[Faith-talk] The Bible in Islam.

[Brandon Olivares]

Mostafa,

Very good points you have made, and in a respectful attitude.

I have always been a seeker of truth. I am neither Christian nor Muslim, but your thoughts on the history of the Bible match up very well with my own. I think the Bible has some truth, but probably much deeper than most people read into it.

Thank you for your thoughts. I have not discoursed with any Muslims before, so it is quite interesting.

Blessings,
Brandon
On May 10, 2014, at 2:13 PM, Mostafa <mostafa.almahdy at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> Dear all, peace be with you.
> 
> Today I will inshallah discuss the Muslim belief regarding the Bible.
> 
> Some evangelists and apologists are posing misconceptions about us that we actually do not believe in the Bible.
> 
> That is quite farther from the truth.
> 
> As Muslims, we are religiously devoted to believe in what was revealed to us and what was sent down before.
> 
> What does it mean when we actually say what was sent down before?
> 
> It basicly means what was divinely revealed.
> 
> So we categorically believe in what was revealed to Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus, and Muhammad.
> 
> We adhere the conviction which says that Abraham were given divine scriptures, Moses was given the Torah, David was given the Psalms, Jesus was given the Gospel, and Muhammad was given the Koran.
> 
> We absolutely believe in that sequential order.
> 
> Of course, when we say these scriptures were given in the chronological arrangement as I just listed above, we surely mean the original text, not their later translations.
> 
>     That is my point here.
> 
> What Christians possess nowadays are mere translations.
> 
> Either the Greek, the Latin, or even the English Bibles are translations.
> 
> But I specifically want to focus on English bibles.
> 
> I want to particularly concentrate on the reception and the controversy of English Bibles.
> 
>  These English Bibles have repeatedly been revised and rewritten by Church authorities throughout the centuries.
> 
> The most popular English Bible was the King James version which was published in the year 1611.
> 
> The King James Version has with good reason been termed the noblest monument of English prose.
> 
> Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration for its simplicity, its dignity, its power, its happy turns of expression, the music of it cadences, and the felicities of its rhythm.
> 
> It entered, as no other book has, into the making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking peoples.
> 
> Well however, the revised standard version of the Bible which was published on September the thirtieth in the year 1952 has explicitly criticized the credibility of  King James edition.
> 
> 
> To the shock and dismay, the revisers of the Revised Standard Version 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the most ancient copies which dates roughly four hundred years after Christ.
> 
> It is only rational for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source, the more authentic it would probably be.
> 
> Upon discovering these most ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their King James Version of the Bible?
> 
> “Yet the King James version has grave defects”.
> 
> They go on to caution us that.
> 
> Thus, they desperately demanded to revise and to rescript the Bible.
> 
>  I suppose they were sufficiently acquainted of what they have done.
> 
> We are not idiots for you to tell us that what you currently possess contains the precisely verbatim word of God.
> 
> It certainly does not.
> 
> What it contains is the shadow of the word of God and some other words besides that.
> 
> I cannot actually endorse what they say about the present form of the Bible.
> 
> Do you believe that ancient scribes are potentially subjected to unintentionally introduce errors to the text of the gospel as they primitively copy it with their hands?  
> 
> Well if you do not think so, I suggest you sit down tonight to manually copy the Gospel of Mark, and you can see how well you do.
> 
> Of course you are expected to commit mistakes or you may write something incorrectly, not with intention, but accidentally.
> 
> So how we are suppose to trust these scribes and what they copied with their hands?
> 
> How we are expected to examine their accuracy?, and more importantly, their honesty.
> 
> I believe I have comprehensively summarized the theological contention regarding the Bible at its present form.
> 
> I have not meant to denounce or to denigrate the Bible.
> 
> Allah knows and He glory be to Him witnesses that it is not my intention at all.
> 
> If you are interested to dive further into that, please write me individually.
> 
> God bless you, and peace be with all of you.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Faith-talk mailing list
> Faith-talk at nfbnet.org
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/faith-talk_nfbnet.org
> To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for Faith-talk:
> http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/faith-talk_nfbnet.org/programmer2188%40gmail.com