Is the Bible corrupt

BGfromGB

Junior Member
Hi there.
Bluegazer sent me a long and informative post under the title "Israel the biggest...."
That post is now closed. I would dearly like to make contact with you. So if you see this post say Hi. Thanks
 

BGfromGB

Junior Member
Rejection of the Scriptures.

Hi there bluegazer.
I have read your last post and have to say that I'm somewhat surprised in your rejection of the ENTIRE scriptures. Seemingly it is based on your explanation of a verse that is either in or not in the scriptures. And also your mention of an eminent christian scholar. There are hundreds of eminent christian scholars out there. (I'm presently viewing videos authored by Dr. Dwight A Pryor. Very interesting).

I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.

But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.

Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.

For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.

For instance, The question of the crucufixion as related in the scriptures. Just how this has been corrupted? Well, not even the Qur'an can explain.

In fact, in my view and from what I'm presently studying in this book, it is not even clear about the cricifixion, especially when taken in the context it was written. It neither confirms nor denies the incident.

But then I look at the Qur'an. I am told that it is literally the actual wordof God.

Well, just by reading the opening sura (first sura), I ask myself (by examining it grammatically), I ask whether this the literal word of GOD? Or is this some sort of prologue written by some body else?

And then I ask myself, does this actually form part of the Koran. If it is not the word of God, should it be in the Qur'an.

But then by the same token, I ask myself. Should I dismiss this as fabrication?
And not bother to read the rest of the book.

I say to myself no. Why? Because to dismiss this opening chapter is to deny myself the opportunity of learning more about Islam. And although I'm still very uncomfortable about this sura, there are other fundamental issues in the Koran that are possibly far more important. That is why I study the Qur'an.

I have to be off to work now. Hope to hear from you soon, my friend.
 

virtualeye

Tamed Brother
Hello BGFromGB,

All the answers about the bible's curruption are given in the following vidoes of open debates:


Is Bible True Word of God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4058605158253427977

Is Jesus God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961180591411776337

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Mentioned by Name in the Bible.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=muhammad+bible+deedat+company


After these videos, there is no need to waste time in redundantly re-writing the things which have already been explained in the videos.


If you have some additional question which has not been answered in videos, that you can ask.

Thanks,
Bye.
 

virtualeye

Tamed Brother
Oh no not Ahmed Deedat! :D His debates run too long. Yeah, like three hours! :SMILY149:


A person who can make us write lengthy answers for hours, why cant he spend 3 hours alone instead of asking the same questions that have been answered in the video?

A person asks question then it is even better that I give answer in visual form and not just text. Fair?


Wassalaam,
VE
 

Proud2BeHumble

Seek Truth, Be Happy
Peace

This Surah is named AL-FATIHAH because of its subject-matter. Fatihah is that which opens a subject or a book or any other thing. In other words, Al-Fatihah is a sort of preface.This is surat Al-fatiha, the greatest surah in the Qur'an. Allah chose it to be repeated seventeen time per day in the prayer and about double this if a person prayed the sunnan. The prayer will not be expectable without it according to the hadith reported by Imams Bukhari and Muslim what the prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.) said: "There is no prayer for whom do not read the Fatiha"

This Surah is in fact a prayer which Allah has taught to all those who want to make a study of His book. It has been placed at the very beginning of the book to teach this lesson to the reader: if you sincerely want to benefit from the Quran, you should offer this prayer to the Lord of the Universe.

This preface is meant to create a strong desire in the heart of the reader to seek guidance from the Lord of the Universe, Who alone can grant it. Thus AL-FATIHAH indirectly teaches that the best thing for a man is to pray for guidance to the straight path, to study the Quran with the mental attitude of a seeker- after-truth and to recognize the fact that the Lord of the Universe is the source of all knowledge. He should, therefore, begin the study of the Quran with a prayer to him for guidance.

From this theme, it becomes clear that the real relation between AL-FATIHAH and the Quran is not that of an introduction to a book but that of a prayer and its answer. AL-FATIHAH is the prayer from the servant and the Quran is the answer from the Master to his prayer. The servant prays to Allah to show him guidance and the Master places the whole of the Quran before him in answer to his prayer, as if to say, "This is the Guidance you begged from Me."


Now you may ask Why does Allah require us to praise Him? What benefit does He get?

Answer is, It is we human beings who require Allah and we praise Him for our own benefit

1. AllahuAkbar doesn’t make Allah Great
Allah does not require our praises for His benefit. When we say AllahuAkbar, Allah is the Greatest, He does not become greater. He is already the Greatest irrespective of whether we say Allahu Akbar a million times or don’t say it at all. It will make no difference in his greatness. He will yet remain the Greatest.

2. We Praise Allah for our benefit
Allah says in the Quran in chapter 35 verse 15 (35:15) O ye men! It is Ye that have need Of Allah: but Allah is The One Free of all wants, Worthy of all praise. Allah is free of all wants. He does not require us to praise Him. It is we human beings who require Allah and we praise Him for our own benefit.

3. We praise Allah to convince ourselves He is worthy to be followed
We normally follow the advice of a person who is great, famous and important. A person who is intelligent and wise. We will not follow the advice of a stranger who is unknown or a person who is not intelligent nor wise. That is the reason we praise Allah that He is the Greatest, The Most Wise, The All Knowing etc, to first convince ourselves that He is worthy to be followed then we ask Him to guide us and help us.

4.In Surah Fatiha first we praise then seek help
That is the reason in Surah Fatiha the opening Chapter of the Holy Quran, which is always recited in every rakaat of the Salaah, in the first 4 or 5 verses we initially praise Him.

In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful,
Praise be to Allah The Cherisher and Sustainer of the Worlds:
Most Gracious, Most Merciful;
Master of the Day of Judgement.
Thee do we worship, And Thine aid we seek.


(Then later we ask Him for help for our own benefit.)

Show us the straight way, The way of those on whom Thou hast bestowed Thy Grace, Those whose (portion) Is not wrath, and who go not astray.

Thus we first praise Allah in Surah Fatiha and agree that He is Most Gracious, Most Merciful, The Cherisher, The Sustainer, The Master etc, and then we ask Him for guidance and help.

