Tuesday, 7 April 2009

About the Bible being corrupted?

A brief introduction...

Disclaimer: No serious scientist of our days believes that Bible has any legitimacy to be claimed it’s an unchanged word (if any) of those Prophets mentioned in the Bible. Yet, I do no intend to offend practising and faithful Christians and Jews who believe in God and praise Him, the Almighty, day and night. Peace and blessing be with them!”

>>Hahaha..you make me laugh…there is not one book that has been more analyzed than the Bible, and of course you can find a lot of different opinions an hypothesis (give me some sources on “no serious scientists” please). The Documentary Hypothesis is (as the word says)…an hypothesis.. In the Western and Christian world you can talk about anything, not so in the Islamic one, it seems. It doesn’t seem to me that in any Islamic University (not even in the acclamated Azhar, where they prefer to “seriously investigate problems as “the nature of hermaphrodites and what part of heritage the hermaphrodites have to get: the one of a woman-or the one of a man”. Or issues about
Breast-Feeding of Man!!), there is a professorship that investigates the origin(s) of the Qur’an. They cannot, because it would undermine the notion that the Qur’an was never tampered.) Here you can find some excellent articles about “Textual Criticism and the Qur'an” (actually only made by Western Orientalists (four Germans and two English scholars), because in the Islamic world something like that would be blasphemic; the examination of the Qur’anic text has neither been an easy, nor a safe one for non-Muslims - neither have Muslims ever endeavoured to formulate a critical text themselves: (Link)



  1. Do not put too much hope on Greek texts as word of God. Where is Logia of Jesus in Aramaic. Where is Matthew’s Aramaic gospel?

    P46 (175CE) is Greek manuscript with the largest percentage of difference on record. This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will.

    Here is the words of the early church father, Origen (3rd century CE):
    “The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Origen, early church father in “Commentary on Matthew.”

    Regarding the oldest surviving fragment, Colin Roberts compared P52 writings using ONLY 5 samples from the early 2nd century CE back in 1935 and concluded based on those 5 samples; P52 was from the early 2nd century.

    (Brent Nongbri’s 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel)
    What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. – Brent

    Compare with 4th century codexes. You will be surprise how Holy Spirit inside the scribes fail to prevent them from changing words of God ever since the beginning.

  2. "This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will."

    you have to prove this. Citing just an author is not enough especially if the consensus says the opposite.

    Trying to blame the Bible does not at all eliminate the same problem (and bcs it is the word of God, it has a huge importance, it destroys all that lies behind Islam) that we can find with the Muslim holy scripture.

    You should know better than me that a scribe of Muhammad told him not to change the words that were revealed, by saying: so either I am a prophet too or the Qur`an is no revelation.

    Bcs of that Muhammad condemned him by death.

    What you do is a logical mistake called "red herring". Trying to blame someone else does not hinder you to be blamed for the same issues.

    Please study more before making us loosing time

  3. last but not least. In the King Fwuad version of the Qur'an nowadays widely distributed , you can find...."this is exactly the original reveled text where nothing never has been changed"...

    but...everyone knows that the King Fwuad version was one of the 4 the was chosen. If there was no difference why did they exist?

    PS: the other versions had as example: instead of the active the passive form of the verb and so on....this for the scandalous main Muslim text