Originally posted by no1marauder
Ditto.

Question:
Are you Christians?

Answer:
Gordon B. Hinckley, President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, said:

"We are Christians in a very real sense and that is coming to be more and more widely recognized. Once upon a time people everywhere said we are not Christians. They have come to recognize that we are, and that w nement."

http://www.mormon.org/question/faq/category/answer/0,9777,1601-1-55-16,00.html

Again you are taking biased information from the organizations that you are talking about. They are attempting to "mainstream" their religion by saying that they are "Christian". If they are Christian then why to they deviate from the teachings of the Bible and especially from Christ?

Mormonism teaches that the canon of the Scriptures was not closed when the Bible was completed. They have three souces in addition to the Bible, all of which they believe contains God's revelations. These books include the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and teh Pearl of Great Price. However, Mormons follow the teachings of these three books even though portions of these books contradict the Bible. (Here is a quote from the Articles of Faith No.8, Essign, January 1989, pp.25,27) "The Bible is considered usable, but suspect due to its many errors and mssing parts"

The new theology ot Mormonsim teaches polytheism rather than monotheism. They believe that the universe is inhabited by many gods who produce spirit children. Here is what Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkie spoke about the Godhead in this way, "Plurality of Gods; Three seperate pesonages; Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, comprise the Godhead. As each of these persons is a God, it is evident, from this standpoint alone, that a plurality of Gods exist. To us, speaking in the proper finite sense, these three are the only Gods we worship. But in addition there is an infinite number of holy personages, drawn from the worlds without number, who have passed on to exaltation and are thus gods." (Mormon Doctrine pp. 576-577)

So as you can see no1, they may call themselves Christian all they want. However they have redefined the Diety of God as not being One God as both the Old and New Testament insist upon. They have further said that we can also become gods ourself thus elevating man to that of God. It is not only heretical in comparison to scripture, it is also blasphemous to elevate sinful mortal man to that of God unless he is God as was Christ.

Originally posted by rwingett
Oh, like you have any evidence to back up anything you say? Give me a break.

All I am saying rwingett is that I use the Bible as my source for what I believe. You may not agree with what the Bible says, or that my interpretations are correct. However, I do try to follow only the Bible. Christianity is an offspring of the Old Testament, no? However, as Christians we fully embrace the Old Testament as the word of God and do not consider it "corrupted" as do the Muslims, JW's, and Mormons. In fact, we point to many porphesies in the Old Testament in relaiton to the coming of the Messiah which I have pointed out to you in the past.

Conversely, JW's, Mormons, and Muslims are all offsprings of the Bible as well. However, they simply say the Bible has been "corrupted" and have each written their own Bible. For me, once you write a new Bible, you have a new religion. This is all I am saying.

I have a theory as to why so many different religions embrace the Bible as being the "corrupted" inspired word of God. Every religion needs a history. You could start a new religion fresh and new but this presents a problem. Where was God up until the time of the beginning of your new religion? The Bible is an ancient enough text that fits the bill for such a problem. God has always had a hand in the affairs of man according to the Bible. The problem then becomes how does one go about deviating from the Biblical teachings that they have chosen not to embrace? The answer is to say that the Bible of today is not the original religious text. It has been "corrupted".

Originally posted by ahosyney
Although what you say about Quran is far from the truth, because there is no any similarity between Quran and the Bible between your hands even in the Major hestorical facts.

As Muslims we belive that Quran is the Word of Allah (GOD). As well we belive that the Torah of Mosses and Gospel of Jesus both are words of Allah (GOD). As the three books are fro ...[text shortened]... naged to modifiy a single word of the Quran.

Can you say something like that about the Bible?

We could argue all day as to the authenticity of the Bible. The Mormons have thier story, the JW's have their story, and the Muslims have their story as to how the Bible was "corrupted" and subsequently "corrected". What I can tell you is the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating back to the 9th century. That was, of coarse, until the Dead Sea scrolls were found that push the date back to the 2nd century BC. The books in the Bible found in the Dead Sea scrolls include Psalms, Deuteronomy, Genesis, Isaiah, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Daniel, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Job, and Samuel and guess what? Nothing was changed.

