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.
JRR Tolkien, the writer of the acclaimed book series, The Lord of the Rings, wrote a book called the Silmarillion. The Silmarillion is essentially a "history book" of the Middle-earth series designed to fill in the gaps (Not perfectly). JRR 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 argument 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.
12/10/2024
To make a few corrections as to the nature of the Silmarillion, I recommend looking at this interview with Christopher Tolkien: Christopher Tolkien speaks about "The Silmarillion"
I was also wrong that Christopher had come up with material. That is untrue and I spoke in ignorance, having gone through the Silmarillion myself in the past. At the time, I had not touched the Silmarillion. My apologies to all reading.
The Silmarillion is also more accurately to be described as a mythology and fictional history as it deals with the events of the First and Second Ages of Middle-earth, briefly touching upon the Third Age.
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
ReplyDeleteFunny. The Lubavitcher fanatics have called the Rebbe "God" before: http://www.haaretz.com/news/the-lubavitcher-rebbe-as-a-god-1.212516
DeleteVery interesting, but not surprising that your unlearned comment would have only a link you cannot even articulate on your own. I would like to know, if you can even answer it, to tell me the answer to a question I have. By way of background let's look at the prophet Isaiah. Jesus was known frequently to teach in the synagogue preaching from the law and the prophets. I think you would agree that Isaiah was a prophet of God. In Isaiah 7:14 to whom is Isaiah referring when he uses the word Immanuel which is a Hebrew word? What is the Hebrew word Immanuel mean and who is Immanuel? Since isaiah is a prophet and spoke prophetically from God, please answer my question if you can. And please don't use a link to answer your question use a little bit of intelligence.
DeleteOh 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.
DeleteYou 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.
ReplyDeleteWhere 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.
DeleteMy 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.
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.
ReplyDelete