View Single Post
      07-14-2007, 06:05 PM   #60
Major General
United Kingdom

Drives: *
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK

iTrader: (0)

Also, lets look at what Christian Scholars say about the bible:

History of the Bible - Fred Gladstone Bratton

"There is a necessary and inevitable uncertainty about biblical studies owing to the very nature of the task. If the Bible had been written in English or if we had the original autographs of the Scripture. But this is unfortunately not the case"

"Between the time of the original composition and the earliest manuscripts, as well as during the successive manuscript stages, numerous changes were made, both deliberate and accidental."

"The idea that the Bible is a book is comparatively modern. It is not one book but a library of 66 books, written by almost as many authors during a period of one thousand years and on three continents."

"The traditional interpretation assumed that since every sentence of the Bible had been dictated by God, there could be no possibility of error. But contradictions, scientific errors, absurd statements, exgerrations and immature views occur throughout the Bible and were detected by the early church fathers, such as Origen, in the 3rd Century. In I Samuel 17:49 for instance we are told that David slew Goliath. In II Samuel 21:19 another account of the same battle tells us that it was Elhenan who slew Goliath."

"The 20th century Christian takes the New Testament for granted. It is hard for him to realize that there was a period when Christians had no New Testament and a still longer period when they had one but they did not know what books were, or should be, in it. The books of the New Testament were not written as Scripture and for a long time were not read as Scripture. The 'occasional' or local and, at times, self-centred character of Paul's letters is proof that neither Paul nor his readers thought there was anything sacred about them"

On Paul's letters:

"He was writing personal letters to certain people, and, if he had been able to visit them in person he would not have written."

"These letters also reveal two Pauls. Paul the practical preacher of the gospel and Paul the theologian. The religion of the first is more important for us than the theology of the second, but, unfortunately, the church often been unable to see the forest of the one for the trees of the other"

On Gospel of Mark:

"It is also the oldest, but in spite of this it is not a book written by an apostle. At best is was written by an apostle's disciple."

"He contradicts Matthew and Luke - with regard to the sing of Jonah"

" - the final section of Mark's Gospel (16, 19-20) is considered by modern authors to be tacked onto the basic work - - - - - -. This final section is not contained in the two oldest completet manuscripts of the Gospels."

"The descriptions of Jesus' childhood are unique to Luke's Gospel. Matthew describes Jesus' childhood differently from Luke, and Mark does not mention it at all"

"Matthew and Luke both provide different geneologies of Jesus: the contradictions are so large and the improbabilities so great, from a scientific point of view, that a special chapter of this book has been devoted to the subject"

"Jesus' mission is described differently on many points by Luke, Matthew and Mark."

"Luke expresses ideas on the subject of Jesus' Ascension which contradict what he says in the Acts of the Apostles - - in his Gospel he situates the Ascension on Easter Day and in the Acts forty days later"

Father Roguet on John's Gospel:

"It's a different world".

O Culmann on John's Gospel:

"a unique book; different in the arrangement and choice of subject, description and speech; different in its style, geography, chronology. There are even differences on the theological outlook"

I typed all of that out myself, I got it from a book called "Islam and Christianity" by Dr. Tahir ul-Qadri. I could show you more if you want, but I'll leave that with you for now. All of this comes with respect of course