
-
- Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, in his book 'The Call of the
- Minaret' (page 277) says:
-
- 'Not so the New Testament ... There is condensation and editing; there is
- choice, reproduction, and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind
- of the Church behind the authors. They represent experience and history.'
-
- -------------
-
- >From the Preface to the RSV, 1952 ('the product of thirty-two scholars
- assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty co-operating
- denominations'):
-
- '... Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the
- nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of
- many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was
- based, made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to
- call for revision of the English translation.'
-
- -------------
-
- >From an article entitled 'The Truth About the Bible,' in an old back issue of
- 'Look' magazine:
-
- '...as early as 1720, an English authority estimated that there were at least
- 20,000 errors in the two editions of the New Testament commonly read by
- Protestants and Catholics. Modern students say there are probably 50,000
- errors.'
-
- -------------
-
- >From E.G. White, a 'prophetess' of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, in her
- Bible Commentary (Volume 1, page 14) says:
-
- 'The Bible we read today is the work of many copyists who have in most
- instances done their work with marvellous accuracy. But copyists have not
- been infallible, and GOD most evidently has not seen fit to preserve them
- altogether from error in transcribing.'
-
- Still later, she adds: 'I saw that GOD had especially guarded the Bible,'
- [from what?] 'yet when copies of it were few, learned men had in some
- instances changed the words, thinking that they were making it plain, when
- in reality they were mystifying that which was plain, by causing it to lean
- to their established views, which were governed by tradition.'
-
- She says this, and yet STILL says 'Truly, the Bible is the infallible Word
- of GOD.'(!) 'Yes, it is adulterated, but pure.'(?!) 'It is human, yet
- divine.'
-
- ?!?!?
-
- Do words have any meaning for such people? Apparently only in a Court of
- Law....
-
- -------------
-
- On page five of the Foreword in the Jehovah's Witnesses' Bible, (now expunged!)
- they say/said:
-
- 'In copying the inspired originals by hand, the element of human frailty
- entered in, and so none of the thousands [four thousand, to be exact...]
- of copies extant today in the original language are perfect duplicates. The
- result is that no two copies are exactly alike.'
-
- They conclude: 'The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the
- Christian Greek Scriptures ['New Testament'] has been tampered with, the
- same as the text of the LXX ['Old Testament'] has been.'
-
- These supposedly rational people then state that no amount of tampering
- will 'appreciably affect the authenticity of the Bible.' (?!)
-
- -------------
-
- J.B. Phillips, a prebendary of the Chichester Cathedral, of the Angelical
- Church in England, refers to the 'Gospel According to St. Matthew' in his
- introduction to it:
-
- 'Early tradition ascribed this Gospel to the apostle Matthew, but scholars
- nowadays almost all reject this view.' [Indeed, Modern Scholars only hazard
- a guess as to the author of 'Luke,' and it wasn't Luke, either....]
-
- But Phillips goes on: 'The author, whom we can conveniently call Matthew, has
- plain drawn on the mysterious "Q" [for German 'Quella' == 'Sources'], which
- may have been a collection of oral traditions.' [This is the accepted theory
- of Modern Western Scholars] 'He has used Mark's Gospel freely, though he has
- rearranged the order of events and has in several instances used different
- words for what is plainly the same story.'
-
- The authors of 'Matthew' and 'Luke,' in fact, have COPIED 85% of 'Mark,'
- WORD FOR WORD. Believe it or not, the Christians call this wholesale
- plagiarism 'Divine Inspiration'....
-
- [The OT is even worse. (Isaiah 37 is, in fact, 2 Kings 19, both attributed
- to different authors, centuries apart, and both 'inspired' by Allah....)
- Attributing such nonsense to Allah (AWJ) is blasphemy, and no self-
- respecting 'man of GOD' would hear of it.]
-
- -------------
-
- The same J.B. Phillips has this to say about the 'Gospel of St. Luke':
-
- 'On his own admission Luke has carefully compared and edited existing material,
- but it would seem that he had access to a good deal of additional material,
- and we can reasonably guess at some of the sources from which he drew.'
-
- This author, previously assumed to be 'Luke,' who says 'It seemed good to me
- also' to 'write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus'.
- This is 'Divine Inspiration'?!?
-
- -------------
-
- Anybody who reads plain english can understand what these people are saying.
- They are saying that the Bible was written by men, not Allah. Further
- evidence is provided by the fact that the entire Bible is written in the
- THIRD PERSON. ('And the Lord said unto Moses...,' 'And Moses said unto the
- Lord...,' 'The word which Isaiah saw concerning...,' 'And Jesus said to
- them...' et cetera. Nowhere in the Bible will you find the word 'Bible,'
- much less 'Old' or 'New Testament.' Out of four thousand texts, not a
- single one has the author's name on it. (Hence the 'According to' in the title
- of each of the four gospels selected to be included in the Canon.)
