# Is bible corrupted?



## JM (Nov 15, 2007)

YouTube - Is The Bible Corrupted?

Any thoughts?


----------



## Gloria (Nov 15, 2007)

JM said:


> YouTube - Is The Bible Corrupted?
> 
> Any thoughts?



*sigh*


----------



## Gloria (Nov 15, 2007)

So much energy spent on questions that have already been answered and myths from questionable sources. To say that none of the manuscripts in the history of Christianity match is laughable. If the Bible is ANYTHING...it's accurate.

Where on earth did they get the whole...lol...nevermind...Let's talk about the Quran. What are they saying about the accuracy Quran that a Christian can't say the Bible? Answer: Nothing.

I'm still listening and these kids are clowns...


----------



## JM (Nov 15, 2007)

I know, I know...I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?


----------



## Gloria (Nov 15, 2007)

JM said:


> I know, I know...anything else?



Their reasoning as to why the Quran is accurate like...I mean...lol...sheesh, where do I begin? It's cute how they did the little skit thing going back and forth but I can't take them seriously because they aren't presenting NEW objections. There are some Christians who DON'T know about the Johannine Comma. I realize that. I completely understand that but many Christians DO know about it. I don't like that it's been included. I use a translation that doesn't include it. I get that but this does not MEAN that God has not presented himself as being triune. There are other passages that point to God in three persons. 

Also the point about the Nazarines not believing that Christ was God...so what? What does this prove? We know that he was barely received as a prophet in his own town. We know this because it's included. This is hardly proof that he isn't God. 

I can go on and on. It's weak. The entire presentation. Cute in the beginning, but weak.


----------



## Poimen (Nov 15, 2007)

It looks like there is an intelligent response here:

[video=youtube;arhNcJqHwxo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhNcJqHwxo&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Gloria (Nov 15, 2007)

Poimen said:


> It looks like there is an intelligent response here:
> 
> YouTube - Is the Bible Corrupted?



My smile is SO big right now. Amen, Amen, Amen, AMEN! God is awesome!  I love this. That guy is great in his knowledge of the history of the NT and in his knowledge of the Quran. Like I said...these questions they presented have already been answered. The whole no matching manuscripts thing is as I said "laughable." I have to repost this vid somewhere. Thanks Poimen!


----------



## JM (Nov 15, 2007)

Thanks for the clip.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 15, 2007)

Hmmmm...this is reminiscent of my introduction to textual criticism about twenty five years ago by Christians. LOL


----------



## etexas (Nov 15, 2007)

Great clip on post 6!


----------



## Poimen (Nov 15, 2007)

Gloria and JM:

You are most welcome.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 18, 2007)

In post #4 Jason said this, "I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?

Was that addressed and answered by the gentleman who so ably withstood the detractors of the Bible?

In the Muslim's clip, they read from the NIV's margin at John 7:53-8:11 and elsewhere, how the NIV says "The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11." Or in 1 Timothy 3:16, where the NIV (and most modern Critical Text versions) read "who was manifest in the flesh", the margin reads "Some manuscripts _God_". Let me quote from another thread on this latter:

Or to take a specific case, in 1 Tim. 3:16 some 600 Greek MSS (besides the Lectionaries) read "God" while only seven read something else. Of those seven, three have private readings and four agree in reading "who." So we have to judge between 99% and 0.6%, "God" versus "who." It is hard to imagine any possible set of circumstances in the transmissional history sufficient to produce the cataclysmic overthrow in statistical probability required by the claim that "who" is the original reading.​
(This quote can be found in context in post #4 of What is the authentic New Testament Text?.)

I have often stated that the disparity in versions -- particularly the Greek manuscripts underlying them -- will be used against us by the opponents of the Christian faith. There is no glossing over them -- our detractors will ferret them out, as these Muslim chaps have. And how shall we answer them?

John 7:53-8:11 was discussed in this brief thread: John 7:53-8:11. 

Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?

Thomas Weddle, welcome aboard! We look forward to seeing you on this section of PB.


