Bonus exchange with Saaib Ahmed on textual criticism

This is an interaction that my debate opponent Saaib Ahmed and I had. It is separate from our formal debate and I tried to make sure not to rehash ground that is already being covered in our formal debate during this exchange.
Saaib began with:

Who is afraid of Textual Criticism?
The Christians or the Muslims. Who fails to pass the exam? The Bible or The Glorious Quran


Rhology: Is that why book after book comes out from Christian scholars about textual criticism, while Muslims ignorantly deny that there is any such thing as a Qur'anic textual variant?

Saaib Ahmed: Or is it that there really is some problem with Bible...


Rhology: Whether there is a problem with the Bible or not is irrelevant here. So let me ask you: Are you implying that Christians and not Muslims are afraid of textual criticism? What is your evidence? As for passing the exam, that's part of our debate so I'll leave it there.

Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology, Rhology Rhology............ huh...... Answering Islam had published an article on this.... Thats why i wrote this......


Rhology So why are there tons of Christians who study textual criticism, while Muslims deny that any Qur'anic variants even exist?


Saaib Ahmed When variants don't exist we say variants don't exist (as in case of Quran) and when they exist we say they exist (as in case of Bible).... I hope you and I mean same by the term "variants"....


Rhology Here's a variant - http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499

Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology: Thanks for the link.... Before I answer I want to know what you understood from the article... Just two to three sentences...


Rhology Simply put, "(the palimpsest) gives the readings, showing how the original version of this text differed from the later standardized (i.e., called the "Uthmanic") text". So, you have to ask yourself whether any argument against the Bible from textual variants would allow you to be consistent.


Saaib Ahmed Suppose if I write on a leather sheet, "I am debating Rhoblogy".... Then you come across and tell me that it is not "Rhoblogy" but "Rhology" and I wash off the ink and write "I am debating Rhology". After 1000 years someone discovers the leather sheet and says that there exists a "variant", he is right but what does that variant prove. Absolutely nothing.

The leather shows that the original (wrong: Rhoblogy) text differed from the later (correct: Rhology) standardized text.... Wasn't it simple.... Same applies to above....

I based my reply on what you said. If you can please tell me the Manuscript number, i would have given a much better reply. Like if it was a Sana Manuscript then there are more possible explanations. like if it was a personal Mushaf of some companion then there are different explanations.... I hope this replies your query.... Your turn...


Rhology Yep, that 1st paragraph is right, and that is 90+% of all the textual variants in the Bible

I am bringing it up so you'll know not to use really stupid arguments like this one.


Saaib Ahmed: ‎Rhology: I accept that. And I have no hesitation is accepting that there are variants in NT (and OT) which have no impact (or effect) on the reading of scripture. But there are some (in fact many) which do have an effect and such cases are not to be found with Quran and if there are (which I do not know of) there will also be explanations for them. For me Textual Criticism of Quran and Bible is my favorite topic and I want this discussion to continue so that I publish it to other people for education.


Rhology That is actually incorrect. In the Bible, there are NONE that make any doctrinal impact. You need to present an argument for that.
And I don't know for sure whether the Qur'an has any, but I believe it does.
The problem is that most Muslims I have encountered say "The Bible has been changed", etc. You in fact made that argument in our debate, and you don't have evidence that you can consistently maintain.


Saaib Ahmed Rhology: I never wanted a word limit.

As for my statement. It is correct. There are hundreds of cases (if not thousands) where the scripture was altered deliberately. Take for example the following example.

The only verses in the whole Bible that explicitly ties God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit in one "Triune" being is the verse of 1 John 5:7.

"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

However this verse is now universally recognized as being a later "insertion" of the Church and all recent versions of the Bible, such as the Revised Standard Version the New Revised Standard Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New English Bible, the Phillips Modern English Bible etc. have all unceremoniously expunged this verse from their pages. Why is this?

This is one such example. Once you explain this to me then I will love to go ahead with a few. Once you reply to all of them. I will tell you "Gospel of Luke" is product of this editing by itself.

Most Muslims which you encountered know the above fact and many more like these. :D

Rhology:
‎;-) For the record, I am starting to think I made a mistake with the word counts I asked for. I should've asked for longer. LOL, too late now.

