How can you say that the Bible has corruption in it when Saint Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16 clearly said that "All Scripture is God-breathed"?



Let us look the following Verse: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (From the NIV Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16)"


In the above verse, we clearly see that the entire Bible is supposed to be inspired from GOD Almighty.


There are few problems however with this claim:


1- There is no actual "Bible". The word "Bible" doesn't even exist in what we call today "The Bible". So when such claim is made, it is not right for us to use it to prove the entire "collection" was inpired from GOD Almighty.


2- Paul obviously didn't know much about the Old Testament for claiming that it is all "God-breathed". GOD Almighty said: "`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)" See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29 where Prophet Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death by their own hands.


3- Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had rediculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanantly preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanatly preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful. Anyway, many famous Historians and Theologians before came to conclusions that Paul was not truthful.


4- Most of the New Testament is nothing but conversations between people, which are clearly not inspirations from GOD Almighty. For instance, Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39). Now one must ask, did GOD for instance favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? If so, since Peter was "clearly in the wrong", then how about his Gospels? Wasn't every word that Peter spoke supposedly inpired by GOD? How then could he be "clearly in the wrong"? One of them must be in the wrong, which in either case, would also produce another contradiction to 2 Timothy 3:16. Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. So why then take everything he says including 2 Timothy 3:16 as the Words of GOD Almighty when they contain clear contradictions in them?

- The history of the Gospels in the New Testament is very unreliable according to


the commentary of the NIV Bible. The NIV Bible is one of the most used Bibles among Christians, and is used in almost every "Bible Search" web site. I wrote down their quotes in DARK GREEN to prove this point. Let me show you a little example of that article:


The Book of Acts:


"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke."


So based on some conclusion, you're willing to die for defending the idea that the Book of Acts was the True Word of GOD Almighty? If the book was inspired by GOD Almighty, then how come it wasn't mentioned in the book itself to help us filter it out from the many other "Satanic false books"? Are we sure that this book too is not a man-made Satanic book?


After all, its just a conclusio n, isn't it?


The Book of Hebrews:


"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients."


So because the guy was supposedly "well known (which we don't really know that for sure anyway)", then would that give us the right to consider his words as the Words of GOD Almighty?! I am sorry, but I don't really see the logic behind this! The Book of Hebrews is one of the highly used Books among Christians. I hear references from it a lot when listening to Christians preaching. Yet, no one really knows who wrote it!. This is quite ironic, because Christians use such highly doubtful books in their teachings as if they were the True Living Words of GOD Almighty. I don't care what you call this, but I call it blasphemy, because it is the most rediculous insult to GOD Almighty and His Holy Words that I have ever seen.


I just hope you see the real cheap quality in the religion of Christianity, with all my respect due to every Christian reader.


Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture): "Know they not Allah Knoweth what they conceal and what they reveal? And there are among them illiterates, who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture. Then woe to those who write the Book [The Bible] with their own hands, and then say: 'This is from Allah,' To traffic with it for a miserable price! Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby. (The Noble Quran, 2:77-79)"


5- "The X-Rated Pornography in the Bible is another proof that the Bible can not be all inpired by Allah Almighty.

Do you believe that the "Bible" contains some Divine Inspirations in it?


Yes I do. Man can try to come up with many lies and additions to the Words of Allah Almighty, but Allah Almighty's Words will always stand out clear from corruption. As a Muslim, I believe that Jesus' personal quotes are the closest to the Truth. But however, the Noble Quran is the error-free Holy Book that we all must follow. Allah Almighty said in the Noble Quran: "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly Guard it (from corruption). (The Noble Quran, 15:9)" Also "Nay, this is a Glorious Quran, (inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved! (The Noble Quran, (85:21-22)"


Paul nullified and contradicted the point of Baptism:


Let us look at the following verses about baptism:


"I baptize you with water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 1:8)"


"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. (From the NIV Bible, Mark 16:16)"


The practice of baptism today is done by literally dipping a person into a small pool of water. The point from it is not to physically clean him from body sweat and odor, but rather to symbolically show that he had been spiritually purified or sanctified, and to sort of mark a date and time of him being "born again".


Let us see how Paul nullified and contradicted the point of baptism:


I Corinthians 7:10-15:


10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.


II But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.


12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.


13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.


14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.


16 How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife?

Paul considered disbelieving husbands who are married to believing wives as purified/sanctified and holy. Their children too are considered as such even if they turn out to be disbelievers.


Anyone here must ask the simple question: If the disbelieving husband becomes a believer and embraces the polytheist trinity paganism, then given the fact that he had already been purified through his physical marriage, would he still have to be purified through the physical baptism? As we saw above, the whole point from baptism is to give sanctification. Now, if the disbelieving husband had already been sanctified through his marriage, then what is the point from sanctifying him again?


My point here is not focusing on the baptism itself. I am not desperately trying to pick out silly points and make a big deal out of them. My point here is: What is the spiritual wisdom behind the disbelieving husbands being purified through their marriage to the believing wives?


Where is the divine perfection in this?


More Proofs of Paul's words in NO WAY being Divine:


By the way, this is not the only time where Paul's writings were exposed and clearly proven to be nothing but fraud. Examine the following from his books:


2 Timothy 4:9-13


9 Do your best to come to me quickly,


10 for Demas, because he loved this world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica. Crescens has gone to Galatia, and Titus to Dalmatia.


11 Only Luke is with me. Get Mark and bring him with you, because he is helpful to me in my ministry.


12 I sent Tychicus to Ephesus.


13 When you come, bring the cloak that I left with Carpus at Troas, and my scrolls, especially the parchments.


Titus 3:12-14


12 As soon as I send Artemas or Tychicus to you, do your best to come to me at Nicopolis, because I have decided to winter there.


13 Do everything you can to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way and see that they have everything they need.


14 Our people must learn to devote themselves to doing what is good, in order that they may provide for daily necessities and not live unproductive lives.


He decided to winter there???


The above from his books are clear evidence, from among the many, that his writings are not Divine Revelations from GOD Almighty!

The myth and lie of Paul's words being Divine Revelations is soundly exposed!


He said: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, (From the NIV Bible, 2 Timothy 3:16)"


How can his scriptures be all "God-breathed", when we clearly and irrefutably see nonsense in his book?


