Is the Bible "The True Inerrant Word of God"?
Merriam Webster Dictionary
True - Honest, Just
Inerrant - Free from Error
Word of God - Sayings of the Supreme Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
Basically, one should never be able to find any corruptions in the Bible as it is from God.
Let us see just two things which will totally prove otherwise.
The Church claims that "the resurrection is the fundamental argument for our Christian belief" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. xii, p. 792), yet no supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any of the earliest Gospels of Mark available.
Despite a multitude of long-drawn-out self-justifications by Church apologists, there is no unanimity of Christian opinion regarding the non-existence of "resurrection" appearances in ancient Gospel accounts of the story.
To top it all, The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying,
"the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation"
(Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons").
"admittedly not genuine", hope you guys understand what it means.
Undaunted, however, the Church accepted the forgery into its dogma and made it the basis of Christianity.
The trend of fictitious resurrection narratives continues. The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples.
The Church admits:
"The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).
How is it possible for Christians to claim this "Fiction" as True Inerrant Word of God?
Church of Corinth
“But, the absence of certain verses from the oldest manuscripts, for instance, may be due to loss and destruction rather than forgery” –
Let me put it to you in simple terms. All Christians claim the Bible is an inspired Word of God. So, if those words in Mark 16:9-20 were intended by God, He would have inspired Mark to write them in the first place. You have to provide an intelligible answer as to why it never happened that way, because you claim the Bible is Inspired by God.
Moreover, only Honest Bibles tell us (in a footnote at least) that in the Gospel according to Mark all the verses after 16:8 are not found in "some of the oldest manuscripts." The rest, they don’t even bother to mention, which means, deceit.
You seem to back KJV. Just for your knowledge:
KJV Bible: "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Better Translation: "If any man come to me, and love less by comparison his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."
Comments: This verse has the unfortunate translation of the Greek word miseo, Strong's Concordance Number #3404, as "hate", when it should be rendered "love less by comparison." We are not to hate our parents and family!
KJV Bible: " . . . Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter before the LORD."
Better Translation: " . . . Even as Nimrod the mighty hunter in place of the LORD."
Comments: The word "before" is incorrect and gives the connotation that Nimrod was a
“These are not "translations" as muslim propagandists would like to state as the following verses differ between the Warsh version and the Hafs of the Quran”
And you also quoted a Hadith, whereby the Prophet (pbuh) allowed this.
Did you ever ask, why the Prophet allowed this? If there was any difference in the meaning, he would have stopped it. The fact he allowed it means, the recitation and pronunciation and spelling Never Altered the Intended Meaning of the Verse.
You tell me, is there any difference in the meaning between “O, yeah” and “Oh yes”?
Is there any difference in the meaning between “color” and “colour”?
The Prophet said, “after me, follow my sahabahs, they are the righteous”. Why don’t you mention this? He also said, if there was anyone who was fit to be a prophet after me, it would have been Umar. Why don’t you also mention this? These were the people who compiled the Quran after thorough investigation.
And the fact that, the Prophet allowed these variations during his lifetime shows us he accepted it. He was the ultimate authority.
And none of the so called “christian learned men” can ever say that these variations have altered the meaning of the verse.
Compare this with the insertion and deletion of the verses in the Bible. Who authorized it? Jesus, his disciples or God?
Any Tom, Dick and Harry will add and remove and you expect us to take it as Word of God?
All the rant you made was to prove what, Bible is Inerrant?
Allah killed Muhammad? You know the meaning of killed? Please go back to school and find out the meaning of killed and died.
Its a waste of time explaining this to people of your mentality.
- Anonymous8 years agoFavorite Answer
Is this way you comfort yourself because you know that the quran is a corrupted fiction?
The quran is the only corrupted book. Some proofs: Here are a few qurans:the Warsh quran, Qalun quran, al-Bazzi quran, Qunbul quran, al-Duri quran, al-Suri quran,Hisham quran, Ibn Dhakwan quran, Khalaf quran, Khallad quran, al-Duri quran, Abu'l-Harith quran, Hafs quran, Ibn `Ayyash quran, Ibn Wardan quran, Ibn Jamaz quran, Ruways quran, Rawh quran, Ishaq quran, Idris al-Haddad quran etc
These are not "translations" as muslim propagandists would like to state as the following verses differ between the Warsh version (popular in Africa) and the Hafs versions (popular in Middle East) of the Quran: 7:57, 9:37, 2:259, 3:81, 6:96, 1:4, 2:140, 2:125, 3:146, 2:132, 91:15, 2:132, 3:133, 5:45, 2:139, 3:81, 2:259, 2:214, 2:9, 2:184 & 28:48.
