In my previous posting I expressed my belief that truth is found in God's self revelation. That revelation comes through God's creation and His word. These are the topics I want to discuss next, but before I do there are some important questions to consider. Maybe you can share your thoughts. When speaking about God's word as revelation are we on a firm foundation? Can we have any confidence that the scriptures have been passed down to us accurately? How can we be sure that the manuscripts have not been corrupted? Do these manuscripts accurately reflect the originals? How can Christians claim to have an authoritative revelation when we do not have the original manuscripts?
-
Posts
7 comments:
When speaking about God's word as revelation are we on a firm foundation?
-Yes
Can we have any confidence that the scriptures have been passed down to us accurately?
-Yes
How can we be sure that the manuscripts have not been corrupted?
-5000+ copies of the originals that are 98% in agreement and none of the variants hold any significance on doctrine.
How can we be sure that the manuscripts have not been corrupted?
-If you don't assume God's soverignty and you refuse to accept the historicity of the documents, which are greater than any other work of antiquity, then you can't. However, if you are a reasonable person, even if you're not a believer, then you can at least say that we have what was originally written.
Do these manuscripts accurately reflect the originals?
-Yes
How can Christians claim to have an authoritative revelation when we do not have the original manuscripts?
-see above... Hope I haven't stolen any thunder. I look forward to your elaborations on the reasons.
question: how does the veracity Bible compare to the manuscripts from other major religions? namely the Koran & Talmud. does anyone here know? just curious.
Kevin,
Great questions, and important for a Christian to answer if we want to stand on a firm foundation. The Qur'an is corrupted! One example is pointed out by Norman Geisler in an interview about his book "Answering Islam". See excerpt below:
"*Newsletter:* _Muslims say Muhammad was a prophet. And Muhammad
in the Qur'an said Jesus Christ was a prophet. Assuming that
prophets do not speak error, wouldn't this present a logical
problem for Muslims? After all, according to John 14:6, Jesus said,
"I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me." So, Jesus the "prophet," being
one-hundred percent correct, refutes Muhammad and all of Islam,
right?_
*Geisler:* That's correct. And that's a good approach to use.
But you need to keep one thing in mind here. What Muslims say to
that line of reasoning is that while they believe in the Christian
Gospels, which represent Christ, they've been corrupted down
through the centuries. And so Christians must answer that
allegation.
We do this in our book, _Answering Islam,_ by showing that we
have manuscripts of the New Testament that go back hundreds of
years _prior_ to the time of Muhammad. Now, keep in mind that
Muhammad referred to the New Testament Gospels _of his day_ -- and
indicated their reliability. After all, he said to Christians: "Go
and look in your own Gospels."
Well, if the Gospels of his day (A.D. 600) were accurate -- and
we've got manuscripts that go back even before that -- then they're
in a pretty tough dilemma to explain why you shouldn't follow the
logic you suggested above: Jesus is a prophet; He always teaches
the truth; and if He taught He was the _only way_ to God, then how
can Christianity not be true?"
For the full interview go to this link:
www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/cri/cri-nwsl/crn0072a.txt
Hope this helps.
good stuff...will check out the entire interview today. and as it relates to the Talmud? or does the Talmud even claim to be the word of God? I'll look into that as well.
Kevin,
Here is what I know about the Talmud. I am not sure if it is viewed as inspired writing, but throughout Jewish history it has played an important role.
The Talmud's discussions are recorded in a consistent style. A law from the Mishna (which is the Jewish Oral Law, making it easier on a Jew to find a law instead of thumbing through Leviticus every time something came up) is cited, and followed by rabbinic discussion on its meaning.
In addition to discussions on the law, the rabbis added to the Talmud teaching on ethical matters, medical advice, historical information, and folklore, which together are known as aggadata.
For religious Jews, Talmudic scholars share the same awe and respect that society might give a poet laureate. In Jewish history the study of the Mishna and Talmud were not restricted to the intellectual alone, the common man could read it.
I have not read it (you can find on-line English translations) but since it is basically discussion on Jewish Law I have little reason, that I can see, to place it on equal grounds with the Pentateuch, let alone the New Testament. However, I am not questioning it's veracity. I just don't think it is in the ballgame.
read the entire interview with Geisler. interesting stuff. had never read the Quran, so was looking at some of it today...some strange teachings...
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/fundamentals/hadithsunnah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.506
here is the rest of that URL...
nah/bukhari/054.sbt.html#004.054.506
Post a Comment