In the Name of God, the Most Gracious; The Most Merciful.
Alhamdulilah – All praise is due to Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, the One to whom we turn to for hikma (wisdom), hidaya (guidance) and rahma (mercy).
When Christians give their message to Muslims, it is often a very simplified statement, such as: “God loved the humans so much that he sent his son, who died for your sins. And, in verbalizing your belief in this you will be saved.” Or, the Christian may try to encourage a sense of doubt in the mind of the Muslim regarding his/her religion. In both of these methods, there are deficiencies; the following will simply discuss the questions Christians ought to consider, or the aspect of Christian theology that Muslims should understand.
At the most basic level of a religion is the source of knowledge, and for Christians this source is the Bible. However, when a Christian is asked if the Bible is the word of God or not, they might have a difficult time. This is a vital and basic aqeedah issue that the Christian community can not agree upon. The question is difficult for Christianity because both answers (yes or no) pose great theological problems. Let us examine them briefly:
(1) Yes, the Bible is the word of God. This poses a grave problem because the Bible has many self-contradicting statements within. Let us leave aside some controversial issues like the status of Jesus and deal with some simple numbers: What was the age of Ahaziah when he began to rule (second Kings 8:26 – says 22, or 42 in second chronicles 22:2)? How many stalls of horses did Solomon have? (first kings 4:26 says 40,000 stalls of horses or 4,000 in second chronicles 9:25)? And, there are many, many more examples of simple number discrepancies.
(2) No, the Bible is not the exact word of God. This poses an even greater problem for the Christians because at this point the Bible becomes very subjective and “truth” is really only in the eyes of whoever is reading; this is because some parts are “inspired” by God while other parts are simply editing mistakes and human errors – who decides what falls into which category is a slippery slope that Christians don’t want to fall into.
Let us speak with wisdom and patience and allow the truth to stand clear from falsehood.
And, Allah knows best.
28 comments:
I would agree with the third paragraph of this post, many Christians do a poor job at spreading the gospel. Some might start off well, as theres nothing wrong with starting off that God loved humanity so much he desired to save them with the sacrifice of the Son. Its after that initial response that screws everything up. Many say that but cannot give a response back when one says "I don't believe in God" or "I don't believe God has a Son." Because of this, the whole conversation may be lost. However, there are multiple ways of witnessing, like a change life, verses apologetics. Another way Christians hurt their witnessing is when they just throw their religion around. For instance, if you lived in the United states, how many people say "I'm a Christian" and then on friday night they're at their friends house partying and doing who knows what. So another thing that hurts the witnessing is the unchanged lives and poor examples lived out.
On your fourth paragraph you bring up something when dealing with the Bible as the Word of God; you state, "this is a vital and basic aqeedah issue that the Christian community can not agree upon." To this I would disagree and heres why, typically theres two views on the Bible being the word of God, the majority hold it is, the minority still say it is but it changes to the time. The minority that hold that the Bible changes are typically liberal and thought, and are the "Christians" who say homosexuality is allowed, or that Jesus did not even die, or that God may not even exist, yet still claim the title of Christianity. To me, these types generally are not Christians, especially when they venture into the theories that Jesus did not die, or that God is not real or something of that nature.
I'm going to give a response to the issues you sort of raise here. In the first issue you state exsentially the Bible has self contradicting stories, thus this cannot be the word of God. Well, as you established in a previous entry, many of these are copiest errors, thus not errors in the original words of God themselves. Secondly, a lack of understanding on how the scriptures are to be read. For instance, the Qur'an is one continuous prophecy, where as the Bible is many various types of writings, poems, songs, history, parables, prophecy, etc.etc. There is also a lack of understanding on "inspiration of God" on those outside of Christianity and sometimes those inside Christianity. To be inspired by God does not mean perfection, it means God is the inspiration of the writings. In other words, your doing this because you love God. For instance, in your blogs, you probably believe your inspired by God to spread knowledge of Islam, however, what if you have a spelling error? Or a slight error on knowledge on a specific subject that your writing about, does this mean your no longer inspired by God to do so? In the Christian thought theres a delicate balance when God works with mankind, it is because mankind is imperfect, thus even when doing the will of God its not going to be done perfectly. Now this is not to be confused with actual messages from God, such as prophecies from God, which will be perfect.
As far as your second part, I believe the whole entire scripture is inspired from God. I believe there will be errors, simply because God is dealing with an imperfect being, man. I also believe God provides a reminant always, Noah with the flood, some of Israel when he judged and destroyed them, and enough manuscripts for us to uncover to give more proof for what we have today in the Bible then for any other manuscript of antiquity. As Bart Ehrman stated in his book, "the majority of errors are immaterial and meaningless," not affecting the content. Which is the important message when dealing with God.
Brooks
Thanks for the post Brooks.
You mentioned, "thus even when doing the will of God its not going to be done perfectly." We believe that God has the power and ability to do or Will anything, and if God wills something to be perfect He can do so. What you have done here is limited God's ability to the faults and weaknesses of God's creation.
You have stated that the Bible is document from the hand of man inspired by God, that prophesy within it perfect and other parts may not be perfect because "the will of God its not going to be done perfectly" [your words]. And, therefore we have mistakes since it is a document written and collected by humans. I found it sort of amusing you have compared my blog to the compilation of the Bible; Why don't you start by helping us to understand by defining inspiration and prophesy and, using Biblical evidence, which parts of the Bible are perfect because they are prophesy and which parts may have mistakes because they are inspiration.