Interestingly, Paul who spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 had ridiculously contradicted himself, because he himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-35). Verses 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 are today permanently preserved in the "Bible". If GOD Almighty indeed spoke 2 Timothy 3:16 through Paul, then He wouldn't have contradicted Himself in the Verse about the entire Bible being His Words, while permanently preserving Paul's personal words and suggestions in the "Bible". This should be one solid proof that Paul was not truthful.


They are holy?!


We have already seen Paul's terrible choice in considering disbelievers as purified. He further makes a worse mistake by calling them "holy". Now, I am very certain that Paul knew what the word "holy" meant. The question here is: How can any disbeliever be considered as a "holy" person to any person's religious denomination?


Paul really admired the "holy" people and elated their status very high. He, for instance, considered religious leaders as perfect, sinless and infallible:


"The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man's judgment. (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 2:15)"


How can Paul consider a spiritual leader as a "holy" person, and yet at the same time, consider a disbeliever as "holy" too?!


Also, how can a person in general be considered as purified and holy, and yet be condemned to Hell?


What is the dumb point from calling him "holy" and "pure" if he will still be among the evil and bad people who will (according to the polytheist trinity pagan belief) burn in Hell for Eternity?


Paul contradicted GOD Almighty in the Old Testament!


Let us look at GOD Almighty's concern in the Old Testament about marrying disbelievers:


"When the LORD your God brings you into the land you are entering to possess and drives out before you many nations-the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites, seven nations larger and stronger than you - and when the LORD your God has delivered them over to you and you have defeated them, then you must destroy them totally. Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your sons away from following me to serve other gods, and the LORD's anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you. This is what you are to do to them: Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones, cut down their Asherah poles and burn their idols in the fire. For you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. (From the NIV Bible, Deuteronomy 7:1-6)"


The Old Testament is crystal clear about the danger in marrying disbelievers, especially in the old days where women used to automatically follow their husbands' religions in the male-dominated societies. GOD Almighty in the Old Testament NEVER called the disbelievers as "holy" and "pure". Only Paul fell through his lies and uttered such stupidity!


Not only that, but GOD Almighty also Warned the People of Israel that if they ever marry pagans, then they will be destroyed!


The Old Testament clearly confirms my points above about Paul's words in NO WAY being Divine, because the GOD Almighty of the Bible didn't consider the disbelievers as "holy" and "pure."


The question that now begs itself is:


What's next now for Mr. Paul? Calling pagans as Saints, Bishops, Deacons and Church Fathers?


This paper was sent to me by my brother in Islam Naim Frasheri al-Arnaut; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.


Historical Quotes Concerning Paul and his doctrines from Historians, Philosophers and Theologians:

Carl Sagan (Scientist; Author)


"My long-time view about Christianity is that it represents an amalgam of two


seemingly


immiscible parts--the religion of Jesus and the religion of Paul. Thomas Jefferson


attempted to


excise the Pauline parts of the New Testament. There wasn't much left when he was


done, but it


was an inspiring document." (Letter to Ken Schei [author of Christianity Betrayed])


Thomas Jefferson


"Paul was the first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus." (All references not listed here,


can be


found in Christianity Betrayed)


Albert Schweitzer


"Where possible Paul avoids quoting the teaching of Jesus, in fact even mentioning it.


If we had


to rely on Paul, we should not know that Jesus taught in parables, had delivered the


sermon on


the mount, and had taught His disciples the 'Our Father.' Even where they are


specially


relevant, Paul passes over the words of the Lord."


Wil Durant (Philosopher)


"Paul created a theology of which none but the vaguest warrants can be found in the


words of


Christ."


"Fundamentalism is the triumph of Paul over Christ."


Walter Kaufmann (Professor of Philosophy, Princeton)


"Paul substituted faith in Christ for the Christlike life."


George Bernard Shaw


"No sooner had Jesus knocked over the dragon of superstition than Paul boldly set it


on its


legs again in the name of Jesus."


Thomas Hardy


"The new testament was less a Christiad than a Pauliad."

Hyam Maccoby (Talmudic Scholar)


"As we have seen, the purposes of the book of Acts is to minimize the conflict between Paul and


the leaders of the Jerusalem Church, James and Peter. Peter and Paul, in later Christian


tradition, became twin saints, brothers in faith, and the idea that they were historically bitter


opponents standing for irreconcilable religious standpoints would have been repudiated with


horror. The work of the author of Acts was well done; he rescued Christianity from the


imputation of being the individual creation of Paul, and instead gave it a respectable pedigree,


as a doctrine with the authority of the so-called Jerusalem Church, conceived as continuous in


spirit with the Pauline Gentile Church of Rome. Yet, for all his efforts, the truth of the matter is


not hard to recover, if we examine the New Testament evidence with an eye to tell­tale


inconsistencies and confusions, rather than with the determination to gloss over and harmonize all difficulties in the interests of an orthodox interpretation." (The Mythmaker, p. 139,Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986)


Jeremy Bentham (English Philosopher)


"If Christianity needed an Anti-Christ, they needed look no farther than Paul." (Paraphrased. Looking for a copy of "Not Paul, but Jesus" in order to retrieve the exact quote.)


Carl Jung (Psychologist)


"Paul hardly ever allows the real Jesus of Nazareth to get a word in." (U.S. News and


World


Report, April 22, 1991, p. 55)


Bishop John S. Spong (Episcopal Bishop of Newark)


"Paul's words are not the Words of God. They are the words of Paul- a vast


difference."


(Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism, p. 104, Harper San Francisco, 1991).


Paul, Peter and John are in clear contradiction with each others regarding the disbelieving husbands to believing wives!


In this article, I will address 1 Peter 3:1-6, 1 Corinthians 7:10-15, then compare it with 1 Corinthians 7:16, and John 3:15-16.

Let us first look at what Peter said:

1 Peter 3


1. Wives, in the same way be submissive to your husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives,


2. when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.


3. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.


4. Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.


5. For this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful. They were submissive to their own husbands,


6. like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear.


This passage of Peter directly contradicts Paul's. While Peter is asking women to be positive with their disbelieving husbands so that their husbands MIGHT be persuaded to embrace Christianity through their wives positive actions " they may be won over


without words ..... when they see the purity and reverence of your lives.", Paul said


something totally different:


I Corinthians 7:10-15:


10 To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband.


II But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.