False about 1 Jn 5:7. The case for the Trinity is indubitable from the NT; we don't need 1 Jn 5:7 at all. And that's not a variant. It's not in the original text. There is no doubt of that. Choose one that actually matters.

Besides, I said "that make a doctrinal impact". If a variant proposes that a verse that TEACHES the Trinity, that doesn't impact doctrine, because the NT's doctrine is Trinitarian already. So try again.

Unfortunately, you haven't set yourself apart from most Muslims yet, b/c your arguments are so far garbage.


Saaib Ahmed ‎Rhology : Aaah.... U should have not set a word limit at all.... I have been debating the issue for long and I know how much it hurts to keep a word limit...

As for 1 John 5:7, it shows (delibrate) alteration of text at least on two occasions and that two by who were not eye witnesses. Let me show you how.

We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.

We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.

If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).

If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).

Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.

As for doctrines, even a jaundiced eye can see that this verse is a clear cut deliberate insertion so as to support the trinitarian view of God.

NT is trinitarian, well it is debatable. You have to make Jehova's witnesses to understand who follow the same text. Anyways, you have to accept that there are plenty who follow the same text and yet remain unitarians. Therefore you don't need to lie to a person who already knows things (and sometimes better than you, with due respect though). Had this verse been in the original text, trinitarians had a really good argument. Anyways it is like, "....seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. neither will you understand."

Unfortunately, you Christians get offended with whatever arguments we have. Instead of clearing the douts you act like GrecopaganJesus (who called Jews some very good names and sometimes even his own followers). You call it garbage and the thing we are discussing is Bible. May be you think it is garbage but we Muslims do have faith in some part of it.

:D


Rhology:
Yes it shows deliberate addition by someone OVER 1000 YEARS AFTER JESUS. Why would anyone care about that?

And if you think it's possible it was in the original, WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE?

If you want to say "debatable", strictly speaking EVERYTHING is debatable. But it's not REASONABLY debatable. The NT is Trinitarian, and it is easily proven. Very, very easily.

There are people (like me) who read the Qur'an and yet think that Islam is from the devil. Does that mean the Qur'anic teaching might be that Islam is from teh devil? No, it means that some ppl disagree with it, but that's no surprise. Be consistent, b/c your inconsistency is destroying you here.

I'm not offended. I'm actually laughing b/c you think you've made a good argument. You haven't.

Saaib Ahmed:

‎Rhology: You are an English speaking person but your comprehension skills seem very poor.

I said there are two possible "possibilities". I never said it was (or wasn't) in the originals....... You ought to read my comment again...

We have two possibilities. Either the verse was in the original text (which seems impossible), or the verse was not in the original text.

We know that the verse in missing in the earliest manuscripts we have.

If the verse was in original then someone altered the text and we don't have it in earliest texts (Alteration No. 1). Then someone put it back, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 2). Now Revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 3).
If the verse was not in the originals then someone altered the text and put it in, because we have it in later texts (Alteration No. 1). Now the revisers have removed it again (Alteration No. 2).
Its like, heads I win, tails you loose.
You have to accept the interpolation in both cases....

Anyways the trinity of NT is like finding a dinosaurs egg.... You can find it but you need to search for it in down in the layers of the earth.... The simple prof is that the word itself isn't there.... Jehova's witnesses follow the same NT and yet remain unitarians... And one more example is Sir Isaac Newton, a firm bible believer, who was a unitarian. He, in fact, wrote a book on corruption of the Biblical scriptures. "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."....


Rhology:
Yes, and since it's not in the earliest MSS, to propose that it might be in the original is to go AGAINST the evidence. And since the verse does not appear in anything of note for such a long time, the evidence is stacked against. Thus, it's not even really a defensible conclusion that this was in the original. You're not catching my point.

The 2nd situation is what happened. It wasn't in the original. Someone added it into ONE copy, MANY MANY CENTURIES LATER. So what? There are thousands of others MSS. That's how we know that this verse was not in the original. I don't think you understand textual criticism.

And you are also ignorant of the NT if you think that the doctrine of the Trinity is "deep" in "layers". Tell you what - don't act like you're an authority in the NT and I won't act like I'm an authority in the Qur'an. Or better yet, GIVE AN ARGUMENT for your assertion. What is your argument against the dozens of passages that teach the Trinity, and the other mountain of passages that make no sense if the Trinity is untrue?