Your conclusion states: "I believe there will be errors, simply because God is dealing with an imperfect being, man." Again, here you have limited God; you have limited His ability and His power. Does God not have the ability to keep His work and His word perfect (again refer to the other post when this is mentioned within the Bible)? We believe God does have the ability and power to do anything He wishes.
You have ended with a quote that the majority of the errors are not really important, rather the important part is that there is a message from God found within the meaning. And, this is not far from what Muslims believe, as you know. We believe in the Prophets and we believe that God sent the Gospel and the vast majority of the messages found within the Torah and the New Testament are accepted, as you well know. In fact there are many commonalities my friend. But, there are differences and we can discuss them - because, as you mention, the Bible is a work written and copied by man. Just as you believe there will be mistakes within it, so do I.
I hope you'll remain open minded and sincere in your quest to please God.
I think you misunderstood me, here’s what I said “In the Christian thought there’s a delicate balance when God works with mankind, it is because mankind is imperfect, thus even when doing the will of God its not going to be done perfectly.” What I was saying is that when man is attempting to do God’s will; it is always done imperfectly because man is imperfect. The will of God is always perfect, where mankind trying to follow it is not. Which is why those who are believers still fail and sin. But another example of this would be in the life of various “levels” of believers if you will. A believer who surrenders more of his will to God will see more benefits from God verses a believer who is still saved, but is more luke warm in his faith.
Before I continue with what is “inspired by God” and what is a “prophecy,” I want to see where we’re at as far as contradictions are concerned with the secondary information of a story. What I mean is this, the majority of the contradictions between the copies are in secondary information, things like the number of horses of king Solomon, or whether the girl Jesus healed was dead or alive. These are secondary, where the primary is Jesus healed a girl, and that Solomon was blessed with many riches. So to get an understanding on how you understand contradictions, I ask you this, if there are contradictions between two accounts of the same event in history, does that negate that the event happened?
I’d like to elaborate on that just slightly, the errors are between the various copies of the scriptures that copyists have recorded over time. They are primarily grammar and spelling errors because of various reasons such as lack of professional scribes in the 1st and 2nd centuries, poor lighting, poor eyesight, and poor handwriting. These errors do not affect the content at all, just as me typing, “My nme is Brooks,” (I intentionally misspelled name), doesn’t affect what I’m saying that my name is Brooks. With your last part I can agree to a point but I probably disagree more with your last section, but I wont get into that so we can keep the focus on the “errors” of the Bible.
So far I want to thank you for your time and communication. Too often I run into Muslims who say they want to debate, but when the debate happens they cut you off and block you or something else ridiculous just because you don’t believe what they believe. So rather then backing up the belief to continue the discussion they cut you off and keep you from debating them (I’m sure you run into Christians who do the same).
Brooks
Brooks – I am very pleased to discuss. Please be open for sincere and honest discussion. I did not approve your post because I found things you said to have been both unfounded and offensive. Not a great way to have a sincere discussion.
If I wanted to learn about quantum physics, would you suggest I ask a music teacher? Or, if I wanted to learn about Christianity, would you suggest I ask a Hindu? Would you feel it fair if I based my understanding of Christianity only by quoting the liberal people you mentioned? I assume you’ll say no. You recommended a work by Arthur Jeffery, who is a Christian and whom Bible.ca calls “anti-Islamic.” So, please display your sincerity and integrity by looking into scholars who are knowledgeable and appropriate for discussion. When you bring this relevant and representative evidence I’ll be happy to discuss it.
I will address your other comments and quote them in full as you have written them so that we can continue our talk.
Brooks said:
God’s works are perfect, I totally agree with your statement, but this doesn’t mean God, in his sovereignty, cannot give man the freedom to potentially mess things up. For instance, in the Jewish Christian doctrines of creation, God created man to be perfect, but also to be free willed. Man, being free, chose to go against the will of God and sin against him messing creation up and polluting mankind. God chose Israel to be his people, Israel messed things up repeatedly where God had to judge Israel many times, and leave a righteous remnant to carry out his mission. So although God’s work is in itself perfect, mankind and Satan is given enough freedom on earth to mess things up, of course all in the realm of what God allows according to his will. God being God always leaves a remnant, like Israel after their judgments, God has preserved enough manuscripts to see what the actual errors are, as we have.
I think you have to as a Muslim accept this belief as well. Is it not Islamic doctrine that mankind is created perfect and Muslim, but through our environment and other factors we drift away? Which is why you call “converts,” “reverts.” This is invoking the same philosophy, the Almighty God has created a perfect human, and through our actions we have polluted God’s good and perfect work. Fortunately, like I stated above, God leaves a remnant and sees things through, which is why scholars know where the majority of the “errors” in the copies reside.
