textual criticism

Author

Message

Please Register and Login to this forum to stop seeing this advertsing.

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Post subject:

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:51 am Post subject: Re: textual criticism

HomoErectus wrote:

BMZ wrote:

...completed the disaster by laying the wrong foundation.

BMZ

And that from you, with mohammad, islam, quran and ahadith "backing" you up !

I'm no defender of christianism, not at all, but thats just too much hypocrisy !

And your constant "retaliating" strategy, hammering on christianism, and thus TRYING to justify your own completely absurd belief-set, is just the same - absurd !

Don't misunderstand me, I'm not defending ANY religion !
But your retaliation in return for the constant hammering on islam is just too... transparent !

If it was for the IDEA behind a religion, I'd probably choose Buddhism, or maybe even "Jesuism" [not existent, I just created that corner], for the idea of LOVE...

While your religion only has hate, violence, threats, hellfire, kill kill kill, loot, enslave, ambush, and a claimed supremacy on top - and eternal damnation for "unbelievers" and "apostates"!

What a disgrace to an alleged "god" !

Hello, HE

I am here only to defend Islam, not the Muslims and vague ahaadith. I am sorry my writing hurts you and others but you have to acknowledge the fact that Christianity is a cocktail of hocus pocus, the ingredients of which were not even given by Jesus, the 2nd person of the so-called cooked-up Trinity. This is a fact which no one can deny.

Islam, like Judaism, just declares that there is only One God, the LORD Almigty and that makes sense.

When I have time, I will write about the Eternal Damnation of mankind by Christianity's loving god and his son, who is allegedly his own himself.

Cheers
BMZ
_________________
Ali Sina:"Go to a public place, call friends with video and preferably the media as well. Then in front of everyone, remove your veil and set it on fire. Then announce in loud voice, "I am free" (Edited)

Baal
Moderator

Joined: 15 Nov 2007
Posts: 447

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:55 am Post subject:

"science of hadiths" The Science of What?

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

ibnishaq wrote:

i am not speaking mainly about paul and john and that. i am speaking about HOW the bible was canonized and by who. like is the torah today written by moses or by 4 authors? most say 4!! who wrote esther, and was it originally pagan book about polytheism! did solomon really write his book! why did no early church writers quote 2 and 3 john or hebrews. why did some have a bigger canon? why do catholics have 7 extra books in their bible? why synoptic gospels? why do some versions of psalm have 151 chapters? why do dead sea scrolls have one version of isaiah that is 2/3 bigger then that today? why do only 60% of dead sea scrolls agree with Maseretic but 40% are differennt! etc

I am sorry I did not address this serious issue because it is a huge subject and the discrepencies are enormous.

Christianity is a religion which was stolen from the Jews by a few rebellious Jews. This runaway cult needed the Jewish Holy Scriptures, without whch the cult leaders and their 'religion' did not have a leg to stand upon. Now they are riding two boats, with a leg in each.

The Jewish Holy Scriptures were copied wholesale, making forgeries in the text, where it suited but what could be done when the texts did not suit? That is where the trouble arose. The Catholics, the people who took the Way from Jesus, chose the books and I am sure that was done under the divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The people who compiled the first OT of the Christians, must have been filled with the Holy Spirit but it looks like the Holy Spirit also filled all different groups and folks.

The existing 'Torah' was not entirely written by Moses himself. One can find easily what Moses wrote. The Jewish Holy Scriptures were compiled and completed only a few hundred years before the arrival of JC. The Christians then broke the Jewish Canon and made their own canon by repeatedly canonising various books. You will be surprised to know that the Revelation hocus pocus had been in and out of the New Testament a few times and was finally left after someone read the threatening and damning book.

For more information, Googling can help discover this web of intrigues and chaos of the Christian Canon.

Believe me, if Jesus were to return and somebody gave him a copy of the New Testament, he would throw it away in a bin, saying, "Did I give you this? Away from me, you Satans!"