Isaac Newton was not a theologian.

I also don't accept arguments from authority. What is your ARGUMENT?


Saaib Ahmed ‎
As for the verse I quoted. One thing I just proved to you is a deliberate corruption of scripture. The issue is resolved now.
Next, Trinity in the new testament. (i won't debate the issue) As you said I should not try to be an authority on that. True that. But I was neither acting like one. I only had one argument and that argument is that many people interpret the same passages in different ways (e.g Jehova's witnesses).

Newton wasn't a theologian (We agree on this), neither am I. Therefor you won't see me having formal debates on these topics (unless I study them). I am a critique and I am concentrating on the textual integrity of Bible and The Quran. That is where Newton comes in. I didn't quote him as a theologian, but I quoted him as a textual critique who wrote on Biblical Corruption favoring the trinitarian position.


Rhology
Deliberate addition to ONE mss copy 1000 years later is not even close to the same thing as "corruption of Scripture". You need to make an argument, not only so you can prove your point, but so your point can make sense. Right now it makes no sense.

Yes, plenty of ppl are not Trinitarians. Now you need to make an argument as to why that matters.

Consider how many people can read the Qur'an and can be Shia. I guess this means, by YOUR logic, the Qur'an is actually a Shia book. Right?

You need to give us some reason to think that Newton had any knowledge of textual criticism. Also, you need to give us a reason to think that his knowledge THEN, when he lived, is relevant to today's situation, since today scholars have much, much more information available to them and many, many more MSS discoveries.




Saaib Ahmed
I showed you one deliberate addition that went unnoticed for years centuries) till we regained access to manuscripts which are closer to sources. The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript. But we are still centuries away from the source. The text you have is fluid even now. This Trinitarian statement in 1John is of immense theological significance; its interpolation into Greek manuscripts so late in history (during the Renaissance) is indicative of an alarming fluidity in the text. You can sense it from the changes you are making in it. Unintentional changes don't matter (As you had pointed out). We can explain the unintentional changes in various ways. But for the intentional corruptions you can't give me an explanation unless you accept the text has remained vulnerable. P.W.Confort (is not a textual critique but a believing Christian, so far as i know him) is one among the many who accept the deliberate alteration of the text even in earlier centuries (not thousands of years later). These include materials which were inserted into the text from oral traditions (John 7:53-8:11), additions due to the spread of asceticism (such as the insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29), the tamperings of certain sects. (The Adoptionists for example, believing that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of baptism,

changed Luke 3:22 from "this ismy beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" to "this is my Son; this day I have begotten you"). This corruption was also, sometimes (many times), done to suite a particular church position (See for such example the well celebrated book "The Orthodox Corruption of The Scripture").

More on the verse at discussion: I was reading about it yesterday. I came across the special name dedicated to the verse "Comma Johanneum". When it was removed from the Biblical texts (more recently) Bible revisers had to make changes in the verses before and after (which have absolutely no confirmation of manuscripts).

The Authorised Version © 1983 still contains this passage:

6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

Interestingly the Revised Standard Version (RSV) - which is the 1946 revision of the 1901 American version of the 1881 revised edition of the 1611 King James Version (KJV) - omits some crucial words:

6 This is he who came by water and blood, Jesus Christ, not with the water only but with the water and the blood.
7 And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
8 There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.

We can surmise that English translations of the Bible waited at least three centuries, if not more, before removing a spurious passage which had been inserted as late as the 16th century.

I also sense that your argument is also related to the contemporary critical revision of the text. The argument, as I interpret it, is that these successive editions are approaching closer to the original Biblical text, rather than moving away from it. Though I agree with you (as I mentioned above) but that is not universally the case. Every translation is the labour of a specific time and place, and will undoubtedly be affected by whatever social or political issues are current in the translator's psyche. Regardless of whether critical study of manuscripts is employed, concern over such issuesmay be sufficient to push the final product even further from the original text. The best example I can give you is of the Contemporary English Bible. Bible Review, vol. xii, no. 5, Oct. 1996, p. 42 tells us something about it, "The claim is presumably based on the retranslating, or in some cases the paraphrasing or simplyomitting, of certain prejudicial allusions toJews in the New Testament". Joseph Blenkinsopp (who wrote the above mentioned review) goes on to cite examples where 'theJews' has been changed to 'the people', 'a great crowd of the Jews' to 'a lot of people', and so on, as well as the watering down of 'Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!' to 'You Pharisees and teachers of the Law of Moses are in for trouble! You're nothing but show-oils'. The response comes from CEV's chief editor that they are translating "faithfully" the "intent" of the "earliest Greek Text". The gist of this discussion is that even if we are going closer to the source we still remain away from the actual text and to consolidate my position I will show you just one example. (Note both the translations are recent).