Also, as I mentioned earlier, and this goes along with the context entry you posted, the Bible has to be taken in its own context. The Bible differs from the Qur’an in that the Qur’an is essentially one book containing prophetic messages from the Angel Gabriel to Muhammad, over the course of twenty years. The Bible is many “books,” by many authors, that spans at least 1500years of Hebrew and early Christian history. Dealing with prophecies, poems, histories, census’, letters dealing with issues etc. etc. Thus it cannot be held to the same standard as the Qur’an in that sense. As I stated before, God inspired does not mean God given, or God spoken, it simply means God lay on the heart of the men who wrote the Bible to write this. In some cases, it was prophetic, and thus literal words of God, in other cases it was dealing with history of the Hebrew people. As I also said before, I assume you believe your doing the will of God, thus your inspired by God, that would mean, since your doing God’s work, everything you type, period, must be free from errors of any type. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume such a notion.
No, I do not think my words, regardless of the intention, are the words of God. Nor have I mentioned such a thing.
Yes, we are in agreement that God has given humankind the will to make choices. What I am saying is the Words of God are perfect. To help us with this discussion please define which parts of the Bible are literal and therefore perfect and which parts are not, based upon Biblical evidence.
As for the post previous to that one, you have asked a general question (if historical events are true when reported) but it requires a specific answer. We have many examples of true reported historical events and also untrue ones. So, we will take each case by case rather than give a generalized statement that would cause confusion.
Hopefully you'll still join me after my editing one paragraph of your post out and posting the remainder. There are lines of decency that need to be respected in a dialogue.
Please help us with this discussion please define which parts of the Bible are literal and therefore perfect and which parts are not, based upon Biblical evidence.
I think there’s no point to continue with the discussion, if I cannot make critical remarks about the Qur’an or Islam, while this site makes critical remarks about the Bible. I did not raise issues with Islam in an un-respectful manner, and if I did, then I’d understand the “editing” of my post. But then I’d ask how I was disrespectful in my presentation. There was no name-calling and there was no rudeness, I brought up a legit accusation from at least two or three scholars. If you think they are wrong, show me where, using both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. As is done in discussions of this sort.
To let you know my quote about the majority of errors being unimportant and meaningless, that comes from a critical agnostic scholar by the name of Bart Ehrman. So I have no issues using non-Christian sources to back up what I have to say. Nor do I have issues with dealing with these critical scholars have to say. So unless, for the fruit of the discussion, I can point out critical things I have come across while studying Islam, there’s no reason for me to continue discussing religion on this site, as its a one way street.
Well, that is your choice Brooks. Personally, I think telling someone thier religion comes from the Devil is not just a "critical" remark and is not very respectful. If you think otherwise then that is fine.
I am glad you are open to ues use both Muslim and non-Muslim sources. Please do so, however kindly understand (because I am sure you would ask me the same) that claims need to be both founded in truth and made in a respectful manner. And, to clarify I was not talking about Ehrman but Jeffery - I can't tell you who you can and can't read Brooks, but you can certainly show your sincerity by using sources that are at least not described as "anti-Islam." I hope you understand that distinction. Of course I recommend Muslim scholars for you to read and understand Islam but that too is your choice.
I'd say this has been a two way street thus far and your words are the majority on this page Brooks. I will remove attacks and slander that are offense - I am sure you'd do the same on your page.
If you decide to return: Please help us with this discussion please define which parts of the Bible are literal and therefore perfect and which parts are not, based upon Biblical evidence.
I did not say your book is from the devil my friend. The "Satanic Verses" is a label given to some verses that were erased from the Qur'an because Muhammad recieved words that were from an evil spirit and once he realized this he deleted them. My words maybe the majority on this page, but they are all in defense of the Bible. However, the first critical response to the Qur'an I bring up, it is erased. This is what I mean by not being a two way street.
Technically anyone who is critical can be "anti." I have read some of Arthur's writings, and I would not say he is "anti", if you mean by being anti, someone who is Islam is evil, Islam is this, Islam is that, rather then just presenting the facts as he interprets them. I'll have to think about coming back, as I have had many run in's with Islam, and they all turn negative once smething critcal is raised against Islam, meanwhile they're calling Christians devils and liars and attcking me personally. As a result, I've learned to avoid discussions once it drifts to being silenced for speaking critically of Islam.
"Anti" is not my word Brooks, remember I quoted that from Bible.ca. Islam does not call Christians devils, as you know they are called the People of the Book and respected in Islam.
As for you claims, provide evidence for them. If they are unfounded this is not the place for them; you can post anything you like about what Christians say about Islam on your own page but just because people have said it does not make it truth.
If you decide to return: Help us with this discussion and please define which parts of the Bible are literal and therefore perfect and which parts are not, based upon Biblical evidence.
Just some food for thought today Brooks, not really on topic but I think you'll understand the idea.
I've come across some interesting books, each give tons of research to support their claims. Each written by people who have devoted thier lives to these studies and authors having PhD's. One set of these books argues that the Pyramids were constructed by aliens. Another set argues that in South America there are old landing pads where UFO's from distant galaxies used to land, which were build centuries before humans had airplanes.
Interesting books and they provide a lot of research to support thier respective ideas. Does that make the claims true? I think we can agree that, despite the titles, time and research, that this does not equate truth. So, let us be cautious and critical; Let us be honest and sincere in our search for the truth.