-
- Yet they INSIST that the Bible is indeed the word of Allah (!).... Truly,
- Jesus (AS) was right in saying, '...seeing, they see not; and hearing, they
- hear not; neither do they understand.' [Mt 13:13]
-
- =========================================================================
-
- Genealogy of Jesus--What Was It? (PBUH)
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- The Gospel ''According to Matthew'' tells us that there were fourteen
- generations between Abraham (AS) and Babylon, and fourteen between Babylon
- and Jesus (AS). Despite the claim that the authors of the Gospels were
- 'Inspired' by Allah, only two of them bothered to record the Genealogy of
- Jesus (AS). Yet of the two Genealogies given, neither matches the (much
- earlier) recording in the OT. Who's lying, here?
-
- [Note: The sons of Noah were four: Shem, Ham, Japheth, and Japheth's
- elder brother, Eber. (Genesis 10:1, 21)]
-
- Mt. 1:1-17 vs. Lk. 3:23-38 vs. Old Testament
- ---------- ----------- -------------
- - GOD (Allah) --
- 1 Adam Adam 1
- 2 Seth Sheth 2
- 3 Enos Enosch 3
- 4 Cainan Kenan 4
- 5 Mahalaleel Mahalaleel 5
- 6 Jared Jared 6
- 7 Enoch Enoch 7
- 8 Methuselah Methuselah 8
- 9 Lamech Lamech 9
- 10 Noah Noah 10
- 11 Shem Shem (heir/Eber)11
- 12 Arphaxad Arpachshad 12
- 13 Cainan | 13
- 14 Shelah Shelah 14
- 15 Eber Eber 15
- 16 Peleg Peleg 16
- 17 Reu Reu 17
- 18 Serug Serug 18
- 19 Nahor Nahor 19
- 20 Terah Terah 20
-
- 1 Abraham Abraham Abraham 21
- 2 Isaac Isaac Isaac 22
- 3 Jacob Jacob Jacob 23
- 4 Judah Judah Judah 24
- 5 Perez ('bastard') Perez ('bastard') | 25
- 6 Hezron Hezron Hezron 26
- 7 Ram Arni Ram 27
- | Admin | 28
- 8 Amminadab Amminadab Amminadab 29
- 9 Nahshon Nahshon Nahshon 30
- 10 Salmon Sala Salma 31
- 11 Boaz Boaz Boaz 32
- 12 Obed Obed Obed 33
- 13 Jesse Jesse Jesse 34
- 14 David David David 35
- ------------- -- ----- -----
- FROM ABRAHAM: 14 15 13
-
- 1 David David David 35
- 2 Solomon Nathan Solomon 36
- 3 Rehoboam Mattatha Rehoboam 37
- 4 Abijah Menna Abijah 38
- 5 Asa Melea Asa 39
- 6 Joshaphat Eliakim Jehoshaphat 40
- 7 Joram Jonam Joram 41
- 8 Uzziah Joseph Ahaziah 42
- | Judah Joash 43
- | Simeon Amaziah 44
- | Levi Azariah 45
- 9 Jotham Matthat Jotham 46
- | Jorim | 47
- | Eliezer | 48
- 10 Ahaz Joshua Ahaz 49
- 11 Hezekiah Er Hezekiah 50
- 12 Manasseh Elmadam Manasseh 51
- 13 Amos Cosam Amon 52
- 14 Josiah Addi Josiah 53
- | Melchi Jehoiakim 54
- 15 Jechoniah Neri Jeconiah 55
- ----------- -- ------ ---------
- TO BABYLON: 15 19 17
-
- 1 Shealtiel Shealtiel Pedaiah 56
- 2 Zerubbabel Zerubbabel Zerubbabel 57
- Hananiah 58
- Jeshaiah 59
- Rhesa Rephaiah 60
- Arnan 61
- Obadiah 62
- Shecaniah 63
- Shemaiah 64
- Neariah 65
- Elioenai 66
- Joanan Johanan 67
- Joda | 68
- Josech ? 69
- Semein 70
- Mattathias 71
- Maath 72
- Naggai 73
- Esli 74
- Nahum 75
- Amos 76
- Mattathias 77
- Joseph 78
- Jannai 79
- Melchi 80
- Levi 81
- 3 Abiud 82
- 4 Eliakim 83
- 5 Azor 84
- 6 Zadok 85
- 7 Achim 86
- 8 Eliud 87
- 9 Eleazar 88
- 10 Matthan Matthat 89
- 11 Jocob Heli 90
- 12 Joseph Joseph 91
- 13 Jesus Jesus 92
- -------------- -- ----- ---
- TO JESUS (AS): 13 23+ 13+
-
-
- Some Big Booboos:
-
- 1) Jesus (AS) cannot possibly be descended 'from David' by BOTH of
- David's sons;
-
- 2) As a supposed 'bastard,' Perez's line would have been cursed for
- at least ten generations, according to the OT, but David (AS) was
- made king;
-
- 3) Joseph (RAA) could not possibly have been the son of both Jocob
- and Heli;
-
- 4) Jesus (AS) has to be connected to David (AS) through his mother
- Mary (RAA), as Joseph (RAA) wasn't really his father;
-
- 5) NEITHER of the two Genealogies are correct, based on the evidence
- provided;
-
- 6) 'Matthew' has screwed up his 'three groups of fourteen' in his
- genealogy;
-
- 7) According to 'Luke,' (who is more generous than 'Matthew') there
- are still only twenty generations between Abraham and David, which
- is impossible, time-wise. (14-16 generations for 8 centuries?)