5. Prefer treatment and advice from the best doctor
If you are sick and have a heart problem and the best available heart specialist gives you advice naturally you will follow his advice but if a stranger who has no knowledge of medicine or a quack gives you advice you will not follow it.

6.If the entire ocean were ink it would yet be insufficient to write the praises of Allah
Thus we praise Allah for our own benefit but however much we praise Him it is insufficient because Allah says in the Glorious Quran in Surah Kahf chapter 18 verse 109 (18:109)
Say: “If the ocean were Ink (wherewith to write out) The words of my Lord.
Sooner would the ocean be Exhausted than would the words Of my Lord, even if we Added another ocean Like it, for its aid.”

7. If the tree is a pen and the ocean ink, it would yet be insufficient to write the praises of Allah (31:27)

A similar message is repeated in Surah Luqman chapter 31 verse 27 (31:27)

And if all the trees
On earth were pens
And the Ocean (were ink),
With seven Oceans behind it
To add to its (supply),
Yet would not the words
Of Allah be exhausted
(In the writing): for Allah
Is Exalted in power,
Full of Wisdom
.

8.We praise Allah to follow His commandments
Thus Allah does not require us to praise Him for His benefit but He requires us to praise Him for our benefit in order that we agree He is supreme and Ultimate and follow His advice and commandments so that we stay on the siratal mustaqeem.

GOD CAN BECOME MAN?

[yt]n0Vxmso5BuY[/yt]
 

BGfromGB

Junior Member
Videos on corruption etc.

Hello BGFromGB,

All the answers about the bible's curruption are given in the following vidoes of open debates:


Is Bible True Word of God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4058605158253427977

Is Jesus God? (Debate between a Muslim and a Christian Scholar)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=961180591411776337

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) Mentioned by Name in the Bible.
http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=muhammad+bible+deedat+company


After these videos, there is no need to waste time in redundantly re-writing the things which have already been explained in the videos.


If you have some additional question which has not been answered in videos, that you can ask.

Thanks,
Bye.
I have seen those videos, sir. Although a very good speaker, I'm afraid Deedat does not impress me. Believe me, I'm trying my best not to be biased, but if I am then so is Deedat. I stand corrected but he is no scholar of the scriptures. If he is then I wuold dearly love to know what his theological qualifications are. But the message he imparts clearly leads me to believe that he HAS no qualifications.

However, some posts that I have read on this site, such as oneofamillion, yourself, bluegazer, virtualeye, the moderator and others have said things that have "grabbed" my attention. I have found merit in what they have all said - more so than Deedat I'm afraid. His agenda is quite clear. Instead of imparting the message of Allah, and what the Quran teaches, he does quite the opposite. I'm afraid I'm not privy to that sort of "non-debate". That is why I'm not impressed. What I was expecting to hear was the message of the love of God and his Qur'anic teachings. That is what I want to learn.

One thing I will never do is to degrade a book (the Qur'an) purely in order to win points. Nor will I ever degrade a book that has been written (the Bible) even to degrade itself!! (that's the message I get from Deedat). There are billions of people out there who follow the scriptures. Billions of people cannot be fools and Deedat should know that.

Respectfully sir, The Qur'an is a book for those people who honestly follow the teachings of Allah. I will NOT disrespect those followers, as I do not to people of other faiths. I'm here to find out about the TRUE Islam, the faith, the GOD, where it comes from and where it leads us to.Not what people say about and criticise other faiths. Islam must speak for itself. It must "sell" itself. And when it does, then people will follow.

That is what i like about this site, I haven't seen any posts degrading the scriptures, Not yet. And I hope not. Maybe the reason for this is that debates are not permitted on this site. Debates can become ugly and degrading. You assertively put forward your feelings about Islam and that's fine.

Finally, If Islam is a religion above all religions, then show it. Sell it. Let God be the judge of other religions.
 

virtualeye

Tamed Brother
I have seen those videos, sir. Although a very good speaker, I'm afraid Deedat does not impress me. Believe me, I'm trying my best not to be biased, but if I am then so is Deedat. I stand corrected but he is no scholar of the scriptures. If he is then I wuold dearly love to know what his theological qualifications are. But the message he imparts clearly leads me to believe that he HAS no qualifications.

However, some posts that I have read on this site, such as oneofamillion, yourself, bluegazer, virtualeye, the moderator and others have said things that have "grabbed" my attention. I have found merit in what they have all said - more so than Deedat I'm afraid. His agenda is quite clear. Instead of imparting the message of Allah, and what the Quran teaches, he does quite the opposite. I'm afraid I'm not privy to that sort of "non-debate". That is why I'm not impressed. What I was expecting to hear was the message of the love of God and his Qur'anic teachings. That is what I want to learn.

One thing I will never do is to degrade a book (the Qur'an) purely in order to win points. Nor will I ever degrade a book that has been written (the Bible) even to degrade itself!! (that's the message I get from Deedat). There are billions of people out there who follow the scriptures. Billions of people cannot be fools and Deedat should know that.

Respectfully sir, The Qur'an is a book for those people who honestly follow the teachings of Allah. I will NOT disrespect those followers, as I do not to people of other faiths. I'm here to find out about the TRUE Islam, the faith, the GOD, where it comes from and where it leads us to.Not what people say about and criticise other faiths. Islam must speak for itself. It must "sell" itself. And when it does, then people will follow.

That is what i like about this site, I haven't seen any posts degrading the scriptures, Not yet. And I hope not. Maybe the reason for this is that debates are not permitted on this site. Debates can become ugly and degrading. You assertively put forward your feelings about Islam and that's fine.

Finally, If Islam is a religion above all religions, then show it. Sell it. Let God be the judge of other religions.


Hello,

Just a few more interesting videos for you.

I dont remember the name of a pers, but I remember he failed to clear the exam when he gave the exam of psychology and he was dropped. But then he wrote the books on psychology and the students of psychology read his books.

The owner of Microsoft, Bill Gates was dropout from Harvard.

Einstien was considered 'dumb' and was a bad student in elementary and high schools.


Why should a persn be reject that he does not have qualifications?
There are some people who are beyond qualifications but they infact themselves become the scale to measure qualifications.