I’ll only agree to continue discussions if I can bring up critical assessments to the Qur’an. Since we are discussing that the Word of God must be preserved 100% to its original in order to be considered the Word of God, I think it’s fitting to apply the same critical assessment to the Qur’an. If one cannot, one is not seeking the truth sincerely. I seek the truth sincerely, which is why I read both sides of an issue and weigh their arguments. I know Islam doesn’t call Christians devils, what I’m saying is I’ve had Muslims call me that in discussions and refused to answer anything that was critical of Islam, all the while calling me a polytheist and liar. One made an accusation that only in Christianity will you find men who go mentally ill and cut their kids head off, which is fallacious argument. So I did not say Islam itself does this, just some people I’ve tried to discuss religion with. As far as calling Jeffery Arthur “Anti Islam” sites like these are shock sites for believers. I take these sites with a grain of salt until I’ve researched what they’ve got to say. So unless, which I haven’t, I see a quote from Mr. Arthur, saying something spiteful against Islam itself, and not just being critical, I think he’s a valid source and here’s why. Just because someone is not “Muslim” doesn’t me what they have found is untrue and made up. That’s what we call an ad hominin attack, attacking the person and not the argument. His findings maybe true, his interpretations maybe false, but one must show why they are. Bart Ehrman’s book, “Misquoting Jesus” was an excellent book, containing very accurate information that was the truth. The New Testament does have many many errors between its copies (not the originals). But the errors are minor and have been resolved. His interpretation of what this means to the scriptures is false and has been dealt with numerous times by various textual critics. So as I was saying, Jeffery Arthurs findings maybe true, but how he interprets them, as in what this means for the text, can be wrong. It’s not too difficult to be a textual critic, all one needs to know is a command of the languages for which the various texts are written in.
I did provide evidence for my claims; I gave two variants of the Qur’an used by Muslims and how they contain 150 errors that aren’t dialect errors in the second Sura alone.
The whole entire Old Testament as far as we can tell, is complete, other then grammar and other small copyist errors. Before the Dead Sea scrolls where found, our modern Old Testament was based off a complete manuscript dating back to the 1000AD. When the Dead Sea scrolls were found in the 1940s, this pushed our knowledge of the Old Testament manuscripts to the 300s and 400s BC, other then the various pieces that we find that date long before the 400s BC, like a portion of I believe Deuteronomy dating back to the 800s BC. Using those manuscripts and the Septuagint, the Hebrew Bible written in Greek, which dates to the 300s BC, we have weeded out those pesky grammar issues. So when you pick up a new version of the Bible, and not the KJV, you will find some of those “contradictions” on your blog entry on “errors in the Bible” no longer present. Some maybe present simply because all our manuscripts show this error and rather then make a complete guess, leave it as is. The Gospels and the rest of the New Testament are pretty much in the same boat. If you pick up a new version of the Bible, they will tell you which portions are not found in the earliest manuscripts. In the Four Gospels there are roughly four things that we’re not sure on…1. The story of Jesus saving the prostitute from being stoned 2. Whether Jesus had compassion or anger on one person he healed 3. The last chapter of Mark doesn’t seem to be original, 4. I don’t remember at this time. None of the errors affect Christian doctrine on Jesus, period. If we cut these errors out, you will still get that he healed, he’s the Son of God, he died and he rose again telling the disciples to preach the Gospel to the world. If you grab a newer version of the Bible, ESV, NRSV, RSV, NKJV, NIV, ASV…they will tell you the errors and what scholars aren’t sure about these specific verses.
I whole-heartedly agree with these statements, which is why you need to weigh what they say. If you notice that a scholar your quoting is on the fringe, in other words his theories are generally not popular, or he has a lot of opposition, good chance he’s out of his mind. For instance, the Da Vinci code, and its theory on Jesus, not many scholars would agree with that because there is no proof Jesus ran to France and started a royal blood line. The theories you listed above, they are generally on the fringe and are usually thrown to the side by the majority of scholars. So until one of those PhD’s provides a worthy argument as to why the pyramids are developed by aliens, he’ll be ignored. This is why scholarship generally has a list of criteria for finds and a list of criteria to judge theories.
Brooks
Great, the same conditions apply that I've mentioned: founded claims in a respectful manner.
As for your comment about ignoring fringe scholars, lets bring this into context. First, I don't question/reject Jeffery simply because he is non-Muslim. Jeffery admits in his book that he is using weak and fabricated chains of narration to prove his point. The vast majority of scholars around the world for the last 1400 years have rejected weak and fabricated chains of narration. Second, he bases his claims upon unseen texts, so the claims are sitting on uncertain ground. Third, he has taken only some narrations to prove his point (for example the "missing surahs") while other narrations include those "missing" parts from the same weak narration source. So, even if one is to accept the theory of Jeffery based upon the weak and fabricated narrations, he has selectively choosen only those that suit his cause. Fourth, (and last for now) is that Jeffery has put aside the consensus of Islamic scholarship over the last 1400 years on this issue. Great scholars of old and new have analyzed these narrations and ruled them to be fabricated (i.e. untrue), that the chain of narration (isnad) is weak and that the narrator is not accepted because he was known to be both untrustworthy and a lair by his comptemporaries. These are the "facts" Jeffery uses to make his claims. From those who have investigated this issue thoroughly, and I hope you'll take this oppurtunity to do so, I'll conclude a quotation from your last post: "If you notice that a scholar your quoting is on the fringe, in other words his theories are generally not popular, or he has a lot of opposition, good chance he’s out of his mind."
