I have used ***** section marks to denote quoted text versus commentary. I hope this helps.
CHAPTER THREE
THE MULTIPLE
BIBLE VERSIONS
It will now be easy for us to analyze a
Christian's claim about his Holy Book.
Before we scrutinize the various versions, let
us clarify our own belief regarding the Books of God. When we say that we
believe in the Tauraat, the Zaboor, the Injeel and the
Qur'an, what do we really mean? We already know that the Holy Qur'an is the
infallible Word of God, revealed to our Holy Prophet Hazrat Muhummed Mustapha
(Peace be upon him) word for word, through the agency of the Archangel
Jibraeel, (known as Gabriel in English), and perfectly preserved and protected
from human tampering for the past fourteen hundred years! 1 Even hostile critics of Islam have
grudgingly vouched for the purity of the Holy Qur'an: "THERE IS
PROBABLY IN THE WORLD NO OTHER BOOK WHICH HAS REMAINED TWELVE CENTURIES (now
fourteen) WITH SO PURE A TEXT." — (Sir William Muir)
*****
It is important to break
here and not just breeze past the Islamic statement that they already know the
Qur’an is the “infallible Word of God”.
As the author here takes a close look at the Christian scripture, it is
fair the Islamic scripture also be looked at.
The Qur’an was assembled
over a period of many years after Muhummed died. Muhummed did not write down his own words,
but over a period of over 20 years his followers ‘memorized’ them, so after his
death some of them attempted to write them down. There were many versions, many conflicts, and
one collector was able to destroy most of the ‘competitive’ versions. However, in 1972, construction workers who
were restoring the Great Mosque of Sana’a in Yemen found ancient manuscripts
turning out to be pages from the Qur’an, many with slightly different
text. This quietly challenges the Islamic
belief that the Qur’an is infallible and is a direct copy of the one in heaven
with no textual variants as Allah has preserved his word. However, Islamic apologists quickly “explain
away” any issues, including quoted textual changes from those even as far back
as Muhummed’s wife Aisha.
Here are some quotes
from other than Sir William Muir:
"It is a toilsome
reading as I ever undertook, a wearisome, confused jumble, crude,
incondite." Thomas Carlyle,
Scottish Scholar
"From the literary
point of view, the Koran has little merit. Declamation, repetition, puerility,
a lack of logic and coherence strike the unprepared reader at every turn. It is
humiliating to the human intellect to think that this mediocre literature has
been the subject of innumerable commentaries, and that millions of men are
still wasting time absorbing it." Salomon
Reinach, German Scholar
"an incoherent
rhapsody of fable, and precept, and declamation, which sometimes crawls in the
dust, and sometimes is lost in the clouds." Edward Gibbon, Historian
"The matter of the
Koran is exceedingly incoherent and sententious, the book evidently being
without any logical order of thought either as a whole or in its parts. This
agrees with the desultory and incidental manner in which it is said to have
been delivered." McClintock and
Strong's Encyclopedia
"Unfortunately the
Qor'an was badly edited and its contents are very obtusely arranged. All
students of the Qor'an wonder why the editors did not use the natural and
logical method of ordering by date of revelation..." Ali Dashti, Muslim Scholar
"disjointed and
irregular character" The Concise
Encyclopedia of Islam (a standard Islamic work)
(All of these quotes
were taken from pages 108-109 of Robert Morey's "The Islamic Invasion:
Confronting the World's Fastest Growing Religion" published by Harvest House
Publishers, Eugene, OR, 1992)
So, what did Sir William
Muir actually believe? Here is a direct
quote, “MOHAMMEDANISM is perhaps the only undisguised and formidable antagonist
of Christianity. From all the varieties of heathen religions Christianity has
nothing to fear, for they are but the passive exhibitions of gross darkness
which must vanish before the light of the Gospel. But in Islam we have an
active and powerful enemy; —a subtle usurper, who has climbed into the throne
under pretence of legitimate succession, and seized upon the forces of the
crown to supplant its authority. It is just because Mohammedanism acknowledges
the divine original, and has borrowed so many of the weapons of Christianity,
that it is so dangerous an adversary.”