12 To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her.


13 And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him.


14 For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.


15 But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace.


Quick Note: Notice how the NIV Bible translators put (I, not the Lord) in parenthesis. They are suggesting that Paul in verses 12 through 15 was speaking only his own personal words and wasn't inspired by GOD Almighty, even thought HE NEVER DECLARED IT IN THESE VERSES. This is only their interpretation and addition. In any how, even if they were right, and Paul wasn't speaking GOD Almighty's Words, then this still would contradict Paul's own words in 2 Timothy 3:16 "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness," Obviously, not all the Bible is God-breathed because Paul in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 would've contradicted that, as he also clearly contradicted it in 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 when he said that he is not always inspired by GOD Almighty, because both sets of verses are now PERMANENTLY

PRESERVED in the Bible, which obviously doesn't make all of the Bible "God-breathed". Maybe 1 Corinthians 7:25-35 is what gave the NIV Bible translators the liberty to consider 1 Corinthians 7:12-15 as Paul's own words (even though he never said so) and not GOD's. This obviously proves that the Bible is so cheap to them that they would give themselves the liberty to add and take off from it as they please without fearing anything.


Anyway, is Paul suggesting here that a disbelieving man or woman would still be purified/cleansed and win Paradise just because they are married to a believer? I don't quite understand his logic here! How can a believing woman raise her children, especially in a male-dominated society (where a woman follows everything her husband says and does) back then, to be polytheist trinitarian pagans who believe in 3 gods, while the disbelieving husband might interfere heavily with that? Would the disbelieving husband and the disbelieving children still be saved even if they don't embrace the polytheist trinity paganism just because the wife/mother is a believer? Is this what Paul meant by "sanctified"?


Also, notice "but as it is, they are holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14 above. It really doesn't just mean that the disbelieving children would be considered "holy", but also the disbelieving spouse (male or female).


What does Paul here mean by "holy"??!! If the disbelieving spouse would still not be saved in the End, then what is the point from considering them


"holy"??!!


How does all of this fit with Paul's very next verse in 1 Corinthians 7:16:


"How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? (From the NIV Bible, 1 Corinthians 7:16)"


So if the wife/husband can never save their spouse unless GOD Almighty


Wills, then again, what is the point from calling the disbelieving spouses


and the disbelieving children as "holy"?!


It is clear that Paul's "holy" title to disbelieving spouses and children proved


to be irrelevant and absolutely pointless! Hence, this makes the Bible imperfect in it's contents and literature, since it contains utter nonsense and foolish opinions in it. Hence, this makes the Bible not the 100% True Holy


Words of GOD Almighty.


Why should GOD Almighty, if He truly inspired Paul's nonsense, call


disbelievers as "holy" and still roast them in Hell? Wouldn't that make the


Perfect GOD Almighty inconsistent and a hypocrite?


Where is the Divine Perfection in this?!

As we clearly see above, while Peter recommended for the wives to be very positive with their disbelieving husbands so that these husbands might be "won over" (meaning embrace the religion) through their wives' actions, Paul said that the disbelieving husbands would be "sanctified" through their believing wives. Not only the disbelieving husbands, but also their children even if these children became disbelievers.


Now let us look at what John said:


John 3


15. that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life.


16. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Again, Paul clearly contradicted John 3:16 "that whoever believes in him shall not perish". How can a disbelieving husband not perish even if his wife was a believer?


No matter how you interpret 1 Peter 3:1-6, whether it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands are automatically purified through their believing wives, or it meant to say that the disbelieving husbands might be persuaded to embrace the pagan polytheist religion, 1 Peter 3:16 still would be in clear contradiction with Paul or John in either case!


In any rate for all of this, we see one thing that crystal clear:


The Bible is full of contradictions! It is certainly not perfect: Not in it's


history (the books and gospels were


written by mysterious people), nor in its contents and literature. It is clear that


it is made up of man's alterations and innovations and it is not and can not


be the Inspired True Word of GOD Almighty.


The Book of Romans:


"The writer of this letter was the apostle Paul (see 1:1). No voice from the early church was ever raised against his authorship. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1705)"


Ok, but notice how in this Book, we see the actual author himself, and in the ones above, we see nothing but conclusions. If GOD was the actual inspirer of all of these Books, then He wouldn't put us in the agony of making some conclusions to figure out His Words. Is GOD the author of confusion? Paul is also clear about his ownership of the Books of 1 Corinthians and 2 Corinthians.


But why must we take every single word that Paul spoke especially during his conversations with others as Words of GOD Almighty?!

Is Paul GOD Himself? No Christian believes in that. Paul fought with Saint Peter and accused him of being "clearly in the wrong" (Galatians: 2:11-12), and had a huge argument with Saint Barnabas (Acts 15:36-39).


Did GOD favor Paul over Barnabas and Peter and inspired him the words while he was fighting with them? I don't think so!.


Paul himself admitted before that he wasn't always inspired by GOD Almighty himself (1 Corinthians 7:25-30).


And since Paul never met Jesus in person, and only claimed that Jesus came to him in person then there is always the possibility of him being untruthful. Since Paul never performed any miracles to help us believe his claim of Prophet hood, then his claim about him being GOD's apostle is just as good as me for instance claiming to be GOD's apostle.


Benny Hyne, one of today's famous Christian missionaries who have millions of fans world wide, claims and shows on TV how he could cure the paralyzed and makes him walk again. He claims that Jesus is inside him when he performs his so-called miracles. Why can't it be a bunch of liars that he paid and brought on TV, pretend to act paralyzed and pretend to act healed?


Paul could just as well be another Benny Hyne, except that Benny Hyne performed miracles (that are fake of course), but Paul never performed anything.


I hope you see how confusing the Bible really is. Its books are believed today from conclusions only as you've seen above, and it is only to be believed by blind faith. Blind faith is not the way to believe in GOD Almighty's Words, because GOD is not the author of confusion


The Book of Philippians:


"The early church was unanimous in its testimony that Philippians was written by the apostle Paul (see 1:1). Internally the letter reveals the stamp of genuineness. The many personal references of the author fit what we know of Paul from other NT books. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1803)"


Again, it was assumed that this book was written by Paul himself. No one knows for sure whether it was Paul or somebody else. The New Testament wasn't even documented until 150-300 years after the disappearance of Jesus peace be upon him. If we're going to assume that Books that look appealing to us as the True Word of GOD Almighty, then we are committing a great crime against GOD Almighty and His Holy Words. No where in this Book we see a statement saying that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself.


The Book of Colossians:


"That Colossians is a genuine letter Paul is not usually disputed. In the early church, all who speak on the subject of authorship ascribe it to Paul. In the 19th century,

however, some thought that the heresy refuted in ch. 2 was second-century Gnosticism. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1813)"


Again, it was assumed that Paul was the one who wrote the Book. But again, who's to say that it was inspired by GOD Almighty Himself?


The Books of 1 and 2 Thessalonians:


"Paul's authorship of 2 Thessalonians has been questioned more often than that of 1 Thessalonians, in spite of the fact that it has more support from early Christian writers. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1829)"


So basically we're not certain whether or not Paul wrote the Book. And even if Paul was the one who wrote it, we still don't know whether it was the True Words of GOD Almighty or not, because no where in the Book we see any indication that it was inspired by the Almighty GOD.


Exposing the Old Testament's historical


corruptions


As we see in the introduction above in Jeremiah 8:8, the entire Bible is doubtful and full of man-made lies that were inserted into it through the scribes and other means of alterations. The Bible is obviously a corrupted book!


The Book of Genesis:


"Historically, Jews and Christians alike have held that Moses was the author/compiler of the first five books of the OT. These books, known also as the Pentateuch (meaning "five-volumed book"), were referred to in Jewish tradition as the five fifths of the law (of Moses). The Bible itself suggests Mosaic authorship of Genesis, since Ac 15:1 refers to circumcision as "the custom taught by Moses," an allusion of Ge 17.


However, a certain amount of later editorial updating does appear to be indicated (see, e.g., notes on 14:14; 36:31; 47:11). (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 2)"


So in reality, the book of Genesis had been tampered with by man. It had been corrupted. It is dangerous to consider all of it as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty, because by doing so, we are running into the risk of committing a crime against Him since we are claiming that He spoke words that He never spoke.


The Book of Numbers:


"It is not necessary, however, to claim that Numbers came from Moses' hand complete and in final form. Portions of the book were probably added by scribes or editors from later periods of Israel's history. For example, the protestation of the


humility of Moses (12:3) would hardly be convincing if it came from his own mouth. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 183)"


So in reality, we don't know who were all the authors who wrote the book of Numbers. How is it possible then to call the book of Numbers the True Living Revelations of GOD Almighty if the book had been tampered with by the man-made laws of the scribes?


As you clearly saw in Jeremiah 8:8 in the introduction above, GOD Almighty condemned the laws of the scribes and accused them for turning the Bible into a lie.


The book of Deuteronomy:


"The book itself testifies that, for the most part, Moses wrote it (1:5; 31:9,22,24), and other OT books agree (1Ki 2:3, 8:53; 2ki 14:6; 18:12)--though the preamble (1:1-5) may have been written by someone else, and the report of Moses' death (ch.34) was almost certainly written by someone else. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 240)"


As we clearly see, there is ample evidence that proves beyond the shadow of the doubt that Moses was not the sole author of the book. He couldn't have possibly have written about his own death. Again, another corrupted book by man in the Bible. How can you claim that the book of Deuteronomy was indeed all revealed by GOD Almighty? If you're not sure, and you still insist on your claim, then you are committing a crime against GOD Almighty's Revelations.


The book of Joshua:


"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"


Again, another book whom we don't know who in the world wrote it. Yet, Jews and Christians consider this nonsense as a Revelation from GOD Almighty.


The book of Judges:


"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain."


"The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy."

(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322).


Another book with many doubts had been inserted into the Bible. How much more evidence do you need to be convinced that the Bible is corrupted, or to say the least, not a perfect book?


The book of Ruth:


"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"


Same as above.


The books of 1 and 2 Samuel:


"Many questions have arisen pertaining to the literary character, authorship and date of 1,2 Samuel."


"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity."


(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368).


Again, unknown books with unknown authors had been inserted into the Bible and are now considered GOD's Revelations. What a joke! Since when do we consider man-made stories and narrations as GOD's Revelations?


The books of 1 and 2 Kings:


"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings."


"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy."


(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459).


Again, another unknown books with unknown authors had corrupted the Bible.


The books of 1 and 2 Chronicles:


"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"


Again, another doubtful nonsense had been considered to be GOD's Revelations.

The book of Esther:


"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"


Same as above.


The book of Job:


"Although most of the book consists of the words of Job and his counselors, Job himself was not the author."


"The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources...."


(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722).


Ironically, the book is named as "The book of Job", but yet, Job was not the author, and no one in this world knows who wrote the book. Today, it is considered GOD's Revelations.


It's quite pathetic to consider unknown people as GOD's Messengers and attribute their work to GOD's real Messengers.


It's obvious that like most of the Bible's book and gospels, the Book of Job had been lost.


The books of Psalm:


"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided. The notations themselves are ambiguous since the Hebrew phraseology used, meaning in general "belonging to", an also be taken in the sense of "concerning" or "for the use of" or "dedicated to". The name may refer to the title of a collection of Psalms that had been gathered under a certain name. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"


"The Psalms consist of one hundred fifty poems of Israel written at different times by different authors, though mainly by David, around 1000 B.C.


..........


Because of the vast range of human feelings expressed in the Psalms, this book remains one of the best loved and most used books of the Bible. (From the King James Version Bible Commentary, page 801)"


As we clearly see above from the NIV and KJV Bibles' commentaries, this book can not be considered as the True Words of GOD Almighty, because it was written by many unknown authors! There is no proof that these authors were True Messengers of GOD Almighty. Another corruption and man-made alterations had invaded the Bible and corrupted it.


This corrupted book claims that the Earth is flat and never moves:

"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. (From the NIV Bible, Psalm 104:5)"


Since when the Earth is flat and can never move?! We all know that the Earth and the other planets rotate and move in space around the Sun.