So to counter my claim what say you? What document predates the documents I have mentioned that would prove that scripture has been tampered with?

Originally posted by ahosyney

As you can see Allah himself is responsible from keeping the message of Quran from corruption and guess what, no one for 1400 years managed to modifiy a single word of the Quran.

Can you say something like that about the Bible?[/b]

This strikes me as being a strange twist of logic. Islam says that the Bible was the inspired word of God but that it was corrupted. They then say that the Quran is the uncorrupted word of God that God would in no way allow to be corrupted. Why then would God allow the first inspired word to be corrupted, which is the Bible, but would protect the second revelation, which is the Quran?

Also, where are the prophesies that point to Mohammad and him writing the Quran? It seems to me that this would be a big enough event worthy of mention in the original Bible.

Originally posted by whodey
We could argue all day as to the authenticity of the Bible. The Mormons have thier story, the JW's have their story, and the Muslims have their story as to how the Bible was "corrupted" and subsequently "corrected". What I can tell you is the oldest Hebrew manuscripts of the Bible were Masoretic texts dating back to the 9th century. That was, of coarse, un ...[text shortened]... ates the documents I have mentioned that would prove that scripture has been tampered with?

Look at my last post. What is your definition of corruption.

The Quran define the corruption occures in the Bible under three categories:

1. Addition: Some people (Not including Prophets because words of GOD are revealed to them) write verses or books and claim that they are the words of GOD. And then they are added to the Bible.

Can you argue that no one do that in the Bible? I can tell you that all the new testament fall under this category because it is all written by men and claim it is the word of GOD?

2- Substitution: Where words are replaced with other words to give different meaning that agrees with the writer thougth or belives. You can find that in different translation. I saw an example of the Arabic translations they differ so much not only in word choice but words are changed to give different meaning and then corrected in later translations.

3- Removal: Of course this category is hard to prove. But from time to time new parts are added to the Bible were not included before. Example of that the egyptian Church released pslam number 105 to the bible. Another clearer example that the some churches belive that the Bible is 66 chapters while others belive it is 73 which mean some churches removed 7 complete chapters or the others added 7.

So what do you think about that...

Originally posted by ahosyney
Look at my last post. What is your definition of corruption.

The Quran define the corruption occures in the Bible under three categories:

1. Addition: Some people (Not including Prophets because words of GOD are revealed to them) write verses or books and claim that they are the words of GOD. And then they are added to the Bible.

Can you argue tha ...[text shortened]... hurches removed 7 complete chapters or the others added 7.

So what do you think about that...

I would say that not all translations are equal. As a matter of fact, I have started a new thread about a new translation coming out that has been done in order to be "politically correct". These types of translations are not true translations in the sense that that they are done with an agneda of some kind other than giving a more accurate translation of the original text. However, translations done for the sake of translating the original text I have no problem with as long as it is done well.

When translating into a different language, you inherently run into some problems. An example is translating the Greek word for love. In the Greek, you have many different words for many different types of love. However, in the English language the generic term love is used for many different types of love used in the Greek. As a result, some meaning may be lost in that respect. However, this does not mean that such a translation is not worthy of the original meaning. Because of these concerns I have taken it upon myself to try and use study aids that use the original Greek and/or Hebrew meanings to words in the Bible. However, I have found it to have enriched the translations of I have read rather than changed the meanings. As a rule of thumb, I have found that the KJV to do a very good job in this respect. It was the first English translation to have been written. So tell me, where in the KJV of the Bible or the original Hebrew or Greek texts have there been additions, subtractions, or multiplications?

Originally posted by whodey
This strikes me as being a strange twist of logic. Islam says that the Bible was the inspired word of God but that it was corrupted. They then say that the Quran is the uncorrupted word of God that God would in no way allow to be corrupted. Why then would God allow the first inspired word to be corrupted, which is the Bible, but would protect the second re ...[text shortened]... ? It seems to me that this would be a big enough event worthy of mention in the original Bible.