Did Jesus (PBUH) get qualifications from some university of metaphysics.
Did Muhammad (PBUH) get qualifications from institutes? I wish I would trash all my degrees to dustbin once I come to know that I am considered qualified by my Prophet (SAW0.


FYI:

Watch all videos of this channel:

http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=neocarvi


Secondly, you should try to comprehend what is that thing which other people get so inspired that they convert to Islam in the number of thousands and yet you dont understand. There must be something which you could not grasp,right?


May Allah show you the right path.

VE.
 
I

There are billions of people out there who follow the scriptures. Billions of people cannot be fools and Deedat should know that.

.


brother if the billons of people come speak against the truth does it mean that they are right?
not or?

the numbers of people is never can be judge that are they on the right way or on the false!.
you should judge the logic of belives not how many percent people belive this.
the time of nazi germany they won the election with more then 50 % vote.does it means that hitler was good?
not or?
and billions of people?
you may be feel that their are millions people who dont practise islam.you know why?because they never read quran.
and you can feel their are billions of christians there.do you know why?
because they also never read bible only once.
if the muslims had read quran and understand it they will never follow their own life and if the christians will read bible and understand it, they will more call them self as christian.

i hope you understand what i mean.

and brother i think we should also try to show you islam,but if you refused it then you have to also show which things make sence for you.
they may be we can help you more to show some logics but not press you also to accept this logic.
because we are not able to control your brains, its only hands of allah.
and to know about islam?
there are a lot of threads in forum.
search those articles and read it ,, hope its will be helpful for you.
take care
 
hello bg,

to answer your question: yes, the bible is corrupt.

Corrupted by men.

Billions of people follow the Bible? Please dont make a fool out of yourself.

If most of these christians would study the bible and its origin, then they would convert to islam.

Do you think God likes imperialism and slavery or do you think God likes helping and charity? Well the bible supports imperialism and slavery.

The whole cruzifixion thing was installed by St. Paul. The Vatican even admitted it at some point.

Christianity is a men made religion. Might aswell join scientology since they are more honest about themselves.
 
a couple of more questions to bg.
If your a TRUE Christian answer them in a true christian way.

Do You really think BILLIONS of people are truly following the Bible ?

Why was Galileo Galilei persecuted by the church/Vatican ?

Are TRUE Christians allowed to have an proper education and to gain wisdom ?

Is planet earth the center of the universe ?
 
a couple of more questions to bg.
If your a TRUE Christian answer them in a true christian way.

Do You really think BILLIONS of people are truly following the Bible ?

Why was Galileo Galilei persecuted by the church/Vatican ?

Are TRUE Christians allowed to have an proper education and to gain wisdom ?

Is planet earth the center of the universe ?


brother which things you ask may be brother BG have answers but he is not here to debate with us or to answer such questions.

as his wish try to show him the light of islam and if then he quote something which press you to debae with him then do it.
but i think you will get chance to debate with him.
if he quotes simething which say : i think bible is word of god and quran not,then you can start to talk with him on that topics.
 

justoneofmillion

Junior Member
what up Bg, which bible are you talking about the protestants catholics jehovas....etc there are 27 books in the new testament and 24000 manuscripts and every one of them differ from the other so which one isn`t corrupt?that should be the question! answer none . which book can unite mankind socialy and spiritualy through their behaviour to one another and the relation to their creator which is the only single book that has no other version ! answer "the reminder " it has come to clarify all the contradictions so that jews and christians may put down all their differences and unite toghether with the muslims in the spirit of the teachings of all the prophets" Islam" the fundamentale message and concept didn`t change. a medecin for what moves the hearts and causes doubt a straight way of guidance and mercy from the lord has come so that none will say i didn`t know.
however there are enough threads that talk about this subject so all you need to do is browse and judge for yourself.
regards wish you the best


sindbad
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
Hello BGfromGB,


I apologise for my late response. I just happened to notice this thread right now.


I'd be very grateful if you could spare me some time to prepare a reply to your posts.


Thanks, and I wish you all the best.

Regards,

Bluegazer
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
Hello BGfromGB,



To begin with, I'd like to apologise for my late reply.

Before I begin, I'd like people reading this post to know what I posted earlier on this subject, since you wrote the following in post #1 on this thread:

Bluegazer sent me a long and informative post under the title "Israel the biggest...."
That post is now closed.


The post referred to above is found by clicking on the following link:

http://www.turntoislam.com/forum/showpost.php?p=62926&postcount=94


To make it easier to read this post, I have divided it into the following sections:

1- The Qur'an states very clearly that the previous Scriptures were corrupted

2- Do Muslims entirely reject all the previous scriptures?

3- The definition of corruption and other matters regarding the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11]

4- The Qur'anic verses concerning the supposed crucifixion of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him]

5- The matter of the Opening Chapter of the Qur'an [Surat al Faatiha]

6- Some of the words of Pope Pius XII and the Preface of certain versions of the Bible

7- The words of a Roman Catholic priest who's also a Biblical scholar

8- Conclusion


I will post each section in a separate post on this thread.
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
1- The Qur'an states very clearly that the previous Scriptures were corrupted



I will mention these verses again. Here, I do not mean to offend you BGfromGB, but I wrote this section to remind my brothers and sisters in Islam that we Muslims should be satisfied with what is stated in the Qur'an and in the authentic sayings of Prophet Muhammad [peace be upon him].

So, even if there were no Christian scholars who stated that the Bible was corrupted -and that is not the case-, then that will not affect what we Muslims believe concerning the corruption of the previous scriptures.

And I chose to mention this again because I do not want my brothers and sisters in Islam to get the impression that we Muslims have to justify our stand regarding the Bible because Christians scholars finally admitted that verses of the Bible have suffered corruption.


The following is a translation of the meanings of the verses of Qur'an which deal with this subject:

And indeed, there is among them a party who alter the Scripture with their tongues so you may think it is from the Scripture, but it is not from the Scripture. And they say, "This is from Allah ," but it is not from Allah . And they speak untruth about Allah while they know.

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 3:78]


So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah ," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 2:79]


The above two verses I have mentioned already in my post mentioned above. I have found another verse that states the same meaning:

Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort it [i.e., the Torah] after they had understood it while they were knowing?