For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse:


"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"


The book of Proverbs:


"Although the book begins with a title ascribing the proverbs to Solomon, it is clear from later chapters that he was not the only author of the book. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 935)"


Can anyone please tell me who that other author was? And did GOD Almighty speak those words through his tongue?


These are fair questions, aren't they?


The book of Ecclesiastes:


"No time period or writer's name is mentioned in the book, but several passages strongly suggest that King Solomon is the authors. On the other hand, the writer's title, his unique style of Hebrew and his attitude toward rulers may point to another person and a later period. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 988)"


Was it or was it not Solomon who wrote this book? If you say it was Solomon, then how can you prove it?


And by the way, was this book a revelation to Solomon, or just Solomon's own personal writings, if it were Solomon's book from the first place?


This corrupted book claims that the Sun hurries back to where it rises:


"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"


Since when the Sun hurries back to where it rises, like if there is some hole it rises from and another hole it sets through on Earth?!


For those Jews and Christians who would like to see where in the Noble Quran does Allah Almighty say that the planets in space rotate and move, read the following Noble Verse:

"It is He who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon, all (the celestial bodies) swim along, each in its orbit with its own motion. (The Noble Quran, 21:33)"


The Book of Ecclesiasticus:


This book does not even exist in the NIV Bible! It however exists in the Roman Catholics "The New Jerusalem Bible" [3]. This book consists of 51 chapters that apparently the NIV Bible Historians and Theologians don't believe that they are the True Words of GOD Almighty.


Talk about major and serious differences and corruptions in the Bibles today.


Let us look at this verse from this book: "....and the birth of ANY daughter is a loss. (From the New Jerusalem Bible, Ecclesiasticus 22:3)" Since when does GOD give stupid generalizing statements for ALL the members of a certain group of His creation?


The Book of Wisdom:


Again, this book does not even exist in the NIV Bible! It however exists in the Roman Catholics "The New Jerusalem Bible" [3]. This book consists of 19 chapters that apparently the NIV Bible Historians and Theologians don't believe that they are the True Words of GOD Almighty.


Again, talk about major and serious differences and corruptions in the Bibles today.


The book of Song of Songs:


"Verse 1 appears to ascribe authorship to Solomon. Solomon is referred to seven times, and several verses speak of the 'king', but whether he was the author remains an open question. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 997)"


"Two lovers, Solomon and a Shulamite girl, express their feelings for one another, with occasional comments made by friends. (From the King James Version Commentary, page 945)"


Again, we don't know who wrote the book.


1- She wished if her lover was her brother nursed at her "mother's breasts" so she wouldn't have to take him home in secret.


2- Her breasts and vagina taste like wine for him.


The KJV Bible's Theologians and Historians say that the porn-full book talks about Solomon and his lover. But we don't know whether it was Solomon who wrote this book or not, nor do we know whether this is some ridiculous poem and a lie written after he died or not.


One must ask a simple question here: Why should there be "lovers" in the Bible? Why should there be illegal sex and disgusting pornography in the Bible?


The book of Lamentations:


"Although Lamentations is anonymous and we cannot be certain who wrote it, ancient Jewish and Christian tradition ascribes it to Jeremiah. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1207)"


What a joke! Christians and Jews point the book to Jeremiah without any certainty to who wrote the book. How is it possible for us to consider this book as the True Living Words of GOD Almighty?


Christians and Jews have yet to find and prove the original author of the book and all of the books mentioned above, and then prove that they were indeed Revelations from GOD Almighty.


Failure to accomplish the two tasks and inserting this type of nonsense into the Bible and claiming that it was the Words of GOD Almighty is A CRIME AGAINST GOD!


Embrace Islam, the religion of The One True Living Undivided GOD Almighty, and you will be saved!


So who wrote the Bible then? Were they really the original Prophets and Disciples?


So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note


that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to ..... " such as "The Gospel


according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:


"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"

Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.


Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.


This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read


"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"


Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.


"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that over lived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"


Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.


Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':


"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."


From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition
and one book of the Old Testament:

"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."


Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"


Is this how we define "inspired by God"?


I asked a reverend of the local church in my neighborhood, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!


Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended! Even though this is a Darwinist site, but it has some very good and important historical facts about the Bible's corruption. What makes it interesting is that many of their articles were written by former Christian missionaries.


The New Testament was written in the 4th century by Constantine and his council by their own words:


As we clearly see above, the books and gospels of the bible were written by mysterious authors. The New Testament of today was written in the third century by Constantine and his council. That is why you read things such as:


"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"


"And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou? (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:19)"


"John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; (From the King James Version Bible, John 1:26)"


"For John was not yet cast into prison. (From the King James Version Bible, John 3:24)"


etc .....


Also in the first 4 centuries, Christians mostly and widely believed that Jesus never got crucified.


The Disciples' early writings clearly claimed that Jesus never got crucified.


when you read "Jesus is the Son of God", please keep in mind that it is quoted from a corrupted book.The Old Testament makes numerous references about "son of God"


to many people. the word "son of God" literally means "SERVANT OF GOD" in the original Hebrew.


The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the Bible had been "altered":


From brother Amir AbdulRahim; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:


The subject of Mankind's Corruption of the Bible has interested me greatly, and I have taken a closer look at this subject. Its seems it's not only your site that brings this subject up, but a couple of Christian sites too.


For example, an article in the Catholic Encyclopaedia that you mentioned in regard to the 'Theophilus' mentioned in Luke's Gospel (from your Just Who Are The Real Authors Of The Bible? article) testifies to this fact (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm):


"IV. TRANSMISSION OF THE TEXT


No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author-- all have been in some way altered. The material conditions under which a book was spread before the invention of printing (1440), the little care of the copyists, correctors, and glossators for the text, so different from the desire of accuracy exhibited to-day, explain sufficiently the divergences we find between various manuscripts of the same work. To these causes may be added, in regard to the Scriptures, exegetical difficulties and dogmatical controversies. To exempt the sacred writings from ordinary conditions a very special providence would have been necessary, and it has not been the will of God to exercise this providence."


Lets just go through that again - "No book of ancient times has come down to us exactly as it left the hands of its author--all have been in some way altered." All have been in some way altered! In view of this blatant admission, how can anyone expect me, or any muslim, to follow an impure book?