Let me ask you a question first: Isn't the fact that Quran remain uncorrupted for 1400 years enough evidence that it is the word of GOD?

For your first point why Allah allow the first inspired word to be corrupted while didn't allow that for the second.. If you read the Bible you will know the answer, the problem I don't have the reference right now but I think there is a scripture where mentioned that GOD give the Jews the task of preserving the GOD words. But they didn't preserve it. But in the case of Quran he preserved the Book himself. I know it seems not so clear. Give me a time and I will give a clearer explaination for this point.

You mean you want a prophosy of the Prophet Muhammed in the Bible. Actually there is even in the current version of the Bible, but I don't know if you will accept it. Some of them are interpreted by Christians to prophosise something different. Any way I will give you this link that include some of them and we can discuss it togather.

http://www.themodernreligion.com/prophet/bible_muh.htm

Ahmed Dedat is a great Muslim scholar who was specialized in debating in Christianity.

Here is another link
http://www.islamicity.com/Mosque/Muhammad_Bible.HTM

Go search in Google about "Prophet Muhammed in The Bible" and you will find many links.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that not all translations are equal. As a matter of fact, I have started a new thread about a new translation coming out that has been done in order to be "politically correct". These types of translations are not true translations in the sense that that they are done with an agneda of some kind other than giving a more accurate translation of t ...[text shortened]... he original Hebrew or Greek texts have there been additions, subtractions, or multiplications?

Let me ask you a question
Who did write the new Testament? I mean every part of it.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Let me ask you a question first: Isn't the fact that Quran remain uncorrupted for 1400 years enough evidence that it is the word of GOD?

I think it fair to say that the JW's Bible and Mormon Bibles that were written as an adjunct to the original text are likewise uncorrupted from the original author. I would even venture a guess if the religions last long enough they too can protect their texts for another 1400 years.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Let me ask you a question
Who did write the new Testament? I mean every part of it.

Thats just it, you see the fact that Mohammad was the sole author of the Quran as a strength as where I see it as a weakness. After all, the Mormon texts where written by one man as well, namely Joseph Smith. It is when you have a multiplicity of authors who seem to be in general theological agreement spanning thousands of years that one begins to see that God works through more than only one man.

Originally posted by whodey
I think it fair to say that the JW's Bible and Mormon Bibles that were written as an adjunct to the original text are likewise uncorrupted from the original author. I would even venture a guess if the religions last long enough they too can protect their texts for another 1400 years.

i wouldnt exactly call the bible a protected book. I think history shows the bibles been under attack since it was ever written. be it burnings attempts at mistranslating it. even burning the ppl who were actually translating it properly for the ppl in a common language. and the majority of this was done by supposed christians.

Originally posted by whodey
I would say that not all translations are equal. As a matter of fact, I have started a new thread about a new translation coming out that has been done in order to be "politically correct". These types of translations are not true translations in the sense that that they are done with an agneda of some kind other than giving a more accurate translation of the ...[text shortened]... r the sake of translating the original text I have no problem with as long as it is done well.

Many Bible scholars accept that the original text was 'written with an agenda' and not intended to be accurate history. Also the books chosen to be in the Bible were chosen 'with an agenda'. So how does translating it with an agenda differ?
You mention the 'original text', but such a thing does not exist.
Many people, including some on this site, claim that the Bible is 100% correct word for word, but cant quite pin down which translation / version they are talking about.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Many Bible scholars accept that the original text was 'written with an agenda' and not intended to be accurate history. Also the books chosen to be in the Bible were chosen 'with an agenda'. So how does translating it with an agenda differ?
You mention the 'original text', but such a thing does not exist.
Many people, including some on this site, claim ...[text shortened]... word for word, but cant quite pin down which translation / version they are talking about.

Good point, where is the original Bible that was revealed to either Mosses or Jesus?

Originally posted by ahosyney
Good point, where is the original Bible that was revealed to either Mosses or Jesus?

moses didnt have a bible. in fact i think he wrote the beginning of it.

Originally posted by pawnfondler
moses didnt have a bible. in fact i think he wrote the beginning of it.

and jesus pretty much just quoted from the book of isaiah.