[Translation of the meanings of the Qur'an 2:75]


For the benefit of non Muslims, I have provided other evidence from Christian sources that prove the corruption of certain verses of the Bible. These will be dealt with below.
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
2- Do Muslims entirely reject all the previous scriptures?



In post #2 on this thread, you wrote the following:

I have read your last post and have to say that I'm somewhat surprised in your rejection of the ENTIRE scriptures.


If there are verses in the Bible that are in accordance with verses in the Qur'an or authentic sayings of the Prophet [peace be upon him] then we accept these verses. If there are verses in the Bible that contradict Qur'anic verses or authentic sayings of the Prophet [peace be upon him] then we reject them and we believe they were corrupted. We are neutral regarding Biblical verses that are neither in accordance nor contradict Qur'anic verses or authentic sayings of the Prophet [peace be upon him]; these Biblical verses may be true, or they may be corrupted.


There's an excellent article written by Abdur Raheem Green [who's an English Muslim who used to be a Roman Catholic] on this matter. It's called Quran as Furqan over the Bible. You can read it by clicking on the following link:

http://www.islamsgreen.org/islams_green/2006/03/quran_as_furqan.html


It's also important to note that we Muslims should not resort to the Bible for knowing the commandments of God Almighty. As I mentioned above, the parts of the Bible that we do accept are the ones that are in accordance with the Qur'an and/or the authentic sayings of the Prophet [peace be upon him], which means that these Biblical commandments are also commandments found in the Qur'an and/or the authentic Sunnah [The Arabic pronunciation of the sayings or traditions of the Prophet -peace be upon him-].


So, you see now that we Muslims do not entirely reject the Bible. We just reject the parts that contradict the Qur'an or the authentic Sunnah. We accept Biblical verses that are in agreement with the Qur'an and/or the authentic Sunnah and are neutral regarding Biblical verses that neither contradict nor agree with the Qur'an and/or the authentic Sunnah.
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
3- The definition of corruption and other matters regarding the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11]



You wrote the following in post #2 on this thread:

I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.

But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.

Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.

For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.


There are several points worth mentioning in response to the words you wrote:

a) I don't understand why you're at a loss by my assertion that the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] is a prime example of the corruption of Biblical verses.

It's really simple. The earliest Greek manuscripts do not contain John 7:53-8:11, and that means that the "divinely" inspired author who wrote the Gospel of John did not write down these specific verses. And this means that this story is an interpolation.


The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines interpolation as follows [I'll colour the definition I mean in red]:

Main Entry: in·ter·po·late
Pronunciation: in-'t&r-p&-"lAt
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -lat·ed; -lat·ing
Etymology: Latin interpolatus, past participle of interpolare to refurbish, alter, interpolate, from inter- + -polare (from polire to polish)
transitive verb
1 a : to alter or corrupt (as a text) by inserting new or foreign matter b : to insert (words) into a text or into a conversation
2 : to insert between other things or parts : INTERCALATE
3 : to estimate values of (data or a function) between two known values
intransitive verb : to make insertions (as of estimated values)
synonym see INTRODUCE
- in·ter·po·la·tion /-"t&r-p&-'lA-sh&n/ noun
- in·ter·po·la·tive /-'t&r-p&-"lA-tiv/ adjective
- in·ter·po·la·tor /-"lA-t&r/ noun

Source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/interpolation


b) This is going to be a long point, so please bear with me.

I'm going to list to you a number of English Bible versions, along with the year they were first published, a link to the wikipedia website that dealt with that version and a link to a website that hosts this version online [taken from a link found under the heading "External Links" in the wikipedia site of that version]. Sometimes, certain English Versions do not have a link -in the wikipedia website- to a website that hosts it online. In this last case, I'll just mention the name of that version, the year of its first publication and a link to the wikipedia website that deals with it:


Wyclif's Bible [from 1380 to 1390]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyclif's_Bible

Text of Wyclif's Bible:
http://www.sbible.boom.ru/wyc/wycle.htm
http://wesley.nnu.edu/biblical_studies/wycliffe/

**********************************************


Tyndale Bible [New Testament in 1526 and the Pentateuch -first five books of the Old Testament- 1530]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyndale_Bible

Text of the Tyndale Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Matthew+1&section=2&translation=tyn&oq=Matthew&new=1

***********************************************


Coverdale Bible [1535]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverdale_Bible

Text of the Coverdale Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=Genesis+1&translation=mcb

***********************************************


Matthew's Bible [1537]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Bible

***********************************************


The Great Bible [1539]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Bible

***********************************************


Taverner's Bible [1539]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taverner's_Bible

***********************************************


The Geneva Bible [New Testament in 1557 and the full Bible in 1560]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Bible

Text of the Geneva Bible:
http://www.thedcl.org/bible/gb/index.html
http://www.reformedreader.org/gbn/en.htm

***********************************************


The Bishops' Bible [1568]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishops'_Bible

Text of the Bishops' Bible:
http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=genesis+1&section=0&translation=bis&oq=genesis&new=1/The

***********************************************


Douay-Rheims Bible [New Testament in 1582 and the Old Textament in 1609-1610]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible

Text of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
http://www.drbo.org/

***********************************************


The Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible [1749-1752]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douay-Rheims_Bible#Challoner_Revision

Text of the Challoner Revision of the Douay-Rheims Bible:
http://www.ccel.org/c/challoner/douayrheims/dr.html

************************************************


The Authorized Version -better known as the King James Version- [1611]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version_of_the_Bible

Text of the Authorized Version:
http://dewey.library.upenn.edu/sceti/printedbooksNew/index.cfm?textID=kjbible&PagePosition=1
http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/index.php?action=getVersionInfo&vid=9&lang=2
http://www.ebible.org/bible/kjv/

*************************************************


Thomson's Translation [1808]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomson's_Translation

************************************************


The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible [after 1844]
Note: Joseph Smith was the founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints [commonly known as the Mormons]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Smith_Translation_of_the_Bible

Text of The Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible [ first according to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and then according to the Community of Christ -formerly known as the Reorganized Church of Latter Day Saints-:
http://scriptures.lds.org/gs/j/38
http://www.centerplace.org/hs/iv/default.htm