RSV John (9:22) [The blind man's] parents said this because they feared the Jews, for the Jews had already agreed that if anyone should confess [Jesus] to be Christ, he was to be put out of the synagogue.

CEV (9:22-23) The man's parents said this because they were afraid of their leaders. The leaders had already agreed that no one was to have anything to do with anyone who saidJesus was the Messiah.

I can show u hundreds (millions in fact) of such deliberate alterations of the text even today.

Plenty are Unitarians who believe in the same scripture which you believe in. This means that same book has been interpreted as giving two different concept of God. As for Shia-Sunni differences, I don't know where is it related to your differences with Unitarians. Our problem is more POLITICAL than THEOLOGICAL. Your problem is the very base of your religion. To be frank enough Unitarians don't believe in 2/3rds of your God. The God of Shias and Sunnis is same. (Note: I admit that even the verses of Quran have been interpreted differently, but they are of little consequence as they don't deal with THEOLOGY. By this I mean every sect of Islam has the same concept of god, belief in prophets and books revealed to them, judgement day etc. But we are still in a better position because we were taught by Muhammad how to interpret Quran i.e We have a prophetic commentary, which sorry to say is not possible for your book. This means we have a possible way to check whose interpretation in correct while you miss this privilege)

Newton and his knowledge of textual criticism is evident from his well celebrated book which I already mentioned.


Rhology:

Right, and the point is that 1 Jn 5:7 is NOT IN MSS that are even close to the original.


You said:
--"The closer the manuscript is to the source authentic is the manuscript"

Not necessarily. You're showing your ignorance about textual criticism. No wonder you're failing to understand and making such basic errors.


You said:
--"The text you have is fluid even now."

What does that mean? Does it mean that people sometimes changed some MSS copies? Of course! That's why Christians are not afraid of textual criticism! We can detect those changes because we have 1000s of MSS.

And Muslims can't admit that the Qur'an has the same problem. It clearly does, and yet Muslims are afraid of textual criticism and so won't admit it.

Here, I will use YOUR logic: The Qur'anic palimpsest I showed you earlier means that the Qur'anic text is fluid.

You said:
--"This Trinitarian statement in 1John is of immense theological significance"

No, it is not.
If it was in the original, the NT teaches the Trinity.
If it was NOT in the original, the NT teaches the Trinity.


You said:
--"These include materials which were inserted into the text from oral traditions (John 7:53-8:11)"

1) Why do you, a Muslim who thinks that the Qur'an was transcribed from oral dictation many decades after Mohammed, have a problem with oral tradition?
2) What makes you think I consider John 7:53-8:11 an original text?

You said:
--" additions due to the spread of asceticism (such as the insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29)"

You need to argue for this and not merely assert it.

You said:
--"Adoptionists for example, believing that Jesus became the Son of God at the moment of baptism, changed Luke 3:22 from "this ismy beloved Son in whom I am well pleased" to "this is my Son; this day I have begotten you""

Argument?
Are you aware that the 2nd phrase is merely an Old Testament quotation that is quoted in the Epistle to the Hebrews?

You said:
--"(See for such example the well celebrated book "The Orthodox Corruption of The Scripture")."

You mean the book which I destroyed in my recent rebuttal, and then you pretended that it wasn't part of your point?
http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2012/01/bible-is-word-of-god-debate-my-first.html


You said:
--"We can surmise that English translations of the Bible waited at least three centuries, if not more, before removing a spurious passage which had been inserted as late as the 16th century."

Because of later discoveries of earlier, better MSS.
Why is this a problem?

You said:
--"I can show u hundreds (millions in fact) of such deliberate alterations of the text even today."

But of the text OF WHAT? That's the question.
And I can show you numerous "deliberate alterations" in the MSS tradition of the Qur'an.
So what?

You said:
--"Plenty are Unitarians who believe in the same scripture which you believe in."