That quote is from the first paragraph of THE MOHAMMEDAN CONTROVERSY,
BIOGRAPHIES OF MOHAMMED, SPRENGER ON TRADITION, THE INDIAN LITURGY, AND THE
PSALTER written in 1897.
For a scholarly
introduction to where Muhammad sourced the Qur’an from, read The Origins of the Qur'an: An Enquiry into the Sources of Islam,
William Goldsack, 1907.
*****
The Tauraat we Muslims believe in is not
the "Torah" of the Jews and the Christians, though the words — one
Arabic, the other Hebrew — are the same. We believe that whatever the Holy
Prophet Moses (Peace be upon him) preached to his people, was the revelation
from God Almighty, but that Moses was not the author of those
"books" attributed to him by the Jews and the Christians. 2
Likewise, we believe that the Zaboor was
the revelation of God granted to Hazrat Dawood (David) (Peace be upon him), but
that the present Psalms associated with his name are not that
revelation. The Christians themselves do not insist that David is the
sole author of "his" Psalms.3
1.
Whether Muslim or non-Muslim, you do not have lo accept this claim on faith
alone. You can verify the fact that Al-Qur'an is the Word of God. See "AL-QURAN-
The Miracle of Miracles";
2-
More evidence later on — "Moses not the author of the Biblical
"Torah."
3..
Later on you’ll read how Christian "Brains Trust" confess —
"Author; Principally David, though there are other writers."
*****
Christian
Response
Due to many conflicts
between the Old & New Testaments and the Qur’an, a follower of Allah has a
problem. They teach that both the Old
and New Testament (the ‘gospel’) fully contained God’s word and were perfect at
the time of Christ. It gets a bit fuzzy
after that.
There is a scholarly
look at what the three Islamic books say about the Bible, here: http://isaalmasih.net/bible-isa/kitab-true.html.
As outlined by the author, Abdullah Ibrahim, “The attentive reader is
left with a fundamental problem of discrepancy. A number of Biblical teachings
(at least as they were believed by some of the prophet's contemporaries) are
described as erroneous in the Qur'an. Yet, the Qur'an confirms the Bible to be
the unchanged word of God! Surah 4, Nisaa, verse 82, says that the Qur'an is
not from God if one finds discrepancies in it! Furthermore, Muslims who say
that the Bible is corrupted also contradict their own book.”
*****
What about the Injeel? INJEEL means the
"Gospel" or "good news" which Jesus Christ preached during
his short ministry. The "Gospel" writers often mention that Jesus
going about and preaching the Gospel (the Injeel):
1. "And Jesus went . . . preaching the
gospel . . . and healing every disease among the people." (Matthew
9:35)
2. "... but whosoever shall lose his fife
for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it." (Mark
8:35)
3. "... preached the gospel. .
." (Luke 20:1)
The "gospel" is a frequently-used
word, but what Gospel did Jesus preach? Of the 27 books of the New Testament,
only a small fraction can be accepted as the words of Jesus. The Christians
boast about the Gospels according to St. Matthew, according to St. Mark,
according to St. Luke and according to St. John, but there is not a single
Gospel "according" to (St.) Jesus himself! We sincerely
believe that everything Christ (May the peace and blessings of God be upon him)
preached was from God. That was the Injeel, the good news and the
guidance of God for the Children of Israel. In his life-time Jesus never wrote
a single word, nor did he instruct anyone to do so. What passes off as the
"GOSPELS" today are the works of anonymous hands!
The question before us is: "Do you
accept that the Bible is God's Word?" The question is really in the
form of a challenge. The questioner is not simply seeking enlightenment. The
question is posed in the spirit of a debate. We have every right to demand in a
similar vein — "Which Bible are you talking about?, we may ask. "Why,
there is only ONE Bible!" he mutters.
*****
Due to the belief outlined
above, it is hard to quote versus to a Moslem believer as from Jesus as they
say they cannot accept he really said it.
It is interesting they take this tact, for the historicity and facts
contained in the documents are clear and proven by many non-Biblical
sources. This is a sticky issue for them;
one that a believer cannot win on their own in a debate. Only the Holy Spirit can open up an Islamic
heart to the true words of Jesus.