*********************************************


Webster's Revision [1833]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Webster's_Revision

Text of Webster's Revision:
http://bible.christiansunite.com/webindex.shtml
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/webster_bible/

*********************************************


Young's Literal Translation [1862]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young's_Literal_Translation

Text of the Third Edition [Revised Edition] -1898- of Young's Literal Translation:
http://www.ccel.org/bible/ylt/ylt.htm
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/youngs_literal_translation/
http://www.believersresource.com/content.aspx?id=9

*********************************************


Julia E. Smith Parker Translation [1876]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_E._Smith_Parker_Translation

*********************************************


Now, I admit that there are versions which are not hosted on the Internet [using a link found on the wikipedia website of these particular versions]. These versions are as follows:

Matthew's Bible [1537]
The Great Bible [1539]
Taverner's Bible [1539]
Thomson's Translation [1808]
Julia E. Smith Parker Translation [1876]


There's a private collection in the United States that has copies of the original Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, Taverner's Bible. It's called the Dr. Gene Scott Bible Collection, and the following are the websites that give a description of Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible and Taverner's Bible respectively:

http://www.drgenescott.com/stn17.htm
http://www.drgenescott.com/stn18.htm
http://www.drgenescott.com/stn44.htm


This collection is located in the Los Angeles University Cathedral in Los Angeles, California [U.S.A.]. Perhaps you could write to the people in charge of that collection and ask them if there are any footnotes on the above versions to John 7:53-8:11.


I have also found that St. John's College in the University of Cambridge in England has a copies of Matthew's Bible [Classmark: T.3.17], the Great Bible [Classmark: Bb.8.30] and Taverner's Bible [Classmark for first copy: T.4.23. Classmark for second copy T.4.24] You could ask the people in charge in St. John's Library if these copies had any notes about the authenticity of John 7:53-8:11.

The following is the website of the St. John's College Library:

http://www.joh.cam.ac.uk/library/


And then I finally came to the first record -according to my knowledge, and I'd appreciate it if you could correct me if I'm wrong- of any doubt concerning the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11]. It was in the year 1881 when the New Testament of the English Revised Version [also known as the Revised Version] was first published. Please click on the following wikipedia website to read more about this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revised_Version


On that website, you'll find a link under the heading "External Links" to a "Digital Facsimile from The DCL". When you click it, you'll be taken to the following website:

http://www.thedcl.org/bible/erv/index.html


Then click on "John", which will enable you to download a PDF file of 1.75 MB containing the pages of the Gospel of John. There, you'll see that the text of John 7:53-8:11 -found on pages 75 and 76 of the original -corresponding to pages 8 and 9 of the PDF file- was put between brackets [ ], and you'll find the following footnote no. 6 on the margin:

6 Most of the ancient authorities omit John vii. 53 - viii. 11. Those which contain it vary much from each other.

Source: http://www.thedcl.org/bible/erv/erv-john.pdf


Then came the Darby Bible [1890]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darby_Bible

Text of the Darby Bible:
http://www.biblesway.com/versions/darby_bible/
http://www.gospelhall.org/bible/bible.php?passage=Gen+1&ver1=dby


And after that came the Ferrar Fenton Bible [complete volume published in 1903].
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrar_Fenton_Bible

Text of the Ferrar Fenton Bible:
http://ferrarfenton.com/


When you click on "John" in the above website, you'll download a PDF file of the Gospel of John. In this version, the verses of John 7:53 - 8:11 were completely dropped from the text, and the following note was written -on page 1027 of the original Bible and on page 17 of the PDF file- as footnote no. 2:

2 The narrative of the sinful woman (chap. vii. 53 to chap. viii. 11) is rejected by the most competent authorities as a spurious interpolation. The question will be found fully discussed in the introduction to the larger edition of Westcott's and Hort's Greek New Testament (page 299, section 388); and it is given as their opinion that this particular passage "has no right to a place in the Text of the Four Gospels." The language of the MSS. containing the passage varies considerably; but the generally accepted reading I have added at the end of this Gospel, where it is placed as an appendix for reference, but not in any way as a part of the Sacred Text.

Source: http://www.ferrarfenton.com/pdf/john.pdf


Now, I must be honest and repeat what I have stated above that I have not been able to read the texts of Matthew's Bible, the Great Bible, Taverner's Bible, Thomson's Translation and the Julia E. Smith Parker translation. But I'm making an educated guess that the first three Bibles [printed in the 1500s] do not contain any footnote about the dubious authenticity of John 7:53-8:11, and the other two Bibles were printed in the 1800s.

With all the other versions of the Bible, there was no mention whatsoever of even the possibility that John 7:53 - 8:11 is an interpolation. And the possible earliest mention of any warning about the Story of the Adulteress [according to what I posted above] is found in the English Revised Version of 1885.


Do you know what this means?


It means that the common English speakers of Christendom actually and totally believed the Story of the Adulteress was a true story, that it did happen, that they should learn lessons from it and that Jesus Christ said phrases like "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." [John 8:7] and "Neither do I condemn you." [John 8:11]


For around 500 years it was taken to be a fact among the English speaking Christians that this story occurred. And that is the clearest example of falsification and corruption. It's putting words into the mouth of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] which he had not uttered. It is lying and falsifying the words of one of God Almighty's greatest Messengers and Prophets, and that is a very serious and major sin.