And plenty are Shia who believe in the same scripture which you believe in.

They read the same book and come to (what you consider to be) the wrong conclusion. Why is this an argument against my understanding of the Bible when Shia beliefs are not an argument against YOUR understanding of the Qur'an? Be consistent.

You said:
--"Our problem is more POLITICAL than THEOLOGICAL."

Argument?
Are you saying there are no theological differences?

You said:
--"Your problem is the very base of your religion. "

Not really, since the Unitarians are simply wrong.
If people are wrong, why does that affect my position?

You said:
--" I admit that even the verses of Quran have been interpreted differently, but they are of little consequence as they don't deal with THEOLOGY."

Oh, so something in your holy book doesn't deal with THEOLOGY? Come on.

You said:
--"Newton and his knowledge of textual criticism is evident from his well celebrated book which I already mentioned."

So a bunch of people like it, therefore it's good?
A lot of people celebrate Robert Spencer's "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam". I guess that means it's totally accurate and a great book, by your logic. Right?
You should stop. You're embarrassing yourself here.


Saaib Ahmed
It follows logic only, that earlier the manuscript more authentic it is.... Anyways if you don't agree with that then u have a problem to deal with.... The verse could well have been in the originals....
The text is fluid even now means that changes are being done in it even now i.e 2000 years after the text was originally written.

1 john 5:7 is theologically very important and this can be proved easily. One, had it not been that important why would anyone add it. Two, there isn't any verse in whole new testament which binds father, son and holy ghost as one. The nearest you can come to it is yet another interpolation (not found in manuscripts) when Jesus wants his followers to baptize in the name of father, son and holy ghost. Yet in this insertion they are not bound as one.

I don't have problems with oral traditions, (its your own deduction) the problem I have is when an oral tradition creeps into the written text. Oral tradition creeps into god's word (tickled). That Is the problem. ANYWAYS, EVEN IF IT DIDN'T COME FROM AN ORAL TRADITION, YET IT IS AN UNANSWERABLE INTERPOLATION.

HUh... Insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29. I just gave u a possible explanation. I don't want you to take it down your throat as it is. You can surely argue. The point is that the words inserted are not in the manuscripts. You can give an explanation if you are not satisfied with "my" explanation (which is supported by Christian scholars ( P.W.Confort), Muslim scholars (MM Azami), Others (Bruce Metzger, Bart Ehrman)).

As for Luke 3:22, does it matter where it is from. no absolutely not. I am showing you changes in text. I gave you a possible explanation. You don't agree with the explanation, fine. But the argument still remains that the text has been corrupted at that very particular place.

He he, you destroyed the book. huh..  Rhology  don't fly... Had it been the part of the debate I would surely have replied... Anyways, u should read that book...

I don't have problems with recent discoveries of the text, but you do have.... he he... Because you don't accept that earlier manuscripts are more authentic.

As for deliberate alterations of the Quranic Text you are most welcome to show us some... He he... Rhology Rhology Rhology come back to earth.... Anyways the deliberate alterations in The Quran will still not be sufficient to prove the validity of Bible.

Jehowas Witnesses differences with you and Shias differences with you have been listed above by me and the readers have can judge that you failed therein. I have made enough comments on that....

Yes, many things in Quran don't deal with theology. what about "Jesus wept" in the Bible..... OOpz... Matthew 1: Genealogy, Luke 3: Genealogy...Titus 3:9 "Avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, and fights about the Law, because they are useless and worthless" he he,.....

Robert Spencer does have knowledge about Islam.... Same applies to Newton... He he....

Rhology

‎--"It follows logic only, that earlier the manuscript more authentic it is"

Not necessarily.
There's quite a bit more to it than just age.

--"The text is fluid even now means that changes are being done in it even now"
But what is the text you're talking about?

Nobody is changing the MSS that have been found. Do you mean the final collated text that is arrived at thru textual criticism is still fluid? Oh, sort of, b/c when we find better MSS, we incorporate them and where their readings are better and more supported, we may change the collated text.

In other words, when we find improvements, we apply them. That's what it means not to be afraid of textual criticism.

--"1 john 5:7 is theologically very important and this can be proved easily. One, had it not been that important why would anyone add it."

That's a bad argument. They probably wanted the case for the TRinity to be more explicit, but that just means that person wasn't well educated in the NT.

