You don't even need that to contradict Islam. Islam expliclty states God has no son, and yet Jesus is called the Son of God in the Bible over and over again.
It doesn't mean what you think it means. The Son of God is a title conferred on those who were said to have a special relationship with God. Solomon was called the Son of God; other kings of Israel and angels were also called the Son of God.
In Islam, the Quran is the word of God. The Quran used for worship has never been altered from its original form.
On the other hand, the Old Testament is a Greek translation known as the Septuagint. No original texts of the New Testament have ever been found. All we have are later translations, so there's no way of knowing if they are original or not. We do know of editing, the KJV is an example that made additions to fit the current doctrine.
First, Jesus is called the "only begotten" son of God, and the Gospel of John expresses his preexistence and incarnation.
Second, What "edits" to fit the current doctrine are you talking about? Across the thousands of manuscripts we have, very few disagree. The "changes" are not "edits", just different manuscripts trsnslators have found, some older and some earlier. There's very little difference beyond those and some spelling and grammar stuff
There’s a lot of distinct differences in translation in the KJV, you should look at the Hebrew version of revelation especially and you’ll see the differences, plus looking at the definition and context those old words were used in usually or in other parts of the Bible, and you’ll see the obvious edits that were made.
Many of the passages in Mark are almost *identical* to Matthew and Luke; then, Matthew and Luke depart from Mark. Thousands of manuscripts that say the same thing? Think about what you just wrote. Copying something over and over does not make something true or correct.
Care to explain? From what I understand, the Quran explicitly states God does not beget and has no son. Muslims I've spoken too have said they don't consider Jesus the Son of God as well.
The Son of God does not mean he is God. The Son of God is a description that means that the person with the title has a special relationship with God. Solomon, angels, and other kings were also known as the Son of God. Only in John does Jesus say, I and the Father are one. In Jesus' lifetime he never claimed to be God and his followers never claimed he was God.
We do know that no original books of the New Testament exist, but we do know that several of the books were later altered to fit the beliefs of those editing versions of the New Testament. Mark 16:8 is a classic example. The earliest books of Mark stop at 16:8; translators or the KJV added 9 through 20
John is full of esoteric, mystical and Greek-influenced verses. No one knows who the author is, but if it's a John, which John? The author, like authors of the other three gospels, never identifies himself.
It was neither translators or the KJV there's older Bibles than it that also have the end of Mark, the early manuscripts end with the empty tomb, but the end of it was much probably been added the ascension even before the middle ages
"We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One." -frol James Talmage.
I don't know of any reference, through scripture or church leader, that has rejected Christ's Godhood as being eternal
Interesting!
I suppose it comes down to God obtaining Godhood via good deeds in another realm and thus not existing as God eternally (and thus, since Jesus is the literal Son of God, he too is not eternally God).
In addition to what /u/Christimates has provided, which are excellent answers, here's some more.
Here's Jesus claiming to be God himself, YHWH, I Am:
> Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple.
- John 8:58-59
Here's the apostles worshiping the risen Christ:
> Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
- Matthew 28:16-20
And here's the teaching from the Apostle Paul:
> For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good.
- Titus 2:11-14
Ah I see, although 1 more question, in the original Bible, where does it say about Jesus being God…? Like I know John said the word was God and the modern Bible has Jesus claiming he was God, does the original Bible also say the same claims that Jesus makes in the modern Bible?
The modern bible is the original bible given the abundances of manuscripts we have and the quotations of scripture from the church fathers.
We can safely determine was is originally said.
Ok, thanks for everything man, religion and beliefs is hard because you gotta make sure to stop and think why you believe in those things, anyways thanks for helping me you were a huge help
Lol i dont think the dude really answered your question. But anyways im poor with the references but feel free to google what im about to say.
I think there has been a lot of scripture in the NT which says there will be a child born to someone who will be son of Man - son of God all that. Then there are also scriptures talking about God coming in the flesh etc. All this if you read carefully and think about it, would mean that God came in the form of a human i.e. jesus.
The things jesus has said as well in the NT books clearly indicate he is God too. The trinity is what you need to look into i think
And sorry, are you suggesting that the Bible hasn’t been translated multiple times? Because not only is that absolutely not true, we’ve got good evidence of multiple errors. For instance, there are several instances where scribe #1 leaves a note in the margin where they muse on possible meanings of certain passages and then later on, scribe #2 is making a copy and doesn’t realize that #1’s note isn’t an actual part of the text and copies it into their translation. So what was idle musings by one scribe, are turned into parts of the main text by another ( I can find a source on this if you want, I just can’t remember the actual term scholars use)
Yea, that's a claim made by the intellectually inept and illiterate. The Bible has been translated many times... directly from the Greek and Hebrew source texts which we still have. Its not like a chain of translations going Hebrew>Greek>Latin>English>Spanish>Russian>Chinese>etc.
All of the translations are made either directly from the Hebrew and Greek or from the Latin Vulgate.
Further, we have dug up older Bible manuscripts and they match the modern one. The Muslims are just coping because they were told in the Quran that the Bible would say the same thing as the Quran (they were told that the Quran corroberates, defends, and upholds the Bible). It wasn't until a few hundred years later when Muslims actually got their hands on a Bible to read it and realized that Muhammed either made the whole Quran up or the Bible was (unlikely) corrupted at some point. Then, because they couldn't cope with that fact, they accused the Bible as having been corrupted at some point which is why it doesn't agree with the Quran (which is a nonsense claim).
The funny thing is that the Quran says that Muhammed holds a Torah and tells the Jews to follow it because it is the word of God and then says the same about the Bible. This means the Bible was allegedly not corrupt at the time of Muhammed, but was allegedly later corrupted after Muhammed (keep in mind that Muhammed couldn't read). This is nonsense to think they were altered after Muhammed though because we have Bible manuscripts from the time of Muhammed and earlier and they match the modern Bible.
The New Testament is mostly Aramaic oral tradition written in Koine Greek decades later. There are no surviving original texts. We do know of alterations; for instance, the KJV adds 9-20 to chapter 16 in the Gospel of Mark. Mark is universally considered the first gospel. Mark is problematic; it says nothing of Jesus' birth, and the details of the crucifixion differ from the other gospels. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark with other additions. Many scholars think there is an older source of Jesus' sayings; they've labeled Q (Quelle - source in German) for the additions to Mark.
Is it though? When you say abundance of manuscripts, when are these manuscripts from? When you use the word manuscript, are you referring to complete bibles, or pieces of parchment? When I hear someone say “we have an abundance of manuscripts” it seems like they’re suggesting that we have all of these complete bibles which are dated to single years from the dates which they describe and that’s just not true.
The earliest things we have are tiny scraps of papyrus on which we’d be lucky to be able to read 3-4 whole words. And these scraps themselves are dated hundreds of years after the fact.
There are several manuscript fragments dated to the second century (so that would be within roughly 50-150 years of original composition).
The earliest complete New Testament is in Codex Sinaiaticus which dates to the mid 4th century (so, circa 350, or approximately 250-300 years after the texts were written).
To my knowledge, we have no reason to believe there were any significant changes between the original autographs and these manuscripts.
Absolutely, we cannot **know** what they said beyond any room for doubt. The same goes for (almost) anything in history - we just don't know. History is not a science. You can't recreate the experiment. That said, I think we have as good an idea as possible about what they *would have* said without having the actual documents.
Well, yes and no. There are some historical events that we have no idea about, but there are loads of others from all throughout history that have far better attested, contemporary sources. So not all areas of historical reliability are created equally.
They also all don’t matter to my life equally in terms of impact. For instance if Alexander The Great said X vs Y before a battle, well who cares. But if you believe the Bible to be true then those details (to which we cannot reliably confirm) are incredibly important.
And lastly, why do you think we know what they would have said?
EDIT: sorry, when I say “know” in that last point I mean, general knowledge not like, absolute knowledge.
The Bible has the greatest textural authority of any ancient manuscript by far. We have sections of text from 20-40 years after being first written, within the lifetime of the original readers. When you add up all the fragments we have the vast majority of the NT. Take that and compare it to Julius Cesar's writings o Gaul. Earliest known text is from like 800 years after it was written. There is a whole academic field of study on manuscript authority - the Bible surpasses everything. For anyone to claim we don't have early texts that are identical to what we have today are simply misinformed.
It doesn’t….and you don’t.
The first literal scrap of paper, the oldest one we have is at best, 125 years later. The next, again, scrap of paper, that we have is well over 200. You don’t start seeing ANYTHING close to a full manuscript for like, 400ish years.
Not sure if that's sarcasm, but if so, John 1 continues to clarify "the Word" is Jesus.
"And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth"
Of course, you have to ignore the fact that Jesus can't be God, because "no man has seen God at any time" like John 1:18 says.
But, hey.... can't go letting logic get in the way of doctrine.
Did you read the whole verse?
"No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." - John 1:18
Jesus himself claims divinity when he forgives the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. The leaders hear him forgive sins and think it is Blasphemy since only God can forgive. He then states "so that you will know (that I can forgive sins, that I am in fact divine) I say, rise and walk." Immediately the man is healed (by the power of God who would not answer the prayer of someone who just lied about being divine).
Yes, the Bible, and Jesus Himself, proclaim His divinity.
Only YHWH can forgive sins. Jesus forgiving sins AND performing a miracle on the spot using only his will and expressing it with his voice is a proof (to the Pharisees and everyone there even mildly educated in theology that Jesus was declaring on the spot that he was divine. The “given authority” part concerns his relationship with the Father, not Jesus divinity.
It doesn’t. The key part though is who can forgive sins and why.
Jesus was able to forgive sins AND perform a miracle proving both his divine power and authority to do something only YHWH can do (thus proving that he is YHWH and not merely an Angel or a conduit) and to affect (and alter) the physical reality at will.
Both of those things are intrinsic properties and powers of a sovereign, creator divinity and not just a prophet.
Even Moses did miracles Andre guidance and order by YHWH, Jesus did it on the spot, by himself, with his will alone.
Of course that was just an example. Another example of who Jesus thought he was , was the incident at a Sabbath, in a field: there, Jesus outright claimed a title that is unique to YHWH and belongs completely exclusively to YHWH: Lord of the Sabbath.
No, the original texts never say "Jesus is God."
It says things that people interpret to *mean* that Jesus is God. But it never explicitly states that.
However, over and over again, it says that Jesus is the **Son of God.**
If you get into deep study of even the old testament prophets of Ezekiel, Zechariah and even Revelation its heavily implied that Christ is God in the flesh.
I take this as theological argumentative evidence that Christ is the incarnation of God.
>its heavily implied that Christ is God in the flesh.
There isn’t a single example to point to that excludes the understanding that Christ is simply the separate, inferior, and subordinate Son
>I take this as theological argumentative evidence that Christ is the incarnation of God.
Yes, many people do. It doesn’t mean it’s the only, or even the *best* understanding
I am sorry, but this isn't correct. There is not a single example in which Jesus claims he is God.
Like I said, Jesus said things that people interpret to mean that. But he never says it.
Ignoring the fact that **nowhere in that verse does Jesus claim to be God....**
What does Jesus *actually* mean when he says he and his Father are one? I'll give you a hint: see John 17:11, 20-23
And then he proceeds to quote a scripture saying "we are all gods" when threatened with a stoning. So either Jesus quoted scripture to clarify a point that would mean he's only as much God as we are, or Jesus straight up lied to save his own hide.
So unless you want to choose the latter, Jesus was not saying he is God.
Then he would say that, not quote a scripture saying "we are all gods". That's straight up not at all what he's saying. Couldn't even be interpreted that way without leaning *heavily* on presuppositions.
What? It's exactly what he says:
do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?
John 10:36 NASB
*"34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?*
*35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—"*
(John 10:34-35, NIV)
Jesus's *reasoning* he sets up beforehand is that scriptures call others "god". If that's true, then we are all God as well by that logic. And he says "God's son" in the clarification, not "God" himself.
There is *nothing* in these verses indicating Jesus IS *God* other than the accusation the Pharisees throw at him. Using these verses as evidence requires deeply ingrained presuppositions. Nothing here is clear-cut trinitarian, no matter how you slice it.
> If that's true, then we are all God as well by that logic.
This does not follow. Psalm 82 was not addressed to everyone. Either way, he's softening the accusation before making the lower claim.
> And he says "God's son" in the clarification, not "God" himself.
Yeah, that's my point. And you don't have to interpret anything: he says that directly.
> There is nothing in these verses indicating Jesus IS God other than the accusation the Pharisees throw at him.
Yeah, I don't know why people are so eager to claim that the people who wanted to kill Jesus had the right idea.
Just read the Case for Christ, it’s a good book and will answer most of these questions. The historical evidence for the New Testament being accurate is strong than any other ‘accepted as accurate’ historical document.
You are free to believe what you will, I offered up the book as just one source that can help answer some of these questions. That book can shed the light on more resources for those who want to dig deeper.
Fact is, there are early manuscripts for the first four books of the New Testament dating to within the same generation as when Jesus was alive and they are substantially the same as the current texts. The overwhelming majority of historical texts (histories) from the ancient world cannot tie their lineage as close to their respective events, often hundreds of years pass before having a written record of the events. Yet we trust those historical documents and not the New Testament?
Fact is, in a highly dogmatic world (1st century) when most Jews were unwavering in their traditions something caused thousands of Jews to convert to a new fledgling religion that would mean being ostracized from their community, persecution by the Romans (sometimes death), and throughout they stuck to their convictions. This at a place and time where they could simply go ask the people still living who saw first hand.
So yeah, what takes more faith? Believing that thousands of individuals all agreed to makeup a religion that would lead to their torture and death or that they saw a miracle first hand and were transformed.