And that's just from the viewpoint of English speaking Christians. If we look even further back in time, you'll find that this story is found in the Latin Vulgate translation of the Bible [which was done by Jerome around the year 425]


Please read the following in a certain website that hosts the Jerome Latin Vulgate:

What's Inside
The complete Latin Vulgate as written by St. Jeromes
The Douay-Rheims English translation in parallel w/ original commentary
The entire King James Version in parallel for an alternative semantic translation

Source: http://www.latinvulgate.com/


And you'll find the following Latin text of John 7:53-8:11:

et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare

Source of John 7:53: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=4&c=7
Source of John 8:11: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=1&b=4&c=8


You can also find this story found in another website that hosts the Latin Vulgate version:


et reversi sunt unusquisque in domum suam Iesus autem perrexit in montem Oliveti et diluculo iterum venit in templum et omnis populus venit ad eum et sedens docebat eos adducunt autem scribae et Pharisaei mulierem in adulterio deprehensam et statuerunt eam in medio et dixerunt ei magister haec mulier modo deprehensa est in adulterio in lege autem Moses mandavit nobis huiusmodi lapidare tu ergo quid dicis haec autem dicebant temptantes eum ut possent accusare eum Iesus autem inclinans se deorsum digito scribebat in terra cum autem perseverarent interrogantes eum erexit se et dixit eis qui sine peccato est vestrum primus in illam lapidem mittat et iterum se inclinans scribebat in terra audientes autem unus post unum exiebant incipientes a senioribus et remansit solus et mulier in medio stans erigens autem se Iesus dixit ei mulier ubi sunt nemo te condemnavit quae dixit nemo Domine dixit autem Iesus nec ego te condemnabo vade et amplius iam noli peccare

Source: John 7:53: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=e...5208&new=1&nb=joh&npc=%A0%3C%3C%A0&ng=8&ncc=8
Source: John 8:1-11: http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=e...oq=joh%207&new=1&nb=joh&ngt=Go+To:&ng=8&ncc=7


Again, there's no mention in the Latin Vulgate of any doubt about the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress.


Which means that all Christians from around the year 425 had no idea whatsoever about the fabrication of John 7:53-8:11.


All this information must surely make you reconsider your statement mentioned above, which I will post again:

I am at a loss see how this verse can be construed as being corrupt. Yes it is controversial and I'm not for one minute doubting that.

But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see.
There is totally honesty about what is or should be there.

Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.

For my part , I'm not really bothered. I look at issues far, far more important than that insignificant verse you talk of.


It's now very clear that your assertion that "nothing is hidden", "is open there for all and sundry to see" and that "There is total honesty about what is or should be there" is just plain wrong. There's more -but not total- honesty nowadays, I'll give you that, but for the greater part of the history of the Bible that honesty was totally lacking.


And I disagree with you about you not being bothered about this. In my opinion, you should be bothered. If a whole story could be fabricated and inserted into the Bible and then passed on to the masses of the believers as authentic Words of God Almighty, what else in the Bible is really authentic, and how can you trust it?


c) You described the Story of the Adulteress as an "insignificant verse". I disagree with you for two reasons:

Firstly, I have found in my limited debates with Christians that one of the most beloved sayings that Christians [and not Muslims] believe that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] uttered are the words "Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her." [John 8:7] and "Neither do I condemn you." [John 8:11]. So, being one of the most beloved (supposed) sayings means that it has an important impact on Christians' lives. This important impact should be the reserve of the true Word of God Almighty, not some fabricated words attributed falsely to Holy Scriptures.


Secondly, you yourself have quoted the meaning of these supposed sayings of Jesus Christ several times in the thread "ISRAEL is the biggest terrorist organization in the world". To remind you, you wrote the following:

As Yeshua said " Let him who is without sin, cast the 1st stone"

[in post #41]


Where did you source that from. Its not in the scriptures.Nor is it in the Koran. When Yeshua said Let him (meaning everybody noy just the Jews) who is without sin (again not only the Jews), cast the first stone. This applies to all of us

[in post #47]


With due respect to you, its you that is going round and round in circles and not willing to find the point.
Surely you can understand what YESHUA is alluding to. No one is perfect and we are not in a position to judge each other - we're all sinful. YESHUA ain't. He is the only person in a position to throw stones. Not us.

[in post #54]


So, you quoting the supposed saying of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] three times means that it had a profound effect on you, to the extent that you do not want certain people to point out the mistakes of other people because -as you put it- "we are not in a position to judge each other - we're all sinful. YESHUA ain't. He is the only person in a position to throw stones. Not us."


d) I have to quote you again when you wrote, "But that is the beauty of it. Why? Although controversal and open to interpretation, nothing is hidden. It is open there for all and sundry to see. There is totally honesty about what is or should be there. Honesty is the antethesis of corruption. It is therefore up to you come to a conclusion.", because there's an important point you missed.


Other than the fact that the first mention of any doubt about the authenticity of the Story of the Adulteress [John 7:53-8:11] was in 1881 by the English Revised Version, there were other very real obstacles for the Bible being "open for all and sundry to see".


Firstly, you have to keep in mind that literacy in England when the first English Bible appeared [in the period between 1380 and 1390] was very low, and it would be erroneous to believe that the common Englishman of that period was able to read and write [as the common Englishman is now able to do]. In a wikipedia article, you find the following paragraph under the heading "Literacy throughout history":

The history of literacy goes back several thousand years, but before the industrial revolution finally made cheap paper and cheap books available to all classes in industrialized countries in the mid-nineteenth century, only a small percentage of the population in these countries were literate. Up until that point, materials associated with literacy were prohibitively expensive for people other than wealthy individuals and institutions. For example, in England in 1841, 33% of men and 44% of women signed marriage certificates with their mark as they were unable to write. Only in 1870 was government-financed public education made available in England.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy


This meant that the only classes who were literate were the nobility and the clergy, and these were a small minority.


And remember that I was talking about the ability to read the English translations of the Bible. Prior to the period of 1380-1390, the only version of the Bible available even for the clergy and the nobility was the Latin version. If only a small portion of the population had the ability to read an English translation of the Bible, then surely an even smaller portion of the population had the ability to read a Latin translation.


Another important factor mentioned in the wikipedia paragraph quoted above was the fact that one had to be wealthy to own books. And with regard to the Bible, ordinary people had no access to a copy of the Bible and had to depend on what the clergy told them about what's contained in the scriptures. That was until the reign of King Henry VIII of England, when -in 1539- the Great Bible was made available for the public to read in Churches throughout England.


Please read the following excerpt from Sir Frederic G. Kenyon's article in Dictionary of the Bible [1909]:

The first edition of the Great Bible appeared in April 1539, and an injunction was issued by Cromwell that a copy of it should be set up in every parish church. It was consequently the first (and only) English Bible formally authorized for public use; and contemporary evidence proves that it was welcomed and read with avidity. No doubt, as at an earlier day (Philippians 2:15), some read the gospel "of envy and stife, and some also of good will"; but in one way or another, for edification or for controversy, the reading of the Bible took a firm hold on the people of England, a hold which has never since been relaxed,.........