More evidences from islamic scripture that shows why the quran is not an original:
Bukhuri: vol. 4, hadith 682, book 56: Narrated Ibn Mas'ud:
I heard a person reciting a (Quranic) Verse in a certain way, and I had heard the Prophet reciting the same Verse in a different way. So I took him to the Prophet and informed him of that but I noticed the sign of disapproval on his face, and then he said, "Both of you are correct, so don't differ, for the nations before you differed, so they were destroyed."
The above hadiths clearly shows that Muhammad allowed some variation regarding the reciting of the Qur'an.
Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 509, p. 477; book 61: Narrated Zaid-bin-Thabit:
Abu Bakr As-Siddiq sent for me when the people of Yama-ma had been killed (i.e. a number of the prophets companions who fought against Musailama). (I went to him) and found Umar bin Al-Khattab sitting with him. Abu Bakr then said to me, "Umar has come to me and said: `Casualties were heavy among the Qurra of the Qur'an (ie those who knew the Qur'an by heart) on the day of the battle of Yama-ma, and I am afraid that more heavy casualties may take place among the Qurra on other battle fields, whereby a large part of the Qur'an may be lost. Therefore I suggest that you (Abu Bakr) order that the Qur'an be collected'." I said to Umar, "How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do?" Umar said, "By Allah, that is a good project". Umar kept on urging me to accept his proposal till Allah opened my chest (persuaded me) for it and I began to realise the good idea which Umar had realised.
This hadith clearly shows that Muhammad never made a final collection of the Qur'an before his death, for when Abu Bakr was asked to collect the Qur'an into one volume he said: How can you do something Allah's Apostle did not do? Muhammad did not make a final collection of the Qur'an because there were many of his companions whom he trusted to teach the Qur'an and these made their own collections:
Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 521, pp. 487-488; book 6: Narrated Masruq:
... I heard the Prophet saying, "Take (learn) the Qur'an from four (men): `Abdullah bin Masud, Salim, Mu'adh and Ubai bin Ka'b."
These companions of Muhammad made their own collections of the Qur'an and taught the Qur'an to their students. However these Qur'ans were not the same and confusion soon arose amongst the early Muslims as to what was the right way to recite the Qur'an. The next two hadiths give examples of this confusion:
Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 468, p. 441-442; book 60: Narrated Ibrahim:
The companions of 'Abdullah (bin Mas'ud) came to Abi Darda', (and before they arrived at his home), he looked for them and found them. Then he asked them,: "Who among you can recite (Qur'an) as 'Abdullah recites it?" They replied, "All of us." He asked, "Who among you knows it by heart?" They pointed at 'Alqama. Then he asked Alqama. "How did you hear 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud reciting Surat Al-Lail (The Night)?" Alqama recited:
'By the male and the female.' Abu Ad-Darda said,
"I testify that I heard me Prophet reciting it likewise, but these people want me to recite it:--
'And by Him Who created male and female.' But by Allah, I will not follow them."
The above hadith shows that Muslims from different regions disagreed as to the way a particular verse should be read. Those who learnt the Qur'an from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud said surah 92:1-3 as 'By the male and the female.' while other Muslims said, 'And by Him Who created male and female.' Thus the early Muslims had not all memorized the Qur'an the same way.
We see this problem again in the following hadith.
Bukhari: vol. 6, hadith 527, p. 489; book 61: Narrated Ibn Abbas:Source(s): Umar said, `Ubai was the best of us in the recitation (of the Qur'an) yet we leave some of what he recites'. Ubai says, `I have taken it from the mouth of Allah's Apostle and will not leave for anything whatever'. But Allah said: `None of our revelations do we abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar.' (Qur'an 2:106). This hadith clearly shows that the Companions of Muhammad disagreed over which verses were abrogated/removed. The quran was corrupted at the time of mohammad itself.
- 8 years ago
How is it that you attack the Bible by demonstrating problems with what the Catholic Church says instead of what the Bible says? How is it that you leap to the ridiculous conclusion that the Catholic Church speaks for all Christians? How is it that you can ignore several hundred years of world history like that? How is it that you can expect any Christians to take such a bigoted piece of ranting seriously?
The Bible is the true, inerrant word of God. A Catholic priest once identified 95 things that the Catholic Church had wrong in its teachings according to the Bible. His name was Martin Luther. You didn't even come close to as many, and you blamed all of Christianity for the teachings of Catholics.
Removing the passages that offend you so much does not change what the Bible itself teaches us. And, so, you leap to the conclusion that the Bible, which has never been proven wrong is in fact errant (without any supporting information) because a website shows that the Catholic Church does not believe the Bible (which surprises almost no Christians at all).