-
- ==========================================================================
-
- Where Are the Apostles?
-
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
- Matthew Mark Luke John Barnabas
- ------- ---- ---- ---- --------
- 'Peter' (Simon) Peter Peter Peter Peter
- Andrew Andrew Andrew Andrew Andrew
- James James James James James
- John John John John John
- Philip Philip Philip Philip Philip
- Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew ------
- Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas Thomas
- Matthew Matthew Matthew ------ Matthew
- James James James ------ James
- Thaddeus Thaddeus ----- ------ -----
- Simon Simon Simon ------ Simon
- Judas Isc. Judas Isc. Judas Isc. Judas Isc. Judas Isc.
- Judas Judas
- Barnabas (Joses)
-
- [Note: Barnabas is also found in Colosians, Galacians, and Acts.]
-
- ================================================================================
-
- Herod Dead or Not?
-
- Mt. 2:19 vs. Mt. 14:1
-
- ---------------------
-
- Jesus (AS) Touched, But by Whom?
-
- Mt. 9:18, Mk. 5:21, Lk. 8:40
-
- ---------------------
-
- Jesus (AS) Curses the Fig Tree
- (One of his few documented mistakes, but when did it happen? And
- how did it REALLY happen?)
-
- Mt. 21:18, Mk. 11:12
-
- ---------------------
-
- Baptism of Jesus (AS) by John (AS) vs. John (AS)'s Messengers
- (Did John (AS) Recognize Jesus (AS) or not?)
-
- Mt. 3:13-15 vs. Mt. 11:2-6
-
- ---------------------
-
- Leper or Simon's Mother-in-Law Healed first?
-
- (See Gospels)
-
- ---------------------
-
- Palsied Man Healed in Capernaum or Nazareth?
-
- Mt. 9:1-2 vs. Mk. 2:1-4
-
- ---------------------
-
- Was the Publican Named Matthew or Levi?
- (This particular passage also implies that Matthew was not
- the author of the Gospel attributed to him.)
-
- Mt. 9:9 vs. Lk. 5:27
-
- ---------------------
-
- When Were the Twelve Really Ordained?
-
- (See Gospels)
-
- ---------------------
-
- When Did Jesus (AS) Really Calm the Storm?
-
- (See Gospels)
-
- ---------------------
-
- When Did Jesus (AS) Heal the 'Demoniacs,' and Where?
- (There is no 'Gergesene,' at least not there, then....)
-
- (See Gospels)
-
- ---------------------
-
- When Were the Twelve Given Their Mission?
-
- (See Gospels)
-
- ---------------------
-
- >From Where Was the Woman of Faith?
-
- Mt. 15:21-22 vs. Mk. 7:24-26
-
- ---------------------
-
- Did Jesus (AS) Heal One or Two Blind Men?
-
- Mt. 20:30-34 vs. Lk. 18:35-43
-
- ---------------------
-
- When was what Last Supper?
-
- Jn. 13:1 vs. Lk. 7:1
-
- ---------------------
-
- The Crowning Speech in 'John' is Missing in
- the Other Three Gospels!?
-
- Jn. 13-17
-
- ---------------------
-
- John 'Forgets' to Include Jesus (AS)'s
- Prayer in the Garden???
-
- ---------------------
-
- John Describes the Last Supper in
- Numbing Detail, Including Details
- Left Out of the Other Gospels,
- But 'Forgets' to Mention the
- Eucharist!
-
- ---------------------
-
- Angel Lies to the Women
-
- Mt. 28:7 vs. Mt. 28:9
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Contradicts All of
- the Sightings of the
- 'Risen' Jesus (AS) in
- the Canonical Gospels
-
- 1 Cor. 15:5-7 vs. Gospels
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Can't Get His Conversion
- Story Straight....
-
- Acts 9:3-7 vs. Acts 22:6-9 vs.
- Acts 26:12-15
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Also Can't Get His
- Ordainment Story Straight....
-
- Acts 9:10-15 vs. Acts 22:10-15
- vs. Acts 26:16-18
-
- ---------------------
-
- Moses (AS), Aaron (AS), Hagar (RAA)
- and the Apostles (RAA) Witnessed the
- Glory of GOD, but Paul was Struck
- for Three Days by Seeing Jesus (AS)
-
- Ex. 3:1-6, 19:19-24, Gen. 16:13 and
- Gospels vs. Acts 9:8-9
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Confesses the
- Resurrection to be His
- Own Doctrine
-
- 2 Timothy 2:8
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Initiates Doctrine
- of Jesus (AS) Being
- Divine
-
- Acts 9:20
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Negates the Law
-
- Romans 3:28 and vs. Mt. 5:17-20
-
- ---------------------
-
- Paul Denies His Own
- Actions/Experiences
-
- Acts 9:28-29, 21:27-36, and 26:19-20
- vs. Galatians 1-2
-
- ---------------------
-