BMZ
_________________
Ali Sina:"Go to a public place, call friends with video and preferably the media as well. Then in front of everyone, remove your veil and set it on fire. Then announce in loud voice, "I am free" (Edited)

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:39 pm Post subject:

Baal wrote:

"science of hadiths"

The Science of What?

I second that question.

BMZ
_________________
Ali Sina:"Go to a public place, call friends with video and preferably the media as well. Then in front of everyone, remove your veil and set it on fire. Then announce in loud voice, "I am free" (Edited)

They call me Tater Salad
Regular Member

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 51

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:41 pm Post subject: Re: textual criticism

ibnishaq wrote:

ok i am a major fan of orthodox and coptic christianity. i also love chassadic judaism.

but do people not read about textual criticsm? about how the torah was written by 3-8 people(varying on your belief) and that it has been significantly changed?

i mean my god, there are 6,000 differences between masaeretic and samaritan! there are 4,000 between masaeretic and septuigant as well. and the dead sea scrolls only agree 60% with torah today. there is an isaiah there that is 2/3 bigger then isaiah today! oh, but i bet you never heard that huh?

i love christianity deerly do not get me wrong. but i mean what the hell dudes! i mean how can you believe in a mumble and jumble book?

sorry if i come across mean. today has been a VERY bad day for me. problem after problem after problem.

Hi ibn,

It's been a while! So just out of curiosity, where are you getting this info from and do you know the specifics as far as what kind of discrepancies there are?

I'd also be interested to hear about the Dead Sea Isaiah Scroll.

If you have any links or even quotes from textual critics--because really, these things are generally known within the community of those who do textual criticism. I wonder then if some of the conclusions might not be exaggerations (you know, misspellings or mis-translations and such).

TIA.

_________________
He who laughs last didn't get it.

They call me Tater Salad
Regular Member

Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 51

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 2:45 pm Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

ibnishaq wrote:

I am sorry I did not address this serious issue because it is a huge subject and the discrepencies are enormous.
BMZ

According to whom? Not even Bart Ehrman can admit that the discrepancies are significant.

_________________
He who laughs last didn't get it.

Mutley
Senior Member

Joined: 28 Nov 2007
Posts: 249

Location: US
Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:59 am Post subject:

BMZ wrote:

ibnishaq wrote:

The Jewish Holy Scriptures were copied wholesale,

Copied? It was an incorporation and confirmation that the Jewish scriptures were the legitimate base of Christianity. The were supposed to be a continuation of Jewish holy Scriptures, so of course it's going to incorporate them, rather than level the charge of corruption against them and totally invalidate them like the Muhahaha mad tried. If they decided that a few more available books can and should go into the OT, that does not mean an invalidation of the Torah at all.

BMZ wrote:

making forgeries in the text, where it suited but what could be done when the texts did not suit? That is where the trouble arose. The Catholics, the people who took the Way from Jesus, chose the books and I am sure that was done under the divine inspiration from the Holy Spirit. The people who compiled the first OT of the Christians, must have been filled with the Holy Spirit but it looks like the Holy Spirit also filled all different groups and folks.

The existing 'Torah' was not entirely written by Moses himself. One can find easily what Moses wrote. The Jewish Holy Scriptures were compiled and completed only a few hundred years before the arrival of JC.

If I remember correctly, this is wrong.

BMZ wrote:

The Christians then broke the Jewish Canon and made their own canon by repeatedly canonising various books. You will be surprised to know that the Revelation hocus pocus had been in and out of the New Testament a few times and was finally left after someone read the threatening and damning book.

For more information, Googling can help discover this web of intrigues and chaos of the Christian Canon.

Believe me, if Jesus were to return and somebody gave him a copy of the New Testament, he would throw it away in a bin, saying, "Did I give you this? Away from me, you Satans!"