----------



## JM (Nov 18, 2007)

Steve, I thought of your warning when I viewed the clip by the Muslims.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 18, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

Thank you for the welcome, you bring the point home. The gentlemen failed to defend against their assault and it cannot be defended against holding to the enlightenment view of Holy Scripture. (e.g., Solo Scriptura)

Further, the defense he did offer was impotent, because the Medina verses supercede the Surah, which he quoted. Islam obtained a subsequent demonic revelation that supersedes the Surah and instructs them to kill "_the people of the book_," if they don't submit to Satan.

You asked?



> Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?



That rock is in the Juridical Authority of Sola Scripture recognized during the Magisterial Reformation and defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8, and more explicitly defended in the Helvetic Consensus Formula. In terms of the magisterium, it is to be found only in the Authorized Version in the American Commwealth.

Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?

Our Great God, the Lord of Hosts, favored us and Providentially established the Law Word of His Son with the Divine Rights of an Immanent Sovereign over His Church. It's absolutely beautiful. But nobody seems to care, they don't want to be ruled by the Ancient of Days, after all, His speech is "archaic." It offends their itchy ears. 2 Timothy 4:3

When the English and American Church withdrew its voluntary submission to the Juridical Authority of Holy Scripture in the established Bible of English Common Law at the turn of the 20th century, and spawned the radical individualism of a democratic faith, then it no longer has a political defense against highly doctrinaire political religions.

In turn, England and the United States fell under humanism in its developing continuity with the Church's submission to a new enlightenment magisterium. Because man becomes, under humanism, his own god, no law can then govern gods, who are their own law.

As Calvin noted, without laws civil magistracy "*cannot subsist, as, on the other hand, without magistrates laws are of no force. No observation, therefore, can be more correct than this, that the law is a silent magistrate, and a magistrate a speaking law*." Calvin, Institutes, Bk IV, Ch XX, xiv; II, p 787

What this means is that the modern enlightenment based Christian Church holding to Solo Scriptura as a disestablished substitute of Sola Scriptura, has become nothing more than wordless Christian mimes, in terms of the magisterium. They have their individualistic preference, but no law, and no basis for the political protection of the Faith, once delivered to the Saints, and their families.

This is very serious, now we are no longer arguing against the manifest confusion wrought in the Church by enlightenment criticism, but the American society has opened its arms to Islam consistent with the principles of equalitarianism of its democratic faith. We recently elected a Congressman that took his oath of office on the Koran, we also have a Presidential candidate that was raised in the Muslim faith while living in his hometown of Jakarta Indonesia.

I pray the Lord will grant us His Grace of repentance because I tremble for my countrymen, lest we reap what we have sown consistent with Romans 13.



> "Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."



For now satan, who erects his kingdom on the twin pillars of error and ignorance, has an entire army of his children which are dedicated to establishing his kingdom by whatever force is necessary to envision it. They have set themselves against us and are utilizing Romanist Richard Simon's weapon of textual criticism apologetically to advance their faith.

They are not ashamed of their heritage like American Christians, and they are not ashamed to force the establishment of their faith.

What is most ironic and even more frightening, is the only organized defense that I know of against the Muslim attack on Solo Scriptura, is James White who has set himself up against the established Bible.



> "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord."



In the end, brother, I can only echo our Lord's word: "*Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.*"


----------



## etexas (Nov 18, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In post #4 Jason said this, "I should make myself clear, I'm not asking if it's corrupt, but what do you think of their arguments especially against the different mss used for our Scriptures?
> 
> Was that addressed and answered by the gentleman who so ably withstood the detractors of the Bible?
> 
> ...


We answer them by THE Bible....the King James! No Muslim can beat the King Jimmy!


