Question:
The bible: Is it really the truth?
anonymous
2006-08-13 19:52:17 UTC
Isn't it true that man has changed the bible?

I believe that it was once a message from god..

but the bible has been changed 100's of time...

why are their so many different bibles now? shouldn't there be only one?

I once went to the library to read the bible... but when i was reading i noticed alot it was a short description of some story or person... then it has a reference saying "to find out more read this book"... why there need to be one book is bible is the answer?

Why are there 100's of different versions of the bible and new version come out every month.... If bible is the truth then there should be one and it should have been original and not changed by man... because men would change the word of god to fit their needs?

The bibles i have read says on the cover by: Some Author...

To me these signs enough show me that if man changed bible then the true Christianity is changed by man too!
the bible was gods word but changed by man to fit their needs?
34 answers:
Ninizi
2006-08-13 20:23:37 UTC
The Bible has been handed down to us for many years. Biblical scholars claim there are many additions to it and many changes in it. I know not about any of that. But I do know this: The Bible does contain Truth. Perhaps the men who collected and canonized the Scriptures did so in ignorance -- and perhaps not in ignorance -- I do not know about that.



I do know this: God often uses even ignorant men as His instruments to accomplish His own purposes -- purposes of which those ignorant men are not even aware. There may be other writings in the world that contain Truth other than the ones collected in the Bible. Some of the other ancient Hebrew literature may also contain Truth. I don't know as I've never read any of it, but I do know the nation of Israel was chosen to record the oracles of God.



A book is not the Word of God merely because it has the word "Bible" as its title. Be very careful about which Bible you're reading. Investigate the one you have and make very certain that it's a translation of the original writings and not a paraphrase. A translation changes the words of a language into the nearest meaning of those words in another language.



A translation can be updated at any time by revising the words that have become obsolete with more modern and understandable words that have the same meaning -- with words that are synonyms of the obsolete words. A paraphrase, on the other hand, gives a "free translation," that is, a complete re-wording. A paraphrase of the Bible is an exegetical work and contains the interpretation of the man or men who paraphrased it. A paraphrase of the Bible is not the Word of God, but it is the word of man.



The Word of God cannot be corrupted, and it has not been corrupted. A translation of the Bible is the Word of God and is not corrupted. A paraphrase is corrupted, but it is not the Word of God. Though the Devil's power is limited in the fact that he is not able to corrupt the Word of God, he is not prevented from writing his own book -- and calling it a Bible.



Many poor, unsuspecting people will eat and digest the "leavened bread" in a paraphrase, trusting it to be the Word of God -- because it has the word "Bible" written on its cover. But remember that the Word of God said, "...the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are Life." [John 6:63] There are many hidden Truths in those Words, and those Truths are able to give Life. But when those Words are paraphrased, they are changed from the Word of God to the word of man -- drained of all Truth, Spirit, and Life.
anonymous
2006-08-13 20:04:49 UTC
Other than Peterson "the message" translation I have never seen a bible with an author on the cover. The Message is not a bible it is simply one mans easy translation. As far as the other "versions" again it is all about translation. Mark Twain once wrote a story about a frog jumping contest it was translated into french for a newspaper then retranslated back to english BY HIM and guess what it wasn't the same story (as a matter of fact it was badly mangled) that is what has happened with the bible MOST translations are VERY good and the only differences are in the "age" of the language translated (for instance the 1611KJV is translated into King James English common to the time at 1611 well this is not the way english is spoken now so the NASB or the NIV are both attempts to translate the bible into more modern english. Other bibles might have "Names" on them not as to the Author but as who wrote the COMENTARY that is on the bottom or side of the bible. (such as the Nelson Study Bible) The Bible is the UNFALLIBLE true and compleat word of God it can be believed as long as you are reading a reputable Translation. This does not include any translations that were specifically written AFTER the person tried to start a "new religion" (like the Jehovah Witness "translations" or the Mormon book) The ones I have found to have a Good Easy to read format for Todays English are the NASB and the NIV the NKJV is also pretty good .The KJV1611 is beautifull but very hard to read if you have not studied it alot. They all say the same thing. It is kind of like if I say



Hi or Hello it is the same thing well one translation may say Hi and the other Hello ... does that make one wrong? NO of course not.
SeeTheLight
2006-08-14 20:22:37 UTC
I believe that the Bible is the truth...I mean really. God talks to me through His word. The Bible is God's love letters to us, written by humans but inspired by God.