BMZ

Yes, so you can actually say "believe me, I know what Jesus thinks". Well, I do remember reading where Jesus was talking about the new covenant and saying that the law shall be written on the hearts of men. So he never really talked about the Gospels in terms of a book (let alone the Quran), and there was no book or Gospel that Jesus was compiling while he was alive. Nor was it ever required that one be written.

The Gospels were merely a recounting of the life of Jesus. They never were supposed to be books where God or Jesus is speaking directly. Like it's predecessors, the Gospels are a narrative that retells the story of what happened and what was said, and the lessons are gained through the story. This is why it flat out tells you "Gospel According to "Apostle's Name". It doesn't say the Gospel According to Jesus, and there never was any such sort of book, contrary to Quranic claims.

So while the Quran has the style of a direct dictation, all of the preceding Abrahamic literature was in a narrative format. For example, the Bible will say "And then God said...or God did.....", whereas in the Quran it says "and WE did, or I did", making it non narrative and instead attempting to represent itself as direct dictation. If we throw in the spots of the Quran where it says "and Allah did", then that just creates even more of a mess that I'd rather not bother with right now so that I can stick to the point.

This separates the Quran greatly from all other Abrahamic texts before it. So the question is, how much of the bible is correct or ok, and how much of it is corrupted? From what I've understood, the real, but supposedly lost Gospel, is much like the existing Gospel except for it has no additions and corruptions in it. But in general, the main foundation is relatively true, but that we must look to the quran to be sure of what is true in the Bible.

Most Muslims tell me that if it doesn't disagree with the Quran, then that's the true part, and if it disagrees with the Quran, then that's the false part. That's their method of deciding. Would you agree with that or do you think that both the entire Bible and Torah are completely false down to every page?

I seem to recall that even Muhammad acknowledged that they were given "the" book but that they changed the place of the words. So rather than suggesting that the book was completely rewritten, this seems to suggest a relatively true book, but one with purposeful corruptions in certain spots, and we use the Quran as the final judge to figure out what the problems are.
_________________
If it is peace you want, seek to change yourself, not other people. It is easier to protect your feet with slippers than to carpet the whole of the earth. --Anthony DeMello

BMZ
Senior Member

Joined: 23 Nov 2007
Posts: 436

Add Karma

rated by members
Add Comment
Show Comments

Posted: Sun Feb 03, 2008 4:22 pm Post subject:

Mutley wrote:

The Gospels were merely a recounting of the life of Jesus. They never were supposed to be books where God or Jesus is speaking directly. Like it's predecessors, the Gospels are a narrative that retells the story of what happened and what was said, and the lessons are gained through the story. This is why it flat out tells you "Gospel According to "Apostle's Name". It doesn't say the Gospel According to Jesus, and there never was any such sort of book, contrary to Quranic claims.

I agree that the gospels are stories told about the man Jesus. No argument there.

Mutley wrote:

So the question is, how much of the bible is correct or ok, and how much of it is corrupted? From what I've understood, the real, but supposedly lost Gospel, is much like the existing Gospel except for it has no additions and corruptions in it. But in general, the main foundation is relatively true, but that we must look to the quran to be sure of what is true in the Bible.

Yes, that is the question. To find how much of the Christian Bible is correct or not, one does not have to check with Qur'aan. All one has to do is to check the Christian Scripture and tally it with the Jewish Scriptures. I do that and to my surprise, I find a lot of forgeries made. I just pointed out one big forgery in response to the topic by ibnishaq. Please have a look at the "Kiss the son" forged in.

In this case, you will note that I am judging the OT not at all with Qur'aan. I am judging it with the Jewsih Tanakh, the Jewish Bible.

BMZ

_________________
Ali Sina:"Go to a public place, call friends with video and preferably the media as well. Then in front of everyone, remove your veil and set it on fire. Then announce in loud voice, "I am free" (Edited)

FREE FAITH, EXPRESSION AND THOUGHT