Logic does not appear to be your strong suit.
Truth does not appear to be so either. Can you offer a citation that shows that "the resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries"? I don't think you can find such an authoritative source. You might find sources that indicate that certain verses don't exist in certain manuscripts. But, the absence of certain verses from the oldest manuscripts, for instance, may be due to loss and destruction rather than forgery. My first high school history book had pages missing, but it was no forgery. Forgery is a very strong charge not easily proven.
- VinLv 78 years ago
1st You start your"proofs" with quotes from the "Catholic Encyclopedia" and refer to "the Church" this and "the Church" that.
2nd The R.C. Church is not THE Church.
3rd The "Catholic Encyclopedia" is not scripture.
4th I assume the "bible" you are referring to is the Catholic Bible
4th The Holy Bible, KJV, is the Final Authority.
5th The Bible IS the True Inerrant Word of God.
6th Christians can claim this, even though Catholics teach to doubt it.
The KJV is the latest English version translated from the "Textus Receptus"
All others rely heavily on two corrupted manuscripts found in a Catholic Chapel and at the Vatican....
Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus......
- ColtLv 48 years ago
Mark is not the only Gospel that mentions the resurrection. . . Most scholars believe that part of Mark is missing because of the way it flows (the ending). However, the first mention of Mark and the resurrection is from the apology of Justin Martyr in the 2nd century, as he quotes from it.Source(s): Catholic Christian
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- CarpathianLv 48 years ago
I am created and designed by a God who chose to make me by His grace. Yes, a man because He made me in His image. Americans have the hardest time making sense of things because they run into walls that have ghostly images and abnormal sectors. People constantly have their minds systematically crash because they've been unable to be independent to their many different incompatible ideas. We all take information daily but it's how you decipher it that makes it understandable. In human terms one may want to understand why God exist but if you don't have the right math or the right formula or the right book of ideas you can run around with your head in the sand forever. Life becomes a guessing game. It's in the genetic disposition of a human being to have instructions but it's up to one person to take you to the truth. That person unblocks the mental firewalls of life. God's name is Jehovah.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Continued from above.
@ your Edit: Thanks for proving me right. You have shown that Muslims can be really low .
Coming to your edit: But it does prove that Mohamed was KILLED by Allah as he lied about Allah. Since you haven't bothered to refute it I take it that you agree.
Allah KILLED mohamed & he let him DIE by the hands of a Jewish woman thus humiliating mohamed as he called women deficient in intelligence & plus it was a Jewess & it's no secret that mohamed hated the Jews.
I know you aren't worth my time, but I keep in mind that at times even people of low mentality can change for the better & you make a good candidate for it.
You may pick anyone that agrees with you but whatever you may do you will never be able to erase what Allah did to Mohamed i.e. He humiliated him and killed him.
- jeniLv 78 years ago
THE BIBLE OUR ONLY SOURCE TO KNOW TIME BACK TO ADAM:
Years - (0000 - 0930)* age 0130-0930 Adam #1.
Years - (0130 - 1042)* age 0105-0912 Seth #2.
Years - (0235 - 1140)* age 0090-0905 Enos #3.
Years - (0325 - 1235)* age 0070-0910 Canian #4.
Years - (0395 - 1290)* age 0065-0895 Mahalaleel #5.
Years - (0460 - 1422)* age 0162-0962 Jared #6.
Years - (0622 - 0987)* age 0065-0365 Enoch #7.
Years - (0687 - 1656)* age 0187-0969 Methusaleh #8.
Years - (0874 - 1651)* age 0182-0777 Lamech #9.
Years - (1056 - 2006)* age 0502-2006 Noah #10.
Years - (1558 - 2158)* age 0100-0600 Shem #11.
Years - (1658 - 2143)* age 0035-0448 Arphaxad #12.
Years - (1693 - 2096)* age 0030-0403 Salah #13.
Years - (1723 - 2153)* age 0034-0430 Eber #14.
Years - (1757 - 1966)* age 0030-0209 Peleg #15.
Years - (1787 - 2028)* age 0032-0209 Rue #16.
Years - (1819 - 2019)* age 0030-0200 Serug #17.
Years - (1849 - 1997)* age 0029-0148 Nahor #18.
Years - (1878 - 2083)* age 0130-0205 Terah #19.
Years - (2008 - 2083)* age 0000-0075 COVENANT + 1981.
Years - (2083 - 2183)* age 0075-0175 Abraham #20.
Years - (2108 - 2288)* age 0060-0180 Isaac #21.