*****
Holding the "Douay" Roman
Catholic Version of the Bible aloft in my hand, I ask, "Do YOU
accept THIS Bible as the Word of God?" For reasons best known to
themselves, the Catholic Truth Society have published their Version of the
Bible in a very short, stumpy form. This Version is a very odd proportion of
the numerous Versions in the market today. The Christian questioner is taken
aback. "What Bible is that?" he asks. "Why, I thought you said
that there was only ONE Bible!" I remind him. "Y-e-s," he
murmurs hesitantly, "but what Version is that?" "Why, would that
make any difference?" I enquire. Of course it does, and the professional
preacher knows that it does. He is only bluffing with his "ONE Bible"
claim.
The Roman Catholic Bible was published at Rheims
in 1582, from Jerome's Latin Vulgate and reproduced at Douay in 1609. As such
the RCV (Roman Catholic Version) is the oldest Version that one can still buy
today. Despite its antiquity, the whole of the Protestant world, including the
"cults"* condemn the RCV because
it contains seven extra "books" which they contemptuously refer to as
the "apocrypha" i.e. of DOUBTFUL AUTHORITY. Notwithstanding
the dire warning contained in the Apocalypse, which is the last book in the RCV
(renamed as "Revelation" by the Protestants), it is
"revealed":
". . . If any man shall add to these
things (or delete) God
shall add unto him the plagues written in this Book."
(Revelation
22:18-19)
But who cares! They do not really believe! The
Protestants have bravely expunged seven whole books from their Book of
God! The outcasts are:
The Book of Judith
The Book of Tobias
The Book
of Baruch
The Buck of Esther, etc.
*
This disparaging title is given by the orthodox to Jehovah's
Witnesses, the Seventh Day Adventists and a thousand other sects and
denominations with whom they do not see eye to eye.
*****
Christian
Response
The paragraphs above are
full of misdirects and false logic. Lets
examine the facts. First, Catholicism is
not Christianity, nor should they be confused.
Many, due to Catholic teachings, mean Catholicism when they say
“Christianity”. Due to the Catholic
beliefs swerving from Biblical teaching in several key points, they printed
their own version of the Bible and did add in several non-canonical books that
were there to support some extra-Biblical teachings (such as purgatory and
penance). Parts of the translation have
been skewed to what Catholics teach (their 10 commandments don’t quite line up
with anyone else’s, for example). As
stated above, the mainline denominations, cults, sects, and Bible Christians
have all veered away from this translation.
However, this version is
not really used anymore, with Catholics using the same modern translations as
most other denominations. Remember that
Catholics have only started having Bibles in their homes and having English
spoken in their church services in many of our lifetimes. They are still taught that they cannot
understand the Bible, only the priest, so are not encouraged to read it.
*****
Sir Winston Churchill has some pertinent things
to say about the Authorised Version (AV) of the Protestant Bible, which is also
widely known as the "King James Version (KJV)".
"THE AUTHORISED VERSION OF THE BIBLE WAS
PUBLISHED IN 1611 BY THE WILL AND COMMAND OF HIS MAJESTY
KING JAMES THE 1ST WHOSE NAME IT BEARS TILL TODAY."
The Roman Catholics, believing as they do that
the Protestants have mutilated the Book of God, are yet aiding and abetting the
Protestant "crime" by forcing their native converts to purchase the
Authorised Version (AV) of the Bible, which is the only Bible available in some
1500 languages of the lesser developed nations of the world. The Roman
Catholics milk their cows, but the feeding is left to the Protestants! The
overwhelming majority of Christians — both Catholics and Protestant — use the
Authorised (AV) or the King James Version (KJV) as it is
alternatively called.
