They Say : Your Bible Has Not Been Cor­rupt­ed”. Really ?

As-salaa­mu alaykum wa rah­mat­ul­lahi wa barakatuh ;

What do the dif­fer­ences between Bible man­u­scripts reveal ? This paper is divid­ed into the fol­low­ing sections :

    1. They require you to pro­duce evi­dence on : WHEN, HOW and WHY was the Bible corrupted
    2. Once upon a time, there was a myth about Bible manuscripts
    3. Evi­dence : more than 50 vers­es either omit­ted or added, hun­dreds of oth­ers changed
    4. Evi­dences from sec­ond and third cen­tu­ry about Bible corruption
    5. Do the changes and cor­rup­tions of man­u­scripts affect doctrine ?
    6. ?=“For God so loved the world”? 

1.They require you to pro­duce evi­dence on : WHEN, HOW and WHY was the Bible corrupted

My fel­low coun­try­man, Hil­ki Berisha, in an arti­cle pub­lished in ?The Live Paper ? with the aim of evan­ge­liz­ing Koso­var Alban­ian Mus­lims, writes :

    Many Mus­lims wrong­ly pre­sume that the Qur?an was revealed to replace Hebra­ic and Chris­t­ian Holy Writ because of the alleged rea­son that these last scrip­tures were cor­rupt­ed, changed and lost ?

    Ques­tions that are raised now are :

    1. When and where did the change happen ?
    2. How did the change happen???[1]

And so on and so forth, con­tin­u­ing with Chris­t­ian promi­nent log­ic of ?tell me how the orig­i­nal uncor­rupt­ed spe­cif­ic scrip­ture read?. His broth­er in Christ from one anti-Islam­ic web­site makes two more spe­cif­ic questions :

    3. What changes were made ?
    4. Where is the orig­i­nal” Bible that we can com­pare it with to prove the change happened?[2]

We were asked these ques­tions and we will now answer them.

A lay­man in New Zealand, Evan Sad­dler, con­cerned about the for­ma­tion of mod­ern Bible ver­sions which he believed to have been pre­pared from cor­rupt­ed man­u­scripts, was chal­lenged by a pas­tor con­cern­ing his com­pe­tence to make such a judg­ment. How many lan­guages do you know?” asked the pas­tor. Mr. Sad­dler, a man of good humor, prompt­ly replied, Two ! New Zealand and Australian.”

Unfazed by this humor­ous rejoin­der, the pas­tor pressed his point. How can you make your­self an expert on Bible trans­la­tion if you do not know Greek or Hebrew?” Mr. Sad­dler replied by ask­ing a ques­tion him­self. Do you under­stand Greek?” When assured that the pas­tor did, Mr. Sad­dler request­ed an analy­sis of the Greek word­ing upon which the New Inter­na­tion­al Ver­sion trans­la­tion of Matthew 18:11 was based. The pas­tor dili­gent­ly set about his assigned task, but soon dis­cov­ered that it was not eas­i­ly ful­filled. Look­ing up from his Bible in con­fu­sion and amaze­ment, the min­is­ter explod­ed, But there is no Matthew 18:11!” His obser­va­tion was cor­rect. The tenth verse is present, and the twelfth, but the eleventh is entire­ly omit­ted. Qui­et­ly, Mr. Sad­dler replied, Now what use is your knowl­edge of Greek when the text is missing?”[3]

A lot of noise has been raised, pro and con­tra on Bible cor­rup­tion. You may have heard that the cor­rup­tion issue is all about hearsay, prej­u­dices and noth­ing else. The above-cit­ed frag­ment from the book ?Mod­ern Bible Trans­la­tions Unmasked ? by Dr. Rus­sell R. Stan­dish tells us a lot. It shows gen­tly the ongo­ing war between ?King James Ver­sion Only ? sup­port­ers and the rest of Chris­ten­dom on the issue of which Bible version[4] to use, since the dis­cov­ery of dif­fer­ent Bible man­u­scripts faced us with a lot of prob­lems and cleaned out the mythol­o­gy of One Unchanged Bible. A miss­ing verse tells us about tex­tu­al cor­rup­tion ; it either shows that once the verse was there and than some­body removed it or oppo­site, the verse was nev­er there but some­body added. But is it only a verse ? If that would be the case, there would be no need to lose so much ener­gy on that. How­ev­er, what if the num­ber is being mul­ti­plied bad­ly and that sev­er­al oth­er changes in man­u­script read­ings arise beside the omission/​additions that may put faith in the Bible as an unchanged scrip­ture in a real mess ? You are then advised to pre­pare your­self in deal­ing with such chaos when read­ing what fol­lows, for it may shat­ter what­ev­er pre­vi­ous beliefs you may hold about the Bible.