Years - (2168 - 2315)* age 0130-0146 Jacob #22.
Years - (2258 - 2368)* age 0057-0110 Joseph 23rd person.
Book of Genesis 2368th year after Adam was created last.
Matt.1:1-17[First 14 generations];
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram,
Amminadab, Nashon, Salmon, Naomi & Ruth 4:18-22; Boaz,
Obed, Jesse and David ( 2929 - 3029)* 2Sam.5:4,5, 1ki.2:10,11.
14 generations at Babylon #3, year 3460[606 BCE, now at 2012
CE], that was 2618 years ago[14 generations from Babylon
to Christ Jesus born in Rome year 4064, 2 BCE, was World
Empire #6[+ 34th year] to 31 1/2 CE]. 6078 and Jesus beings
1000 years as the last day of God's day seven, Heb.4:1-12;
People do not want to admit they are to imperfect to under-
stand the bible, they do not have 30 years patience, so what
do they blame?Source(s): Bible.
- Anonymous8 years ago
Edit @ asker: Why don't you mention that there are many qurans? A very simple way to find out the Truth, very painfully, is to go to Saudi Arabia carrying a non-Wahabi Quran.
They'll seize the copy and burn it and give you 200 lashes on the spot for the first offense. If you survive that and still insist on being foolhardy, well, you'll literally lose your head over it.
About the muslims going for hajj with a non wahabi quran is concerned every year there are at least two hundred muslims dying in the "STONING OF THE DEVIL" now one wonders whether the muslims are stoning THE DEVIL / SHAITAN or whether they are stoning the other devil (the one carrying the non wahabi quran).
Mohamed himself forgot parts of the quran thus he himself never knew which quran was authentic thus he could not stop the other variations.
Anyways, I wonder if you know the fact that the Caliph Uthman seized and burned all the original manuscripts of the 42 scribes who wrote for Mohammad bin Abdullah al Muttailib al Hashim al Quraish, aka the Prophet of Islam; after he edited it, rearranged the entire thing in different non-chronological sequence, changed the structure and added in salutations and Chapters and deleted 444 verses on the grounds that they were already abrogated by later ones?
HADITH: Sahih Al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 510:
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
Hudhaifa bin Al-Yaman came to Uthman at the time when the people of Sham and the people of Iraq were Waging war to conquer Arminya and Adharbijan. Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman.'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit,'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies.'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies,'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa.'Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that ALL OTHER QUR'ANIC MATERIALS, WHETHER WRITTEN IN FRAGMENTARY MANUSCRIPTS OR WHOLE COPIES, BE BURNT. Said bin Thabit added, "A Verse from Surat Ahzab was missed by me when we copied the Qur'an and I used to hear Allah's Apostle reciting it. So we searched for it and found it with Khuzaima bin Thabit Al-Ansari.(That Verse was):'Among the Believers are men who have been true in their covenant with Allah.'(33.23)
Today, there are two surviving versions of Quran, those respectively used by Sunnis and Shiites. In both Qurans, there have variations in Suras. Some have extra Suras and some have omitted Suras. If you read two Qurans for comparisons, you'll spot differences therein.
Oldest Yemeni Quran differs from Uthman Quran today
The earliest copy of Quran -Yemeni koran
Sana'a manuscripts found in Yemen 1972, inside the attic of Sana's Mosque.
Was Uthaman a tom, a d!ck or a harry as he made a new quran. Are you so proud what of a d!ck made? Or is it that you have no option but be happy that because of that d!ck you have a quran . P.S that would not make the quran allah's i.e. mohamad's words but Uthaman's words.
I hope you have the capacity to understand that your poor attempt does not make uthaman's quran the word of allah.
- JeancommunicatesLv 78 years ago
The conclusion of Mark and the 2lst chapter of John does not change biblical Scripture. Jesus said, "tear down this temple and in three days I will raise it up." "Do you not know that you are the temple of God and the Holy Spirit dwells within you."
Scripure is the true and inerrant Word of the Living God. The Holy Spirit confirms to my spirit and I believe. The Holy Bible that you are trying to tear down has stood the test of time as Christ said that it would. Christ said that the Scripture cannot be broken. And not one jot or tittle will pass away until all has been fulfilled. Christ says the important part is there and I do not believe God will allow mere man to change His Word to untruth. Men have tried and they have lost their voice in trying. God deals with man concerning His Word. Do not fear my friend, the Holy Bible, cannot be manipulated by the Catholic Church even though I believe they have tried.
- DaverLv 78 years ago
Yes, the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
As for the rest of what you had to say, don't hurt yourself. Relax. You're not half as smart as you think you are.