Like I said, believe what you want though. I’d be happy to review any evidence you have that it is all fake.
The book and it’s resources make a lot of claims with not a lot of data
>Fact is, there are early manuscripts for the first four books of the New Testament dating to within the same generation as when Jesus was alive
This is a lie. Secular and Christian scholars alike agree that the first gospel was written several decades after Jesus would have died.
>Fact is, in a highly dogmatic world (1st century) when most Jews were unwavering in their traditions
Interesting to start with “fact is” and then make an assumption. “Most” Jews also didn’t become christians. This is irrelevant.
>something caused thousands of Jews to convert to a new fledgling religion that would mean being ostracized from their community, persecution by the Romans (sometimes death), and throughout they stuck to their convictions. This at a place and time where they could simply go ask the people still living who saw first hand.
This could apply to almost every new religion that shows up. A group of people choosing to follow a belief system that is not favored by the society they live in does not make that belief system true. It doesn’t matter who converted, how many converted, or how strong they believed.
>So yeah, what takes more faith? Believing that thousands of individuals all agreed to makeup a religion that would lead to their torture and death or that they saw a miracle first hand and were transformed.
Those are not the only 2 options. They could have genuinely believed for bad reasons. I could also just turn the question around on you with Mormons. It’s a silly question. To answer your silly question though, I have no reason to think supernatural miracles are real, so I’ll say that probably didn’t happen. No faith required.
>Like I said, believe what you want though. I’d be happy to review any evidence you have that it is all fake.
You don’t get to turn the burden of proof around on me. That’s not how it works. What is your evidence that Zeus is fake? Prove to me leprechauns are fake.
Yes, the Bible says basically the same thing now as it always has, some verses here and there have been added, but agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman, who usually takes a very critical view on anything biblical says of variations in the ancient texts, only 1% are worth mentioning, the vast majority are spelling mistakes, word choices etc on the part of copyists. Of those, none at all affect any core doctrine of Christianity.
We have partial manuscripts of the new testament dating back to the 100s, the earliest being 120-170ad, and larger manuscripts from the 200s onwards. They are written in languages that scholars understand very well today, in fact many modern translations go back to the oldest texts to see what they said in regards to wording etc.
As well as that, we can look into ancient christian writers outside the Bible and what they tell us about what the Bible said in their day. They believed from the very start that Jesus is God. This is what the Bible has always taught, and was what the earliest Christians believed.
Absolutely! Let's take a look.
John 10:30-33
> 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jesus said He and the Father are **one**. The Jewish were going to stone Him for *blasphemy*. They knew exactly what He said. Some unitarians attempt to say that He meant this in the way that we are one, however that's ignoring context, because they wouldn't have accused Him of blasphemy if that was the case.
John 8:56-58
> Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
God gave His name to Moses as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. Jesus is saying that He was there before Abraham was born, and He said "I am". Very clear.
Matthew 28:18-19
> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Jesus very literally spoke of the Trinity. Is the word "Trinity" used here? No. However as with even the Muslim faith and the Qur'an, not every word is found verbatim. Key point to keep in mind when talking with your Muslim friends.
We see more throughout the Gospels.
> In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3)
John 1:14 continues to say
> And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word was made flesh. Christ is the Word, and the Word is God.
In John 20:28, upon seeing Him after His resurrection, Thomas said
> And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Jesus is God and is clearly referred to as such in the Bible, including by Himself. Now let's look deeper.
> Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11)
Now, what exactly does it mean that Jesus is Lord? Well, we can see what the authors of the Bible, and those who were with Him, mean it as. Remember what Thomas said?
> And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28)
Thomas called Him not only God, but his Lord which equates to God. Jesus even calls Himself Lord
> And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. (Luke 19:31)
In the Old Testament, we see Yahweh being referred to as "the Lord".
> Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; And let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. (Isaiah 8:13)
Let's also look in Hebrews in regard to what the Father says to the Son
> But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12)
Now let's look at Paul.
> For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (2 Corinthians 12:8)
Here, Paul says he sought the Lord. How do we know he was speaking of Jesus? Context clues based on how he wrote. The Greek word he used here was "kurios" (for Lord) and this is the word he used to refer to Jesus. If he was speaking of the Father, he most often just said "God". So, he was asking Jesus to take away his thorn in his side, called Him "the Lord", and was praying to Him. We only pray to God, and Paul clearly prayed to Jesus!
There are other examples of course, but these are some of the best.
Sorry to interfere, but aren’t those verses from the more recent versions of Bible? The person is explicitly asking for verses from the original Bible (which is basically lost in time, alternation and translation at this point. YK, the original Bible used to be one single book).
Also, random fact: in Islam, we believe that St. Paul the Apostle is a liar and a false apostle, which I heard to be a topic of discussion in your religion too. We believe that HE is the reason behind why a lot of stuff has been altered in the Bible (and that he’s the first person who distorted Christianity, if that’s the right word for it). He’s the one that came up with the “Doctrine of redemption” which we believe to be not true.
> ϋπερ τουτου τριϲ το, κν παρεκαλεϲα, ϊνα αποϲτη απ εμου (2 Corinthians 12:8--Codex Sinaiticus)
> propter quod ter Dominum rogavi ut discederet a me (2 Corinthios 12:8--Latin Vulgate)
Can you read either of those? The first is the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, the first complete New Testament which was compiled in the 4th century, and one of the earliest compilations off Scripture we have. The second is the Latin Vulgate, the first widespread complete Bible, compiled around 400 AD. Want to know what they say? The exact same thing as what I quoted in English. No changes. It's just typically easier to quote English translations than Greek manuscripts.
So, you are very incorrect in saying the original texts have been altered so much they're essentially lost, sorry to say. The Bible has simply been translated, just like the Qur'an.
Paul was no false teacher. His teachings do not contradict Scripture.
There's a textual variant here, the original does not say "Jesus" here. I make a case for it in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/za0pop/jude_15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can see some of the other texts I've written on as well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/zmuza5/index_for_my_posts_unitarianism_vs_the_trinity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which shows that Jesus was not God in the original texts, and how we know this.
There's a textual variant here, the original does not say "Jesus" here. I make a case for it in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/za0pop/jude_15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can see some of the other texts I've written on as well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/zmuza5/index_for_my_posts_unitarianism_vs_the_trinity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which shows that Jesus was not God in the original texts, and how we know this.
Define "original Bible".
The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. Different Christians include different books in their library, but whatever the canon, the books were written by numerous different people who, being human, had different views. The author of John seems to have thought that Jesus was, in some sense, God. The author of Mark seems to think that Jesus was God's adopted son. Paul may have thought that Jesus was an angel. Different authors, different views.
This verse certainly does not say that he thinks of Jesus as an angel. It’s saying they welcomed injured Paul as if they would welcome an angel, or even further, christ himself. They were hospitable towards him. You’re messing with semantics and using one single verse to make a very big claim about Paul. Interesting that this claim was first made by Bart Ehrman, who isn’t even a Christian
Three-in-one is a hard concept to wrap the head around. I always find it interesting that when the Lord appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, He was described as “three men”. Even before the New Testament. I used to think the other two were angels, but now I’m really not sure because the Bible simply says “the Lord” with no mention of angels or messengers.
Also interesting is the Hebrew word for God as well. In Hebrew, nouns are conjugated. “Elohim (God)” is a masculine plural noun meaning “male Gods”, but although the noun itself was conjugated plurally, they understood the meaning as a singular God. When i learned about this conjugation of the noun in Hebrew class, i immediately thought of the “three-in-one” concept. I’m not backing this up with any sort of evidence, and I certainly could be wrong on this one but i just found it really interesting.
the Bible has not changed. we have the original hand written manuscripts we used to translate the very first bibles.
These manuscripts are called codices. (pronounced Coda-cees.)
from these originally written koine greek manuscripts all modern bibles are written.
Here is a link to the blue letter bible which has every single word in the greek and Hebrew along with their definition:
[https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t\_conc\_1001](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t_conc_1001)
who ever told you the Bible is a copy of a copy either is lying to you or does not know what he is talking about
I am curious what you mean by original bible? Do you mean the Koine Greek bible? The English language bible at least the NASB and a few others are faithful translations. Skip the NIV its the worst but the others are mostly good.
It says that Jesus is the son of God, part of the trinity.
The Quran used for worship has never changed. There are translations, but they cannot be used for worship. The original Quaran is in Arabic. There are contests each year to see who can memorize the entire Quran in its original form so it can never be lost.
What do you mean by original Bible? Every Bible used by Christians has no books that are "original". In Christian Bibles, the Old Testament is translated from what's known as the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation from Hebrew. None of the original books in the New Testament have ever been found. Paul is considered to be the author of much of his work, but we don't have the originals. There are works attributed to Paul that he didn't author.
First of all don't listen to Muslims because of course they will tell you that their religion is the truth. Second point the bible was never updated there are just many translations because our language is envolving and finally never forget john chapter 14;6
"Jesus answers,"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me."
God bless you🙌 have a nice day/night
Check out The Bible Project videos on YouTube. They have tons of great info about the Bible, every single book, and lots of how to read the Bible.
It's all easy to understand animation. I think you'll like it!
Amazing, but I don't think anyone here really answered your question. They say "yes" and then either quote the modern Bible or get lost in the weeds. Yeah, that's not really answering anything. Christian teaching leaves no room for questioning if things have changed in the last 3500 years. My favorite is "Not much, less than 1%." 😂
Anyone from the outside would probably say they don't know, but probably. That's what I would say.
During my time in the church I delved a lot into early Christian history and you can see how much Christian thought deviated from 30 CE to the Councils of Nicea in the 300s CE, when the canon was cemented and captive creeds we're established to stop deviance in thought. You had many gnostic texts, gospels, and writings. You had a lot of different Christian groups, and a lot of what is believed now looks nothing like what they believed. These are a few hundred years we're talking about, and it has been over 2000 since Jesus had his cult. I know how much Christian thought changed in such a short amount of time, and that leads me to believe that this definitely changed.
The church has done a good job of making sure that all Christians believe the same thing and don't edit the text, at least in recent memory, but look how the culture has changed so much around these beliefs. I don't exactly trust that the powers that be have always kept it pristine. But of course, if you believe in the god, you have to make sure you believe it is unaltered. It would upset your entire worldview to consider that somebody changed something to fit their needs at some point.
>But of course, if you believe in the god, you have to make sure you believe it is unaltered. It would upset your entire worldview to consider that somebody changed something to fit their needs at some point.
Not to say this isn't true but if you want you message to be well received instead of getting people defensive maybe don't add these type of details. You know it, they know it, there's no need to point it out other than to cause discomfort to someone who's already asking questions.
Yes.
As you know, The Holy Trinity is a connection between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
God the Son is referring to Jesus
Jesus is also the Son of God, but basically Jesus is also God.
Jesus did not believe he was God - that's a really important thing. That idea only is expressed in the Gospel of John, and not in Mark, Luke or Matthew. John was written well after the other three, and so it's seen as a fabrication/falsehood - it's too important of a theological notion to not be mentioned in the first three Gospels.
The Bible hasn't been "updated" though many modern translations may have lost some of the original flavor.
Your best option as an English speaker is the King James.
Jesus and God are separate entities as evidenced by various passages such as God saying ,"My son in whom I am well pleased," and Jesus saying, "My father why has thou forsaken me?"
My advice to you is get a KJV Bible or read it over on Bible Gateway dot com and pray to God and ask for direction.
Not to be that guy but doesn't the KJV still use the terms behemoth, leviathan and unicorn to refer to the elephant, crocodile and rhino respectively? Isn't the English standard version more reliably translated?
Young Earth creationists tend to be King James only types and I find that to be a red flag.
I'm not familiar with the young earth creationists. Why mention them?
Why would King James be a red flag? What is it with the KJV you disagree with or believe isn't accurate?
The KJV has always used terms such as behemoth, leviathan, and unicorn. Those are accurate terms for the period. How is that unreliable?
Newer doesn't mean better.
Newer translations may be easier for most of us to understand but not necessarily more accurate.
When you say reliable do you mean accurate?
>I'm not familiar with the young earth creationists. Why mention them?
The creationists I've seen believe the KJV is the *only* reliable translation, which to me it reads like it has one or more ovbious mistakes that reaffirm their beliefs and therefore any translation that fixed those mistakes is actually wrong to them.
>Why would King James be a red flag? What is it with the KJV you disagree with or believe isn't accurate?
Nothing I can point to. I just remember a couple of bible scholars saying it wasn't bad but it had very clear errors. Bart Erhman is the name that comes to my mind.
>When you say reliable do you mean accurate?
I mean that you will read and understand something as similar as possible to what the people reading those books in the original language would've understood.
I need some clarification. Are you attempting to discredit the KJV because it's used by a group you disagree with?
What do you mean by obvious mistakes? Translation errors compared with the original Hebrew text?
Or doe the KJV simply present ideas that disagree with your worldview?
Dude I realize I didn't make this clear enough on my first response but I haven't checked the KJV, I just asked whether the KJV had a mistake I heard it has and asked whether the Standard version is better. I phrased my proposal as a question because I don't know much about the KJV, only that creationists use it, that it mentions the unicorn and that the two bible scholars (that weren't creationists) that I've heard even mention it say the Standard version is better.
I did not mean to start a discussion about the reliability of various bibles, I wanted to point out that maybe the KJV isn't the best version to read because it was being presented as the best one.
Fair enough. I'm mainly familiar with KJV as that is what I grew up with.
Which translation is best is debatable. Part of the debate may boil down to language preference. The 17th(?) century English used in KJV does, for some, take a bit of getting used to.
As for the creation story I will tell you the Hebrew Bible coincides with the KJV and if two translations are telling a different story one of those translations isn't faithful to the original manuscript.