To con­tin­ue read­ing, down­load the full doc­u­ment [in .pdf format]Endmark


Published:

in

,

Author:

Comments

3 responses to “They Say : Your Bible Has Not Been Cor­rupt­ed”. Really ?”

  1. geraldino Avatar
    geraldino

    Matt 18:11 reads thus,” For the Son of man(Jesus pbh) came to save that which was lost.”

  2. karulann Avatar
    karulann

    Is Matthew 18:11 miss­ing from the NIV Bible ?

    The NIV and some oth­er Bibles leave out vers­es. Take for exam­ple, Matthew
    18:11 is miss­ing in the NIV. I know that it may not have the verse, and
    that it does cross refer it to Luke. But in Rev 22:19 it says And if any
    man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophe­cy, God shall
    take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and
    (from the things which are writ­ten in this book.
    I dis­cuss this and a num­ber of oth­er sim­i­lar ques­tions in my book, Reasons
    for Belief : A Hand­book of Chris­t­ian Evi­dences. You can get a copy at this
    web­site. The man­u­script evi­dence used in cre­at­ing the NIV was vastly
    supe­ri­or to that avail­able when the KJV was made. In 1609, when the KJV
    was cre­at­ed, schol­ars only had less than ten Greek man­u­scripts to work
    from, and none of them were from before AD 1000. When putting togeth­er the
    NIV, the edi­tors had thou­sands of man­u­scripts, includ­ing com­plete Greek
    man­u­scripts from as ear­ly as AD 350, and some even old­er. The manuscript
    evi­dence to sup­port the NIV makes this trans­la­tion con­sid­er­ably more
    accu­rate than the KJV. The rea­son that the NIV does not include Matthew
    18:11 is that all the ear­li­est man­u­scripts do not include this phrase.
    Appar­ent­ly, some sort of copy­ist insert­ed this phrase in a misguided
    attempt to fix” Matthew by mak­ing it agree with Luke. The cre­ators of the
    NIV did not take away from the word. It was an ear­ly copi­er of the New
    Tes­ta­ment in Greek who added to the word. You should trust your NIV and
    dis­trust your KJV in gen­er­al, although there are occa­sion­al excep­tions to
    this rule.
    John Oakes, PhD

  3. tariq Avatar
    tariq

    very nice arti­cle. heres the best part of the pdf file :

    A lay­man in New Zealand, Evan Sad­dler, con­cerned about the for­ma­tion of mod­ern Bible ver­sions which he believed to have been pre­pared from cor­rupt­ed man­u­scripts, was chal­lenged by a pas­tor con­cern­ing his com­pe­tence to make such a judg­ment. How many lan­guages do you know?” asked the pas­tor. Mr. Sad­dler, a man of good humor, prompt­ly replied, Two ! — New Zealand and Australian.”
    Unfazed by this humor­ous rejoin­der, the pas­tor pressed his point. How can you make your­self an expert on Bible trans­la­tion if you do not know Greek or Hebrew?” Mr. Sad­dler replied by ask­ing a ques­tion him­self. Do you under­stand Greek?” When assured that the pas­tor did, Mr. Sad­dler request­ed an analy­sis of the Greek word­ing upon which the New Inter­na­tion­al Ver­sion trans­la­tion of Matthew 18:11 was based. The pas­tor dili­gent­ly set about his assigned task, but soon dis­cov­ered that it was not eas­i­ly ful­filled. Look­ing up from his Bible in con­fu­sion and amaze­ment, the min­is­ter explod­ed, But there is no Matthew 18:11!” His obser­va­tion was cor­rect. The tenth verse is present, and the twelfth, but the eleventh is entire­ly omit­ted. Qui­et­ly, Mr. Sad­dler replied, Now what use is your knowl­edge of Greek when the text is missing?”
    (“Mod­ern Bible Trans­la­tions Unmasked” Dr. Rus­sell R. Stan­dish Evangelist/​Revivalist, Dr. Col­in Stan­dish Pres­i­dent, Hart­land Col­lege, Chap­ter 7 http://​www​.sun​day​law​.net/​b​o​o​k​s​/​o​t​h​e​r​/​s​t​a​n​d​i​s​h​/​b​i​b​l​e​t​r​a​n​s​/​m​b​t​u​07​.​htm)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *