"Bible - A Closer Look!"

by Yusuf Estes - Former Christian - Muslim Chaplain

[Last Revision July 25, 2005]


Chapter 1 "Is 'King James' Version the Actual Bible?"


Note: The word "Bible" comes from the Koine Greek word "biblios" and it simply
means the same as the word "book" in English. Nowhere in the Bible do we find
the word "Bible." However, it is interesting to note the word "kitab" (Bible in
Arabic) appears many times in the Quran, referring to the Bible and the People
of the Book (Jews and Christians).


Let me begin by saying that the King James "version" of the Bible is in English.
There was no English language until the year 1066 AD when the Normans invaded
the Saxxons. Therefore the English Bible cannot be anything like what any of the
prophets spoke or understood, as it did not exist in their times.


Next, my grandfather, who was a devout and wonderful Christian man gave a gift
of the Holy Bible to my sisters and I almost fifty years ago. It was an
authorized version of the Bible, being The Revised Standard Version of the Bible
which was a revised version of the American Standard Version, published in 1901,
which was a version of the King James Version, published in 1611, which was
revised and corrected for the first time in 1612, etc. I was very much impressed
with the easier to read text and clarification of some of the wording which was
presented in this version and began to read the Bible on a daily basis for hours
at a time. The removal of the Elizabethton English terms, phrases and
expressions made the Bible a more accessible and understandable and intimate
Book for me. But that is not all the RSV did for me and many others, as well.


My love and respect for the Word of God increased the more that I spent time
reading and understanding the message. The Bible became my most prized and
respected book in my life. I often turned to it throughout the rest of my life
in times of joy, happiness, sadness, troubles and pain. It was my compass, my
road map, my weather vane and my friend. However, there were still some problems
with this IMPROVED VERSION of the Holy Bible. It began to disturb and concern me
to the extent that I made consultation with my father, who was also an ordained
minister and student of the Bible since childhood. Based on his research and
background in the origin and sources for modern day Christianity, I began to go
deeper into the problems which had plagued my thinking and faith since childhood.


I prayed to Almighty God and then found the answers to some of the problems were
spelled out very clearly in the very beginning of the exact same book. I have
that book lying in front of me on my desk as I write this article and would like
to quote to you from some of the PREFACE page iii and iv:

"The King James Version has with good reason been termed 'the noblest monument
of English prose.' Its revisers in 1881 expressed admiration of 'its simplicity,
its dignity, its power, its happy turns of express... the music of its cadences,
and the felicities of its rhythm.' It entered, as no other book has, into the
making of the personal character and the public institutions of the English-speaking
peoples. We owe to it an incalculable debt."


"Yet the King James Version has grave defects. By the middle of the nineteenth
century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many
manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based,
made it manifest that these defects are so many and so serious as to call for a
revision of the English translation. The task was undertaken, by authority of
the Church of England, in 1870. The English Revised Version of the Bibles was
published in 1881-1885; and the American Standard Version, its variant embodying
the preferences of the American scholars associated in the work, was published
in 1901."


"Because of the unhappy experience with unauthorized publications in the two
decades between 1881 and 1901, which tampered with the text of the English
Revised Version in the supposed interest of the American public, the American
Standard Version was copyrighted, to protect the text from unauthorized changes.
In 1928 this copyright was acquired by the International Council of Religious
Education, and thus passed into the ownership of the churches of the United
States and Canada which were associated in this Council through their boards of
education and publication."


".... decision was reached that there is need for a thorough revision of the
version of 1901..""In 1937 the revision was authorized by vote of the Council."


"Thirty-two scholars have served as members of the Committee charged with making
the revision, and they have secured the review and counsel of an Advisory Board
of fifty representatives of the co-operating denominations."


"Each section has submitted its work to the scrutiny of the members of the
charter of the Committee requires that all changes be agreed upon by a two-thirds
vote of the total membership of the Committee."


"The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old
testament is very different from the corresponding problem in the New Testament."


"For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving
many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three
centuries later than the original composition of the books."


"For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of
the Dead Sea Texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books)
based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the
books were written."


"The present revision is based on the consonantal Hebrew and Aramaic text as
fixed early in the Christian era and revised by Jewish scholars (the 'Masoretes')
of the sixth to ninth centuries. The vowel signs, which were added by the
Masoretes, are accepted also in the main, but where a more probable and
convincing reading can be obtained by assuming different vowels, this has been
done."


"... vowel points are less ancient and [less] reliable than the consonants."


"Departures from the consonantal text of the best manuscripts have been made
only where it seems clear that errors in copying had been made before the text
was standardized."


"Most of the corrections adopted are based on the ancient versions [translations
into Greek Aramaic, Syriac, and Latin], which were made before the time of the
Masoretic revision and therefore reflect earlier forms of the text."


"Sometimes it is evident that the text has suffered in transmission, but none of
the versions provides a satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the
best judgment of competent scholars as to the most probable reconstruction of
the original text."


"Many difficulties and obscurities, of course, remain."


"Where the choice between two meanings is particularly difficult or doubtful, we
have given an alternative rendering in a footnote."


"If in the judgment of the Committee the meaning of a passage is quite uncertain
or obscure, either because of corruption in the text or because of the
inadequacy of our present knowledge of the language, that fact is indicated by a
note."


"It should not be assumed, however, that the Committee was entirely sure or
unanimous concerning every rendering not so indicated."


"To record all minority views was obviously out of the question."


"The King James Version of the New Testament was based upon a Greek text that
was marred by mistakes, containing the accumulated errors of fourteen centuries
of manuscript copying."


"It was essentially the Greek text of the New Testament as edited by Beza, 1589,
who closely followed that published by Erasmus, 1516-1535, which was based upon
a few medieval manuscripts."


"The earliest and best of the eight manuscripts which Erasmus consulted was from
the tenth century, and [yet] he made the least use of it because it differed
most from the commonly received text; Beza had access to two manuscripts of
great value, dating from the fifth and sixth centuries, but he made very little
use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus."


"We now possess many more ancient manuscripts of the new Testament, and are far
better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. The
evidence for the text of the books of the New Testament is better that for any
other ancient book, both in the number of extant manuscripts and in the nearness
of the date of some of these manuscripts to the date when the book was
originally written."



The words are in plain English. The second paragraph says it all, "Yet, the King
James Version has grave defects.


Therefore, we must conclude the "King James Version" is NOT the Actual Bible
sent by God to mankind.


Chapter 2 "Contradictions in the Bible?"


First and foremost, let me be perfectly clear on the position of Muslims
regarding the authenticity of the Holy Bible. It is a condition of faith for
believers to believe in all of God's Books and scripture as stipulated by the
Quran, the Last and Final Testament from Almighty God to mankind, that the
previous scriptures, including of course the Old Testament (Arabic = Torah), the
Psalms (Arabic = Zabur) and the New Testament (Arabic = Injeel) were all from
Almighty God (Arabic = Allah) in their original form. The beginning verses of
the Quran clearly spell out the position of the 'Believer' with regard to these
scriptures. As the translation from Arabic may be rendered regarding the
conditions of believers:


"And they (believers) believe in what is being sent down to you (Muhammad, peace
be upon him) and they believe in what has been sent down before (previous Holy
scriptures to Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, and of course Jesus, peace be upon
them all)." [Quran 2:2,3]


Therefore, it must be established that Muslims do accept that Almighty Allah did
send down many Holy Books and he did allow the people to alter, change, delete
and make additions to these Books, and as such, they can not longer be
considered as the "Word of God" in their present condition. This is something
immediately agreed upon by all qualified Biblical scholars.


Incidentally, there is sufficient evidence in the Quran to prove the remainder
of the Bible still contains many of the original teachings and sayings of the
prophets to whom the various scriptures were revealed.


From the previous chapter we can easily determine that the original source of
the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments have been lost and are no longer
extant in any language. What has remained and been referred to for translations,
is in fact nothing more than old copies that do not necessarily agree with each
other and there does exist in them obvious corruption in additions and deletions.
Additionally, they are not complete and do not have full agreement of the
scholars of the Bible as to their meanings.


Just to offer a few of the many contradictions and errors of that which is being
presented as the "Word of God" in the Bible I would like to quote the research
of scholars of the Bible:


VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THEMSELVES

Genesis 6:3 and Genesis 11:11 - Life limited to 120 years?

Genesis 32:30 and Exodus 33:20 - Jacob's life was preserved?

Exodus 4:22 and Jeremiah 31:9 - Who was God's firstborn?

Numbers 23:19 and Genesis 6:6-7 - Does God repent or not?

2 Samuel 6:23 and 2 Samuel 21:8 - Did Michael have children?

2 Samuel 8:4 and 1 Chronicles 18:4 - 700 or 7000 horsemen?

2 Samuel 8:9-10 and 1 Chronicles 18:9-10 - Toi or Tou? Hadadezer or Hadarezer?
Joram or Hadoram?

2 Samuel 10:18 and 1 Chronicles 19:18 - 700 or 7000 charioteers? 40,000 horsemen
or footmen? Captain's name?

2 Samuel 24:1 and 1 Chronicles 21:1 - Who provoked David?

2 Samuel 24:9 and 1 Chronicles 21:5 - 800,000 or 100,000?

2 Samuel 24:13 and 1 Chronicles 21:11-12 - 7 or 3 years?

1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 - 40,000 or 4,000 stalls?

1 Kings 5:15-16 and 2 Chronicles 2:2 - 3300 or 3600?

1 Kings 7:26 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 - 2000 or 3000 baths?

2 Kings 8:26 and 2 Chronicles 22:2 - 22 or 42 years old?

2 Kings 24:8 and 2 Chronicles 36:9 - 18 or 8 years old? 3 months or 3 months and
10 days?

Ezra 2:65 and Nehemiah 7:67 - 200 or 245 singers?

Matthew 1:12 and Luke 3:27 - Who was Salathiel's father?

Matthew 1:16 and Luke 3:23 - Who was Joseph's father?

Matthew 9:18 and Mark 5:22-23 - Dead or not?

Matthew 10:5-10 and Mark 6:7-8 - Bring a staff or not?

Matthew 15:21-22 and Mark 7:24-26 - The woman was of Canaan or Greece?

Matthew 20:29-30 and Mark 10:46-47 - One or two beggars?

Matthew 21:1-2 and Mark 11:1-2 - What happened to the ass?

Matthew 26:74-75 and Mark 14:72 - Before the cock crow once or twice?

Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18 - How did Judas die?

John 3:16 and Psalms 2:7 - Only begotten son?

John 5:31 and John 8:14 - Was Jesus' record true or not?



VERSES THAT CONTRADICT THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE AND/OR THE DIVINITY OF JESUS


Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 1 Timothy 6:16 - No one saw God.

Isaiah 42:8 - Do not praise and worship images.

Isaiah 45:1 - "Anointed" does not mean "God".

Matthew 14:23, 19:13, 26:39, 27:46, 26:42-44 - Jesus prayed.

Matthew 24:36 - Jesus was not all-knowing.

Matthew 26:39 - Jesus and God had different wills.

Matthew 28:18 - All power was given to Jesus.

Mark 1:35, 6:46, 14:35-36 - Jesus prayed.

Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19 - Jesus denied divinity.

Mark 12:28-29 - God is one.

Mark 13:32 - Jesus was not all-knowing.

Mark 16:19 and Luke 22:69 - Jesus at the right hand of God.

Luke 3:21, 5:16, 6:12, 9:18, 9:28, 11:1-4, 22:41 - Jesus prayed.

Luke 4:18, 9:48, 10:16 - Jesus was from God.

Luke 7:16, 13:33, 24:18-19 - Jesus was a prophet.

Luke 10:21 - Jesus gave thanks.

Luke 23:46 - The spirit of Jesus was commended to God.

John 4:19 - Jesus was a prophet.

John 4:23-24 - Worship in spirit and truth.

John 14:28 - One was greater than the other.

John 5:19, 5:30, 7:28, 8:28 - Jesus was helpless.

John 5:20 - The Father showed the son.

John 5:30 and 6:38 - Jesus and God had different wills.

John 5:31-32 - Jesus' witness was not true.

John 6:11 and 11:41-42 - Jesus gave thanks.

John 6:32 - The Father was the provider, not the son.

John 7:29, 16:5, 16:28 - Jesus was from God.

John 7:16, 12:49, 14:24, 17:14 - Jesus' words were not his.

John 8:42 - Jesus did not come of himself.

John 10:29 - "My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all."

John 14:1 - Jesus said, "...believe also in me."

John 14:16, 17:1, 17:9, 17:11, 17:15 - Jesus prayed.

John 14:31 and 15:10 - Jesus followed commands.

John 17:6-8 - "I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me."

John 20:17 - Jesus had a god.

Acts 2:22 - Jesus was "a man approved of God."

Romans 8:34 - Jesus was an intercessor.

1 Timothy 2:5 - Jesus was the mediator between God and humans.



Incidentally, these are really only some selections of contradictions and
inaccuracies found in the modern versions of the Bible. There are many more but
for the sake of time and space we have limited ourselves to those listed above.


Again I would like to repeat, the Muslim must believe in all original texts
coming from Almighty God. The only subject being discussed here is whether or
not the Bible being offered today in the English language is in fact, the real "Bible".


Chapter 3 "Who is the God of the Bible?"


"ONE" - SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LITERALLY

Mark 10:6-9 and John 14:20, 15:1-7, 17:11, 17:18-23, 17:26

There are many verses in the Bible that speak of Jesus and God as being "one".

But does this necessarily mean that Jesus is God? If you read the six selections
above then you will see that we cannot take the word "one" so literally. If we
do, then we are God, as Jesus said, "...they also may be one in us" and "...they
may be one, even as we are one." What the Bible means when it says that Jesus is
"one" with God is that he is extremely close to god, "as if" they are one. John
17:18-23 tells how we normal human beings can attain this "oneness" (or "closeness")
with God by being "sanctified through the truth." Aside from this, neither the
word "trinity" appears anywhere in the Bible nor any explanation of such a thing.


"LORD" DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN "GOD"

Matthew 18:23-34, Luke 19:11-21, and John 20:26-29

Many of Jesus' disciples referred to Jesus as "Lord". Even Jesus himself said
that he is their Lord. But does this mean that he is their God? If you read the
three short stories above then you will realize that back in the Biblical time
period most servants referred to their masters as "lord". This was a common
practice because it showed honor and respect for a person of such high stature.


"LORD" - A Lofty Title

Even today in many countries around the world such as England, "lord" is used in
referring to kings, princes, and others who deserve such a lofty title. The
disciples and followers of Jesus viewed him as their earthy master and
themselves as his servants. He was a man from God who brought them God's message
of truth, justice, and peace. Who could be more deserving of the title "lord"
than Jesus Christ? Besides, "lord" is defined by Webster in many curious ways.


A few of them are as follows:

A man of high rank in a feudal society.

A king.

A general masculine title of nobility or rank.

A man of renowned power.

A man who has mastery in a given activity or field.


Commenting on the word's history, Webster says that "lord" literally means 'guardian
of the bread'". He continues, "Since such a position would be the dominant one
in the household, lord came to denote a man of authority and rank in society at
large."


In The Holy Qur'an also uses "lord" in the same context (see 12:23 and 12:41-42).
This was simply the language of the time.


The word "lord" does not render the person which it is being applied to as God.
If this were the case, then many human beings in the Bible would have to be
considered God.


Chapter 4 "Does Bible Say 'Jesus is God'?"


JESUS DENIED DIVINITY


Mark 10:17-18 and Luke 18:18-19

These verses are most indicative of Jesus' position and real nature. The verse
in Mark reads:

"As he [Jesus] was setting out on a journey, a man ran up and knelt before him,
and asked him, 'Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?' Jesus
said to him, 'Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone."


If you analyze this verse in truth you will see that Jesus, quite simply, is not
God. If he was, why then would he say "No one is good but God alone"? Jesus did
not want to be called "good" because he was not God. That title, as Jesus admits,
belongs to none but God.


Chapter 5 "What Does it all Mean?"


CONCLUSION

If all of this has confused you it's probably because you've been trying to
justify your belief in the Trinity. To believe in the Trinity goes against all
of the teachings of Jesus, as well as the Bible. This is because the Trinity is
a man-made doctrine that was drawn up several hundred years after Jesus. In this
time period different interpretations of the Bible were causing serious debates
among Christians. The various interpretations were, undoubtedly, due to human
perversion of the original scriptures, poor preservation, and/or shoddy
translations. One of the main things being questioned was the nature of God and
Jesus. Was Jesus actually God, the son of God, or just a messenger? The Council
of Nicea was formed in an attempt to settle this dispute, and the Nicea Creed (the
Trinitarian doctrine) was subsequently hammered out.


Again, as I stated in the beginning, this writing has not been complied to put
down or destroy the true teachings of the Bible and the Prophets. I would like
to quote from a version of the Bible wherein Jesus is represented as saying:

"Think not that I came to destroy the Law [Torah] and the Prophets [prophethood].
I did not come to destroy them, but rather to fulfill them. For truly, I say to
you, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments [from the Law] and
teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of heaven; but he who does
them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven. For I tell
you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you
will never enter the kingdom of heaven." [Matt. 5:17]


It is wrong to assume that our beliefs are true simply because our teachers,
preachers and parents have taught us something passed down to them by
generations of forefathers before them. What I would invite all of us to do is
to do research for ourselves and learn from reliable sources what is the origin
of modern Christianity and what should be our perspective on true belief in
general. We can only achieve this with open minds and hearts.


So, may the Great God of the Universe guide us all with His perfect Guidance to
all truth, ameen.


Chapter 6 "What to do Now?"


It is not at all logical to simply accept a belief system because it was passed
down to you by your parents. After all, what if it is not correct? A system for
belief should be based upon sound principles of reasoning and understanding,
rather than feelings and emotions.


As regards the Muslims treatment of Jesus, peace be upon him, it should be kept
in mind that, although they do not hold him to be the 'son of god' in
Christianity, he is definitely held in high esteem as great prophet, 'Miraculous
birth" and also believe in the same unseen God that he referred to as "Your Lord
and my Lord, your God and my God."


Please take time to read the articles on this site. Print them out and share
with others. Write to us and visit our website for more information about the
world's largest and most compatible religions; Islam and Christianity. Research
for yourself the Council of Nicea and the preservation of the Bible, or lack
thereof.


There are a number of books which are easily accessible written by experts and
scholars on the Bible which are very enlightening on this subject:


"Who Wrote the Bible" - Richard Elliott Friedman [excerpts]

"Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" - Norman Golb

"The Book of 'J'" - Harold Bloom & David Rosenberg

"The Text of the New Testament - Its Transmission, Corruption, & Restoration" -
Bruce M. Metzger


Islam is truly and simply a complete way of life and set of rules taught by all
the prophets to mankind, similar to Biblical teachings that were revealed to
humankind after Jesus through the last and final prophet Muhammad.

Why? Good Question...