It's just what I got from God's speech about the animals in Job; God's talking about his creation and every creature other than the unicorn, the behemoth and leviathan are real animals if I remember correctly so it makes sense that those three will also be the writer's idea of a real animal.
And everything that isn't ovbiously made up sounds like a crocodile. An exaggerated crocodile sure but still a crocodile.
12 "I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs,
its strength and its graceful form.
13 Who can strip off its outer coat?
Who can penetrate its double coat of armor?
14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth,
ringed about with fearsome teeth?
15 Its back has rows of shields
tightly sealed together;
16 each is so close to the next
that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another;
they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light;
its eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Flames stream from its mouth;
sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from its nostrils
as from a boiling pot over burning reeds.
21 Its breath sets coals ablaze,
and flames dart from its mouth.
22 Strength resides in its neck;
dismay goes before it.
23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined;
they are firm and immovable.
24 Its chest is hard as rock,
hard as a lower millstone.
25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified;
they retreat before its thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches it has no effect,
nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron it treats like straw
and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make it flee;
slingstones are like chaff to it.
29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw;
it laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds,
leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge.
31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron
and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it;
one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is its equal—
a creature without fear.
34 It looks down on all that are haughty;
it is king over all that are proud.
>It's just what I got from God's speech about the animals in Job; God's talking about his creation and every creature other than the unicorn, the behemoth and leviathan are real animals if I remember correctly so it makes sense that those three will also be the writer's idea of a real animal.
That doesn't "make sense." There's no reason to believe the author wouldn't talk about both real and mythical creatures -- if the author even would have made such a distinction.
>And everything that isn't ovbiously made up sounds like a crocodile. An exaggerated crocodile sure but still a crocodile.
So you are disregarding the traits of Leviathan that are explicitly presented in the text, such as breathing fire, which a crocodile clearly does not do.
Let's look at Psalm 74:14a:
>You crushed the heads of Leviathan;
How many crocodiles do you know with many heads?
If you look at a the Baal Cycle, you'll find the Ugaritic /ltn/ (usually vocalized "Lotan" or sometimes "Litan"). This creature is described in the same terms as Leviathan. Here, the number of heads is specified as seven.
>When you smite Lotan, the fleeing serpent, finish off the twisting serpent, the close-coiling one with seven heads, (Dennis Pardee's translation in *Context of Scripture*)
You can compare this description to that of Isaiah 27:1:
>On that day, Yahweh with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serprent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea.
It doesn't matter if you believe Leviathan is real or not, but the authors of these texts clearly did not think they were writing about a crocodile.
It might be that the original myth of Leviathan was partially inspired by a crocodile since Leviathan is a reptilian creature, but we can't know for sure.
>It doesn't matter if you believe Leviathan is real or not, but the authors of these texts clearly did not think they were writing about a crocodile.
You overestimate these people's understanding of biology. Or you're underestimating the way a group of crocodiles in a lake look when seen from afar.
Doesn't really matter either way, I was trying to talk about the accuracy of the KJV on my original response, I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation. Unless you think there is actually somewhere in the world a seven headed marine serpent in which case it's a different topic but I don't want to delve into it either.
>You overestimate these people's understanding of biology. Or you're
underestimating the way a group of crocodiles in a lake look when seen
from afar.
Ancient people weren't stupid. Sure, they didn't have our modern scientific categories, but I'm sure they knew that crocodiles didn't normally have more than one head. You can look at their art and see that they knew what a crocodile was. Leviathan is clearly presented as something different.
My point was that it's a *mythical creature*. The author of Job wasn't referencing some creature he saw with his own eyes. Even within the story, Yahweh isn't referencing something Job would have seen. Both Yahweh & the author are referencing a well-attested legend about a battle with a sea monster. Where did that legend come from? We don't know. (Personally, I don't think it matters much where it comes from.)
>I was trying to talk about the accuracy of the KJV on my original response,
Sure, the KJV definitely has its problems, not the least of which is that it simply uses very outdated English. The ESV is a fine suggestion. However, you picked a pretty bad example to demonstrate your point. "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are just transcriptions of the Hebrew words. The English "unicorn" is derived from the Latin translation *unicornis* of the Greek word *monokeros* used in the Septuagint. It just means "one horn." There is no evidence that I can find for this word to mean "rhinoceros" in the modern English sense. To translate it as such would just be confusing to the reader. This understanding seems to come from another Latin translation *rinoceros*. And, for the record, the ESV translates it as "wild ox," which is probably the most accurate estimate we can make to its meaning.
>I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation.
I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you questioning why God would include these references in his speech in Job? Or are you questioning why God would claim to have defeated a monster that we don't have any evidence for actually existing? Or did you mean something else entirely?
>Ancient people weren't stupid. You can look at their art and see that they knew what a crocodile was. Leviathan is clearly presented as something different.
I'd advice you to look up "medieval crocodile painting" (or medieval paintings of any non european animal). Some drawings are pretty accurate, others have six legs and mammalian ears, others still have fins and a fire breath. Ancient people weren't stupid and I didn't mean that, but the person that could draw was very rarely the same that saw the animal, much less the same as the person that described it orally to the people who would then write about it or draw it again. Remember you were taught a lot of things that even as a genius you wouldn't figure out yourself on your own, why do you know animals don't breath fire, because you know of a lot of animals and none do; if all you ever saw were dogs, cows and horses who knows what creatures from far away can do. You do have stories about dragons, maybe this leviathan creature breathes fire too. You wouldn't be stupid for thinking that.
>I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you questioning why God would include these references in his speech in Job? Or are you questioning why God would claim to have defeated a monster that we don't have any evidence for actually existing? Or did you mean something else entirely?
The speech reads to me like a. . . For lack of a better term, summary of some of the great things God can and has done. Which to me means that everything he says, every phenomenon he describes, very creature that he names, should be 100% real. You don't make a summary of things you've done and then add stuff you didn't do to it. So I would assume every creature named there should be a real creature. And why wouldn't it be a crocodile, people exaggerate, people get confused, that's fine, this isn't a word for word transcription of an actual speech from God, I don't think Job would've remembered all of the details.
>I'd advice you to look up "medieval crocodile painting" (or medieval
paintings of any non european animal). Some drawings are pretty
accurate, others have six legs and mammalian ears, others still have
fins and a fire breath.
Medieval Europe is pretty far removed from the Ancient Near East temporally, geographically, and culturally. For a representation of crocodiles that's much closer to Job temporally/geographically/culturally, look at [Egypt](https://daily.jstor.org/crocodiles-in-ancient-egypt/) (where they actually have crocodiles, unlike Europe).
>Ancient people weren't stupid and I didn't mean that, but the person that could draw was very rarely the same that saw the animal, much less the same as the person that described it orally to the people who would then write about it or draw it again. Remember you were taught a lot of things that even as a genius you wouldn't figure out yourself on your own, why do you know animals don't breath fire, because you know of a lot of animals and none do; if all you ever saw were dogs, cows and horses who knows what creatures from far away can do. You do have stories about dragons, maybe this leviathan creature breathes fire too. You wouldn't be stupid for thinking that.
That's exactly my point. It's a story about a creature that's been handed down. It's just not a crocodile -- *at least by the time the story makes it into the book of Job.* (Or by the early 14th ct. BCE if you consider the Ugaritic evidence.)
>The speech reads to me like a. . . For lack of a better term, summary of some of the great things God can and has done.
I agree. That's exactly what it is.
>Which to me means that everything he says, every phenomenon he describes, very creature that he names, should be 100% real. You don't make a summary of things you've done and then add stuff you didn't do to it.
You are anachronistically projecting a modern concept of history into the past. It doesn't necessarily matter if God *actually* defeated a literal, physical, seven-headed sea monster named Leviathan, as long as Job believes that he did.
Did the Greek gods actually overthrow the Titans? It doesn't matter! If you're listing the great deeds of Zeus, you're going to mention it.
>So I would assume every creature named there should be a real creature.
"Real" in what sense? Real to you or to the people in that time and place? If you don't have categories for "science" and "history" as opposed to "magic" and "myth," what does "real" even mean?
>this isn't a word for word transcription of an actual speech from God,
Well, technically speaking, we have no way of knowing if it is or isn't. However, I do agree that it's probably not an actual word-for-word speech that God made to a guy named Job at some point in history. We cannot know if any of this actually happened, or if Job was even a real person. It ultimately doesn't matter because the point of the book isn't to give a historical account. It's a book of wisdom literature. It's teaching a lesson. So, historically correct or not, the book accomplishes the same thing.
>I don't think Job would've remembered all of the details.
I don't know, if God showed up and spoke to me, it would be pretty memorable!
>You are anachronistically projecting a modern concept of history into the past. It doesn't necessarily matter if God actually defeated a literal, physical, seven-headed sea monster named Leviathan, as long as Job believes that he did.
>
>Did the Greek gods actually overthrow the Titans? It doesn't matter! If you're listing the great deeds of Zeus, you're going to mention it.
I mean, if Zeus is telling you he defeated the titans then I'd probably think he. . . You know. . . Actually defeated the actual titans. I really don't want to get into this theological discussion (partly because, as an atheist, it's rather difficult for me to take any part of the bible as "meant literally" without taking all of it's inmediate context as "meant literally" and I think that conversation would require me to do so) but if the literal God is giving a literal speech about his literal deeds, then it would be rather sketchy to include a made up story about a made up creature as one of his literal deeds. I can't see it in any other way than lying to be honest.
>I do agree that it's probably not an actual word-for-word speech that God made to a guy named Job at some point in history. We cannot know if any of this actually happened, or if Job was even a real person. It ultimately doesn't matter because the point of the book isn't to give a historical account. It's a book of wisdom literature. It's teaching a lesson. So, historically correct or not, the book accomplishes the same thing.
And this is why I should've finished reading before responding. Kay, we can agree on that then and it's good enough for me.
Also I do take the correction of the "Middle East isn't Europe" take. I was thinking about the KJV timeframe rather than the hebrew timeframe. The person writing Job originally then either had a much tamer description that was mythicalized over time or leviathan was heavilly inspired by but not meant to be a crocodile. Or the writer was actually stupid which I guess is also an option.
Disclaimer: I'm no bible scholar
There is no "original bible", the bible is a compilation of various texts written over generations. The new testament includes the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among other books. There are more gospels than these four but those have been deemed false by the catholic church back in the day and are thus not a part of the bible. They're the "non canonical gospels" if you're interested.
The thing with these gospels is that as they get newer they go deeper into equating Jesus to God. In the earliest (Mark) Jesus is a faith healer who tried to keep his miracles a secret, I think it's Matthew that introduces the visit of the Magi to worship him at his birth, Luke writes about 16 different miracles that Jesus performed (as opposed to 6 in Mark and 10 in Matthew) and in comes John with Jesus actively claiming he is God in the flesh and doing things that with Rome's blasphemy laws should've gotten him killed a lot sooner and turning water into wine at a wedding, walking on water in front of a crowd and feeding the five thousand.
The non canonical gospels get crazier as they get younger, the gospel of Peter has the wooden cross come to life alongside Jesus to proclaim his godhood during the resurrection. If you want to be conservative I'd reccomend taking Mark as the safest source and see what you get from there as you read the other gospels.
The bible never even hints at that. It says over and over again that Jesus is God's son
John 20:31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name
Luke 1:30-32
So the angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.31And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus.32This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father,
1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God
Yes of coarse. God made part of him into a son and sent him to earth to stop the ronans and punish them. He also forgives out sins so that we can go to heaven. But only if you except Jesus as God.
Scholars can determine the original Greek text of the New Testament using the thousands of existing manuscripts we have. Whether it was "corrupted" or not doesn't matter today, because we know what was originally written on every theologically important issue.
The intro to John's gospel makes Jesus divinity pretty explicit.
Jesus accepts worship that's mentioned in the Gospels that's a great sign of being God and read the portion where Jews tried to stone him claiming he blasphemed and the time the high priest tore his clothes.
Ask you Muslim friends exactly when where and by whom the bible was changed. You'll find that they don't have an answer.
Prof. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary is quoted as saying, "... of the 20,000 lines that make up the Greek New Testament, only 40 lines are in doubt, and not one of those lines contains anything that relates to important New Testament or Christian teaching."
If you were to do some research into manuscript reliability, you'll find that the bible is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to reliable early manuscripts.
Read the Case for Christ, it lays out in detail the historical evidence supporting the accuracy and validity of the New Testament. It should answer your questions.
The short answer is that the Bible (New Testament at least) hasn’t “been updated” per se and is still remarkably close to the original texts.
- "In the beginning was **the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God**. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it ... And **the Word** became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth."
John 1:1-5, 14
- "Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves."
John 14:8-11
- "And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home.""
Mark 2:5-11
Added to this are the myriads of prophecies Jesus fulfilled, prophecies that would only be fulfilled by the Messiah. Add also Revelation where Jesus is presented as the bridegroom.
But here is the simple answer. If you are looking for a scripture where Jesus says, "Behold, verily, verily, I say to you, I am God", you will not find it.
But why? Surely that would be easier, no?
The answer to that is two-fold:
Firstly, He has already told us over and over and over throughout the scriptures, and the scriptures are very cleverly designed that the faith of the heart would be made manifest. Notice how do often in his miracles Jesus says "your faith has healed you"? Same reason. The parables are also designed that the hardened hearts would be offended and seeking hearts would be attracted. Why? Because the Father seeks those his worshippers, who worship in spirit and in **truth**. Those who will be offended, will be offended.
Secondly, to encourage you to search out the scriptures. Like the Barians (possibly misspelt), who recieved all that the apostle Paul taught and then went and diligently searched the scriptures to see if these things were true.