--"Two, there isn't any verse in whole new testament which binds father, son and holy ghost as one."

I don't know what "binds" means. Probably it's an issue of English difficulty.
There are SO MANY verses that say there is one God. And SO MANY that say the Father is God. SO MANY saying Jesus the Son is God. Numerous saying the Holy Spirit is God. SO MANY that there is one God.
So no, it's not in question.
You, like the guy who added 1 J 5.7 to some MSS, are ignorant.


--"The nearest you can come to it is yet another interpolation (not found in manuscripts) when Jesus wants his followers to baptize in the name of father, son and holy ghost. "

??? You mean Matthew 28:19-20? Give me some evidence that that verse is "not found in manuscripts". You don't even know what you're talking about.


--"EVEN IF IT DIDN'T COME FROM AN ORAL TRADITION, YET IT IS AN UNANSWERABLE INTERPOLATION."

Gibberish.


--"Insertion of 'and fasting' after 'prayer' in Mark 9:29. I just gave u a possible explanation"

A bad one, yes.
Anything is "possible", strictly speaking.


--"The point is that the words inserted are not in the manuscripts"

??? No, the point is that those words *ARE* in *SOME* MSS. But not in THE BEST AND MOST RELIABLE MSS.
You don't know what you're talking about. Again.


--"As for Luke 3:22, does it matter where it is from"

That's part of our formal debate and I won't comment on it here.


--"Because you don't accept that earlier manuscripts are more authentic."

You are ignorant.


--"As for deliberate alterations of the Quranic Text you are most welcome to show us some"

I already did. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't read it. You don't seem to care about the truth.


Saaib Ahmed:

It seems like you want to have the last say... He he... its common with empty vessels.... Your wish comes true this time, this is my last comment on this as i have said what I had to say and my position is clear and I leave it up to the readers to judge on these irrefutable arguments..... Let them decide if it is enough to say "gibberish" and leave the argument or is it enough to call an explanation "...(a) bad one" while the argument still remains... Anyways, this is what we expect from Christians when we make them face some sound arguments.

Earlier the manuscript more is the authenticity, and I have shown you if it is not true then the verses can be in originals and you have no answers for that.

I would like to ask you what exactly is the "word of God" if we will keep on changing it... The truth is that no manuscript is the word of God, not even the present text because you will change it within a few years (again).... He he...Deal with the situation which is getting even worse.... Please tell us what exactly is the word of God if the current is going to be a history in future... Lol... Such a dynamic word of god... Hellelooya for this one.... Rhology Rhology Rhology, please stop insulting yourself...

Importance of 1 John 5:7 has been proven, "seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. Neither will you understand."

There are SO MANY verses that say there is one God. (True that) And SO MANY that say the Father is God. (oopz, of God is father, please clarify) SO MANY saying Jesus the Son is God. (Neither I nor Unitariantarian Christians nor any other Muslims find it) Numerous saying the Holy Spirit is God. (How many?) SO MANY that there is one God. (True that)....... But there isn't any verse which binds them as one... There isn't any verse which tells us that these three are one... The one which did so is an interpolation to which both of us agree.... The sole remaining Trinitarian passage of any clarity is Mathew 28:19 (which you pointed out).... This is an interpolation (as i pointed out earlier).... You want a proof, for which (all we need is to) refer to Biblical Scholars.... He he.... Oh, let us go to a Christian publications this time....

"....this (Mathew 28:19) late post-resurrection saying, not found any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by scholars as an interpolation into Mathew. It has also been pointed out that the idea of 'making disciples' is continued in 'teaching them,' so that the intervening reference to baptism with its trinitarian formula was perhaps a later insertion into the saying....."
(Dictionary of the Bible, page 1015)

Clinton D. Willis tells us, "If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism."

He is most probably copying from Encyclopedia of Religions and ethics.

The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275:
"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition."

Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295:
"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted."

The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge  page 435.:
"the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed..."

The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:
"It may be that this formula, (Triune Matthew 28:19) so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the (Man-made) liturgical usage established later in the primitive (Catholic) community."

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Under "Baptism," says:
"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus."

New Revised Standard Version says this about Matthew 28:19:
"Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later (Catholic) church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts (or any other book of the Bible) is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity..."