When you compare this to the great lengths taken to preserve the original Qur'an, there's no contest!


Further from brother Vipor Poison; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him:


Luke 1:3


Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,


The following is from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625b.htm


http://newadvent.org/cathen/14625a.htm


If Theophilus existed in either the 2nd or the 4th centuries then how could the writer of this gospel be the same Luke who is supposed to be with Jesus in the 1st century.


Did he live for 200 years?


Contradictions in historical claims and accounts:


Also visit: 101 Contradictions in the Bible!


Consider the following few examples that consist of historical contradictions in the Bible:


2 Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.


1 Chronicles 19:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen


2 Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.


1 Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses


Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.


Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.


2 Samuel 24:13 So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?


1 Chronicles 21:11-12 SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destryed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee;


How did Judas die?


"And he cast down the pieces of silver into the temple and departed, and went out and


hanged himself." (Matthew 27:5)


"And falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all of his bowels gushed


out." (Acts 1:18)


2 Samuel 6:23 Therefore MICHAL the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.


2 Samuel 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of MICHAL the


daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.


2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.


2 Chronicles 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.


26th year of the reign of Asa I Kings 16:6-8 36th year of the reign of Asa I 2 Chronicles 16:1


How old was Ahaziah when he began to reign? 22 in 2 Kings 8:26 42 in 2 Chronicle 22:2


Who was Josiah's successor? Jehoahaz - 2 Chronicle 36:1 Shallum - Jeremiah 22:11


Also, your original scriptures are all doubtful according to the Bible's own theologians and historians. It's quite hilarious that even the Bible itself admits that it has been tampered with and corrupted by man's garbage:


"`How can you say, "We [the Jews] are wise, for we have the law of the LORD," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?' (From the NIV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"


The Revised Standard Version makes it even clearer: "How can you say, 'We are wise, and the law of the LORD is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie. (From the RSV Bible, Jeremiah 8:8)"


And regarding who wrote the books and gospels of the Bible, as I quoted above, here is a sample of what the NIV Bible's theologians and historians wrote:


"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"


"Although the author does not name himself, evidence outside the Scriptures and inferences from the book itself lead to the conclusion that the author was Luke. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1643)"


"The writer of this letter does not identify himself, but he was obviously well known to the original recipients. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1856)"

"The letter is difficult to date with precision....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1905)"


"It seems safe to conclude that the book, at least in its early form, dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some think that Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, but in fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 286)"


"Although, according to tradition, Samuel wrote the book, authorship is actually uncertain. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"


"The date of the composition is also unknown, but it was undoubtedly during the monarchy. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 322)"


"The author is unknown. Jewish tradition points to Samuel, but it is unlikely that he is the author because the mention of David (4:17,22) implies a later date. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 360)"


"Who the author was cannot be known with certainty since the book itself gives no indication of his identity. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 368)"


"There is little conclusive evidence as to the identity of the author of 1,2 Kings. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"


"Whoever the author was, it is clear that he was familiar with the book of Deuteronomy. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 459)"


"According to ancient Jewish tradition, Ezra wrote Chronicles, Ezra and Nehemiah (see Introduction to Ezra: Literary Form and Authorship), but this cannot be established with certainty. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 569)"


"Although we do not know who wrote the book of Esther, from internal evidence it is possible to make some inferences about the author and the date of composition. (From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 707)"


"The unknown author probably had access to oral and/or written sources....(From the NIV Bible commentary, page 722)"


"Regarding authorship, opinions are even more divided....(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 773)"


etc...


How do you respond to this?


Is the entire Bible truely the word of GOD?

No credible Biblical scholar on this earth will claim that the Bible was written by Jesus himself. They all agree that the Bible was written after the departure of Jesus peace be upon him by his followers. So, if the authors of the Bible were people other than Jesus, then did they have Jesus or the Holy Spirit in them guiding their hands and dictating to them word for word what to write? As it happens, once again the answer is no. Who says so? The majority of today's credible Christian scholars do. For example:


Dr. W Graham Scroggie of the Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, a prestigious Christian evangelical mission, says:


"..Yes, the Bible is human, although some out of zeal which is not according to knowledge, have denied this. Those books have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men...."


"It is Human, Yet Divine," W Graham Scroggie, p. 17


Another Christian scholar, Kenneth Cragg, the Anglican Bishop of Jerusalem, says:


"...Not so the New testament...There is condensation and editing; there is choice reproduction and witness. The Gospels have come through the mind of the church behind the authors. They represent experience and history..."


"The Call of the Minaret," Kenneth Cragg, p 277


For example, we read in the Bible the words of the author of "Luke":


"It seemed good to me (Luke) also, having had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, to write unto thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, (Luke 1:3)"


If you consider the Bible the word of GOD, well, it is quite obvious that Luke decided to write his Gospel because he wanted to please the president or the leader at that time Theophilus. This however has several problems: (1) It compromises GOD because there is a biger purpose than GOD to write the Gospel,


(2) It shows that Luke wouldn't have written his Gospel if it wasn't for that leader, and


(3) Luke was not inpired when he wrote his Gospel because he said that he decided to write it after he had full understanding of it, which means that he wrote it with his own human words and thoughts and not GOD's.


For a closer look at reliability of the NT and its development dont forget to check out Is the NT really reliable ?


Its a nice direct answer to the highly visited "Christian Think Tank" site.


Is the Bible a Guideline for Human Morality?


The lie of 1 John 5:7 verse. It was later discovered to be a man made corruption inserted into the Bible:

This section was forwarded to me by my brother in Islam Haleem, a new convert to Islam; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him. This page is located at http://wings.buffalo.edu/sa/muslim/library/jesus-say/ch1.2.2.5.html


More proofs on the lie of 1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16:


The following section was sent to me by a Muslim; may Allah Almighty always be pleased with him.


Sir Isaac Newton On The Bible


In 1690, Sir Isaac Newton (died 1727) wrote a manuscript on the corruption of the text of the New Testament concerning I John 5:7 and Timothy 3:16. It was entitled, "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture." Due to the prevailing environment against criticism, he felt it unwise to profess his beliefs openly and felt that printing it in England would be too dangerous. Newton sent a copy of this manuscript to John Locke requesting him to have it translated into French for publication in France. Two years later, Newton was informed of an attempt to publish a Latin translation of it anonymously. However, Newton did not approve of its availability in Latin and persuaded Locke to take steps to prevent this publication. Below are excerpts from "A Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture."