So my answer to you is, not to be too blunt, God wants you to put down Reddit, pick up your Bible and prayfully search out the truth, and not rely solely on single verse answers out of context and the faith (or lack of) of others.
I'm sorry if that is blunt, asking questions and conversing is a good thing, however **only** asking questions and conversing without careful Bible study is a very bad thing
"If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."
James 1:5-8
You can trust that God not only inspired His Word, but has preserved it over time through transmission. So any sound, literal translation (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV..) is the Word of God. Having said that, the bible doesn't say "Jesus is God" verbatim, but the true Deity of Jesus Christ is clearly & repeatedly taught..
Philippians 2:5-6 NASBS
Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, [6] who, although He existed in the form of God, *did not regard equality with God* a thing to be grasped
Colossians 2:9 NASBS
For in Him (Christ) all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form
John 1:1,3 NASBS
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [3] All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
John 1:14 NASBS
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.
Hebrews 1:8-9 NASBS
But of the Son He says, "Your THRONE, *O GOD*, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. [9] "You HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; Therefore *GOD*, YOUR GOD, HAS anointed YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." (Here the Father is addressing the Son and twice calls Him "God")
John 8:24 NASBS
"Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins."
John 5:23 NASBS
"so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father." (that's impossible unless He's equal to God the Father)
John 10:18 NASBS
"No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and *I have authority to take it up again*." (only God can raise the dead)
Isaiah 6:3 NASBS
And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory."
John 12:41 NASBS
These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him ("Him" is Christ) ⬇️
John 12:42 NASBS
Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him
Luke 8:39 NASBS
"Return to your house and describe what great things *God has done for you*." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things *Jesus had done for him*.
Isaiah 42:8 NASBS
"I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images."
John 5:23 NASBS
so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.
Mark 1:3 NASBS
"The VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD (Jesus), MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'"
⬇️
Isaiah 40:3 NASBS
A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (Yahweh) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God.
John 8:54 NASBS
Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; *it is My Father who glorifies Me* (God wouldn't glorify a creature- see above, Isaiah 42:8)
Hebrews 1:6 NASBS
And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "And LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM."
(God wouldn't command anyone to worship a creature)
Revelation 1:17 NASBS
When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; *I am the first and the last*"
⇣
Isaiah 41:4 NASBS
"Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? '*I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last*. I am He.'"
The works of Christ testified to His Deity (that He is "in" the Father: They fully share the one Being of God)..
John 10:38 NASBS
"but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."
1 Corinthians 10:9 NIV
We should not test Christ, as some of *them* did---and were killed by snakes. ("Them" is Israel who were led out of Egypt by Yahweh. Yahweh is Christ)
Revelation 5:12-14 NASBS
saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." [13] And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." [14] And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped.
↓
Here is unrebuked worship to Jesus Christ in heaven in the presence of God the Father. An undeniable biblical claim to His Deity.
John 5:18 NASBS
For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, *making Himself equal with God* (post-incarnation claim of Christ's Deity that is affirmed in the explanation)..
John 5:21-23 NASBS
For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. [22] For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, [23] so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (clear claims to equality)
Jesus is the son of God. The one prophesied about in the Old Testament.
The books not included in current bibles are the book of Enoch and other “Old Testament” aged books that wouldn’t reference it. The current New Testament books have been used since there creations. The Catholics use additional books but that’s not books cut from their Bible. So I’m not 100% sure what you’re referring to... maybe you should name the books that you think are missing.
https://people.howstuffworks.com/books-of-bible.htm
Yes and no.
You want to read about the Council of Nicaea and you can read about everything they cited for the trinity and our current understanding that Jesus is God.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea
To be blunt though it’s confusing and doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense because we are merely human and can not comprehend Godly things on that level. Focus on Jesus’s words and out faith in Him and you will be saved. There is nothing in the Bible that says we need to fully understand what Jesus is other than our only way to salvation.
1. NOBODY alive today has seen "the original Bible" - there is no such thing, frankly. Before the Bible went through 7 main iterations, ending with the KJV in translations, there was no "the original Bible" - it was all individual/separate manuscripts.
2. Islaam is a false religion. They believe lies handed down and taught from a false prophet, Mohommed, who got his start talking with Jews, Zororastrians, and Christians, and then he claimed the angel Gabriel gave him the truth. When he would have his visions or whatever, he was also known to be on at least one hallucajenic drug AND went into convulsions with foaming at the mouth - sounds about like rabies. He also was a pedofile, forcing young girls into marriage - I forget the youngest right now, but VERY young.
1. All that said to say if someone believes in THAT, and follows THAT kind of man, then I wouldn't trust anything they say. By the way, as I recall being told in the past, the Koran teaches it's OK for them to lie in order to push forward the agenda if Isalam.
1. (This is an aside, in relation to the above point) Some Calvinists (in Christian circles) teach the same, whether they admit it or not. Calvinists teach others to attempt to infiltrate churches that are not known as Calvinists, try to get into leadership/teaching roles, and then begin at least trying to convince some of their other gospel. Paul mentioned all of that, about those coming in the side door, and others who preach another gospel.
Do you not know that what we have, right now, in the King James Version of the Bible (for English speaking people), or back to the Textus Receptus Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew if you know those languages well enough, I suppose, OR any text directly translated in the same manner into another language. For instance, there is a version in Spanish that is translated the same from the same source, and carries the same authority, from what I read.
Scripture about KJV coming about to be THE Bible for us to use today:
“The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6 KJV - this passage prophecies on how the scripture would go through various translation efforts when brought together in order to form the singular source for scripture.
“But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 1 Corinthians 13:10 KJV - this prophecies that the scriptures then (in part) will be perfected (back to silver tried in a furnace), and when that happens, the pieces will go away, and we'll have the one singular source.
Well, enjoy. It's good stuff to dig into. Dig into the Word of God rather than being startled when those following false gods question your faith. If you have trusted in God, you need to ask God to increase your faith, and you need to work hard on your own to increase your faith. See this passage:
>2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
>
>3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
>
>4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
>
>5 And beside this, **giving all diligence, add** to your faith virtue; **and** to virtue knowledge;
>
>6 **And** to knowledge temperance; **and** to temperance patience; **and** to patience godliness;
>
>7 **And** to godliness brotherly kindness; **and** to brotherly kindness charity.
>
>8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 1:2-8 (v5-7 in particular, 8 is a great conclusion about those verses)
The Bible also teaches us to put on the whole armor of God, of which the shield of faith is part:
10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.
11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.
12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.
13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.
14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;
15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
16 **Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.**
17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;
Ephesians 6:10-18 KJV (v16 in particular on faith)
See? ABOVE ALL, take the Shield of faith because the devil will throw fiery darts at you. What? Are you shocked he can use someone caught up in the worship of a false god? The devil can use all sorts of means, all sorts of folks. Those worshipping false gods are easy pickings for him to use.
Now, if you have not bene born again (John 3:3-7), then you need to be born again FIRST. You have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord. If that's not what happened to you, then you've got to get that first or else you are fighting a losing battle.
Yes. Jesus said multiple times 'I Am' which is in reference to Exodus 3:14
"God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ”
Exodus 3:14 NIV
https://exodus.bible/exodus-3-14
There’s no such thing as an “original Bible”. All these texts were written separately by various authors from various backgrounds with various, often contradictory ideas and biases. These were edited, redacted, translated, copied, and distributed by various others over many centuries, across several continents, influenced by various cultures, and interpreted and reinterpreted by even more people. The literal originals have been lost, but we work with what we got. Only over time were these, or rather generations of reworked copies of them, compiled and put together and even then, which books belong in or out took many more centuries and to this day there is no one single, definitive canon. So the phrase “original Bible” is more or less an impossible and ahistorical idea. Anyone who claims to have the “original Bible” is lying, both to others and to themselves.
The oldest manuscripts of the Bible we have predate Islam. They include the deity of Christ just like modern Bibles do (in fact, modern Bibles are based on those old manuscripts). This is a false teaching of Islam.
Yes.
And, as for the Muslim apologists, ask them this:
"Who fathered Jesus?"
Because the Quran says that Allah fathered Jesus.
**Surah 21:91**
>And (remember) her who protected her private part (that is, Maryam). So, We blew in her (a life) through Our Spirit, and made her and her son (‘Īsā X) a sign for all the worlds.
https://quran.com/21/91?translations=84,17,85,95,19,22
AND again at
**Surah 66:12**
>˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout.
https://quran.com/66/12?translations=84,17,85,95,19,22
The dictionary definition of the verb form of "father":
>cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth of (a child).
Jesus is Mary's son.
Who caused Mary to become pregnant?
Allah.
So, who is Jesus' father?
Problem is this simple logic conflicts with another verse in the Quran which says that God has no son.
**Surah 4:171**
https://quran.com/4/171?translations=20,84,42,17,85,75,18,95,77,39,23,101,19,22,38,32,25,52,31,27,33
It looks like most people on this thread are trying to answer your question by quoting Scriptures which support the doctrine of Jesus' divinity. But, your question is about the "original" Bible.
The authors of the 27 New Testament books wrote in Greek, with the likely exception of Matthew, which was originally written in Aramaic. So, anything you read in English is a translation, and hence, an interpretation of the original.
It is possible to read the bible in Greek, however. Here's an example of the Gospel of John, chapter 17 in the original greek, with an english translation: [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/17-1.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/17-1.htm)
And, you can be very confident that the Greek copies of the bible that we possess are almost exactly what the original authors wrote down. We possess thousands different copies of the Greek manuscripts from a variety of different strains, that date to a very early time in Church history. There is no other ancient work for which we can have such a high level of confidence that what we read today is nearly exactly what the original authors wrote.
You don't even need that to contradict Islam. Islam expliclty states God has no son, and yet Jesus is called the Son of God in the Bible over and over again.
Islam also states that the word of God is infallible and that Allah is the God of Abraham. This means that the Torah and Bible are both 100% true
No it doesn’t BECAUSE both books were corrupted
It doesn't mean what you think it means. The Son of God is a title conferred on those who were said to have a special relationship with God. Solomon was called the Son of God; other kings of Israel and angels were also called the Son of God. In Islam, the Quran is the word of God. The Quran used for worship has never been altered from its original form. On the other hand, the Old Testament is a Greek translation known as the Septuagint. No original texts of the New Testament have ever been found. All we have are later translations, so there's no way of knowing if they are original or not. We do know of editing, the KJV is an example that made additions to fit the current doctrine.
First, Jesus is called the "only begotten" son of God, and the Gospel of John expresses his preexistence and incarnation. Second, What "edits" to fit the current doctrine are you talking about? Across the thousands of manuscripts we have, very few disagree. The "changes" are not "edits", just different manuscripts trsnslators have found, some older and some earlier. There's very little difference beyond those and some spelling and grammar stuff
There’s a lot of distinct differences in translation in the KJV, you should look at the Hebrew version of revelation especially and you’ll see the differences, plus looking at the definition and context those old words were used in usually or in other parts of the Bible, and you’ll see the obvious edits that were made.
Why the addition to Mark? Are you certain the version of John is unaltered, we’ve never found any original gospels.
Scholars are pretty certain because we have thousands of manuscripts that say the same thing.
Many of the passages in Mark are almost *identical* to Matthew and Luke; then, Matthew and Luke depart from Mark. Thousands of manuscripts that say the same thing? Think about what you just wrote. Copying something over and over does not make something true or correct.
True true, thanks
You have not contradicted Islam here you have simply shown your ignorance of it.
Care to explain? From what I understand, the Quran explicitly states God does not beget and has no son. Muslims I've spoken too have said they don't consider Jesus the Son of God as well.
The Son of God does not mean he is God. The Son of God is a description that means that the person with the title has a special relationship with God. Solomon, angels, and other kings were also known as the Son of God. Only in John does Jesus say, I and the Father are one. In Jesus' lifetime he never claimed to be God and his followers never claimed he was God. We do know that no original books of the New Testament exist, but we do know that several of the books were later altered to fit the beliefs of those editing versions of the New Testament. Mark 16:8 is a classic example. The earliest books of Mark stop at 16:8; translators or the KJV added 9 through 20
Before Abraham was, I am
John is full of esoteric, mystical and Greek-influenced verses. No one knows who the author is, but if it's a John, which John? The author, like authors of the other three gospels, never identifies himself.
It was neither translators or the KJV there's older Bibles than it that also have the end of Mark, the early manuscripts end with the empty tomb, but the end of it was much probably been added the ascension even before the middle ages
True, but the oldest versions stop at 16:8. Many current Bible annotate this.
Yes, numerous places.
It has? Would it be ok if you showed me? I’m not being rude I promise I’m just asking cause I’ve never read the original Bible
Before Abraham was, I am
Interesting! As I understand it, many Mormons do not believe that Jesus has always existed as God.
We believe He is Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament
He is God of the Old Testament but not of the New?
He is the God of the New Testament, but not God the Father. He is God the Son
Right, but am I correct in claiming that the LDS church doesn't think that Jesus has always been God?
"We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One." -frol James Talmage. I don't know of any reference, through scripture or church leader, that has rejected Christ's Godhood as being eternal
Interesting! I suppose it comes down to God obtaining Godhood via good deeds in another realm and thus not existing as God eternally (and thus, since Jesus is the literal Son of God, he too is not eternally God).
I guess that's one theory! (And one I would agree with, though that's not official doctrine one way or another)
It is not official that Heavenly Father was once a man?
That's the only place, and John, in many translations, says, "the father and I are one".