Man has changed the Bible but the message is the same. It has been changed only to keep the language understandable. Because there is so many words in this language that tell the same thing, different flavor.



I think it is great to have so many Bibles. I love it!! I used to like the Rainbow Bible the best, but now I love the Message Bible the best...all of them tell the same thing, a little bit different words. I think it is great to be able to find the Bible that fits to your personality the best. Many people like the King James version...I would not ever read it...I have one, but that is for checking things up...and they are the same..really!! I love that I can read different versions. I have at least ten different Bibles...and they are the same really.



When you love the word of Lord, you really want to learn the core of His teachings...that is why I think that there are a lot of different references. All the answers are in the Bible, you are right...it is just so interesting to read other peoples observations...



The Bible is the same, really. If you read these different Bibles, you would notice that. I think that is great.



IF YOU WROTE THE BOOK...WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR NAME ON IT?? You cannot claim that you wrote the Bible, but you might have some day some people to look up to you and wanting to know what are your thoughts about it. I always want to hear different poit of views.



Your last paragraph is false. Christianity is not changed by man nor is the Bible. Jesus came to the earth to free us from religions, He wanted to teach us to have the personal relationship with God. Remember, religions cannot save you, Jesus can..so pay attention to His word. REALLY : )
Woody
2006-08-13 20:18:24 UTC
The Bible has limitations. In the fourth century Arius of Alexandria wrote a variation on the New Testament. His premise was the Jesus was a man to be followed, but not divine. His manuscripts later formed the basis for some translations starting with the Revised Standard Version.



True Christianity did change over the centuries. The authority of the apostles was lost when the church became a political institution. But the underlying prinicpals are still there. The words of Christ are true and are still contained in the Bible. It is necessary to ponder and pray about what you read. If you ask Heavenly Father in sincerity and faith, you will get a comformation if it is true.
NONAME
2006-08-13 20:18:10 UTC
I'm sure you probably know by now, but you'll get just about any answer you want from this place from people who haven't thought through what they believe and can't back up their statements. Trusting these people so blindly is a dangerous proposition, so my suggestion?



Research for yourself. Test the people who tell you what's right and wrong. How trustworthy are they, and do they really know what they're talking about?



Now to the question itself. The different versions out there imply that the English language itself isn't static, but that there are diffferent philosophies toward how the English language should be presented. However, it's incorrect to assume that because there are different versions, the message itself is lost. For instance, if I say, "For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved." And then I say, "They hate the light because they want to sin in the darkness. They stay away from the light for fear their sins will be exposed and they will be punished," that's two ways of trying to get a similar message across, but the idea is the same, isn't it?



Some philosophies emphasize readability, so that the young or novice reader wouldn't be intimidated by the difficult language. Other versions emphasize correctness over readability for the scholars who want to get the translation that's the closest to its original source. However, if you read both, you'll see that the differences don't change the basic meaning. But if you want to listen to those who say that this is the basis for the Bible being completely false, that's your choice to believe them or not, but their conclusion is hasty.



The other point to consider is that those who say the Bible is false and man-made base it on the assumption that God doesn't exist, which is a circular argument. If they already assume God doesn't exist, of course the Bible would be false, and it's completely man-made. But can they prove that assumption? You'll find that if you prod a bit harder on their proof that God doesn't exist, their claims don't hold up.



So the bottom-line is, questions about God aren't easy to figure out, but just because it's not easy doesn't mean there isn't a right answer. I hope you find the answers you're looking for.
Maryfrances
2006-08-13 20:16:41 UTC
We have enough ancient manuscripts and fragments to establish that the text is essentially the same as it was when it was written.



Yes, it is frustrating that there are so many different versions. Do you speak more than one language? Sometimes an exact translation can't be made. For instance the Spanish "Yo como pan" can be translated "I eat bread" or "I am eating bread." You can translate "I am eating bread" as "Yo como pan" or "Yo estoy comiendo pan." All are correct translations.



This is a complication in the King James Bible. Most of the translators were Calvinists (they believe that we can't hear the Gospel and make our own decision to be saved; God chooses us by giving us the understanding and desire to be saved--He doesn't do that for most people). A Greek word that can mean "chosen" or "choice" was often translated "chosen," indicating that saved people are chosen by God, when it can equally and sometimes better be translated as choice, as in USDA Choice, or special. In other words, saved people are special to God. Big difference in meaning and implication; small difference in translation. And both translations are correct for that word.



(I don't blame them; I would translate it differently because I believe that is what God intended to say--and that's all they did.)



Another problem with translators today is that some concepts don't carry over well into other cultures. Bruce Olson went to the Motelone Indians in (Venezuela?) (He wrote the book Brutchko--great reading!) and translated the Bible. They had no word for "believe" (or "faith"), but they built very tall longhouses and slept in hammocks 30 or so feet in the air. So he translated "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" as "hang your hammock on the Lord Jesus Christ" (or something similar--it's been a few years since I've read it)--not an exact word-for-word translation, but it conveyed the meaning quite nicely.



Further complicating the picture is the fact that a certain % of the text must be changed in order for the rewrite to be copyrightable, and the translators want to make money, so they make changes that aren't necessary, coveting money at the expense of Truth.



The King James Bible is pretty good; just don't let it suck you into Calvinism. Also don't get sucked into the King James Only movement (they basically believe God re-inspired the Word through the KJV translators and that it is word-for-word from God).



If you want an overview, read the Living Bible. It's a paraphrase rather than a translation, but it's very easy to read.



Remember--for all the differing versions, there is still no disagreement on the major doctrines--we know what the original manuscripts said. The problem is in properly translating them into English.



The Salvation Army gives away any Bibles that are given to them.
Stephen
2006-08-13 20:05:53 UTC
That is because bible are translated into different languages and also some version are actually being translated from word to word while some is like they just wanna bring out the full meaning of what each sentence is saying about whereas some is like they roughly get wat each book is saying then they phrase it in their own word and write out..So it depend on at what level of understanding do you want at some point of time and which you feel more comfortable at?? And it is not changed by man but by God for God do give revelation to man and you would certainly want to share this unique understanding you have acquired to other people and not just keep it to yourself. Therefore, i just wanna tell you that the bible is truly real and is the word of God and every numbers and why is it being done and say has a great meaning in it and if you want to know,you got to ask God for it and He will show you in a unique way which could be different from others.
Epiphany
2006-08-13 20:06:05 UTC
The bible is made of several books and was written by several different groups of people. If you review the language, you can differentiate.



The Old Testament was generated by a nomadic tribe who referred to their God as 'Yahweh' or YHWH. It is an oral history and interpretation.



The New Testament was generated in another time and there God if referred to as 'Lord' or 'God' and has significantly different tenets than the Old Testament.



The main editions that are available today are transcriptions from the original Hebrew and Greek into Roman and English (King James version). Any abridged versions are to simplify and lower printing costs or edited for the specific denomination.



Hello - the original bible was written by a man.



I think youre missing the point, its not about literal translation, its a moral guideline to follow based on your (hopefully) accurate and personal interpretation.
justwondering
2006-08-13 20:02:26 UTC
yes the bible is true. There are so many versions because it is for understanding the bible better, which it doesn't that each version is true. But the most reliable is the KIng James version. So instead of having the translation difficult to understand people decided to rewrite the bible so that people could relate to the writing style more. Like the Message bible is for teens and youth it uses the language of today. But it doesn't mean its true version
nonexistentdog
2006-08-13 20:00:07 UTC
It's true, there are many versions, but it all has the same message.



The Bible has not been altered but it's physical appearance has changed to fit the technology at that time. It was once on scrolls, then and still it is a book, and more recently, you can read listen to it on audio cds.
?
2016-12-06 17:00:28 UTC
i'll purely quote some scriptures . 2 Cor 4:4 4 The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so as that they could't see the mild of the gospel of the dignity of Christ, who's an same to God. a million Cor a million:26-31 26 Brothers, imagine of what you've been once you've been called. no longer a lot of you've been smart with the aid of human criteria; no longer many were influential; no longer many were of noble delivery. 27 yet God chosen the stupid problems with the international to shame the smart; God chosen the weak problems with the international to shame the coolest. 28 He chosen the lowly problems with this international and the despised issues—and the failings which aren't any further—to nullify the failings that are, 29 so as that no human being ought to boast previously him. 30 it is using him that you're in Christ Jesus, who has grow to be for us expertise from God—it is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31 consequently, because it is written: "enable him who boasts boast contained in the Lord." John 6:40 4 no you possibly can come to me till the daddy who despatched me attracts him, and that i'll make stronger him up on the perfect day. Matthew 5:5 5 Blessed are the meek, for they'll inherit the earth. No aspect out of steerage, way of existence, station in existence, or ethnic team no longer being waiting to go back to precise expertise .
anonymous
2006-08-13 20:07:00 UTC
well you've answered your own question. it's common knowledge that the bible has been changed, misinterpreted, edited, erased, and lost in translation. the bible changes to suit the needs of whoever is writing it. it is believed by many that women had a prominent role in jesus's christianity as apostles to spread his word. but after his death the male dominated society would have none of that. hence the denouncing of the gospel of mary magdalene as heresy. even though it was written around the same time as the 4 christian gospels.

of course the religion itself has been changed too. sometimes for the better but mostly to serve the needs of whoever created that particular sect.
anonymous
2006-08-13 19:59:09 UTC
the bible is true> the new testament is 99.5% compatible to the original greek manuscripes from around 125 a.d. the whole bible is 97.5% accurate> there are many "editions" or "revisions" inorder to keep up w/ modern grammer and language> for example old english was replaced w/ modern english, so a "newer version" of the bible came out> revisions are only to make understanding easier,but the message is the SAME>
Je t'aime ♥
2006-08-13 19:57:06 UTC
THE BIBLE IS THE TRUTH!! yes of course!! it takes faith though for one to believe it deply it isnt just something that happens to one over night even though it has been changed the word says Go into all the world adn spread the Gospel and thats what i believe people are doing
?
2006-08-13 19:56:17 UTC
Besides these points. Every version of the earliest books of the bible still in existence are slightly different.



Even within the bible there are discrepancies.



For example:



2 creation myths

4 different versions of the resurrection (Each of the gospels)

Noah's Ark. One verse says a male and female of each species (Genesis 6:19). Another verse says seven pairs of each species (Genesis 7:2).
slappingfox
2006-08-13 20:02:16 UTC
Well,when in doubt,let the Holy Spirit help

you,because he testifys to the truth and

only the truth.

This is really something so very personal

that only you can choose in the end what

to believe. There won't be anyone to blame

on judgement day,of course some people

don't believe in that either.

Yes,man tampers with everything,yet the

truth will still win out!!!
t jefferson
2006-08-13 19:56:51 UTC
the old testament says god held the sun still in the sky to help a warrior. apart from that dubious decision, the sun doesn't move. the new testament says the mustard seed is the smallest in the world - clearly it's not. the bible contains truths about humans, contained in its mythic symbols. that's all. that's enough.
madpl
2006-08-13 20:02:15 UTC
YES the Bible IS the TRUTH just don't read the bible the JWs print, for they have made the bible to fit them!!!!
cathyhewed1946
2006-08-13 20:02:53 UTC
It is realy the truth. The changes are made to help me understand in modern english instead of all the thee

and thou words. It is not to change the meaning but to make it easier to understand. example:

which is easier to understand: "Judge not, that ye be not judged."[Matthew 7:1] or "Don't criticize and then you won't be criticized." [Matthew 7:1] The Living Bible?
lili t
2006-08-13 19:58:46 UTC
the Bible is true, man hasnt changed it, God is in control enough to create a universe and everything in it He can make sure that it stays true.
john s
2006-08-13 19:58:22 UTC
A bible is an anthology written by people over the years.
Sabrine *
2006-08-13 19:56:28 UTC
Allahu Akbar..
timjim
2006-08-13 20:03:06 UTC
In a word YES!
anonymous
2006-08-13 20:02:08 UTC
no the bible has never been changed. it is the truth can you prove that it's not
Samuel J
2006-08-13 19:57:07 UTC
You're obviosly a Muslim.



Only people who never read the Bible would make such assumptions.
hi
2006-08-13 19:58:35 UTC
Yes, of course it is true! You should read it! It is very interesting!
anonymous
2006-08-13 20:00:55 UTC
you know what ?

the bible is just a BOOK nothing is thruth is like another ficcion book i dont know why the people thinks that a stupip Book can be serius
♥ Haylow ♥
2006-08-13 19:59:18 UTC
Well, one example that it was mistranslated is that Moses did not part the "Red Sea" it was the "Sea of Reeds"....mistranslation...I do not believe the bible is true whatsoever!
alex_josue
2006-08-13 20:32:22 UTC
Yes. It is true.
anonymous
2006-08-13 19:58:01 UTC
The bible is mythology.

Nothing more.

It is designed to keep the sheep frightened and to keep them in the church and to keep the collection plate full.

That is all.
Lfeata
2006-08-13 19:56:42 UTC
yes its truth
Bright Eyes
2006-08-13 19:56:00 UTC
THE BIBLE IS ALL FALSE.
anonymous
2006-08-13 19:57:47 UTC
*** gm chap. 2 pp. 12-24 The Bible’s Fight to Live ***



The Bible’s Fight to Live



There are many strands of evidence proving that the Bible really is God’s Word. Each strand is strong, but when all are taken together, they are unbreakable. In this chapter and the one following, we will discuss just one strand of evidence: the history of the Bible as a book. The truth is, it is nothing short of a miracle that this remarkable book has survived until today. Consider the facts for yourself.



THE Bible is more than just a book. It is a rich library of 66 books, some short and some quite long, containing law, prophecy, history, poetry, counsel, and much more. Centuries before the birth of Christ, the first 39 of these books were written—mostly in the Hebrew language—by faithful Jews, or Israelites. This part is often called the Old Testament. The last 27 books were written in Greek by Christians and are widely known as the New Testament. According to internal evidence and the most ancient traditions, these 66 books were written over a period of about 1,600 years, beginning when Egypt was a dominant power and ending when Rome was mistress of the world.



Only the Bible Survived



2 More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God, while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses. During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values. For example, the Akkadian legend of Gilgamesh from Mesopotamia and the Ras Shamra epics, written in Ugaritic (a language spoken in what is now northern Syria), were doubtless very popular. The vast literature of that era also included works such as The Admonitions of Ipu-wer and The Prophecy of Nefer-rohu in the Egyptian language, hymns to different divinities in Sumerian, and prophetic works in Akkadian.1



3 All these Middle Eastern works, however, met a common fate. They were forgotten, and even the languages they were written in became extinct. It was only in recent years that archaeologists and philologists learned of their existence and discovered how to read them. On the other hand, the first written books of the Hebrew Bible have survived right up to our own time and are still widely read. Sometimes scholars claim that the Hebrew books in the Bible were derived in some way from those ancient literary works. But the fact that so much of that literature was forgotten while the Hebrew Bible survived marks the Bible as significantly different.



The Guardians of the Word



4 Make no mistake, from a human standpoint the survival of the Bible was not a foregone conclusion. The communities that produced it suffered such difficult trials and bitter oppression that its survival to our day is truly remarkable. In the years before Christ, the Jews who produced the Hebrew Scriptures (the “Old Testament”) were a relatively small nation. They dwelt precariously amid powerful political states that were jostling with one another for supremacy. Israel had to fight for its life against a succession of nations, such as the Philistines, the Moabites, the Ammonites, and the Edomites. During a period when the Hebrews were divided into two kingdoms, the cruel Assyrian Empire virtually wiped out the northern kingdom, while the Babylonians destroyed the southern kingdom, taking the people into an exile from which only a remnant returned 70 years later.



5 There are even reports of attempted genocide against the Israelites. Back in the days of Moses, Pharaoh ordered the murder of all their newborn baby boys. If his order had been observed, the Hebrew people would have been annihilated. (Exodus 1:15-22) Much later, when the Jews came under Persian rule, their enemies plotted to get a law passed intended to exterminate them. (Esther 3:1-15) The failure of this scheme is still celebrated in the Jewish Festival of Purim.



6 Later still, when the Jews were subject to Syria, King Antiochus IV tried very hard to Hellenize the nation, forcing it to follow Greek customs and worship Greek gods. He too failed. Instead of being wiped out or assimilated, the Jews survived while, one after the other, most of the national groups around them disappeared from the world scene. And the Hebrew Scriptures of the Bible survived with them.



7 The Christians, who produced the second part of the Bible (the “New Testament”), were also an oppressed group. Their leader, Jesus, was killed like a common criminal. In the early days after his death, Jewish authorities in Palestine tried to suppress them. When Christianity spread to other lands, the Jews hounded them, trying to hinder their missionary work.—Acts 5:27, 28; 7:58-60; 11:19-21; 13:45; 14:19; 18:5, 6.



8 In the time of Nero, the initially tolerant attitude of the Roman authorities changed. Tacitus boasted of the “exquisite tortures” inflicted on Christians by that vicious emperor, and from his time on, being a Christian was a capital offense.2 In 303 C.E., Emperor Diocletian acted directly against the Bible. In an effort to stamp out Christianity, he ordered that all Christian Bibles should be burned.3



9 These campaigns of oppression and genocide were a real threat to the Bible’s survival. If the Jews had gone the way of the Philistines and the Moabites or if the efforts of first the Jewish and then the Roman authorities to stamp out Christianity had succeeded, who would have written and preserved the Bible? Happily, the guardians of the Bible—first the Jews and then the Christians—were not wiped out, and the Bible survived. There was, however, another serious threat if not to the survival at least to the integrity of the Bible.



Fallible Copies



10 Many of the aforementioned ancient works that were subsequently forgotten had been engraved in stone or stamped on durable clay tablets. Not so the Bible. This was originally written on papyrus or on parchment—much more perishable materials. Thus, the manuscripts produced by the original writers disappeared long, long ago. How, then, was the Bible preserved? Countless thousands of copies were laboriously written out by hand. This was the normal way to reproduce a book before the advent of printing.



11 There is, however, a danger in copying by hand. Sir Frederic Kenyon, the famous archaeologist and librarian of the British Museum, explained: “The human hand and brain have not yet been created which could copy the whole of a long work absolutely without error. . . . Mistakes were certain to creep in.”4 When a mistake crept into a manuscript, it was repeated when that manuscript became the basis for future copies. When many copies were made over a long period of time, numerous human errors crept in.



12 In view of the many thousands of copies of the Bible that were made, how do we know that this reproduction process did not change it beyond all recognition? Well, take the case of the Hebrew Bible, the “Old Testament.” In the second half of the sixth century B.C.E., when the Jews returned from their Babylonian exile, a group of Hebrew scholars known as Sopherim, “scribes,” became the custodians of the Hebrew Bible text, and it was their responsibility to copy those Scriptures for use in public and private worship. They were highly motivated, professional men, and their work was of the highest quality.



13 From the seventh century to the tenth century of our Common Era, the heirs of the Sopherim were the Masoretes. Their name comes from a Hebrew word meaning “tradition,” and essentially they too were scribes charged with the task of preserving the traditional Hebrew text. The Masoretes were meticulous. For example, the scribe had to use a properly authenticated copy as his master text, and he was not allowed to write anything from memory. He had to check each letter before writing it.5 Professor Norman K. Gottwald reports: “Something of the care with which they discharged their duties is indicated in the rabbinic requirement that all new manuscripts were to be proofread and defective copies discarded at once.”6



14 How accurate was the transmission of the text by the Sopherim and the Masoretes? Until 1947 it was difficult to answer that question, since the earliest available complete Hebrew manuscripts were from the tenth century of our Common Era. In 1947, however, some very ancient manuscript fragments were found in caves in the vicinity of the Dead Sea, including parts of books of the Hebrew Bible. A number of fragments dated to before the time of Christ. Scholars compared these with existing Hebrew manuscripts to confirm the accuracy of the transmission of the text. What was the result of this comparison?



15 One of the oldest works discovered was the complete book of Isaiah, and the closeness of its text to that of the Masoretic Bible we have today is amazing. Professor Millar Burrows writes: “Many of the differences between the [recently discovered] St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll and the Masoretic text can be explained as mistakes in copying. Apart from these, there is a remarkable agreement, on the whole, with the text found in the medieval manuscripts. Such agreement in a manuscript so much older gives reassuring testimony to the general accuracy of the traditional text.”7 Burrows adds: “It is a matter for wonder that through something like a thousand years the text underwent so little alteration.”



16 In the case of the part of the Bible written in Greek by Christians, the so-called New Testament, the copyists were more like gifted amateurs than like the highly trained professional Sopherim. But working as they did under the threat of punishment by the authorities, they took their work seriously. And two things assure us that we today have a text essentially the same as that penned by the original writers. First, we have manuscripts dated much closer to the time of writing than is the case with the Hebrew part of the Bible. Indeed, one fragment of the Gospel of John is from the first half of the second century, less than 50 years from the date when John probably wrote his Gospel. Second, the sheer number of manuscripts that have survived provides a formidable demonstration of the soundness of the text.



17 On this point, Sir Frederic Kenyon testified: “It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church, is so large that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”10



The People and Their Languages



18 The original languages in which the Bible was written were also, in the long run, an obstacle to its survival. The first 39 books were mostly written in Hebrew, the tongue of the Israelites. But Hebrew has never been widely known. If the Bible had stayed in that language, it would never have had any influence beyond the Jewish nation and the few foreigners who could read it. However, in the third century B.C.E., for the benefit of Hebrews living in Alexandria, Egypt, translation of the Hebrew part of the Bible into Greek began. Greek was then an international language. Thus, the Hebrew Bible became easily accessible to non-Jews.



19 When the time came for the second part of the Bible to be written, Greek was still very widely spoken, so the final 27 books of the Bible were written in that tongue. But not everybody could understand Greek. Hence, translations of both the Hebrew and the Greek parts of the Bible soon began to appear in the everyday languages of those early centuries, such as Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Georgian, Gothic, and Ethiopic. The official language of the Roman Empire was Latin, and Latin translations were made in such numbers that an “authorized version” had to be commissioned. This was completed about 405 C.E. and came to be known as the Vulgate (meaning “popular” or “common”).



20 Thus, it was in spite of many obstacles that the Bible survived down to the early centuries of our Common Era. Those who produced it were despised and persecuted minorities living a difficult existence in a hostile world. It could easily have been badly distorted in the process of copying, but it was not. Moreover, it escaped the danger of being available only to people who spoke certain languages.



21 Why was it so difficult for the Bible to survive? The Bible itself says: “The whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.” (1 John 5:19) In view of this, we would expect the world to be hostile to published truth, and this has proved to be the case. Why, then, did the Bible survive when so many other pieces of literature that did not face the same difficulties were forgotten? The Bible answers this too. It says: “The saying of Jehovah endures forever.” (1 Peter 1:25) If the Bible really is the Word of God, no human power can destroy it. And right up into this 20th century, this has been true.