If you have another specific question, feel free to ask or provide evidence for a claim.
As for the Archeological developments of the Dead Sea scrolls and others - would you argue that those before 1940 were reading Bibles with some errors but now, in the year 2009 you feel we have discovered the Word of God? I don't understand why God needs His creation to do big archeological investigations and police-like verfications in order to fix mistakes in His work and His work; nor, why for hundreds of years people read those mistakes and accepted them. Does God not have the ability to ensure His message to humanity is pure, perfect and flawless for all times - and not just after some archeology post-1940?
Please recall the question I have asked a few times: Help us with this discussion and please define which parts of the Bible are literal and therefore perfect and which parts are not, based upon Biblical evidence.
Really these Christian vs Muslim discussions always seem to go around in circles. I think the problem with the truths and errors in the bible is no one really knows. You can find things to back up each thing you say till you are blue in the face, but it doesn't get you anywhere. So in the end really you are left with 2 choices each with their own beauty of appeal: Did God either make himself human and die to save us, or send his only son to die and save us, or actually is the Quran the word of God perfect and unscathed? Because if it is, we all have to admit that no other people can make that claim and it would override everything else, because there is no competition between the word of man and the word of God.
But that's a big step to take and say you believe, particularly if you come from a non- islamic background.
These debates just make my head spin and make me feel very confused and unsure what to believe because there are contradictions and hypocrisy where ever you turn. But on certain issues both religions cannot be right, and I just want to know the truth.
Muslims say Jesus did not die, was not crucified, did not rise from the dead, and yet, he is with God and will return before the end of the world in opposition to the antichrist to fight. Coming from a Christian background this is confusing to me, because all our stories of Jesus are those of peace. He did not fight. He used words to make a difference, and healing miracles. And another thing is I understand that Muslims believe it is blasphemous to say that Jesus died and rose from the dead, because somewhere it says no one will ever live twice on the Earth (I'm not sure where this is, so if one of you knows it would be great to get a quote). However to me, being suspended in life and returning to Earth millions of years later is actually just as miraculous. The problem with Jesus, is he isn't quite like the other prophets and messengers. They all lived a human life, granted with a few miracles or revelations, but died. But Jesus didn't according to the Quran. I really don't understand. What are we supposed to gain from him? Which stories of Jesus in the bible are true and which are not? It's quite crushing in a way to begin to think that all these stories you've heard from childhood might be untruths, or that you are not sure what is true and what is not. For Christians I really think the Quran does not say enough about Jesus to explain to us who he really was, but maybe that's just because we focus far far too much on him and not enough on God. -Well I will admit straight off, that is true, that's what I have a problem with, but maybe you can see why it's so difficult.
Well I'm off to go and live in the United Arab Emirates shortly, so I will submerge myself in Islamic culture, and maybe that will help a lot with understanding everything. I really hope so.
Ramadan kareem everyone.
Peace upon you all.
I must say another thing about coming from different background. You will get people all around you saying, whatever you do, don't become a muslim. And if you say you've read the Quran, that's a big conversation stopper. It's like you've just said you want to become a satanist. It's a real shame how Islam is viewed by so many people. It's all ignorance of course, and the hype over terrorism being associated wrongly with the religion, but the bias is so huge you come across big obstacles. I'm glad I'm leaving.
Save Travels my Sister Rachael.
I hope you'll stay outside of Dubia for sometime as it is a very western city like-life in that part of U.A.E.
You are always welcome to email me and my wife anytime.
May Allah accept our fasting this month; accept our good deeds; bless us with knowledge that is beneficial to us; make that knowledge that we do have beneficial to us; and give us stability and strong emaan.
salaam alaykym
I am neither Muslim nor Christian, and so have no particular investment in taking one side or the other. I found this discussion interesting, however, and so thought I would offer a comment.
I certainly can understand the criticisms of the Bible based on contradictions, and how this is problematic for those who hold that it is the Word of God. You correctly point out the fallacy in Brooks' argument, as well: if what is claimed is that the Bible is merely 'inspired', meaning that the person who wrote it sincerely loved God and was attempting to do His will in the writing, then that does not equate whatsoever to something which purports to be the actual, perfect Word of God. Brooks himself compounds this problem by using your blog as an example, asking whether your minor typographical errors detract from the intent and core message of your writings -- when of course this is an absurd analogy, since you are not trying to claim that your blog is the Word of God, nor even that it is "inspired" in the sense that Christians tend to use the word, such that it would be conceivable that a religion should be founded on your blog and your words accepted as some core text revealing the thoughts of God.
I would like to offer another way of looking at Biblical 'inspiration' and the perfection of the Word of God. You bring up a legitimate issue when you point out that since (for example) errors were corrected by Biblical scholars after the discovery of the Dead Sea scrolls, those who were Christians before that time must have had access only to an imperfect version of God's word. This, of course, implies by extension that modern-day Biblical scholars might very well be in the same position; what are the chances that through the thousands of years worshippers of God have had only a text full of errors, and thus not really God's Word in its perfection, but that now we can somehow be sure that we just happen to be living in the time when the absolute, true version has finally been achieved?
Consider, however, this idea: of course if He wished God could ensure that every word of any text remained perfect, despite the imperfection of the scholars and scribes who were involved in its transcription & preservation. However, even if God's Word were preserved perfectly, there would be no man who could perfectly understand it, let alone one who could apply its teachings perfectly in his life, because man himself is imperfect. Therefore, it cannot be that what God requires of man is perfection -- rather, God is interested in how sincerely each man attempts to do the best that he can, given what he does know and understand about the Will of God. For this purpose, it is not necessary that the instructions provided by God regarding His Will be perfect in every way, only that there be sufficient true information available at any given time for the sincere seeker for truth to come to understand that there is indeed a God, and that he has provided guidelines to man for his benefit.
(continues...)
(...continued from previous)
To this end, there are some Christians who hold that the understanding and interpretation of God's Word are a progressive advance (just as Jesus' followers -- some of whom were actually the authors of parts of the Bible -- had incorrect notions about what God intended regarding the nation of Israel, and whether Jesus was going to become Israel's king & restore the nation to secular power, when in fact Jesus' prophetic statements regarding Israel are considered by many modern Biblical scholars to generally not be in reference to the secular nation of Israel at all, nor to the literal Jews as a people).
With this idea, you have a God who indeed ensures that his Will is carried out with regard to communication with humans, but who is not necessarily concerned at any given moment with whether or not every statement attributed to Him is completely accurate.
This is logical, for the contrary argument (that God would ensure that his Word were preserved with 100% accuracy, so that his worshippers could be certain of his intent) naturally leads one to the thought that a God truly concerned with ensuring that his Word was available to man would not allow all of the competing versions of "the Word of God" to exist at all, since to do so would mean that even if his Word were reproduced accurately in some text, people would have no way of knowing which text that was.
In fact, your question about pre-1950's Biblical scholars might equally be asked of, for example, 14th century Mayans with regard to the Qur’an. Why say that it is absurd to think that God's Word would need correction in order that those 1950's Bible students be able to read his intent accurately, when one can ask, why were those Mayans not provided with access to the Qur’an at all? Surely God, if it were His intent that mankind be given His word, could have ensured that all men everywhere were given the opportunity to hear it and decide in their hearts whether they would accept its teaching. So how is it that His Word was not able to reach some parts of the world until modern times? This question does not seem very different from asking why it would be that His word was not available in its pure, accurate form until modern times (or, indeed, might still not be completely accurate).
Again, I am neither Muslim nor Christian; I present this view only as something to ponder within the logic of the discussion, because it seems to me that this would be a stronger response to the questions you raise than were those offered by Brooks (who spoke with only the most sincere of intentions, I'm sure, if not entirely convincingly).
I hope my reasoning here has not been overly convoluted... I know that I am not always the best when it comes to stating things simply and clearly.
Thank you for your time, and for the gift of this site, which provides an opportunity for reasonable discussion between those who too often are unable to come together peacefully and respectfully.
Joshua E.
Thanks for commenting Joshua.
I am glad that my position was clear and understood (re: discussion with Brooks).
Correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that the "true" Bible was to be discovered through time and research, sort of like a progression? Is there any Biblical proof to back-up a claim such as this, or is it opinion? It may be logical - however we can't take our logic and use that to negate the Messages that God has given humanity (from my perspective).
I understand your point that man is imperfect and will never be, however that does not clear up the issue that God tells us His Book is perfect, while we find errors within. Right? I am not talking here about what God requires of man, simply what God is supposed to have said and analyzing that with regard to the apparent errors. Although you mention it may not be required for man to have the Perfect Word of God, however if God says His Word is perfect, reveled to mankind - shall we not understand it to be Perfect? Surely we'd have to agree that God is able to do all things.
I think your example of the Mayans is different: one group has not yet received a Divine Message (and therefore will be held to account based upon that context and their respective situation). The other group is one who are revising a "Divine" revelation based upon new scrolls. I am not sure there is a parallel here. The latter group has a divine message that contains errors and followers are seeking to remedy that, whereas the former is one of dissemination of a Divine Message, which is free from error. And, God Judges each by his or her own situation and context. There is no theological contradiction or problem with the former situation as God speaks about that being a reality.
And, God knows best.
All the best Joshua.
That was a quick response! I am honored by your consideration of my thoughts.
I am not saying that anything "is" one way or another, just offering some ideas that might be worth consideration.
There is some support in the Bible for this idea -- without referencing these quotes (I'm sorry, but it's first thing in the morning for me, and I'm perhaps feeling a bit lazy) there is the passage about "the light keeps on getting brighter until the end" (or something to that effect) and also there is something Paul said about "now we understand imperfectly, see imperfectly. But when that which is perfect arrives, that which is imperfect shall be done away with". Also there is the parable about the slave who, while the master was away, kept on providing food for the household "at the proper time".
But simple logic tells us that (with regards to the God of the Bible, anyway) what God intends at one time for one people may not be what He intends later; reference for instance the angel telling Peter (when being shown a table containing items which, as a Jew, it was not proper for him to eat) "Do not be calling unclean that which God has now declared clean." (Although this instruction was in fact symbolic of the idea that it was now God's intention the message about the Christ be spread to the Gentiles rather than only to the Jews, the idea remains the same.) And there are the many other differences between what God stated as His Will in the Old Testament and that expounded in the New. Why should a perfect God need to change anything?