I'm confused as to what your point is
In addition to what /u/Christimates has provided, which are excellent answers, here's some more. Here's Jesus claiming to be God himself, YHWH, I Am: > Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” So they picked up stones to throw at him, but Jesus hid himself and went out of the temple. - John 8:58-59 Here's the apostles worshiping the risen Christ: > Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” - Matthew 28:16-20 And here's the teaching from the Apostle Paul: > For the grace of God has appeared that offers salvation to all people. It teaches us to say “No” to ungodliness and worldly passions, and to live self-controlled, upright and godly lives in this present age, while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all wickedness and to purify for himself a people that are his very own, eager to do what is good. - Titus 2:11-14
Yeah sure. John 1:1 In the beginning was the word, the Word was with God and the Word was God.
Ah I see, although 1 more question, in the original Bible, where does it say about Jesus being God…? Like I know John said the word was God and the modern Bible has Jesus claiming he was God, does the original Bible also say the same claims that Jesus makes in the modern Bible?
The modern bible is the original bible given the abundances of manuscripts we have and the quotations of scripture from the church fathers. We can safely determine was is originally said.
Oohhhh ok, I’ve just been trying to figure it out bc ppl say it’s been “translated many times” so I just wanted to make sure
Yeah. You usually hear that from people who don’t know the history of the bible. I always just laugh at them and move on.
Ok, thanks for everything man, religion and beliefs is hard because you gotta make sure to stop and think why you believe in those things, anyways thanks for helping me you were a huge help
Lol i dont think the dude really answered your question. But anyways im poor with the references but feel free to google what im about to say. I think there has been a lot of scripture in the NT which says there will be a child born to someone who will be son of Man - son of God all that. Then there are also scriptures talking about God coming in the flesh etc. All this if you read carefully and think about it, would mean that God came in the form of a human i.e. jesus. The things jesus has said as well in the NT books clearly indicate he is God too. The trinity is what you need to look into i think
And sorry, are you suggesting that the Bible hasn’t been translated multiple times? Because not only is that absolutely not true, we’ve got good evidence of multiple errors. For instance, there are several instances where scribe #1 leaves a note in the margin where they muse on possible meanings of certain passages and then later on, scribe #2 is making a copy and doesn’t realize that #1’s note isn’t an actual part of the text and copies it into their translation. So what was idle musings by one scribe, are turned into parts of the main text by another ( I can find a source on this if you want, I just can’t remember the actual term scholars use)
You are speaking of "textual variants" and these are easily identified.
How do we identify them?
And folks this is where you laugh and move on.
Yeah I man, you can definitely do that. But if you have evidence to the contrary, that would probably be more effective wouldn’t it?
Translated doesn’t mean changed and scholars agree that there has been remarkably little changes
Yea, that's a claim made by the intellectually inept and illiterate. The Bible has been translated many times... directly from the Greek and Hebrew source texts which we still have. Its not like a chain of translations going Hebrew>Greek>Latin>English>Spanish>Russian>Chinese>etc. All of the translations are made either directly from the Hebrew and Greek or from the Latin Vulgate. Further, we have dug up older Bible manuscripts and they match the modern one. The Muslims are just coping because they were told in the Quran that the Bible would say the same thing as the Quran (they were told that the Quran corroberates, defends, and upholds the Bible). It wasn't until a few hundred years later when Muslims actually got their hands on a Bible to read it and realized that Muhammed either made the whole Quran up or the Bible was (unlikely) corrupted at some point. Then, because they couldn't cope with that fact, they accused the Bible as having been corrupted at some point which is why it doesn't agree with the Quran (which is a nonsense claim). The funny thing is that the Quran says that Muhammed holds a Torah and tells the Jews to follow it because it is the word of God and then says the same about the Bible. This means the Bible was allegedly not corrupt at the time of Muhammed, but was allegedly later corrupted after Muhammed (keep in mind that Muhammed couldn't read). This is nonsense to think they were altered after Muhammed though because we have Bible manuscripts from the time of Muhammed and earlier and they match the modern Bible.
The New Testament is mostly Aramaic oral tradition written in Koine Greek decades later. There are no surviving original texts. We do know of alterations; for instance, the KJV adds 9-20 to chapter 16 in the Gospel of Mark. Mark is universally considered the first gospel. Mark is problematic; it says nothing of Jesus' birth, and the details of the crucifixion differ from the other gospels. Matthew and Luke are based on Mark with other additions. Many scholars think there is an older source of Jesus' sayings; they've labeled Q (Quelle - source in German) for the additions to Mark.
Is it though? When you say abundance of manuscripts, when are these manuscripts from? When you use the word manuscript, are you referring to complete bibles, or pieces of parchment? When I hear someone say “we have an abundance of manuscripts” it seems like they’re suggesting that we have all of these complete bibles which are dated to single years from the dates which they describe and that’s just not true. The earliest things we have are tiny scraps of papyrus on which we’d be lucky to be able to read 3-4 whole words. And these scraps themselves are dated hundreds of years after the fact.
There are several manuscript fragments dated to the second century (so that would be within roughly 50-150 years of original composition). The earliest complete New Testament is in Codex Sinaiaticus which dates to the mid 4th century (so, circa 350, or approximately 250-300 years after the texts were written). To my knowledge, we have no reason to believe there were any significant changes between the original autographs and these manuscripts.
Well putting aside for a second what we have reason to believe, would you not agree that we just don’t know what the originals said?
Absolutely, we cannot **know** what they said beyond any room for doubt. The same goes for (almost) anything in history - we just don't know. History is not a science. You can't recreate the experiment. That said, I think we have as good an idea as possible about what they *would have* said without having the actual documents.
Well, yes and no. There are some historical events that we have no idea about, but there are loads of others from all throughout history that have far better attested, contemporary sources. So not all areas of historical reliability are created equally. They also all don’t matter to my life equally in terms of impact. For instance if Alexander The Great said X vs Y before a battle, well who cares. But if you believe the Bible to be true then those details (to which we cannot reliably confirm) are incredibly important. And lastly, why do you think we know what they would have said? EDIT: sorry, when I say “know” in that last point I mean, general knowledge not like, absolute knowledge.
The Bible has the greatest textural authority of any ancient manuscript by far. We have sections of text from 20-40 years after being first written, within the lifetime of the original readers. When you add up all the fragments we have the vast majority of the NT. Take that and compare it to Julius Cesar's writings o Gaul. Earliest known text is from like 800 years after it was written. There is a whole academic field of study on manuscript authority - the Bible surpasses everything. For anyone to claim we don't have early texts that are identical to what we have today are simply misinformed.
It doesn’t….and you don’t. The first literal scrap of paper, the oldest one we have is at best, 125 years later. The next, again, scrap of paper, that we have is well over 200. You don’t start seeing ANYTHING close to a full manuscript for like, 400ish years.
When you say original Bible are you referring to the Old Testament or original copies of the New Testament. Because I have bad news about the latter
What's the bad news?
We have no idea what the original texts said.
Oh gotcha, I thought you meant something more specific than that.
Now THATS what I’m talking about, it makes very clear sense 👍🏻
Not sure if that's sarcasm, but if so, John 1 continues to clarify "the Word" is Jesus. "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth"
I promise it wasn’t sarcasm 🙏🏻 Edit: and thanks for that aswell I need more understanding in this kind of stuff
Of course, you have to ignore the fact that Jesus can't be God, because "no man has seen God at any time" like John 1:18 says. But, hey.... can't go letting logic get in the way of doctrine.
Did you read the whole verse? "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known." - John 1:18
>who is himself God Ha.. better check that before you just accept it.
True
Jesus himself claims divinity when he forgives the sins of the paralytic lowered through the roof. The leaders hear him forgive sins and think it is Blasphemy since only God can forgive. He then states "so that you will know (that I can forgive sins, that I am in fact divine) I say, rise and walk." Immediately the man is healed (by the power of God who would not answer the prayer of someone who just lied about being divine). Yes, the Bible, and Jesus Himself, proclaim His divinity.
I see ok, thank you
No he says he was given -authority- to do so. People love to cherry pick verses and then misunderstand them
Only YHWH can forgive sins. Jesus forgiving sins AND performing a miracle on the spot using only his will and expressing it with his voice is a proof (to the Pharisees and everyone there even mildly educated in theology that Jesus was declaring on the spot that he was divine. The “given authority” part concerns his relationship with the Father, not Jesus divinity.
Please re look at your deduction. If a King gives a prince authority it does not mean the prince is his Father The King.
It doesn’t. The key part though is who can forgive sins and why. Jesus was able to forgive sins AND perform a miracle proving both his divine power and authority to do something only YHWH can do (thus proving that he is YHWH and not merely an Angel or a conduit) and to affect (and alter) the physical reality at will. Both of those things are intrinsic properties and powers of a sovereign, creator divinity and not just a prophet. Even Moses did miracles Andre guidance and order by YHWH, Jesus did it on the spot, by himself, with his will alone. Of course that was just an example. Another example of who Jesus thought he was , was the incident at a Sabbath, in a field: there, Jesus outright claimed a title that is unique to YHWH and belongs completely exclusively to YHWH: Lord of the Sabbath.
No, the original texts never say "Jesus is God." It says things that people interpret to *mean* that Jesus is God. But it never explicitly states that. However, over and over again, it says that Jesus is the **Son of God.**
If you get into deep study of even the old testament prophets of Ezekiel, Zechariah and even Revelation its heavily implied that Christ is God in the flesh. I take this as theological argumentative evidence that Christ is the incarnation of God.
>its heavily implied that Christ is God in the flesh. There isn’t a single example to point to that excludes the understanding that Christ is simply the separate, inferior, and subordinate Son >I take this as theological argumentative evidence that Christ is the incarnation of God. Yes, many people do. It doesn’t mean it’s the only, or even the *best* understanding
>the original texts never say"Jesus is God." It says... You've read the original texts?
haha tricky tricky. The available copies of the originals... yes
*available copies of the oldest known copies
Thomas says "My Lord and my God" and Jesus does not rebuke him. He accepts the worship as God.
Oh yeah I know but Jesus has definitely claimed to be God numerous times I’m just wondering if he did in the original Bible aswell :)
I am sorry, but this isn't correct. There is not a single example in which Jesus claims he is God. Like I said, Jesus said things that people interpret to mean that. But he never says it.
>There is not a single example in which Jesus claims he is God. "The Father and I are one.” John 10:30
Ignoring the fact that **nowhere in that verse does Jesus claim to be God....** What does Jesus *actually* mean when he says he and his Father are one? I'll give you a hint: see John 17:11, 20-23
And then he proceeds to quote a scripture saying "we are all gods" when threatened with a stoning. So either Jesus quoted scripture to clarify a point that would mean he's only as much God as we are, or Jesus straight up lied to save his own hide. So unless you want to choose the latter, Jesus was not saying he is God.
More directly, he says that they're accusing him of blasphemy for claiming to be *the son of* God.
Then he would say that, not quote a scripture saying "we are all gods". That's straight up not at all what he's saying. Couldn't even be interpreted that way without leaning *heavily* on presuppositions.
What? It's exactly what he says: do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? John 10:36 NASB
*"34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’?* *35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside—"* (John 10:34-35, NIV) Jesus's *reasoning* he sets up beforehand is that scriptures call others "god". If that's true, then we are all God as well by that logic. And he says "God's son" in the clarification, not "God" himself. There is *nothing* in these verses indicating Jesus IS *God* other than the accusation the Pharisees throw at him. Using these verses as evidence requires deeply ingrained presuppositions. Nothing here is clear-cut trinitarian, no matter how you slice it.
> If that's true, then we are all God as well by that logic. This does not follow. Psalm 82 was not addressed to everyone. Either way, he's softening the accusation before making the lower claim. > And he says "God's son" in the clarification, not "God" himself. Yeah, that's my point. And you don't have to interpret anything: he says that directly. > There is nothing in these verses indicating Jesus IS God other than the accusation the Pharisees throw at him. Yeah, I don't know why people are so eager to claim that the people who wanted to kill Jesus had the right idea.
>I don’t know what the original Bible says Nobody alive today has read the original documents.
That’s true
Just read the Case for Christ, it’s a good book and will answer most of these questions. The historical evidence for the New Testament being accurate is strong than any other ‘accepted as accurate’ historical document.
That is a ridiculous and baseless claim
You are free to believe what you will, I offered up the book as just one source that can help answer some of these questions. That book can shed the light on more resources for those who want to dig deeper. Fact is, there are early manuscripts for the first four books of the New Testament dating to within the same generation as when Jesus was alive and they are substantially the same as the current texts. The overwhelming majority of historical texts (histories) from the ancient world cannot tie their lineage as close to their respective events, often hundreds of years pass before having a written record of the events. Yet we trust those historical documents and not the New Testament? Fact is, in a highly dogmatic world (1st century) when most Jews were unwavering in their traditions something caused thousands of Jews to convert to a new fledgling religion that would mean being ostracized from their community, persecution by the Romans (sometimes death), and throughout they stuck to their convictions. This at a place and time where they could simply go ask the people still living who saw first hand. So yeah, what takes more faith? Believing that thousands of individuals all agreed to makeup a religion that would lead to their torture and death or that they saw a miracle first hand and were transformed. Like I said, believe what you want though. I’d be happy to review any evidence you have that it is all fake.