----------



## Jim Johnston (Nov 18, 2007)

An excerpt from a post I did on Islam



> ... Put differently, the Muslim will claim that the Bible we have is not the Bible the Qur’an was talking about. We have a corrupted version of the Bible today. How should we respond to this out the Muslim surely will take?
> 
> First, we should note that while it is understandable that Christians would change (or add) passages reporting a crucifixion and Jesus being begotten by the Father, it is not clear why they would change some minor historical formalities such as who Abraham's father was? Or, why would the evil Christians and Jews change that Jacob pledged to serve Laben for 7 years in exchange for Rachel from what the Qur’an reports - that Moses served Jethro for Zipporah? These are most probably due to human error (remember Mohammad grew up in a largely verbal culture and probably only heard verbal accounts of the biblical stories. It is easy to see why he would mistake little details like these rather than it being intentional deceit on the part of Christian cover-up artists. On the other hand, though, our Muslim apologist friend can respond that if someone were smart enough then certainly they would even change minor details. Granted. So now we can only pile more evidences upon the Muslim.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 19, 2007)

Hello Thomas,

Please help me understand the terms you are using (below I have lifted some out of your post); if you would state the _principles_ of your paradigm it would help me to more readily grasp the particulars of it.



> ...the Juridical Authority of Sola Scripture recognized during the Magisterial Reformation and defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8...
> 
> Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?...
> 
> ...the English and American Church withdrew its voluntary submission to the Juridical Authority of Holy Scripture in the established Bible of English Common Law at the turn of the 20th century...



Thanks for forbearing and accommodating my slowness to understand!

Steve


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Dear eTexas,



etexas said:


> We answer them by THE Bible....the King James! No Muslim can beat the King Jimmy!



I would ask that you reconsider the threat of Islam, it is not merely a religious issue of individual opinion, I'm certain you understand that. We need the LORD of Hosts doing battle for us. He has ordained certain institutions that represent His power, but one has to obey the law that he has established and ordained to be over you, before He does battle for you. He's very jealous and He doesn't break His Law, as you well know.

I believe it takes more than citing Scripture, the Authorized Version is a silent magistrate today, that has no voice. We need the power of God's law, not just His words.

"*For the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.*" 1 Corinthians 4:20


Rushdoony has this to say about Islam:



> The essence of Islam is a political order, and the purpose of Moslems is properly the achievement of this "rule of God" in and through a political order. The role of Mohammed was religious precisely because it was political to the core, and non-Christian religions are primarily political and are derived from the concept of a divine political order, an order which is itself the source of morality and religion. Rushdoony, Foundations of Social Order, p 9



You simply can't fight a religious enemy whose argument is that their religious authority, the Koran, is and must be the foundation of society as a whole and uses the sword to advance its faith, based upon citing Scripture. We must have the power of God's words.

The Muslims are using a good argument that will advance their cause greatly, and no family is safe, when a religion can breed terrorists in your neighborhood. When you open a Bible, generally any modern version, and it says in multiple places that it's not reliable and trustworthy, that is a good argument for their doctrine of "Sola Scriptura."

We will lose every last bit of Liberty we have and then they will begin outlawing our Worship, that is inevitable on our present course.

"*For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?*" 1 Peter 4:17


----------



## etexas (Nov 19, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> Dear eTexas,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was only speeking of what bible to use if one MUST talk to them. frankly, given that they are Heathen Animal Dogs....I do not speak to them...at all.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 19, 2007)

Hello Brother Rafalsky,

I guess I don't fully know where to begin because I don't know what you don't understand.
Can you be more specific, there are a lot of first principles here, so I don't know where to
even begin.

Cordially In Christ,

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 19, 2007)

Max,

*I* was a "heathen animal dog" once upon a time (although I am a Jew), at least as wicked as any Muslim, but while dead in trespasses and sins God had mercy on me, and gave me new life -- a new heart -- and status as a royal son. And I have seen Him do the same with former Muslims, who are now my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ. It is easy to get worked up, I know, due to their attacks; but who knows, the same King that had mercy on us may have mercy on them, for among the Muslims are many of the elect yet uncalled. To call them out of darkness we must be winsome, vessels of the glory of the Majesty on high.