Newton on I John 5:7


Newton states that this verse appeared for the first time in the third edition of Erasmus's New Testament. When they got the Trinity; into his edition they threw by their manuscript, if they had one, as an almanac out of date. And can such shuffling dealings satisfy considering men?....It is rather a danger in religion than an advantage to make it now lean on a broken reed. In all the vehement universal and lasting controversy about the Trinity in Jerome's time and both before and long enough after it, this text of the "three in heaven" was never once thought of. It is now in everybody's mouth and accounted the main text for the business and would assuredly have been so too with them, had it been in their books. "Let them make good sense of it who are able. For my part, I can make none. If it be said that we are not to determine what is Scripture what not by our private judgments, I confess it in places not controverted, but in disputed places I love to take up with what I can best understand. It is the temper of the hot and superstitious art of mankind in matters of religion ever to be fond of mysteries, and for that reason to like best what they understand least. Such men may use the Apostle John as they please, but I have that honour for him as to believe that he wrote good sense and therefore take that to be his which is the best."


Newton on I Timothy 3:16


In all the times of the hot and lasting Arian controversy it never came into play . . . they that read "God manifested in the flesh" think it one of the most obvious and pertinent texts for the business. "The word Deity imports exercise of dominion over subordinate beings and the word God most frequently signifies Lord. Every lord is not God. The exercise of dominion in a spiritual being constitutes a God. If that dominion
be real that being is the real God; if it be fictitious, a false God; if it be supreme, a supreme God." Newton also wrote a discussion on two other texts that Athanasius had attempted to corrupt. This work has not been preserved. He believed that not all the books of the Scriptures have the same authority.


Reference A. Wallace, "Anti-Trinitarian Biographies," Vol. III, 1850.


The Validity of the Trinity Belief:


Trinity doctrine doesn't have basic in either NT nor in OT. They depend on human interpretation to form up this doctrine. It is totally pagan.


In the preface to Edward Gibbon's History of Christianity, we read: "If Paganism was conquered by Christianity, it is equally true that Christianity was corrupted by Paganism."


A Dictionary of Religious Knowledge notes that many say that the Trinity "is a corruption borrowed from the heathen religions, and engrafted on the Christian faith." And The Paganism in Our Christianity declares: "The origin of the [Trinity] is entirely pagan."


The Encyclopedia Americana comments: "Fourth century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary, a deviation from this teaching."


Many of the fundamental beliefs of Christianity which have been for many centuries taken on blind faith (those which differ from the beliefs of Muslims) are now beginning to be challenged by some of the foremost scholars and religious leaders of Christianity today.


An example of this can be found in the British newspaper the "Daily News" 25/6/84 under the heading "Shock survey of Anglican Bishops" We read that a British television pole of 31 of the 39 Anglican Bishops in England found 19 to believe that it is not necessary for Christians to believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) is God, but only "His supreme agent" (his messenger) as taught by Muslims for 1400 years now and testified to by John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you hast sent."


Who were the authors of the Bible? Were they really the original Prophets and Desciples?


So, who then are the authors of the books of the Bible? Obviously the Church must know them very well since they are popularly believed to have received divine inspiration from God Himself. Right? Actually, they don't. For example, we will note


that every Gospel begins with the introduction "According to ..... " such as "The Gospel


according to Saint Matthew," "The Gospel according to Saint Luke," "The Gospel according to Saint Mark," "The Gospel according to Saint John." The obvious conclusion for the average man on the street is that these people are known to be the authors of the books attributed to them. This, however is not the case. Why? Because not one of the vaunted four thousand copies existent carries its author's signature. It

has just been assumed that certain people were the authors. Recent discoveries, however, refute this belief. Even the internal evidence suggests that, for instance, Matthew did not write the Gospel attributed to him:


"...And as Jesus passed forth thence, HE (Jesus) saw a man, named Matthew, sitting at the receipt of custom: and HE (Jesus) saith unto HIM (Matthew), follow ME (Jesus) and HE (Matthew) arose, and followed HIM (Jesus). (Matthew 9:9)"


Did "Matthew" write this about himself? Why then didn't Matthew write for example: "he (Jesus) saw ME, and my name is Matthew. I was sitting at the receipt of custom…" etc.


Such evidence can be found in many places throughout the New Testament. Granted, it may be possible that an author sometimes may write in the third person, still, in light of the rest of the evidence that we shall see throughout this book, there is simply too much evidence against this hypothesis.


This observation is by no means limited to the New Testament. There is even similar evidence that at least parts of Deuteronomy were not written by their claimed author, prophet Moses . This can be seen in Deuteronomy 34:5-10 where we read


"So Moses....DIED... and he (God Almighty) BURIED HIM (Moses)... He was 120 years old WHEN HE DIED... and there arose not a prophet SINCE in Israel like unto Moses....(Deuteronomy 34:5-10)"


Did Moses write his own obituary? Similarly, Joshua too speaks in detail about his own death in Joshua 24:29-33.


"And it came to pass after these things, that Joshua the son of Nun, the servant of the Lord, DIED, … And they BURIED HIM … And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua, and which had known all the works of the Lord, that he had done for Israel ….(Joshua 24:29-33)"


Such evidence is part of the large cache which has driven the Biblical scholars to come to the current recognition that most of the books of the Bible were not written by their supposed authors. For example, the authors of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Collins honestly say that the author of "Kings" is "Unknown." But if the author is unknown then why attribute it to God? How can it then be claimed to have been "inspired"? Continuing, we read that the book of Isaiah is "Mainly credited to Isaiah. Parts may have been written by others." Ecclesiastics: "Author. Doubtful, but commonly assigned to Solomon." Ruth: "Author. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel." and on and on.


Let us have a slightly more detailed look at only one book of the New Testament, that of 'Hebrews':


"The author of the Book of Hebrews is unknown. Martin Luther suggested that Apollos was the author...Tertullian said that Hebrews was a letter of Barnabas...Adolf Harnack and J. Rendel Harris speculated that it was written by Priscilla (or Prisca). William Ramsey suggested that it was done by Philip. However, the traditional


position is that the Apostle Paul wrote Hebrews...Eusebius believed that Paul wrote it, but Origen was not positive of Pauline authorship."