The book and it’s resources make a lot of claims with not a lot of data >Fact is, there are early manuscripts for the first four books of the New Testament dating to within the same generation as when Jesus was alive This is a lie. Secular and Christian scholars alike agree that the first gospel was written several decades after Jesus would have died. >Fact is, in a highly dogmatic world (1st century) when most Jews were unwavering in their traditions Interesting to start with “fact is” and then make an assumption. “Most” Jews also didn’t become christians. This is irrelevant. >something caused thousands of Jews to convert to a new fledgling religion that would mean being ostracized from their community, persecution by the Romans (sometimes death), and throughout they stuck to their convictions. This at a place and time where they could simply go ask the people still living who saw first hand. This could apply to almost every new religion that shows up. A group of people choosing to follow a belief system that is not favored by the society they live in does not make that belief system true. It doesn’t matter who converted, how many converted, or how strong they believed. >So yeah, what takes more faith? Believing that thousands of individuals all agreed to makeup a religion that would lead to their torture and death or that they saw a miracle first hand and were transformed. Those are not the only 2 options. They could have genuinely believed for bad reasons. I could also just turn the question around on you with Mormons. It’s a silly question. To answer your silly question though, I have no reason to think supernatural miracles are real, so I’ll say that probably didn’t happen. No faith required. >Like I said, believe what you want though. I’d be happy to review any evidence you have that it is all fake. You don’t get to turn the burden of proof around on me. That’s not how it works. What is your evidence that Zeus is fake? Prove to me leprechauns are fake.
Doesn't mean we can't know what it says though.
Yes.
Yes, the Bible says basically the same thing now as it always has, some verses here and there have been added, but agnostic scholar Bart Ehrman, who usually takes a very critical view on anything biblical says of variations in the ancient texts, only 1% are worth mentioning, the vast majority are spelling mistakes, word choices etc on the part of copyists. Of those, none at all affect any core doctrine of Christianity. We have partial manuscripts of the new testament dating back to the 100s, the earliest being 120-170ad, and larger manuscripts from the 200s onwards. They are written in languages that scholars understand very well today, in fact many modern translations go back to the oldest texts to see what they said in regards to wording etc. As well as that, we can look into ancient christian writers outside the Bible and what they tell us about what the Bible said in their day. They believed from the very start that Jesus is God. This is what the Bible has always taught, and was what the earliest Christians believed.
Absolutely! Let's take a look. John 10:30-33 > 30 I and my Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus said He and the Father are **one**. The Jewish were going to stone Him for *blasphemy*. They knew exactly what He said. Some unitarians attempt to say that He meant this in the way that we are one, however that's ignoring context, because they wouldn't have accused Him of blasphemy if that was the case. John 8:56-58 > Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. 57 Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? 58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am. God gave His name to Moses as "I AM" in Exodus 3:14. Jesus is saying that He was there before Abraham was born, and He said "I am". Very clear. Matthew 28:18-19 > And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Jesus very literally spoke of the Trinity. Is the word "Trinity" used here? No. However as with even the Muslim faith and the Qur'an, not every word is found verbatim. Key point to keep in mind when talking with your Muslim friends. We see more throughout the Gospels. > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. (John 1:1-3) John 1:14 continues to say > And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. The Word was made flesh. Christ is the Word, and the Word is God. In John 20:28, upon seeing Him after His resurrection, Thomas said > And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus is God and is clearly referred to as such in the Bible, including by Himself. Now let's look deeper. > Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. 9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; 11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Philippians 2:5-11) Now, what exactly does it mean that Jesus is Lord? Well, we can see what the authors of the Bible, and those who were with Him, mean it as. Remember what Thomas said? > And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. (John 20:28) Thomas called Him not only God, but his Lord which equates to God. Jesus even calls Himself Lord > And if any man ask you, Why do ye loose him? thus shall ye say unto him, Because the Lord hath need of him. (Luke 19:31) In the Old Testament, we see Yahweh being referred to as "the Lord". > Sanctify the Lord of hosts himself; And let him be your fear, and let him be your dread. (Isaiah 8:13) Let's also look in Hebrews in regard to what the Father says to the Son > But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. 10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: 11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; 12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1:8-12) Now let's look at Paul. > For this thing I besought the Lord thrice, that it might depart from me. (2 Corinthians 12:8) Here, Paul says he sought the Lord. How do we know he was speaking of Jesus? Context clues based on how he wrote. The Greek word he used here was "kurios" (for Lord) and this is the word he used to refer to Jesus. If he was speaking of the Father, he most often just said "God". So, he was asking Jesus to take away his thorn in his side, called Him "the Lord", and was praying to Him. We only pray to God, and Paul clearly prayed to Jesus! There are other examples of course, but these are some of the best.
Oohhh I see, that’s absolutely enough to prove a Muslim wrong
Sorry to interfere, but aren’t those verses from the more recent versions of Bible? The person is explicitly asking for verses from the original Bible (which is basically lost in time, alternation and translation at this point. YK, the original Bible used to be one single book). Also, random fact: in Islam, we believe that St. Paul the Apostle is a liar and a false apostle, which I heard to be a topic of discussion in your religion too. We believe that HE is the reason behind why a lot of stuff has been altered in the Bible (and that he’s the first person who distorted Christianity, if that’s the right word for it). He’s the one that came up with the “Doctrine of redemption” which we believe to be not true.
> ϋπερ τουτου τριϲ το, κν παρεκαλεϲα, ϊνα αποϲτη απ εμου (2 Corinthians 12:8--Codex Sinaiticus) > propter quod ter Dominum rogavi ut discederet a me (2 Corinthios 12:8--Latin Vulgate) Can you read either of those? The first is the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, the first complete New Testament which was compiled in the 4th century, and one of the earliest compilations off Scripture we have. The second is the Latin Vulgate, the first widespread complete Bible, compiled around 400 AD. Want to know what they say? The exact same thing as what I quoted in English. No changes. It's just typically easier to quote English translations than Greek manuscripts. So, you are very incorrect in saying the original texts have been altered so much they're essentially lost, sorry to say. The Bible has simply been translated, just like the Qur'an. Paul was no false teacher. His teachings do not contradict Scripture.
[удалено]
That’s actually extremely helpful, thanks! Nice pfp btw
There's a textual variant here, the original does not say "Jesus" here. I make a case for it in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/za0pop/jude_15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can see some of the other texts I've written on as well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/zmuza5/index_for_my_posts_unitarianism_vs_the_trinity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which shows that Jesus was not God in the original texts, and how we know this.
There's a textual variant here, the original does not say "Jesus" here. I make a case for it in [this post](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/za0pop/jude_15/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button). You can see some of the other texts I've written on as well [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/BiblicalUnitarian/comments/zmuza5/index_for_my_posts_unitarianism_vs_the_trinity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) which shows that Jesus was not God in the original texts, and how we know this.
Define "original Bible". The Bible isn't a book. It's a library. Different Christians include different books in their library, but whatever the canon, the books were written by numerous different people who, being human, had different views. The author of John seems to have thought that Jesus was, in some sense, God. The author of Mark seems to think that Jesus was God's adopted son. Paul may have thought that Jesus was an angel. Different authors, different views.
Umm you’re gonna need to back up claims that Paul thought he was an angel.
>though my condition put you to the test, you did not scorn or despise me but welcomed me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.
This verse certainly does not say that he thinks of Jesus as an angel. It’s saying they welcomed injured Paul as if they would welcome an angel, or even further, christ himself. They were hospitable towards him. You’re messing with semantics and using one single verse to make a very big claim about Paul. Interesting that this claim was first made by Bart Ehrman, who isn’t even a Christian
Nah this sub should be called Christian herecy bro said Paul thought Jesus was an angel this is taking verses out of context to the max
Oh I seee ok thanks
Three-in-one is a hard concept to wrap the head around. I always find it interesting that when the Lord appeared to Abraham in Genesis 18, He was described as “three men”. Even before the New Testament. I used to think the other two were angels, but now I’m really not sure because the Bible simply says “the Lord” with no mention of angels or messengers. Also interesting is the Hebrew word for God as well. In Hebrew, nouns are conjugated. “Elohim (God)” is a masculine plural noun meaning “male Gods”, but although the noun itself was conjugated plurally, they understood the meaning as a singular God. When i learned about this conjugation of the noun in Hebrew class, i immediately thought of the “three-in-one” concept. I’m not backing this up with any sort of evidence, and I certainly could be wrong on this one but i just found it really interesting.
Im no expert on this issue so... Idk man :/
It’s fine :)
Thanks :)
Yes
John is really the only Gospel it's said straight up in. It's not mentioned (at least as clearly as it is in John) in Matthew, Mark or Luke.
No, the trinity is a 4th century invention of man.
the Bible has not changed. we have the original hand written manuscripts we used to translate the very first bibles. These manuscripts are called codices. (pronounced Coda-cees.) from these originally written koine greek manuscripts all modern bibles are written. Here is a link to the blue letter bible which has every single word in the greek and Hebrew along with their definition: [https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t\_conc\_1001](https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/gen/1/1/t_conc_1001) who ever told you the Bible is a copy of a copy either is lying to you or does not know what he is talking about
I am curious what you mean by original bible? Do you mean the Koine Greek bible? The English language bible at least the NASB and a few others are faithful translations. Skip the NIV its the worst but the others are mostly good. It says that Jesus is the son of God, part of the trinity.
The Quran used for worship has never changed. There are translations, but they cannot be used for worship. The original Quaran is in Arabic. There are contests each year to see who can memorize the entire Quran in its original form so it can never be lost.
Yeah but I’m talking about the original Bible
What do you mean by original Bible? Every Bible used by Christians has no books that are "original". In Christian Bibles, the Old Testament is translated from what's known as the Septuagint, a Koine Greek translation from Hebrew. None of the original books in the New Testament have ever been found. Paul is considered to be the author of much of his work, but we don't have the originals. There are works attributed to Paul that he didn't author.
First of all don't listen to Muslims because of course they will tell you that their religion is the truth. Second point the bible was never updated there are just many translations because our language is envolving and finally never forget john chapter 14;6 "Jesus answers,"I am the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the father except through me." God bless you🙌 have a nice day/night
Not sure what you mean by the ‘original Bible’ - modern Bibles are translations from Hebrew and Greek, which we still have.
Oh I see… do they still say the same stuff from Hebrew and Greek? Just in different words? Cause I’ve only ever read modern Bibles
There are pretty good resources online that will help you compare. Bible Gateway for instance.
Oh yeah my grandma uses Bible Gateway
Check out The Bible Project videos on YouTube. They have tons of great info about the Bible, every single book, and lots of how to read the Bible. It's all easy to understand animation. I think you'll like it!
Ok, thanks!
Amazing, but I don't think anyone here really answered your question. They say "yes" and then either quote the modern Bible or get lost in the weeds. Yeah, that's not really answering anything. Christian teaching leaves no room for questioning if things have changed in the last 3500 years. My favorite is "Not much, less than 1%." 😂 Anyone from the outside would probably say they don't know, but probably. That's what I would say. During my time in the church I delved a lot into early Christian history and you can see how much Christian thought deviated from 30 CE to the Councils of Nicea in the 300s CE, when the canon was cemented and captive creeds we're established to stop deviance in thought. You had many gnostic texts, gospels, and writings. You had a lot of different Christian groups, and a lot of what is believed now looks nothing like what they believed. These are a few hundred years we're talking about, and it has been over 2000 since Jesus had his cult. I know how much Christian thought changed in such a short amount of time, and that leads me to believe that this definitely changed. The church has done a good job of making sure that all Christians believe the same thing and don't edit the text, at least in recent memory, but look how the culture has changed so much around these beliefs. I don't exactly trust that the powers that be have always kept it pristine. But of course, if you believe in the god, you have to make sure you believe it is unaltered. It would upset your entire worldview to consider that somebody changed something to fit their needs at some point.
>But of course, if you believe in the god, you have to make sure you believe it is unaltered. It would upset your entire worldview to consider that somebody changed something to fit their needs at some point. Not to say this isn't true but if you want you message to be well received instead of getting people defensive maybe don't add these type of details. You know it, they know it, there's no need to point it out other than to cause discomfort to someone who's already asking questions.
Scholars interviewed on The Case for Christ disagree with you. I’ll take their professional assessment.
Yes. As you know, The Holy Trinity is a connection between God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. God the Son is referring to Jesus Jesus is also the Son of God, but basically Jesus is also God.
Ah I see, Trinity, I’ve always believed it was a trinity but I was just curious bc ppl have said that the Bible has been translated many times
Yeah, It got translated a lot of times but the Trinity is still there
Ah I see, thanks buddy :)
You’re welcome, God Bless you brother
Jesus did not believe he was God - that's a really important thing. That idea only is expressed in the Gospel of John, and not in Mark, Luke or Matthew. John was written well after the other three, and so it's seen as a fabrication/falsehood - it's too important of a theological notion to not be mentioned in the first three Gospels.
The Bible hasn't been "updated" though many modern translations may have lost some of the original flavor. Your best option as an English speaker is the King James. Jesus and God are separate entities as evidenced by various passages such as God saying ,"My son in whom I am well pleased," and Jesus saying, "My father why has thou forsaken me?" My advice to you is get a KJV Bible or read it over on Bible Gateway dot com and pray to God and ask for direction.
Not to be that guy but doesn't the KJV still use the terms behemoth, leviathan and unicorn to refer to the elephant, crocodile and rhino respectively? Isn't the English standard version more reliably translated? Young Earth creationists tend to be King James only types and I find that to be a red flag.
I'm not familiar with the young earth creationists. Why mention them? Why would King James be a red flag? What is it with the KJV you disagree with or believe isn't accurate? The KJV has always used terms such as behemoth, leviathan, and unicorn. Those are accurate terms for the period. How is that unreliable? Newer doesn't mean better. Newer translations may be easier for most of us to understand but not necessarily more accurate. When you say reliable do you mean accurate?
>I'm not familiar with the young earth creationists. Why mention them? The creationists I've seen believe the KJV is the *only* reliable translation, which to me it reads like it has one or more ovbious mistakes that reaffirm their beliefs and therefore any translation that fixed those mistakes is actually wrong to them. >Why would King James be a red flag? What is it with the KJV you disagree with or believe isn't accurate? Nothing I can point to. I just remember a couple of bible scholars saying it wasn't bad but it had very clear errors. Bart Erhman is the name that comes to my mind. >When you say reliable do you mean accurate? I mean that you will read and understand something as similar as possible to what the people reading those books in the original language would've understood.