Thomas,

It sounds like you are saying that for the Authorized Version of the Bible to manifest the power of God it must have political/governmental validation and enforcement. Which is why -- questioningly -- I had quoted this below:



> ...the Juridical Authority of Sola Scripture recognized during the Magisterial Reformation and defined in the Westminster Confession of Faith 1:8...
> 
> Only it has Juridical Authority by way of the Supremacy Act of King Henry VIII and sits in the Highest Office as "Head of the Church", in the name of the "most holy Trinity," established by the King of England in the Treaty of Paris of 1783, and recognized by the subsequent voluntary compact of the several States. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is an absolute bar against its disestablishment, but who would have thought that so great a Liberty would entice Christ's Church to start a Revolution against her King?...
> 
> ...the English and American Church withdrew its voluntary submission to the Juridical Authority of Holy Scripture in the established Bible of English Common Law at the turn of the 20th century...



And because the English-speaking churches withdrew this voluntary submission, the AV now "is a silent magistrate today, that has no voice", at least among Christendom in the main, and in the world as well.

I see we are approaching the defense of the Authorized Version from different vantages, and I wish to understand yours.

Steve


----------



## etexas (Nov 19, 2007)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Max,
> 
> *I* was a "heathen animal dog" once upon a time (although I am a Jew), at least as wicked as any Muslim, but while dead in trespasses and sins God had mercy on me, and gave me new life -- a new heart -- and status as a royal son. And I have seen Him do the same with former Muslims, who are now my beloved brothers and sisters in Christ. It is easy to get worked up, I know, due to their attacks; but who knows, the same King that had mercy on us may have mercy on them, for among the Muslims are many of the elect yet uncalled. To call them out of darkness we must be winsome, vessels of the glory of the Majesty on high.
> 
> ...


Maybe I did get worked up Steve. They a hard religion for me to respect, I was a heathen too....but...I never crashed an airliner into a building.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 20, 2007)

Brother Rafalsky,

You stated:



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It sounds like you are saying that for the Authorized Version of the Bible to manifest the power of God it must have political/governmental validation and enforcement. Which is why -- questioningly -- I had quoted this below:
> 
> And because the English-speaking churches withdrew this voluntary submission, the AV now "is a silent magistrate today, that has no voice", at least among Christendom in the main, and in the world as well.
> 
> I see we are approaching the defense of the Authorized Version from different vantages, and I wish to understand yours.



I answered the question within the context you asked it. 



> Where is there a solid rock on which we may take our stand -- as did Samson -- against the hordes assailing our Scriptures?



First, it is important to note the distinction of the question you raised in terms of the focus of the response. Consider the text critical argument, it is always presented as a type of "Wesleyian Perfectionism" claimed to be for the good of the Church. Thus, each new version, advertises itself as some new thing that is finally going to bring new light to the _Christian_, yada, yada, yada. We must consider the reality and meaning of Holy Scripture in its juridical establishment regarding the *non-believer*. 

In reality, this is a much more important context to consider the text critical argument for the disestablishment of Scripture. Furthermore, the text critical issue is not fully understood until you grasp this.

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine; according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which was committed to my trust." 1 Timothy 1:8-11

The Church in the United States today approaches the issue of the text of Scripture upon the presupposition that it has a unilateral and exclusive dominion to do whatever it wishes. This is incorrect. Holy Scripture has a unique place of Authority in terms of the establishment of the entire American Commonwealth. It does not exist at Common Law in the abstract sense of an unknown word preserved in a multiplicity of foreign language manuscripts, it is specifically identifiable as English Bibles. (e.g., The Authorized Version, The Bishop's Bible, and The Great Bible). It is not merely a religious text, it also sits at bottom of the Common Law forming and framing and informing the meaning of morality and Law for the social order.

We can clearly see this in American jurisprudence, for example, the first Free Exercise case was Reynolds v US, in 1873. It was a case of a Mormon in the Utah Territory claiming to have the right of free exercise of religion as a polygamist. The Court went straight back to the "Common Law of England of King James I" and the Christian meaning of marriage to dispell that notion. Marriage means in the American Commonwealth what it means to Protestant Christianity, _interpreted from the Common Law Bible by Protestantism into English Common Law_, and from there into American jurisprudence.

If the Church in America is not going to submit to the established Bible as the Fountainhead of the English Common Law, but is going to have a civil establishment at Law, then it is internally inconsistent. The Bible is legally pre-existing at Law to the American civil constitutions, without it the Church has absolutely no basis, to provide the Christian moral definition of law on the meaning of Justice in any sense. We can clearly see the havoc textual criticism has wrought upon American society in terms of the marriage argument today regarding Sodomites.

