Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!paperboy!husc6!m2c!wpi!bakken@cs.arizona.edu
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.islam
Subject: Re: Biblical corruption - where is the evidence?
Message-ID: <7541@wpi.wpi.edu>
Date: 2 Feb 90 00:04:58 GMT
Sender: shari@wpi.wpi.edu
Lines: 213
Approved: shari@wpi.edu


I will answer Mr. Moussaoui's claims about Biblical corruption.  But
first, I wish to preface this with some general comments about what I
call ``apparent contradictions'' in the Bible.  First, one must realize
that the Bible would have to be an exhastive record of history in order
to avoid any apparent contradictions.  Second, when some western skeptics
read a Bible and see something that seems to contradict something else
in the Bible, they assume the Bible is wrong.  They might know nothing
about the native languages, the culture, the background of the audience
and the writer, etc., but they assume that the Bible is automatically
wrong.  That, in my mind, is sheer arrogance.  It would be different if
the Bible said unequivocally "On day X it rained all day over all of
Africa" and in another place "On day X there was no rain over all of
Africa" for the same X, then that is a problem.  But it is never this
clear, as we shall see from my refutations below.

In my own readings of the Bible, my list of ``problem passages'' has grown
and shrunk as I find answers and more questions, but my questions have been 
answered so often that I have faith that there indeed an answer to the
question I have.  I am a rational and educated person (I currently am
working on a Ph.D. in computer science), and my heart cannot rejoice in
what my mind rejects.  So these questions are important to me.

 >I will try to show SOME examples and evidences to the atleration/corruption
 >of the Bible.  Some years back I bought a "Holy Bible" red letter edition
 >Revised Standard Edition (RSE) from a local bookstore.
 >In the preface I find the following:
 >"Yet the King James Version has grave defects.  By the end of the nineteenth
 >century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manu-
 >scripts more encient that those upon which the King James Version was based,
 >made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for
 >revision of the English translation."

This has nothing to do with what I was talking about.  I was talking about
the large volume of consistent, ancient manuscripts for the Bible.  Many
of these have been discovered in this century.  There is no question that
the King James version has problems.  It was done a *long* time ago.  I
talked about the very high degree of scholarship of the recent New International
Version (NIV).

 >In the back of the Bible I find a section titled "The books of the Bible"
 >in it there is a summary of each book in the old and new testament. For each
 >book they mention: Title,author, setting and a summary of the book.
 >I will mention only the author section which caught my attention
 >
 >Book        Author
 >----        ------------
 >GENESIS            One of the "five books of Moses"
 >EXODUS             Generally credited to Moses
 >LEVITICUS          Generally credited to Moses 
 >NUMBERS            Generally credited to Moses
 >DEUTERONOMY        Generally credited to Moses
 >JOSHUA             Major part credited to Joshua
 >JUDGES             Possibly Samuel

[etc.]

 >  .......etc ....
 >
 >One can see from this that the authorship of not even one book is attributed
 >to God, how can one then claim that the Bible is God's word and look how many
 >books have been mentioned as UNKNOWN author!!

You are incorrect in your semantics.  Christians have long held that the
Bible was given to man by God, and that he chose and inspired or dictated
to particular authors to originally transcribe it.  So what if we consider 
some texts to be Scripture (for a variety of reasons) but are unsure of the
human authorship, what does this matter?  And I don't understand how this 
situation is any different that the Qua'ran.  Certainly you don't claim to 
have manuscripts penned by Mohammed (tradition has it he was illiterate).  
Do you know who wrote the manuscripts you have?  I presume not, but rather 
you believe the Qua'ran is from God so whoever penned the manuscripts is 
unimportant.

 >Surely Moses didn't write DEUTERONOMY (at least not all) because in it, it
 >mentions the death of Moses and who attended his funeral(chap. 34)

If God wanted the information in Deuteronomy given to His people, and he
chose Moses to transcribe it (since he was their leader), is it really that
odd to think God could have someone else complete a portion of Deuteronomy
finishing with a record of the last times and burial of Moses?

 >Ahmed Deedat wrote a booklet "IS THE BIBLE GOD'S WORD" which mentions some
 >of the errors/atlerations to "God's Word" it is available free from
 >The Islamic Propagation Center 47/49 Madressa Arcade DURBAN 4001
 >phone 329-518 Republic of South Africa.  You can also check with your
 >local Islamic Mosque/Masjid/center in your city they may have a copy.

Well, I would recommend "Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties" by Gleason
Archer, Zondervan, 1982, ISBN 0-310-43570-6.  It gives quite plausible
explanations to a lot of "apparent contradictions" in the Bible.  I will
take some replies from there and attribute appropriately, since I am
no Biblical scholar.  Also Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a
Verdict" and "More Evidence that Demands a Verdict", both of which 
should be available at most Christian bookstores and a few secular ones.