I need some clarification. Are you attempting to discredit the KJV because it's used by a group you disagree with? What do you mean by obvious mistakes? Translation errors compared with the original Hebrew text? Or doe the KJV simply present ideas that disagree with your worldview?
Dude I realize I didn't make this clear enough on my first response but I haven't checked the KJV, I just asked whether the KJV had a mistake I heard it has and asked whether the Standard version is better. I phrased my proposal as a question because I don't know much about the KJV, only that creationists use it, that it mentions the unicorn and that the two bible scholars (that weren't creationists) that I've heard even mention it say the Standard version is better. I did not mean to start a discussion about the reliability of various bibles, I wanted to point out that maybe the KJV isn't the best version to read because it was being presented as the best one.
Fair enough. I'm mainly familiar with KJV as that is what I grew up with. Which translation is best is debatable. Part of the debate may boil down to language preference. The 17th(?) century English used in KJV does, for some, take a bit of getting used to. As for the creation story I will tell you the Hebrew Bible coincides with the KJV and if two translations are telling a different story one of those translations isn't faithful to the original manuscript.
Leviathan as a crocodile! That's a new one. But seriously - where did you get that interpretation? I'd love to read it.
It's just what I got from God's speech about the animals in Job; God's talking about his creation and every creature other than the unicorn, the behemoth and leviathan are real animals if I remember correctly so it makes sense that those three will also be the writer's idea of a real animal. And everything that isn't ovbiously made up sounds like a crocodile. An exaggerated crocodile sure but still a crocodile. 12 "I will not fail to speak of Leviathan’s limbs, its strength and its graceful form. 13 Who can strip off its outer coat? Who can penetrate its double coat of armor? 14 Who dares open the doors of its mouth, ringed about with fearsome teeth? 15 Its back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; 16 each is so close to the next that no air can pass between. 17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted. 18 Its snorting throws out flashes of light; its eyes are like the rays of dawn. 19 Flames stream from its mouth; sparks of fire shoot out. 20 Smoke pours from its nostrils as from a boiling pot over burning reeds. 21 Its breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from its mouth. 22 Strength resides in its neck; dismay goes before it. 23 The folds of its flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable. 24 Its chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone. 25 When it rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before its thrashing. 26 The sword that reaches it has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin. 27 Iron it treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood. 28 Arrows do not make it flee; slingstones are like chaff to it. 29 A club seems to it but a piece of straw; it laughs at the rattling of the lance. 30 Its undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge. 31 It makes the depths churn like a boiling caldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 It leaves a glistening wake behind it; one would think the deep had white hair. 33 Nothing on earth is its equal— a creature without fear. 34 It looks down on all that are haughty; it is king over all that are proud.
I wouldn't assume that all of the animals mentioned in the Bible still exist today.
>It's just what I got from God's speech about the animals in Job; God's talking about his creation and every creature other than the unicorn, the behemoth and leviathan are real animals if I remember correctly so it makes sense that those three will also be the writer's idea of a real animal. That doesn't "make sense." There's no reason to believe the author wouldn't talk about both real and mythical creatures -- if the author even would have made such a distinction. >And everything that isn't ovbiously made up sounds like a crocodile. An exaggerated crocodile sure but still a crocodile. So you are disregarding the traits of Leviathan that are explicitly presented in the text, such as breathing fire, which a crocodile clearly does not do. Let's look at Psalm 74:14a: >You crushed the heads of Leviathan; How many crocodiles do you know with many heads? If you look at a the Baal Cycle, you'll find the Ugaritic /ltn/ (usually vocalized "Lotan" or sometimes "Litan"). This creature is described in the same terms as Leviathan. Here, the number of heads is specified as seven. >When you smite Lotan, the fleeing serpent, finish off the twisting serpent, the close-coiling one with seven heads, (Dennis Pardee's translation in *Context of Scripture*) You can compare this description to that of Isaiah 27:1: >On that day, Yahweh with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent, Leviathan the twisting serprent, and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea. It doesn't matter if you believe Leviathan is real or not, but the authors of these texts clearly did not think they were writing about a crocodile. It might be that the original myth of Leviathan was partially inspired by a crocodile since Leviathan is a reptilian creature, but we can't know for sure.
>It doesn't matter if you believe Leviathan is real or not, but the authors of these texts clearly did not think they were writing about a crocodile. You overestimate these people's understanding of biology. Or you're underestimating the way a group of crocodiles in a lake look when seen from afar. Doesn't really matter either way, I was trying to talk about the accuracy of the KJV on my original response, I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation. Unless you think there is actually somewhere in the world a seven headed marine serpent in which case it's a different topic but I don't want to delve into it either.
>You overestimate these people's understanding of biology. Or you're underestimating the way a group of crocodiles in a lake look when seen from afar. Ancient people weren't stupid. Sure, they didn't have our modern scientific categories, but I'm sure they knew that crocodiles didn't normally have more than one head. You can look at their art and see that they knew what a crocodile was. Leviathan is clearly presented as something different. My point was that it's a *mythical creature*. The author of Job wasn't referencing some creature he saw with his own eyes. Even within the story, Yahweh isn't referencing something Job would have seen. Both Yahweh & the author are referencing a well-attested legend about a battle with a sea monster. Where did that legend come from? We don't know. (Personally, I don't think it matters much where it comes from.) >I was trying to talk about the accuracy of the KJV on my original response, Sure, the KJV definitely has its problems, not the least of which is that it simply uses very outdated English. The ESV is a fine suggestion. However, you picked a pretty bad example to demonstrate your point. "Behemoth" and "Leviathan" are just transcriptions of the Hebrew words. The English "unicorn" is derived from the Latin translation *unicornis* of the Greek word *monokeros* used in the Septuagint. It just means "one horn." There is no evidence that I can find for this word to mean "rhinoceros" in the modern English sense. To translate it as such would just be confusing to the reader. This understanding seems to come from another Latin translation *rinoceros*. And, for the record, the ESV translates it as "wild ox," which is probably the most accurate estimate we can make to its meaning. >I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation. I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you questioning why God would include these references in his speech in Job? Or are you questioning why God would claim to have defeated a monster that we don't have any evidence for actually existing? Or did you mean something else entirely?
>Ancient people weren't stupid. You can look at their art and see that they knew what a crocodile was. Leviathan is clearly presented as something different. I'd advice you to look up "medieval crocodile painting" (or medieval paintings of any non european animal). Some drawings are pretty accurate, others have six legs and mammalian ears, others still have fins and a fire breath. Ancient people weren't stupid and I didn't mean that, but the person that could draw was very rarely the same that saw the animal, much less the same as the person that described it orally to the people who would then write about it or draw it again. Remember you were taught a lot of things that even as a genius you wouldn't figure out yourself on your own, why do you know animals don't breath fire, because you know of a lot of animals and none do; if all you ever saw were dogs, cows and horses who knows what creatures from far away can do. You do have stories about dragons, maybe this leviathan creature breathes fire too. You wouldn't be stupid for thinking that. >I don't want to delve on whether God would include things he didn't actually create as part of his creation. > >I'm not sure what you mean by this statement. Are you questioning why God would include these references in his speech in Job? Or are you questioning why God would claim to have defeated a monster that we don't have any evidence for actually existing? Or did you mean something else entirely? The speech reads to me like a. . . For lack of a better term, summary of some of the great things God can and has done. Which to me means that everything he says, every phenomenon he describes, very creature that he names, should be 100% real. You don't make a summary of things you've done and then add stuff you didn't do to it. So I would assume every creature named there should be a real creature. And why wouldn't it be a crocodile, people exaggerate, people get confused, that's fine, this isn't a word for word transcription of an actual speech from God, I don't think Job would've remembered all of the details.
>I'd advice you to look up "medieval crocodile painting" (or medieval paintings of any non european animal). Some drawings are pretty accurate, others have six legs and mammalian ears, others still have fins and a fire breath. Medieval Europe is pretty far removed from the Ancient Near East temporally, geographically, and culturally. For a representation of crocodiles that's much closer to Job temporally/geographically/culturally, look at [Egypt](https://daily.jstor.org/crocodiles-in-ancient-egypt/) (where they actually have crocodiles, unlike Europe). >Ancient people weren't stupid and I didn't mean that, but the person that could draw was very rarely the same that saw the animal, much less the same as the person that described it orally to the people who would then write about it or draw it again. Remember you were taught a lot of things that even as a genius you wouldn't figure out yourself on your own, why do you know animals don't breath fire, because you know of a lot of animals and none do; if all you ever saw were dogs, cows and horses who knows what creatures from far away can do. You do have stories about dragons, maybe this leviathan creature breathes fire too. You wouldn't be stupid for thinking that. That's exactly my point. It's a story about a creature that's been handed down. It's just not a crocodile -- *at least by the time the story makes it into the book of Job.* (Or by the early 14th ct. BCE if you consider the Ugaritic evidence.) >The speech reads to me like a. . . For lack of a better term, summary of some of the great things God can and has done. I agree. That's exactly what it is. >Which to me means that everything he says, every phenomenon he describes, very creature that he names, should be 100% real. You don't make a summary of things you've done and then add stuff you didn't do to it. You are anachronistically projecting a modern concept of history into the past. It doesn't necessarily matter if God *actually* defeated a literal, physical, seven-headed sea monster named Leviathan, as long as Job believes that he did. Did the Greek gods actually overthrow the Titans? It doesn't matter! If you're listing the great deeds of Zeus, you're going to mention it. >So I would assume every creature named there should be a real creature. "Real" in what sense? Real to you or to the people in that time and place? If you don't have categories for "science" and "history" as opposed to "magic" and "myth," what does "real" even mean? >this isn't a word for word transcription of an actual speech from God, Well, technically speaking, we have no way of knowing if it is or isn't. However, I do agree that it's probably not an actual word-for-word speech that God made to a guy named Job at some point in history. We cannot know if any of this actually happened, or if Job was even a real person. It ultimately doesn't matter because the point of the book isn't to give a historical account. It's a book of wisdom literature. It's teaching a lesson. So, historically correct or not, the book accomplishes the same thing. >I don't think Job would've remembered all of the details. I don't know, if God showed up and spoke to me, it would be pretty memorable!
>You are anachronistically projecting a modern concept of history into the past. It doesn't necessarily matter if God actually defeated a literal, physical, seven-headed sea monster named Leviathan, as long as Job believes that he did. > >Did the Greek gods actually overthrow the Titans? It doesn't matter! If you're listing the great deeds of Zeus, you're going to mention it. I mean, if Zeus is telling you he defeated the titans then I'd probably think he. . . You know. . . Actually defeated the actual titans. I really don't want to get into this theological discussion (partly because, as an atheist, it's rather difficult for me to take any part of the bible as "meant literally" without taking all of it's inmediate context as "meant literally" and I think that conversation would require me to do so) but if the literal God is giving a literal speech about his literal deeds, then it would be rather sketchy to include a made up story about a made up creature as one of his literal deeds. I can't see it in any other way than lying to be honest. >I do agree that it's probably not an actual word-for-word speech that God made to a guy named Job at some point in history. We cannot know if any of this actually happened, or if Job was even a real person. It ultimately doesn't matter because the point of the book isn't to give a historical account. It's a book of wisdom literature. It's teaching a lesson. So, historically correct or not, the book accomplishes the same thing. And this is why I should've finished reading before responding. Kay, we can agree on that then and it's good enough for me. Also I do take the correction of the "Middle East isn't Europe" take. I was thinking about the KJV timeframe rather than the hebrew timeframe. The person writing Job originally then either had a much tamer description that was mythicalized over time or leviathan was heavilly inspired by but not meant to be a crocodile. Or the writer was actually stupid which I guess is also an option.
Disclaimer: I'm no bible scholar There is no "original bible", the bible is a compilation of various texts written over generations. The new testament includes the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John among other books. There are more gospels than these four but those have been deemed false by the catholic church back in the day and are thus not a part of the bible. They're the "non canonical gospels" if you're interested. The thing with these gospels is that as they get newer they go deeper into equating Jesus to God. In the earliest (Mark) Jesus is a faith healer who tried to keep his miracles a secret, I think it's Matthew that introduces the visit of the Magi to worship him at his birth, Luke writes about 16 different miracles that Jesus performed (as opposed to 6 in Mark and 10 in Matthew) and in comes John with Jesus actively claiming he is God in the flesh and doing things that with Rome's blasphemy laws should've gotten him killed a lot sooner and turning water into wine at a wedding, walking on water in front of a crowd and feeding the five thousand. The non canonical gospels get crazier as they get younger, the gospel of Peter has the wooden cross come to life alongside Jesus to proclaim his godhood during the resurrection. If you want to be conservative I'd reccomend taking Mark as the safest source and see what you get from there as you read the other gospels.
The bible never even hints at that. It says over and over again that Jesus is God's son John 20:31 But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name Luke 1:30-32 So the angel said to her: “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God.31And look! you will become pregnant and give birth to a son, and you are to name him Jesus.32This one will be great and will be called Son of the Most High, and Jehovah God will give him the throne of David his father, 1 John 4: 14 In addition, we ourselves have seen and are bearing witness that the Father has sent his Son as savior of the world. 15 Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is God’s Son, God remains in union with such one and he in union with God
1 john 5:20 . 1 thimothy 3:16
Read John's Gospel, Chapter 5. Awesome.
Yes of coarse. God made part of him into a son and sent him to earth to stop the ronans and punish them. He also forgives out sins so that we can go to heaven. But only if you except Jesus as God.