This is why I understand what you say regarding the context of the individual and his exposure to the Message of God or lack of it (e.g., ancient Mayans); however, I really don't see this as being so different from what I'm suggesting, only that the one is more 'black and white' or 'on and off' whereas what I'm saying embodies more what one might call a continuity of lightening shades of grey.
It seems to me that even for one who has never been exposed to any of the Word of God might still be judged by Him according to his heart & the context of what he does know. Within every culture there are those who strive to do the best that they can do according to the understanding that they have, and those who care nothing for anyone but themselves, and whose actions are motivated only by selfishness and evil. Surely the man who chooses to live his life according to the best understanding of righteousness that he has will not be considered to be equivalent to the man who cares nothing for whether his actions are good or bad -- even if both of these men came from a culture which had never been exposed to the Word of God.
Also, surely as there is such a man, who has never been exposed to the true Message and yet has tried to live a good life, there is also a man who has been exposed to the true Message all of his life, and knows it to be true, and yet he is motivated very little by them, perhaps going through the motions of worship and proper living, but whose heart is not really in it, and who makes no real effort to improve himself and to bring himself closer to God. Which man is judged more harshly by God, the one who has not been given the truth and yet who strives every day with all he has to do what is good, or the one who has been immersed in the truth all his life but puts forth only minimal effort? Most would agree that God favors the former, not the latter.
(continues...)
(...continued from previous)
What, then, is the advantage to a man of being exposed to truth at all, if each will be judged according to the context of his life in any case? Surely it is that the knowledge itself is not provided without reason, but because it is an advantage to a man to have these truths; also, while there is no requirement that a man know the truth (as he cannot control what is available to him) it is required that a sincere man be prepared to consider each thing he encounters as to whether it be true, and if he becomes convinced by his earnest consideration, then he must make the changes implied by his new knowledge, to the best of his ability. Doing so would ever be the 'good' thing to do; for while a man's actions may be sincerely wrong, it cannot be evil for a man to do what he best understands to be good.
Therefore it is not necessary that any text or particular collection of pages be the perfectly accurate Word of God, only that there always be opportunity for a man to increase his understanding, to improve his relationship with God, to attempt to perfect his actions.
The degree of perfection to be found in whatever text that we may have is immaterial, just as the imperfection of man and of the world in which man lives does not invalidate the perfection of God's will regarding man and the world. God created all; the fact that it is not perfect as it currently is does not mean that His creation was somehow in error. Rather, we understand that God has a purpose for man, and intentions regarding man, and that these are perfect. The fact that it is allowed by God that we make mistakes and corrupt ourselves and the world -- things which are the creations of God, and therefore should be perfect, by one reasoning -- is a part of the very perfection of His will. God created the universe and all in it, and yet it contains sin, disease, and other imperfections -- how is this other than saying that God created a Message and yet it now contains imperfections? It is God's overall purpose, design, and goals that are perfect and unalterable -- but along the way, some paths are preferable. This is not imperfection in God's plan, but the space within which our free will is created.
(continues... I am sorry this is so long, I did not intend to write something that need be broken into three posts.)
(...continued from previous)
If a man in a culture which has never been exposed to the Message of God hears about it from a traveller, who quotes it to him imperfectly, or who writes down (imperfectly) what he remembers of it for him and then travels on, what is the situation? In all of his culture, he is the only man who has any of the True Message, and yet it is imperfect, as it was given to him roughly, from memory. Is it better for him if he had nothing, and remained in complete ignorance, or is it better that he have some understanding, if imperfect?
And, more to the point, do you claim that the above could not happen? If you do not say that such an event is impossible, how is this different from what we are discussing concerning an imperfect Bible, since in that particular instance, and for that culture, what is available is an imperfect Word?
If you do say that it is impossible, that God would not allow this to happen even for a period of time before its correction, then again we must consider the variations on this theme. Surely not everyone who speaks of the Word of God does so with accuracy, and surely there are sometimes misquotes. And surely these will sometimes be the first exposure a person has to the Word. If God allows this, and other instances in which what is available to a man is not always the true, perfect version of His Message, then what difference does it make if someone somewhere does have the complete, true message? If people might be exposed to the Message in any different degree of accuracy, it really is immaterial whether there are some who are exposed to it in 100% accuracy, for why should such chance decide the fate of a man? What matters is that there always be a way for a man to pursue Truth, that there always be more available for him to learn, that his understanding can always be perfected.
This, then, might be God's Will, and as such be perfect. The state of our possession or understanding of his message does not determine its perfection, surely.
Thank you again for your sincere and humble manner of discussion, it is a credit to you and adds weight to your words.
Joshua E.
Glad we get to have this conversation.
Regarding those verses that might point to the progressive discovery of God's True Message to mankind. Are there any traditional scholars or theological explanations whereby this explanation would be supported? Is there a system of classification by which certain interpretation are accept while others are rejected? For example "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" (Matt 10:34) can, and has, been interpreted in many ways.