First published, as Sir Winston says, in 1611,
and then revised in 1881 (RV), and now re-revised and brought up to date as the
Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952, and now again re-re-revised in 1971
(still RSV for short). Let us see what opinion Christendom has of this most
revised Bible, the RSV:-
1. "THE FINEST VERSION WHICH HAS BEEN
PRODUCED IN THE PRESENT CENTURY." — (Church of England Newspaper)
2. "A COMPLETELY FRESH TRANSLATION BY
SCHOLARS OF THE HIGHEST EMINENCE." — (Times literary Supplement)
3. "THE WELL-LOVED CHARACTERISTICS OF THE
AUTHORISED VERSION COMBINED WITH A NEW ACCURACY OF TRANSLATION." —
(Life and Work)
4. "THE MOST ACCURATE AND CLOSE RENDERING
OF THE ORIGINAL" — (The Times)
The publishers (Collins) themselves, in their
notes on the Bible at the end of their production, say on page 10: "THIS
BIBLE (RSV), IS THE PRODUCT OF THIRTY-TWO SCHOLARS, ASSISTED BY
AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE REPRESENTING FIFTY CO-OPERATING
DENOMINATIONS." Why all this boasting? To make the gullible public buy
their product? All these testimonies convince the purchaser that he is backing
the right horse, with the purchaser little suspecting that he is being taken
for a ride.
But what about the Authorised Version of the
Bible (AV), the "World's Best Seller?" These Revisers, all good
salesmen, have some very pretty things to say about it. However, their page
iii, paragraph six of the PREFACE of the RSV reads;
"THE KING JAMES VERSION (alternative
description of AV) HAS WITH GOOD REASON BEEN TERMED 'THE NOBLEST MONUMENT OF
ENGLISH PROSE.’ ITS REVISERS IN 1881 EXPRESSED ADMIRATION FOR 'ITS
SIMPLICITY, ITS DIGNITY, ITS POWER, ITS HAPPY TURNS OF EXPRESSION ... THE MUSIC
OF ITS CADENCES, AND THE FELICITIES OF ITS RHYTHM.’ IT ENTERED, AS NO OTHER
BOOK HAS, INTO THE MAKING OF THE PERSONAL CHARACTER AND THE PUBLIC INSTITUTIONS
OF THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLES. WE OWE TO IT AN INCALCULABLE DEBT."
Can you, dear reader, imagine a more magnificent
tribute being paid to the "Book of Books" than the above? I, for one,
cannot. Let the believing Christian, now steel himself for the un-kindest blow
of all from his own beloved Lawyers of Religion; for in the very same breath
they say:
"YET THE KING JAMES VERSION HAS GRAVE
DEFECTS." And, "THAT THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS
AS TO CALL FOR REVISION . . ." This is straight from the horse's mouth,
i.e. the orthodox Christian scholars of "the highest eminence."
Another galaxy of Doctors of Divinity are now required to produce an
encyclopaedia explaining the cause of those GRAVE AND SERIOUS DEFECTS in their
Holy Writ and their reasons for eliminating them.
This
is a photographic reproduction from the R.S.V. 1971.
*****
Christian
Response
What is written above is
quite interesting, as many who read it would accept what is says at face value
without understanding the whole truth.
First, the King James Bible, or AV, is most definitely not the Revised
Standard Version, or any of its variants.
It is also not the same as the New King James Version. Neither the RSV family or newer NKJV use for
their textual source Byzantine family (Received Text) used in the KJV.
If you read the flyleaf
if any new version, they always give a “good” reason for you to buy the new
one, and the quotes above are no different.
There has not been a translation like the KJV since, where the world’s
finest scholars sequestered themselves in purity and before God, praying over
their translation and that it would be used of God. This is a far cry from newer translations,
such as the NIV, where a lesbian scholar proudly admits how she was able to
change text to be more homosexual friendly (the video of her discussing this is
on youtube). Is it not easy to see with
the plethora of conflicting modern versions why an outsider would believe there is
more than one Bible? Satan is masterful in tearing apart God's word. "Yea hath God said?" is still heard today from Satan's minions.
If
a person can get past this plethora of translations, most of the versions agree on many of the
same key points – none of which a Moslem will accept as God’s word, making the
issue a moot point and one not worth discussing.
This is as far as I have gotten in the book. If there is more interest, I could push it back up to the top of projects. You readers just let me know!