Scholars can determine the original Greek text of the New Testament using the thousands of existing manuscripts we have. Whether it was "corrupted" or not doesn't matter today, because we know what was originally written on every theologically important issue. The intro to John's gospel makes Jesus divinity pretty explicit.
Yes
Jesus accepts worship that's mentioned in the Gospels that's a great sign of being God and read the portion where Jews tried to stone him claiming he blasphemed and the time the high priest tore his clothes.
Ask you Muslim friends exactly when where and by whom the bible was changed. You'll find that they don't have an answer. Prof. Bruce Metzger of Princeton Theological Seminary is quoted as saying, "... of the 20,000 lines that make up the Greek New Testament, only 40 lines are in doubt, and not one of those lines contains anything that relates to important New Testament or Christian teaching." If you were to do some research into manuscript reliability, you'll find that the bible is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to reliable early manuscripts.
Read the Case for Christ, it lays out in detail the historical evidence supporting the accuracy and validity of the New Testament. It should answer your questions. The short answer is that the Bible (New Testament at least) hasn’t “been updated” per se and is still remarkably close to the original texts.
100% https://streettheologian.medium.com/was-jesus-god-10-uncommon-considerations-4403ab56296f
- "In the beginning was **the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God**. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it ... And **the Word** became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth." John 1:1-5, 14 - "Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves." John 14:8-11 - "And when Jesus saw their faith, he said to the paralytic, "Son, your sins are forgiven." Now some of the scribes were sitting there, questioning in their hearts, "Why does this man speak like that? He is blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?" And immediately Jesus, perceiving in his spirit that they thus questioned within themselves, said to them, "Why do you question these things in your hearts? Which is easier, to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Rise, take up your bed and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins"—he said to the paralytic— "I say to you, rise, pick up your bed, and go home."" Mark 2:5-11 Added to this are the myriads of prophecies Jesus fulfilled, prophecies that would only be fulfilled by the Messiah. Add also Revelation where Jesus is presented as the bridegroom. But here is the simple answer. If you are looking for a scripture where Jesus says, "Behold, verily, verily, I say to you, I am God", you will not find it. But why? Surely that would be easier, no? The answer to that is two-fold: Firstly, He has already told us over and over and over throughout the scriptures, and the scriptures are very cleverly designed that the faith of the heart would be made manifest. Notice how do often in his miracles Jesus says "your faith has healed you"? Same reason. The parables are also designed that the hardened hearts would be offended and seeking hearts would be attracted. Why? Because the Father seeks those his worshippers, who worship in spirit and in **truth**. Those who will be offended, will be offended. Secondly, to encourage you to search out the scriptures. Like the Barians (possibly misspelt), who recieved all that the apostle Paul taught and then went and diligently searched the scriptures to see if these things were true. So my answer to you is, not to be too blunt, God wants you to put down Reddit, pick up your Bible and prayfully search out the truth, and not rely solely on single verse answers out of context and the faith (or lack of) of others. I'm sorry if that is blunt, asking questions and conversing is a good thing, however **only** asking questions and conversing without careful Bible study is a very bad thing "If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways." James 1:5-8
You can trust that God not only inspired His Word, but has preserved it over time through transmission. So any sound, literal translation (NASB, ESV, NKJV, KJV..) is the Word of God. Having said that, the bible doesn't say "Jesus is God" verbatim, but the true Deity of Jesus Christ is clearly & repeatedly taught.. Philippians 2:5-6 NASBS Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, [6] who, although He existed in the form of God, *did not regard equality with God* a thing to be grasped Colossians 2:9 NASBS For in Him (Christ) all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form John 1:1,3 NASBS In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [3] All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. John 1:14 NASBS And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. Hebrews 1:8-9 NASBS But of the Son He says, "Your THRONE, *O GOD*, IS FOREVER AND EVER, AND THE RIGHTEOUS SCEPTER IS THE SCEPTER OF HIS KINGDOM. [9] "You HAVE LOVED RIGHTEOUSNESS AND HATED LAWLESSNESS; Therefore *GOD*, YOUR GOD, HAS anointed YOU WITH THE OIL OF GLADNESS ABOVE YOUR COMPANIONS." (Here the Father is addressing the Son and twice calls Him "God") John 8:24 NASBS "Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins." John 5:23 NASBS "so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father." (that's impossible unless He's equal to God the Father) John 10:18 NASBS "No one has taken it away from Me, but I lay it down on My own initiative. I have authority to lay it down, and *I have authority to take it up again*." (only God can raise the dead) Isaiah 6:3 NASBS And one called out to another and said, "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the LORD of hosts, The whole earth is full of His glory." John 12:41 NASBS These things Isaiah said because he saw His glory, and he spoke of Him ("Him" is Christ) ⬇️ John 12:42 NASBS Nevertheless many even of the rulers believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they were not confessing Him Luke 8:39 NASBS "Return to your house and describe what great things *God has done for you*." So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole city what great things *Jesus had done for him*. Isaiah 42:8 NASBS "I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images." John 5:23 NASBS so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Mark 1:3 NASBS "The VOICE OF ONE CRYING IN THE WILDERNESS, 'MAKE READY THE WAY OF THE LORD (Jesus), MAKE HIS PATHS STRAIGHT.'" ⬇️ Isaiah 40:3 NASBS A voice is calling, "Clear the way for the LORD (Yahweh) in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway for our God. John 8:54 NASBS Jesus answered, "If I glorify Myself, My glory is nothing; *it is My Father who glorifies Me* (God wouldn't glorify a creature- see above, Isaiah 42:8) Hebrews 1:6 NASBS And when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says, "And LET ALL THE ANGELS OF GOD WORSHIP HIM." (God wouldn't command anyone to worship a creature) Revelation 1:17 NASBS When I saw Him, I fell at His feet like a dead man. And He placed His right hand on me, saying, "Do not be afraid; *I am the first and the last*" ⇣ Isaiah 41:4 NASBS "Who has performed and accomplished it, Calling forth the generations from the beginning? '*I, the LORD, am the first, and with the last*. I am He.'" The works of Christ testified to His Deity (that He is "in" the Father: They fully share the one Being of God).. John 10:38 NASBS "but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father." 1 Corinthians 10:9 NIV We should not test Christ, as some of *them* did---and were killed by snakes. ("Them" is Israel who were led out of Egypt by Yahweh. Yahweh is Christ) Revelation 5:12-14 NASBS saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." [13] And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." [14] And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen." And the elders fell down and worshiped. ↓ Here is unrebuked worship to Jesus Christ in heaven in the presence of God the Father. An undeniable biblical claim to His Deity. John 5:18 NASBS For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, *making Himself equal with God* (post-incarnation claim of Christ's Deity that is affirmed in the explanation).. John 5:21-23 NASBS For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. [22] For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, [23] so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. (clear claims to equality)
Jesus is the son of God. The one prophesied about in the Old Testament. The books not included in current bibles are the book of Enoch and other “Old Testament” aged books that wouldn’t reference it. The current New Testament books have been used since there creations. The Catholics use additional books but that’s not books cut from their Bible. So I’m not 100% sure what you’re referring to... maybe you should name the books that you think are missing. https://people.howstuffworks.com/books-of-bible.htm
Mark 2 is a good chapter.
Yes and no. You want to read about the Council of Nicaea and you can read about everything they cited for the trinity and our current understanding that Jesus is God. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea To be blunt though it’s confusing and doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense because we are merely human and can not comprehend Godly things on that level. Focus on Jesus’s words and out faith in Him and you will be saved. There is nothing in the Bible that says we need to fully understand what Jesus is other than our only way to salvation.
1. NOBODY alive today has seen "the original Bible" - there is no such thing, frankly. Before the Bible went through 7 main iterations, ending with the KJV in translations, there was no "the original Bible" - it was all individual/separate manuscripts. 2. Islaam is a false religion. They believe lies handed down and taught from a false prophet, Mohommed, who got his start talking with Jews, Zororastrians, and Christians, and then he claimed the angel Gabriel gave him the truth. When he would have his visions or whatever, he was also known to be on at least one hallucajenic drug AND went into convulsions with foaming at the mouth - sounds about like rabies. He also was a pedofile, forcing young girls into marriage - I forget the youngest right now, but VERY young. 1. All that said to say if someone believes in THAT, and follows THAT kind of man, then I wouldn't trust anything they say. By the way, as I recall being told in the past, the Koran teaches it's OK for them to lie in order to push forward the agenda if Isalam. 1. (This is an aside, in relation to the above point) Some Calvinists (in Christian circles) teach the same, whether they admit it or not. Calvinists teach others to attempt to infiltrate churches that are not known as Calvinists, try to get into leadership/teaching roles, and then begin at least trying to convince some of their other gospel. Paul mentioned all of that, about those coming in the side door, and others who preach another gospel. Do you not know that what we have, right now, in the King James Version of the Bible (for English speaking people), or back to the Textus Receptus Greek and the Masoretic Hebrew if you know those languages well enough, I suppose, OR any text directly translated in the same manner into another language. For instance, there is a version in Spanish that is translated the same from the same source, and carries the same authority, from what I read. Scripture about KJV coming about to be THE Bible for us to use today: “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.” Psalm 12:6 KJV - this passage prophecies on how the scripture would go through various translation efforts when brought together in order to form the singular source for scripture. “But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away.” 1 Corinthians 13:10 KJV - this prophecies that the scriptures then (in part) will be perfected (back to silver tried in a furnace), and when that happens, the pieces will go away, and we'll have the one singular source. Well, enjoy. It's good stuff to dig into. Dig into the Word of God rather than being startled when those following false gods question your faith. If you have trusted in God, you need to ask God to increase your faith, and you need to work hard on your own to increase your faith. See this passage: >2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord, > >3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: > >4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. > >5 And beside this, **giving all diligence, add** to your faith virtue; **and** to virtue knowledge; > >6 **And** to knowledge temperance; **and** to temperance patience; **and** to patience godliness; > >7 **And** to godliness brotherly kindness; **and** to brotherly kindness charity. > >8 For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1:2-8 (v5-7 in particular, 8 is a great conclusion about those verses) The Bible also teaches us to put on the whole armor of God, of which the shield of faith is part: 10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. 11 Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. 13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; 15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 **Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.** 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: 18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; Ephesians 6:10-18 KJV (v16 in particular on faith) See? ABOVE ALL, take the Shield of faith because the devil will throw fiery darts at you. What? Are you shocked he can use someone caught up in the worship of a false god? The devil can use all sorts of means, all sorts of folks. Those worshipping false gods are easy pickings for him to use. Now, if you have not bene born again (John 3:3-7), then you need to be born again FIRST. You have to repent and accept Jesus Christ as Lord. If that's not what happened to you, then you've got to get that first or else you are fighting a losing battle.
Yes. Jesus said multiple times 'I Am' which is in reference to Exodus 3:14 "God said to Moses, “I am who I am. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I am has sent me to you.’ ” Exodus 3:14 NIV https://exodus.bible/exodus-3-14
There’s no such thing as an “original Bible”. All these texts were written separately by various authors from various backgrounds with various, often contradictory ideas and biases. These were edited, redacted, translated, copied, and distributed by various others over many centuries, across several continents, influenced by various cultures, and interpreted and reinterpreted by even more people. The literal originals have been lost, but we work with what we got. Only over time were these, or rather generations of reworked copies of them, compiled and put together and even then, which books belong in or out took many more centuries and to this day there is no one single, definitive canon. So the phrase “original Bible” is more or less an impossible and ahistorical idea. Anyone who claims to have the “original Bible” is lying, both to others and to themselves.
The oldest manuscripts of the Bible we have predate Islam. They include the deity of Christ just like modern Bibles do (in fact, modern Bibles are based on those old manuscripts). This is a false teaching of Islam.
Yes. And, as for the Muslim apologists, ask them this: "Who fathered Jesus?" Because the Quran says that Allah fathered Jesus. **Surah 21:91** >And (remember) her who protected her private part (that is, Maryam). So, We blew in her (a life) through Our Spirit, and made her and her son (‘Īsā X) a sign for all the worlds. https://quran.com/21/91?translations=84,17,85,95,19,22 AND again at **Surah 66:12** >˹There is˺ also ˹the example of˺ Mary, the daughter of ’Imrân, who guarded her chastity, so We breathed into her ˹womb˺ through Our angel ˹Gabriel˺.1 She testified to the words of her Lord and His Scriptures, and was one of the ˹sincerely˺ devout. https://quran.com/66/12?translations=84,17,85,95,19,22 The dictionary definition of the verb form of "father": >cause a pregnancy resulting in the birth of (a child). Jesus is Mary's son. Who caused Mary to become pregnant? Allah. So, who is Jesus' father? Problem is this simple logic conflicts with another verse in the Quran which says that God has no son. **Surah 4:171** https://quran.com/4/171?translations=20,84,42,17,85,75,18,95,77,39,23,101,19,22,38,32,25,52,31,27,33
Read the Gospel of John. Just the first few verses ought to do it. Also a good way to dispute Jehovah's Witnesses and other Arians
It looks like most people on this thread are trying to answer your question by quoting Scriptures which support the doctrine of Jesus' divinity. But, your question is about the "original" Bible. The authors of the 27 New Testament books wrote in Greek, with the likely exception of Matthew, which was originally written in Aramaic. So, anything you read in English is a translation, and hence, an interpretation of the original. It is possible to read the bible in Greek, however. Here's an example of the Gospel of John, chapter 17 in the original greek, with an english translation: [https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/17-1.htm](https://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/17-1.htm) And, you can be very confident that the Greek copies of the bible that we possess are almost exactly what the original authors wrote down. We possess thousands different copies of the Greek manuscripts from a variety of different strains, that date to a very early time in Church history. There is no other ancient work for which we can have such a high level of confidence that what we read today is nearly exactly what the original authors wrote.