In contrast, in Islamic scholarship there is an in-depth science to each verse. Scholars look at when the verse was revealed (in what order in relation to other verses), in what context it was revealed within, to whom it was revealed, about what or who is was revealed, what explanation the Prophet (peace be upon him) gave regarding that verse, how the companions of the Prophet (may Allah be pleased with them all understood that verse, the linguistic analysis of each word and grammatic structure (linked to meanings), and much more. There is a science to giving interpretation.
Coming back to those verses you mentioned, do you have supporting evidence that verses such as this parable is referring to the progressive discovery of God's True Message?
Maybe you'll respond: Why did we have to know it in traditional scholarship or have a science to determine accurate interpretations. Firstly, I would respond that if we consider Jesus (peace be upon him) to be a Prophet of God, by nature of being a Messenger he delivers a message. And, withholding part of that Divine Message is not the character of Prophets (peace be upon them all). Rather, they convey the Message of God completely.
Regarding progressive revelation, there is no argument about that. Muslims too believe in Moses, Abraham, Jesus, David, Solomon, Noah and the other Prophets (peace be upon them all). However, I do not think it logical to then make the assumption that us (regular Joe Archeologist) can recover a Divine Message and revise the Bible, which we are told is God's Word. We are not Prophets or Messengers, even though I agree with you that God does not intend One law for all people at all times, I do not agree that we can, at any time and place now recover, revise or rediscover the True Divine Word of God.
Maybe we are conceptualizing the Mayan example differently. Can you explain from what perspective you are looking at it? In terms of theological access to the "truth" or as a measure of Judgment after death, or an example of God's True Word not reaching all people. I have a feeling we are looking at this example differently.
Regarding the person not exposed to the Qur'an, God tells us that each will be judge according to what they know and the prosperous one will be one that believes in God, has a sound heart, does righteous deeds.
Response 2
(You'll have to post shorter messages in the future)
Regarding your questions: What does it benefit a person to be exposed to the Truth at all?
I believe we all need to do some soul searching and answer that question for ourselves. We also have to ask ourselves, do we truly believe that God created this world and everything in it? If so, shall I not seek the Knowledge that He has bestowed upon humanity as a guidance?
Certainly we can not control everything in our life, however we do have the choice to seek knowledge, or not. We can not speak about the peoples of the past because we can not truly know their way of thinking, however we can only reflect upon ourselves and question is we are truly seeking to understand the Message God has given and exposed us to, or are we avoiding it.
You then said, it is not required for a text to be perfectly accurate. I would disagree because God says that His Word is perfect and I believe in God and I believe in His Message. But, not all share my world view.
Response 3:
Regarding the hypothetical situation about a traveler, only God knows my friend. Only God Judges. Only God knows what is in our heart and only God knows our intentions.
Regarding the imperfect Bible, I believe that I covered this point in the last response: God says it is Perfect. I believe in that. I believe God has the Power, Ability and Might to be able to do so.
I do not say that such hypothetical situation are impossible, however I say that God's Message is Protected, so if a person makes a mistake he will be able to be corrected. For example, in our modern world there are literally millions of Muslims who have memorized the entire Qur'an from the first letter until the last. If every book on the Earth was thrown into the sea, it would return, by God's Will. No other text is like this.
Glad that we had the chance to share ideas. I hope we continue, albeit in shorter form :)
All the best.
I think that we probably share some views, but express them in different ways.
There are certainly some Christian faiths who practice a more 'scientific' methodology of doctrinal development, i.e., those who are less emotive and more scholarly in their attempts to understand. Offhand, Jesuits and Jehovah's Witnesses come to mind (though these two sects certainly hold vastly different doctrinal sets). I think that calling it 'science' may be misleading, but this is surely a minor point.
Or maybe not so minor. Within the scientific community there exists some disagreement at the cutting edge of knowledge, and there are always going to be some fringe crackpots, but for the most part you do not have different scientific 'sects', some of whom believe, for instance, that molecules are made of atoms, and others who believe that they are made of photons. I don't believe that either Muslims or Christians can say that there is as little fragmentation of belief in their religion as there is in the scientific community.
But aside from that, to me it comes down to this: there is a difference between the Word of God and any particular instance or copy of that Word. When you say that God has said that His Word is perfect, how do you decide that what is being referred to is the copy of the text that is available rather than the original Words as they were first spoken? I can write something down, and check it, then add to it honestly "this is perfect and correct," and it will still say that after it is been incorrectly copied by someone else. Of course God could preserve his Word perfectly if He wishes, and I can understand your logic about why he would, but by your own admission logic is not necessarily Truth. What passage do you rely upon that tells you not only that God's Word as originally spoken by his angel was true and perfect, but also that God has decided to make sure that that Word is preserved here on Earth among humans perfectly for all time, and that he will not allow mankind to lose his Word if they do not properly appreciate and respect it?
Regarding the question of what verses do I rely upon to understand that God's Word is Perfect, protected and preserved ... here are a couple verses (I'd be happy to provide others and other proofs if need be):
Bible:
"He is the Rock, his works are perfect, and all his ways are just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he." (Deuteronomy 32:4)
“As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 18:30)
Qur'an:
"We have sent down the Reminder, and We will preserve it." (Qur'an Al-Hijr 15: 9)
"Will they not ponder the Qur'an? If it had been from other than Allah, they would have found many inconsistencies in it." (Qur'an An-Nisaa’ 4: 82)
Post a Comment