Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let us ask the Christian scholars themselves:
"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors"
So different gospel writers presented the facts in slightly different ways. That does NOT mean they were contradictory. Infact the Quran was first transmitted orally before it was even written down!!! However once again Mr. Osama or Mr. Al-Kadhi doesn't point that out in their quest to refute the bible. This is the issue of Textual Transmission which has nothing to do with the verbal issues of the Bible, Osama has just committed the fallacy of equivocation by trying to make these 2 be the samething.
Encylopaedia Britannica a Christian source? NOT! Why would Mr. Osama or should I say Mr. Al-Kahdi claim that they are using Christian sources when this encyclopedia isn't a Christian source?
"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written" Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117
Tischendorf is referring to the odd word here or there. In the vast majority of cases we CAN be sure of what was originally written. In a few cases we cannot be sure of the exact wording, but this rarely affects the meaning, and never affects Christian doctrine. This has no effect in the Greek language since words and sentences can be written a variety of ways. This is also the case in English!!!! More expounded on this link http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Al-Kadhi/r02.1.03.html
Let's look at what the Christian scholars say about the Bible from updated archeological and historical information:
Archaeology has also solidified the case for the eyewitness nature and accuracy of the Holy Bible. It should be first mentioned that most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archaeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archaeology has failed to furnish evidence in regards to an event related in the Bible.
This is far different from archaeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archaeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archaeologists affirms this fact:
"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." (John Elder, Prophets Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16)
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archaeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blalklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)
The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists, stated:
"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world-renowned Jewish archeologist, concurs:
"As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically hat no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." (Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)
It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their conclusions were based strictly on the archaeological data, forcing them to make the above admissions. These guys couldn't find nothing on the bible and neither can Osama and Mr. Al Kahdi. Earl Radmacher, former president of Western Conservative Baptist Seminary, notes:
"I listened to him [Glueck] when he was at Temple Emmanuel in Dallas, and he got rather red in the face and said, 'I've been accused of teaching the verbal, plenary inspiration of the Scripture. I want it to be understood that I have never taught this. All I have ever said is that in all my archaeological investigation I have never found one artifact of antiquity that contradicts any statement of the Word of God.'" (Josh McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 22)
Osama continues:
Mr. Kenyon doesn't list examples of contradictory statements, this is out of context quoting by Osama. Look at what Mr. Kenyon said on the bible:
Other, more extensive, copies of the New Testament include the Chester Beatty Papyri, containing major portions of the New Testament and dated early 3rd century, the Bodmer Papyrus, dated late 2nd century, the Codex Sinaiticus, dated AD 350, and the Codex Vaticanus, dated AD 325 - AD 350. Some of the codices contain the entire New Testament. It can be seen that, as far as the time gap between the original writing of the New Testament and the earliest extant manuscripts, there is no work from the ancient world which can compare to the New Testament. As Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Curator of the British Museum, says
"The net result of this discovery [of the Chester Beatty Papyri] ... is, in fact, to reduce the gap between the earlier manuscripts and the traditional dates of the New Testament books so far that it becomes negligible in any discussion of their authenticity. No other ancient book has anything like such an early and plentiful testimony to its text." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, The Bible and Modern Scholarship [London: John Murray, 1948], 20, as cited in McDowell, Evidence That Demands A Verdict, p. 49)
Sir Frederick Kenyon states:
"... no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound." (Kenyon, The Bible, as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 49)
Kenyon continues:
"It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain: Especially is this the case with the New Testament." (Sir Frederic G. Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts [New York: Harper and Brothers, 1941], 23 as cited in McDowell, Evidence, p. 45)
Kenyon concludes:
"The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established." (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, pp. 288f)
Osama or should I say Mr. Al Kahdi continues:
The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."
Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.
So now Jehovah Witnesses are leading Christian scholars? Unbelievable! The nation of Islam says that we are all gods so therefore they are correct and Islam is wrong by claiming that there is only one God. The nation of Islam are great Muslims scholars also!!!
"So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19)"
and once again in Luke:
"While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy. (Luke 24:51-52)"
In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible "Other ancient authorities lack "and was carried up into heaven'" and "Other ancient authorities lack 'and worshipped him'". Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said:
"While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy."
It took centuries of "inspired correction" to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.
As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read:
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. (Luke 24:1-7)"
Once again, in reference to verse 5, the footnotes say: "Other ancient authorities lack 'He is not here but has risen'" Also, please read entries 16 and 17 in the table in section 2.2.
The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for yourself and scan through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even two consecutive pages that do not contain the words "Other ancient authorities lack..." or "Other ancient authorities add..." etc. in the footnotes..
This is absolutely unbelievable!! Mr. Osama copies Mr. Al-Kahdi's argument against the bible without even checking to see if it is correct. Read this about Mr. Al-Kahdi from a rebuttal link on answering Islam.
Al-Kadhi's Factual Errors
Al-Kadhi often gets his facts wrong. Often the rebuttals are slightly complex and you'll have to read the full response to get them. But one error was just so blatant I had to highlight it:
In section 2.1.6 he says: Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are: ... Mark 16:19 and once again in ... Luke 24:51-52
Then he says it a second time in section 2.1.10: Please notice that there are only two places in the whole New Testament that mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven. They are Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51.
However Al-Kadhi is wrong. Very, very, wrong. The ascension of Jesus is mentioned A FURTHER TEN times in the New Testament: Acts 1:9-11, John 6:62, Acts 2:33-34, Acts 3:21, Eph 4:8-10, 1 Thess 1:10, Heb 4:14, Heb 9:24, 1 Peter 3:22, Rev 5:6.
Now lets look at some of these examples
Acts 1:9-11-
Acts 2:33-34
This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. "For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: "The LORD said to my Lord, "Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool."' "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ. "Acts 3:19-21
I used Acts for these examples because it is considered one of the most accurate historical documents ever written. As verified by Sir Ramsey one the world's greatest historians. Sir William Ramsey, considered one of the world's greatest archaeologists believed that the New Testament, particularly the books of Luke and Acts, were second-century forgeries. He spent thirty years in Asia Minor, trying to dig up enough evidence to prove that Luke-Acts was nothing more than a lie. At the conclusion of his long journey however, he was compelled to admit that the New Testament was a first-century compilation and that the Bible is historically reliable. This fact led to his conversion and embracing of the very faith he once believed to be a hoax. Dr. Ramsey stated:
"Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy ... this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians. ”
Ramsey further said:
"Luke is unsurpassed in respects of its trustworthiness." (Josh McDowell, The Best of Josh Mcdowell: A Ready Defense, pp. 108-109)
Quennel Gale at queball20@yahoo.com
- Home Back Home
- New Articles Back to New Section.