Came across an article by Dr. James White comparing the textual arguments for the reliability of the Bible vs. that of the Qur'an. This issue hits close to home, as the arguments for the Book of Mormon are closely parallel to those advanced for the Qur'an. Here's the précis of Dr. White's article:
"As Christians encounter Islamic apologetics the topic quickly turns to ultimate sources of authority. Muslims are taught that the Bible is untrustworthy, and many believe that its text has been altered. In reality it is the Qur’an that suffers in comparison with the Bible on the issue of textual study and purity. Christians believe that the more the Bible’s history is studied, the more certain its text becomes. Christians encourage textual study and discovery of new manuscripts, while Muslims show little interest in researching the history of their own scriptures, preferring the traditional belief that the Qur’an is perfect in its current state. Often believers are stymied by attacks on the text of the Bible because of their misunderstanding of the history of the transmission of the text of Scripture. Christians need to be able to defend the integrity of the biblical text and to use the sharp contrast between the scriptures of the two faiths as a means of presenting the truth about Jesus Christ."
The entire article is available from the Christian Research Journal, at this link. Here's to thoughtful Christianity!
Sunday, February 3, 2008
The Bible vs. the Qur'an
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
If you think the God of Abraham is worthy of worship,would you not think it proper to call him by the name HE SAW FIT TO GIVE US??? AND IT IS NOT THE LORD!!
Isaiah 42:8 (RNKJV) I am Yahweh: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.
Deuteronomy 5:11 "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain: for the LORD will not hold [him] guiltless that taketh his name in vain."
If we examine this verse in the Hebrew text that the King James Bible was translated from, we would not find "The LORD" or any word that carries such a meaning. What is actually there is the Heavenly Father's true name, "Yahweh". I believe it is important to consider whether or not this tradition is something the Heavenly Father would desire us to follow.
Let's take a moment and look at the Webster's dictionary definition of the word "vain":
vain 1. Having no real substance, value, or importance; empty; void; worthless; unsatisfying. ``Thy vain excuse.'' ... 2. Destitute of forge or efficacy; effecting no purpose; fruitless; ineffectual; as, vain toil; a vain attempt. ...
Considering the meaning of the word 'vain', what greater way to bring Yahweh's name to emptiness, worthlessness, and having no real substance, value or purpose than to remove His name altogether from scripture and substitute it with a title of our own choosing?
Those who have chosen to practice this are doing just that. This practice is so widespread and so complete that few people even know the Heavenly Father has a personal name. Yahweh chose to place His name in scripture nearly 7,000 times. And each one of those 7,000 times it is replaced with a title (such as "The LORD") in 99% of all translations. In fact, in most translations the third commandment (as written) is a transgression of itself! Why? Because the third commandment forbids bringing His name to nothing, yet most translations do just that.
I am really trying to see your point, but I am afraid that you have failed to demontstrate how what you are saying is relevant to the topic.
I will briefly address your seeming non sequitur, however. Is it improper for my children to call me "daddy"? That is, after all, a title rather than my given name. I ask this because you repeatedly refer to "the Heavenly Father" in your post, rather than exclusively using His name. PERHAPS I will post further on this issue, to give you a chance to better make your point; but don't count on it -- it's my blog, so I get to drive.
Post a Comment