 >Here are some examples: page 38
 >   
 >    WHAT DID THE LORD DECREE 3 YEARS FAMINE OR 7 YEARS FAMINE?
 >
 >II SAMUEL 24:13: SO Gad came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall
 >SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three
 >months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?

The prophet Gad visited David after he had finished a census in a spirit
of pride.  So Gad warned him with the above from God  (note the word "shall"
and the question marks) - this was a warning of what could happen and not
a statement of what would.  To this David replied, "I am in deep distress.
Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not
let me fall into the hands of men." (II Samuel 24:14, NIV).  So David was 
humbled by God's warning, and God spared him.  
  
 >I CHRONICLES 21:11:  SO Gad came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the 
 >LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed
 >before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;

And this is a definite choice of what David had to suffer - given at a later
date.  God may have reduced the term of famine due to David's earlier humility
or some other reason unknown to us.  This is paraphrased from Archer, 
pages 189-90.
  
 >pages 35-36
 >                              IS IT GOD OR SATAN
 >II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel,
 >and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah.
 >
 >I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to 
 >number Israel.

This one I can handle.  Maybe they *both* wanted David to do it, but for
different reasons.  But let me see what Archer says...   He says (on pages
186-188) that Satan definitely wanted to harm David, like he does to anyone
else.  And David had begun to trust in his resources too much, so God
may have wanted David to learn a lesson to trust him.  Archer says God's
attitude may have been "All right, go ahead and do it.  Then you will find
out how much good it will do you."

 >The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
 >In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary (PBUH)
 >is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of
 >Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus(PBUH). The first
 >one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second
 >one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two
 >lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true?  and also
 >How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe
 >that Jesus had/has no father.

I do know the basics about this question but I will pull the details from 
Archer, page 316.  Matthew, the gospel meant largely for the benefit of the 
Jews, traces Joseph's ancestry.  As Joseph's adopted son, Jesus was his
legal heir as far as inheritence was concerned, so it was important to 
record Joseph's geneology.  Note the pattern in this text is "X the father
of Y", but in verse 16 this pattern is broken, "and Jacob the father of
Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ."
This indicates that Mary bore Jesus but Joseph did not father Him.
About Luke, Archer notes:

	Luke 3:23-38, on the other hand, seems to record the genealogical
	line of Mary herself, carried all the way back beyond the time of 
	Abraham to Adam and the commencement of the human race.  This seems 
	to be implied by the wording of v. 23: "Jesus ... being (as was 
	supposed) the son of Joseph."  This "as was supposed" indicates 
	that Jesus was not really the biological son of Joseph, even though
	this was commonly assumed by the public.  It further calls attention
	to the mother, Mary, who must of necessity have been the sole human 
	parent through whom Jesus could have descended from a line of 
	ancestors.  Her geaneology, is thereupon listed, starting with Heli,
	who was actually Joseph's father-in-law, in contradistinction to
	Joseph's own father, Jacob (Matt. 1:16).  Mary's line of descent
	came through Nahum, a son of Bathsheba (or "Bathshua," according
	to 1 Chron 3:5), the wife of David.  Therefore, Jesus was
	descended naturally through Nathan and legally through Solomon.

 >Now me come to the question, from the above Can somebody says the Bible is 
 >God's word? Clearly not! 

Yes!

 >                         one would also say that these mistakes are God's,
 >Nay, I don't think a God believing person would dare say that God makes
 >mistakes, don't you agree?

What mistakes?

 >What do Muslims say about the Bible?  
 >As MusLims, we say that we believe that Allah has revealed the Tawrat to Moses

That is interesting.  From what I've read of Muslim literature and the 
Qua'ran, I can see two points (all quotations are from Arberry's 
interpretation, which is the only one I currently have):

	1) The Qua'ran says that God gave Moses the Torah 
		S.  5:47 "Surely We sent down the Torah, ..."
		S. 32:24 "Indeed, we have Moses the Book ..."
	2) The Qua'ran says that no man can change God's word
		S.  6:34 "No man can change the words of God..." 
	        S. 10:65 "There is no changing the words of God..."

Interestingly, both Mr. Moussaoui and Mr. Deedat claim that Deuteronomy
(which is part of the Torah - the Tawrat, or books of Moses) have been
corrupted, in apparent contradiction to the Qua'ran.  The only possible
Qua'ranic reference I've heard of Biblical corruption is S. 4:47-49, but,
looking at the context, it is not clear at all that this is what the Qua'ran
is saying here.
  
[etc.]

This could go on an awful long time, and I'm not sure how much the readers
of s.r.i. care to hit 'n' or I, as a grad student and father and husband,
have time to keep these detailed replies up.  But I'm game if it keeps
on going, and I'll do my best.

 >Abdenour Moussaoui