Tuesday 17 November 2015

People's flaws + Someone else writing = Biblical Corruption?

Many Muslims take issue with the fact that the saints in the Bible are recorded engaging in wrongdoing at some point in their lives. Many examples include David and Bathsheba's adulterous affair, Lot's drunkeness, Moses smashing the rock when he was supposed to speak to it, Noah getting drunk etc.

Some go as far as saying that the Bible is corrupted or proved to be corrupted because of these. 

However, what Muslims fail to take into account is that the Bible is simply being honest with the short comings of men. It doesn't try to sugarcoat and present them as a beautiful victoria sponge cake or whatever can be classified as pretty. It gives us a picture of the saints, despite their devout beliefs and lives, still were flawed and in need of God's grace in order to be holy. 

This is not a proof of biblical corruption or slander of the holy people of God, it merely highlights their shortcomings, which is very honest.

One individual named Dailogues, a Muslim, recently asked on Paltalk How Moses could of written Deuteronomy 34 when he died and stated it was a biblical corruption. I pointed out it was Joshua that wrote Moses' death, to which Dailogues said that was proof of biblical corruption.

No that doesn't make any sense. That's not evidence of corruption, because it is a contemporary of Moses, but not just that a successor to Moses that recorded this.

Let me give you an example of finishing someone else's work and it's not corruption.

J R Tolkien, the writer of the acclaimed book series, The Lord of the Rings, wrote a book called the Silmarrilion. The Silmarrilion is essentially a "history book" of the Middle Earth series designed to fill in the gaps (Not perfectly). J R Tolkien never actually finished the book and his son Christopher compiled his Father's works, as well as come up with new material to help it gel together. Does this mean he is guilty of corrupting his Father's work? No.

Joshua completed the book of Deuteronomy and recorded Moses death, but he didn't come up with new material to fill in a gap or come up with new material for better cohesion. All Joshua did, was record what happened. This is not an example of biblically corruption at all.

If someone wrote a biography and then their closest friend (an honest friend before anyone tries to make the arguement that they could of lied) recorded the details of his death, that does not logically mean that the person is corrupting that particular work.

Adding something that is true to a work is not corruption.

Answering Judaism


  1. The Torah, the first 5 books of the Old Testament, is accepted by Christians and Jews as being authentic. Christianity requires one to pray through an intermediary and to recognize a man as G-d. This is idolatry. Idolatry cannot be merged with G-d's Torah. Christianity is wrong. www.kiruvnow.com

    1. Funny. The Lubavitcher fanatics have called the Rebbe "God" before: http://www.haaretz.com/news/the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god-1.212516

    2. Oh and by the way I did read the article and that ridiculous newspaper. The man they refer to is dead and could have never fulfilled the prophecies found in the law and the prophets. Just a good example one prophecy states that the Messiah will be born in Bethlehem. I don't see what your point is.

  2. You are talking about the Catholic Church. And that is not Christianity. The Catholic Church is absolutely idolatry . But in Christianity we pray to the father directly . I don't know where you're getting your information but you're not correct . There is only one God . And he manifested himself in the incarnate Jesus Christ . Fully God and fully man. So maybe you might want to study a little bit before you make a comment. As to the author great article I think you did a great job I enjoyed it.

    1. Where do I talk about the Catholic Church? I am aware Tolkien was a Catholic. My stance on Roman Catholicism is that it is heretical and apostate.

      My point was a relative or successor doesn't corrupt a book by adding something true to it.

      Plus I hold to Trinitarianism. I assume you hold to a Modalist theology, but you correct me if wrong.

  3. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I was commenting on the comment made by KirvuNow. I totally agree with your article. I am Trinitarian the only reason I say there is one God was because I didn't feel the need to go into Trinitarian doctrine but I totally AM Trinitarian and absolutely not a modalist. As you well know modalism is heresy that's been shot down by the church centuries ago. Besides Christianity does not teach modalism and a good example of that was the baptism of Jesus as many others. No my comment was reserved for the comment above me it sounds like the person must be Catholic or hold to some kind of Catholic agenda. But anyway it was a good article I totally agree with you. No worries.