From the introduction to the King James Bible, New revised and updated sixth edition, the Hebrew/Greek Key Study, Red Letter Edition


and one book of the Old Testament:


"In tradition, [David] is credited with writing 73 of the Psalms; most scholars, however, consider this claim questionable."


Encarta Encyclopedia, under "David"


Is this how we define "inspired by God"?


I asked a reverand of the local church in my neighboorhod, on what gospel most often quoted and used, he quickly answered, the Gospel of St. John!


Let us examine the Contextual Problems of the Gospel of John - Highly Recommended!


Is the Bible 100% faultless and untampered with by the Church?


Well then, in spite of these facts are the records found in the New Testament known to be 100% completely and fully authentic such that no intentional nor unintentional changes have ever been made by the church to the text of the NT? Well, since our opinion in this matter might be biased, therefore, let us ask the Christian scholars themselves:


"It is well known that the primitive Christian Gospel was initially transmitted by word of mouth and that this oral tradition resulted in variant reporting of word and deed. It is equally true that when the Christian record was committed to writing it continued to be the subject of verbal variation. Involuntary and intentional, at the hands of scribes and editors"


Peake's Commentary on the Bible, p. 633


"Yet, as a matter of fact, every book of the New Testament with the exception of the four great Epistles of St. Paul is at present more or less the subject of controversy, and interpolations are asserted even in these."


Encyclopaedia Brittanica, 12th Ed. Vol. 3, p. 643


Dr. Lobegott Friedrich Konstantin Von Tischendorf, one of the most adamant conservative Christian defenders of the Trinity and one of the Church's foremost scholars of the Bible was himself driven to admit that:


"[the New Testament had] in many passages undergone such serious modification of meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the Apostles had actually written"


Secrets of Mount Sinai, James Bentley, p. 117


After listing many examples of contradictory statements in the Bible, Dr. Frederic Kenyon says:


"Besides the larger discrepancies, such as these, there is scarcely a verse in which there is not some variation of phrase in some copies [of the ancient manuscripts from which the Bible has been collected]. No one can say that these additions or omissions or alterations are matters of mere indifference"


Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, Dr. Frederic Kenyon, Eyre and Spottiswoode, p. 3


The Jehovah's Witnesses in their "AWAKE" Magazine dated 8th September 1957 published the following headline: "50,000 Errors in the Bible" wherein they say "..there are probably 50,000 errors in the Bible...errors which have crept into the Bible text...50,000 such serious errors..." After all of this, however, they go on to say: "...as a whole the Bible is accurate."


Throughout this book you will find countless other similar quotations from some of Christendom's leading scholars. Let us suffice with these for now.


New Testament Contradictions


More than just a list of contradictions, since there are detailed comments on each one. Nice reading!


So are all Christians evil and deceitful?


Does this mean that all Christians are conniving traitors to the words of God? Very definitely not! Like all groups of humanity, there is good and bad among their ranks. The Muslim's Qur'an indeed tells us that Christians, as a whole, posses many good and decent qualities. For example, the Noble Quran (The Muslims' Holy Scripture) says:


"...and nearest among them (humanity) in love to the believers (Muslims) will you find those who say 'we are Christians': because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant. And when they listen to the revelation received by the messenger (Muhammad), you will see their eyes overflowing with tears for they recognize the truth: They pray: 'Our Lord! we believe; write us down among the witnesses'. (The Noble Quran, 5:82-83)"


Where then did our modern Bibles come from?


The Biblical world has in its possession a large collection of ancient manuscripts of the Bible. These ancient copies of the Bible were written in different locations around the world and in different ages. We are told that in our current age there are up to 24,000 such ancient copies of the Bible. These are the manuscripts that the scholars go to in order to produce our modern Bibles (such as the KJV, the RSV, the NIV, etc.). In most cases the most ancient copies of the Bible are the ones held in the


highest regard and considered to be the most accurate. This, however, is not a hard and fast rule.


All biblical versions of the Bible prior to the revised version of 1881 were dependent upon the "Ancient copies" (those dated at about five to six hundred years after Jesus). The revisers of the Revised Standard Version (RSV) 1952 were the first biblical scholars to have access to the "Most ancient copies" which date roughly four hundred years after Christ. It is only logical for us to concur that the closer a document is to the source the more authentic it is. Upon discovering these "most" ancient copies of the Bible, what did the scholars of the Bible learn about their "King James Version" (KJV) of the Bible? In the preface of the RSV 1971 we find the following:


"...Yet the King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS.."


They go on to caution us that:


"...That these defects are SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision"


The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible by Oxford Press has the following to say in its preface:


"Yet the King James Version has serious defects. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of biblical studies and the discovery of many biblical manuscripts more ancient than those on which the King James Version was based made it apparent that these defects were so many as to call for revision."


Who says so? Who are these people who claim that the Bible in the hands of the majority of today's Christians contains "many" "grave defects" which are so "serious" as to require a complete overhaul of the text? Well, we can find the answer in the very same RSV Bible. In it, the publishers themselves (Collins) mention on page 10 of their notes:


"This Bible (RSV) is the product of thirty two scholars assisted by an advisory committee representing fifty cooperating denominations"


Let us see what is the opinion of Christendom with regard to these scholars and their work in the revision of the Bible (revised by them in 1952 and then again in 1971):


"The finest version which has been produced in the present century" - (Church of England newspaper)


"A completely fresh translation by scholars of the highest eminence" - (Times literary supplement)


"The well loved characteristics of the authorized version combined with a new accuracy of translation" - (Life and Work)


"The most accurate and close rendering of the original" - (The Times)


"Bias" In NT Development

A balanced look at the status and authenticity of the New Testament texts.



Conclusion:


Paul was a fraud, a liar and a charlatan who claimed to be a prophet from GOD Almighty and that he was inspired by the Holy Spirit, when this was only his wishful thinking and fraudulent desire. Clearly, the only spirit that inspired him was none other than the spirit of satan, and those who continue to follow him after the Truth had been made manifest to them are indeed blasphemous fools!


Jesus was no creator, and even your very own corrupted New Testament proves it as I clearly showed above.