Source: http://www.bible-researcher.com/greatbible1.html


And you also have the following excerpts from an article about the Great Bible written by the people in charge of the Dr. Gene Scott Bible Collection:

The "high water mark" of Henry VIII's reign, as far as the English Bible is concerned, was his express approval of the "Great" Bible of 1539 and his declaration appointing it to be set up for public use and read in all churches.

For all this, the "Great" Bible was still the version that, however reluctantly, the King and his Bishops had set out for the instruction of the common people, and it was heavily used by shepherds, merchants and laborers alike (provided they had the gift of literacy).

Source: http://www.drgenescott.com/stn18.htm


So, in 1539 -for the first time in the history of the English speaking world- the Bible was made readily available for anyone to read, even the poor. And even then, one had to be literate in order to take full advantage of this new circumstance.


It's very clear that there were excellent conditions in place to facilitate the corruption of the Bible. Among these conditions were the facts that the only version available for hundreds of years [even for the clergy and nobility] was in Latin, that the great majority of the population could not read or write and that for a long period of time they had no access to the text of the Bible.


To finish up this particular point and to emphasize what I had mentioned above, I'd like to quote from page 153 of Alison Plowden's book The House of Tudor [published by Sutton Publishing Limited in England, ISBN 0750932406] -with certain parts coloured red by myself-. It's about certain events in the reign of King Henry VIII of England:

It was not, of course, as simple as it sounded. The King may not have meant to start a revolution when he rejected the Pope and all his works but that, in effect, was what he had done. There was a long tradition of anti-clerical feeling and smouldering religious radicalism in England and Henry's personal quarrel with Rome had provided the spark which set a quantity of tinder-dry undergrowth alight. The subsequent conflagration proved, not surprisingly, difficult to control - especially when the Great Bible, based on Tyndale's and Coverdale's translation, was made available to the general public. The average concerned and educated layman was now, for the first time, in a position to study and interpret the word of God for himself and, in the 1530s and 1540s, this was the very stuff of revolution. It led naturally to the spread of revolutionary ideas; to the realization that it was possible for an individual to hold direct communion with God, that the ordinary layman (or woman) was no longer totally dependent on the priest to act as his intermediary, and the sense of excitement and emotional release this brought to many people cannot be emphasized too strongly


And on page 154 of the same book you'll find the following:

By Christmas it was clear that the King himself was getting worried about the increasing dissension between the rival factions, and in a speech delivered to Parliament on Christmas Eve, he reproved the nation via its elected representatives for speaking slanderously of priests and for having the temerity to follow its own 'fantastical opinions and vain expositions' in high matters of religious doctrine. Henry reminded his audience that licence to read Holy Scripture in their mother tongue had been granted them only to inform their consciences and so that they might instruct their children and families. It was emphatically not a licence for every Tom, Dick and Harry 'to make Scripture a railing and a taunting stock against priests and teachers'. The King was very sorry, he went on, 'to hear and know how unreverently that most precious jewel, the word of God, is disputed, rhymed, sung and jangled in every alehouse and tavern, contrary to the true meaning and doctrine of the same'.

Unfortunately, this royal scolding had little effect on that section of the population which had discovered the heady delights of theological and, by implication, political debate........
 

Bluegazer

Junior Member
4- The Qur'anic verses concerning the supposed crucifixion of Jesus Christ [peace be upon him]​



You wrote the following is post #2 on this thread:

For instance, The question of the crucufixion as related in the scriptures. Just how this has been corrupted? Well, not even the Qur'an can explain.

In fact, in my view and from what I'm presently studying in this book, it is not even clear about the cricifixion, especially when taken in the context it was written. It neither confirms nor denies the incident.


The following is a translation of verse 157 and 158 of Chapter 4 [An-Nisaa'] of the Qur'an:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain. Rather, Allah raised him to Himself. And ever is Allah Exalted in Might and Wise.


So, the Qur'an is very clear that Jesus Christ [peace be upon him] was not crucified nor was he killed.


I think you'll benefit by reading the following religious opinion [fatwa] found on the website supervised by Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid. It's an answer to question no. 43506 [Answer to questions about the verses which speak of the life of the Messiah (peace be upon him)]:

Question:

I am very interested in this site and i am regular visitor to this site.i have great respect for u. Before go my question i would like to say that I have no about holy Quran and i believed that even single letter of the quran wasn't change. But i have some misunderstanding about this two verses. "So peace is on me the day I was born, the day that I die, and the day that I shall be raised up to life (again)"! (sura maryam 33) the day that i die,what does this mean? and also this verse And there is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him before his death; and on the Day of Judgment he will be a witness against them;- (an-nisa 159) before his death,what does this mean? but this verses "That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:- (an-nisa 157) " Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;- (an-nisa 158) right now i am studying in china.i have some friends from diffrent faith asking about holy quran and status of jesus(pbuh) in islam.i am trying my best to answer all their questions.


Answer:

Praise be to Allaah.

First of all, we would like to thank you for your keenness to ask about matters of your religion, and your efforts to understand the Book of Allaah, may He be glorified and exalted. We ask Allaah to bless us and you with beneficial knowledge.

With regard to the verse in which Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And Salaam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive!”

[Maryam 19:33],

al-Tabari said in his Tafseer: The phrase “And Salaam (peace) be upon me the day I was born, and the day I die, and the day I shall be raised alive” means: I am granted protection from Allaah against the Shaytaan and his troops on the day I was born, so that they could not do to me what they do any newborn, i.e. prick him. And on the day I die I shall be protected from the terrors of death. And on the day I am raised alive on the Day of Resurrection I shall be protected against the terror that will seize the people when they see the horrors of that Day.” [Tafseer al-Tabari, 8/340].

Al-Qurtubi said: “And Salaam (peace) be upon me” means protection that is granted to me from Allaah, may He be exalted. Al-Zajjaaj said: Salaam was mentioned before this without the definite article, and the second time it was mentioned with the definite article. The phrase “the day I was born” means, in this world. And it was said: from the suggestions of the Shaytaan. The phrase “and the day I die” means in the grave. The phrase “and the day I shall be raised alive” means, in the Hereafter, because he has three stages: alive in this world, dead in the grave, and resurrected in the Hereafter, and he is granted protection in all three.