Without the Church providing continuity between God and society, in mutual submission to God and His Law, then we can't enjoy a peaceful and moral society consistent with our Faith. You can't have a society built upon the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, which is the meaning of our Civil Constitutions (Lex Rex), and then unilaterally alter and attack the veracity of the Bible free of consequences.

The Church is not an island just freefloating in society with no responsibilities or duties toward the peace and good order of that society. That is precisely how it behaves though, as if its dominion over the text of Scripture was unilateral and Sovereign. The Church does not have a unilateral authority over Scripture merely because it is the proper domain for its repository.

The Church has the liberty to engage in textual criticism academically, at best; Pastorally, at worst, but has no jurisdiction over the political meaning of that text as it is established at Law.

If Pastors want to get into their pulpits and preach how Mark 16:9-20 isn't in the "real" Scriptures and why the Church shouldn't believe it, and various other frauds, then more power to them. That's their religious liberty to do so. Instead of exercising their religious liberty, the Church has been forced to accept a disestablished Faith, the disruption of the peace and good order of Christ's Church, and the civil protection of life and property because the the foundational law of society has been mercilessly attacked by the Church for 100 years.

The Westminster Confession of Faith limits all appeals to the original languages "...*in all controversies of religion*...." Translations are required to be made "into the vulgar language of every *nation* which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship Him in an acceptable manner..." This is the native tongue of the "nation", not the evolving idiom of society as an independent thing from authority. The Divines clearly understood that language is tied to law, not law to language. The consistent devolving of language in our society can be shown to be derivative of the inversion of this principle, it should be self evident.

There is not now, nor has there ever been, a controversy of religion in regards to Textual Criticism in England or the United States. Indeed, they plainly say that nothing that they have changed in Scripture affects any central doctrine of the Christian Faith.

Where is the controversy of religion? The Reformers had one for their Ad Fontes claim, where is ours? If all of their textual work isn't to resolve some doctrinal problem, then what is it's purpose? It seems to me it is a political controversy, not a religious one. When the Churches got involved in this, it ceased being an academic issue, and became a political controversy. I don't think one truly understands the issue until they understand this.

Thomas


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Nov 20, 2007)

Max,

While visiting a woman in the prison today, I spoke with some men also waiting to see someone in lockup, and discovered they were Arabic, one a Jordanian and the other a Palestinian. I invited them to come to the church where we have a service for Arabic-speaking Christians. What if one of them is, hidden to me, one of God’s elect yet uncalled?

You say, “I never crashed an airliner into a building.” Your sins did send God’s wrath crashing into the body and soul of the Son of God. And, more mundanely, you are in a country whose actions in supporting and arming the Jewish state – seen erroneously by some as the recipient of God’s prophetic promises and favor – to oppress the Palestinian people (Palestinian Christians as well), after having given their land to another peoples (through strong-arming the UN in 1947), and thus incurring the profound animosity of Muslims around the world. You are seen as aiding and abetting a cruel oppressing racist nation bent on obtaining Middle Eastern regional hegemony. For _our_ atrocities, even if by proxy, we have made ourselves the target of a ruthless and demonic enemy. Our full comeuppance is yet in the wings. As sons and daughters of God – citizens of _His_ kingdom – we are to love our enemies. Is this not the law of Christ? I don’t respect the religion, Max, but people caught in the deception of it. Fellow humans. Did Christ die for any of them? Those – even if but a few – how will we reach them with the Gospel?


Thomas, 

That we not hijack this thread, I would like to continue our discussion in a new thread, "What rock on which to stand"


----------



## Thomas2007 (Nov 20, 2007)

> Did Christ die for any of them? Those – even if but a few – how will we reach them with the Gospel?



Indeed, and how will we reach them with the Truth of Jesus Christ when our own Bibles proclaim His word is not "reliable" or trustworthy in numerous places that affect essential doctrine?

I have time and again been ashamed of my brethern, when a particular alteration is exposed, and the response is that it is in another witness.


----------