The Bible Commentary 1919 page 723:
"The command to baptize into the threefold name is a late doctrinal expansion. Instead of the words baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost we should probably read simply-"into My Name."

I hope this much is enough.... (Rhology join Moody Bible Institute, you need some serious studying)....

For the rest of arguments you are absolutely answer-less and this is clear from your replies... He he.... "Busted"...

The discussion is public to all.... I couldn't see any deliberate changes in the Quranic Manuscripts shown by you... hmmmm... let me see again... o.o o.O O.o O.O.... emmmmmm not found,, try again.....

No comments from me after this one... As soon as you comment I will add your comment to the note... Ba bye... Sayonara....


Rhology:

‎--"It seems like you want to have the last say... He he... its common with empty vessels"

1) Whether a vessel is empty or not depends on the substance and strength of the arguments.
2) This is an ironic statement, coming from someone who didn't want a word count on our debate.


--"Earlier the manuscript more is the authenticity"

If you mean that earlier MSS have a stronger case for authenticity, that is true. There are other factors that go into it.
You are now changing your position from earlier. Before, you were saying things that were flatly incorrect. Now you are closer to the truth. I congratulate you for refining your statements, and I encourage you to think through what you say in the future.

--"I have shown you if it is not true then the verses can be in originals and you have no answers for that."

This statement does not make any sense.


--"I would like to ask you what exactly is the "word of God" if we will keep on changing it."

Nobody is changing it. You seem to think that someone making a change to ONE COPY out of thousands is equal to "changing the Word of God", but this is another indication that you do not understand textual criticism.
Thus, your original contention about being afraid of textual criticism is actually unanswerable. You don't even know what textual criticism is, so we can't know whether you're afraid of it or not.


--"The truth is that no manuscript is the word of God, not even the present text because you will change it within a few years (again)"

I have never claimed that any manuscript copy is the Word of God.
The present text will only be slightly amended if better and earlier MSS are found so that we can get closer to what the originals said. The present text is of no importance. What matters is that we know what God originally said.
However, we can know what He said. Just b/c we might get a better understanding of one word here or there does not mean that the Word of God will be changed.


--"Please tell us what exactly is the word of God if the current is going to be a history in future"

The exact same question could be asked about the Qur'an, and if you're consistent, you'd give the same answer - you trust God and you go for now with the best evidence.


--"Importance of 1 John 5:7 has been proven, "seeing you see not, hearing you hear not. Neither will you understand.""

When did you prove it?


--"And SO MANY that say the Father is God. (oopz, of God is father, please clarify"

Both - God is our father, and the Father is God.
If you understood the doctrine of the Trinity, this would not be confusing to you.


--". But there isn't any verse which binds them as one"

Yes, there are lots.


--"The sole remaining Trinitarian passage of any clarity is Mathew 28:19 (which you pointed out).... This is an interpolation (as i pointed out earlier"

That is not the "sole remaining" passage.
And I asked you for evidence that it is an interpolation, and you didn't give any.


--"this (Mathew 28:19) late post-resurrection saying, not found any other Gospel or anywhere else in the NT, has been viewed by scholars as an interpolation into Mathew"


But WHY do they view it that way? Is it b/c there is MSS evidence, or is it b/c the theology of Matt 28:19 conflicts with what liberals prefer to believe? What is the evidence they bring forward?



--"Clinton D. Willis tells us, "If it were undisputed, this would, of course, be decisive, but its trustworthiness is impugned on grounds of textual criticism, literary criticism and historical criticism"

I don't believe him. What is his evidence?


--"The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly Catholic work, states:"

"Scholarly" doesn't mean anything without evidence.
And many many Roman Catholic scholars are liberals.
So... you've quoted numerous tertiary sources, but I want to know why I should believe that they are correct. What is the evidence they have?


--"I couldn't see any deliberate changes in the Quranic Manuscripts shown by you"

Then I guess you haven't been reading carefully.
Here it is again: http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2499

Nice talking to you.

Saaib Ahmed:
Notice that the link he produced has already been discussed....

Rhology:
 Yes, I noticed the fact that I'd already linked to that palimpsest but you appeared to have forgotten it, because you acted like you hadn't seen any evidence that one Qur'anic MSS copy is different from another. Yet that is exactly what you are claiming makes the Bible unreliable. You can't be consistent.