Tafseer al-Qurtubi, 11/98.

From the comments of the mufassireen quoted above it may be known that the phrase “and the day I die” does not mean that he has died, rather it means that when he dies – which will happen after he has descended and killed the Dajjaal, as is proven in the ahaadeeth – then he will be protected from dying without belief in Allaah, may He be exalted. Similarly the words “and the day I shall be raised alive” do not mean that he was raised on the Day of Resurrection. Rather he was speaking about his situation at the time of his birth, at the time of his death and at the time of his resurrection. Undoubtedly he will die, but as is indicated by the other verses that you quoted, he did not die by being killed or crucified, rather Allaah took him up to Himself, and he will die after he descends from heaven and kills the Dajjaal.

With regard to the verse in which Allaah says:

“And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”

[al-Nisa’ 4:159]

The scholars differed as to whom the pronoun “his” in the phrase “his death” refers. There are two views:

1 – That the pronoun refers to ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him), in which case the meaning of the verse is: that there is no one among the people of the Book but he must believe in ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) before he (‘Eesa) dies, because when he descends from heaven and kills the Dajjaal, he will break the cross and kill the pigs and abolish jizyah, and he will accept nothing but Islam, and at that time the People of the Book will believe in him, before he dies (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him), and they will know that he is true and that he did not die before then. So what is mentioned in the verse is one of the signs of the Hour and one of the portents of the Day of Resurrection, which will happen after the descent of ‘Eesa; before he dies at that time, the People of the Book will believe in him. There is support for this view in the comment made by Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) after he narrated the hadeeth which speaks of the descent of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) at the end of time. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “By the One in Whose hand is my soul, soon the Son of Maryam will descend among you as a just judge. He will break the cross and kill the pigs and abolish the jizyah, and wealth will become so abundant that no one will accept it, and one prostration will be better than this world and everything in it.” Then Abu Hurayrah said: recite, if you wish: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”[al-Nisa’ 4:159]

Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 3129; Muslim, 220.

2 – That the pronoun refers to the kitaabi (Jew or Christian) himself, in which case the meaning of the verse is that there is no one among the people of the Book but he must believe in ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), and that he is true, and that he did not die. That is when he suffers the agonies of death and sees realities and proofs. At the time of death, the kitaabi will know that what he believed is false, but that faith will not benefit him at that point.

Based on both views mentioned above, there is no indication or suggestion in the verse that ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) has died. Rather the words – according to the first view – refer to a matter of the Unseen which will come to pass in the future, because he (peace be upon him) will undoubtedly die, but that will be after he has descended, as stated above. And according to the second view, the phrase “before his death” refers to the death of the kitaabi himself.

Al-Tabari, Ibn Katheer and other imams of tafseer regarded the first view as more likely to be correct. Ibn Katheer said: With regard to the words (interpretation of the meaning): “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), as only a Messenger of Allaah and a human being] before his [‘Eesa (Jesus) or a Jew’s or a Christian’s] death (at the time of the appearance of the angel of death). And on the Day of Resurrection, he [‘Eesa (Jesus)] will be a witness against them”[al-Nisa’ 4:159], Ibn Jareer said: The scholars of interpretation differed concerning the meaning of that. “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa. That means that all of them will believe in him when he comes down to fight the Dajjaal, so all religions will become one, which is the monotheistic religion of Islam, the religion of Ibraaheem (peace be upon him). ... It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa ibn Maryam (peace be upon him). … It was narrated that al-Hasan said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” means, before the death of ‘Eesa, and by Allaah, he is alive with Allaah, but when he descends they will all believe in him. … Ibn Jareer said: And others said: That means before the death of the one who believes in the Book (i.e., the Jew or Christian), because at that point (just before death) he will now truth from falsehood because everyone upon whom death comes, his soul does not come out until truth has been made distinct from falsehood with regard to his religion. ‘Ali ibn Abi Talhah said, narrating from Ibn ‘Abbaas concerning this verse: He said: No Jew will die until he believes in ‘Eesa. … Ibn ‘Abbaas said: If his head is cut off, his soul will not come out until he believes in ‘Eesa. … It was narrated that Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Jew will not die until he bears witness that ‘Eesa is the slave of Allaah and His Messenger.

Ibn Jareer said: The most likely of these opinions to be correct is the first one, which is that no one of the People of the Book will be left after the descent of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him) but he will believe in him before the death of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him). Undoubtedly what Ibn Jareer said is the correct view, because it is what is meant from the context of the verses, which state that what the Jews claim, that ‘Eesa was killed and crucified, is false, as are the claims of the ignorant Christians who believed the claims of the Jews. Allaah tells us that this is not what happened, rather it was made to appear so to them, and they killed the look-alike and did not realize that. But he (‘Eesa) was taken up to Him, and he is still alive, and will descend before the Day of Resurrection, as is indicated in the mutawaatir ahaadeeth. He will kill the false messiah (the Dajjaal) and will break the cross and kill the pigs, and abolish jizyah, i.e., he will not accept it from any of the followers of other religions, rather he will only accept Islam or the sword. This verse tells us that all the people of the Book will believe in him at that time, and not one among them will fail to believe in him. Hence he said: “And there is none of the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) but must believe in him [‘Eesa (Jesus)] before his death” i.e., before the death of ‘Eesa (peace be upon him), whom the Jews and the Christians who agreed with them claim that he was killed and crucified, but on the Day of Resurrection he will be a witness against them, i.e., because of their deeds that he witnessed before he was taken up into heaven and after he descends to the earth again. Tafseer Ibn Katheer (1/762).

It is essential to note that debate with the Christians must be done on the basis of knowledge and proof, so that you will not be a cause of people not accepting the truth because of weak arguments. The Christians do not have any sound proof at all, but they present specious arguments to distort the truth and they confuse truth with falsehood. May Allaah grant us refuge from the ways of the misguided.

And Allaah knows best.

Islam Q&A

Source: http://islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=43506&ln=eng
 
Top