22 However, in the fourth century of our Common Era, something happened that eventually resulted in new attacks on the Bible and profoundly affected the course of European history. Just ten years after Diocletian tried to destroy all copies of the Bible, imperial policy changed and “Christianity” was legalized. Twelve years later, in 325 C.E., a Roman emperor presided over the “Christian” Council of Nicaea. Why would such a seemingly favorable development prove to be hazardous for the Bible? We will see the answer in the following chapter.
Voltage Transformer 33kV
2006-08-13 20:16:05 UTC
Let see what Deedad wrote about Muhammad (saw) based on bible. It shows Bible is not fully corrupted.



MUHUMMED (PBUH) IS THE "PARACLETE"



To the sincere seekers of Truth it is obvious that Muhummed (pbuh) is the promised Paraclete or Comforter, alternatively called Helper, Advocate, Counsellor, etc of the prophecies of Jesus (pbuh) in the Gospel of St. John. There are millions of Christians — men and women like our good lady at the Cairo Airport who are hungry for this simple straight-forward Message. But alas, we can only weep with Jesus (pbuh) for our utter ineptitude —





The harvest truly is plenteous, but the workers are few.



(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 9: 57



LANGUAGE OF JESUS (PBUH)



In the Holy Qur'an God Almighty puts the name "Ahmed" which is another name for Muhummed (pbuh) in the mouth of Jesus (pbuh). The Christian controversialist, Bible-thumper, Hot-Gospeller flippantly scoffs at the suggestion. The Christian missionary does not deny that Jesus (pbuh) did make a prophecy about someone coming after him. But "Ahmed" to him seems too far-fetched.



The most commonly accepted name by Christendom is "Comforter" It does not really matter Comforter or any other equivalent term will do. We will settle for Comforter as used in the most popular Bible Translation the "King James Version."



Ask your adversary, your disputant whether Jesus (pbuh) spoke the English language? "Most definitely not!" any Christian will say. If you are sharing this with an Arab Christian then you can ask him whether his "lord" used the word "MOOUZZI?" Surely not, because Arabic was not his language. Did Jesus (pbuh) prophesy "uMthokozisi?" (Comforter in Zulu) or "Trooster" from the Afrikaans Bible? The answer again is a definite NO!"



The Christians are rightfully boasting that they now have translated the complete Bible into hundreds of different languages, and the New Testament (in which this prophecy abounds) into more than two thousand different languages and dialects. So the Christian genius has invented more than 2000 different names in 2000 different languages for this one candidate — Comforter!



PNEUMA: GHOST OR SPIRIT?



The Church fathers had developed a sickness by translating names of people, for which they had no right to do. For example like Esau to Jesus, Messiah to Christ, Cephas1 to Peter and so on.



1. See "What is His Name?" for a better clarification on this point.



The closest one can ever get to the original utterance of Jesus (pbuh) in the Christian Scriptures is the Greek word "Para-cletos" which also has to be rejected because the Master did not speak Greek! But let's not be difficult for the purpose of this discussion and accept the Greek word Paracletos and its English equivalent Comforter.



Ask any learned Christian man as to who the Comforter is? You will unmistakingly hear - "The Comforter is the HOLY GHOST!" from John 14: 26. This sentence is only part of verse twenty six. We will deal with the verse fully in due course. But first we must educate the Christian mind with regards to this misnomer — "Holy Ghost." "Pneuma" is the Greek root word for SPIRIT. There is no separate word for GHOST in the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, and the Christians now boast 24,000 different manuscripts in their possession of which no two are identical!



The editors of the KJV (The King James Version) alternatively called AV (The Authorised Version) and the DOUAY (The Roman Catholic Version) of the Bibles gave preference to the word "GHOST' instead of the word SPIRIT when translating "pneuma"



The revisers of the RSV (Revised Standard Version) 1 the most up-to-date version of the Bible, are going back, as claimed, to the Most Ancient manuscripts. These revisers, described as "thirty-two scholars of the highest eminence, backed by fifty co-operating denominations" who courageously re-placed the shady word "ghost" with the word "spirit" Hence from now on you will read in all modem translations — "The Comforter which is the Holy SPIRIT"! However, the Christian crusaders and the televangelists stubbornly cling to the spooky ("ghost"-ly) past They will not opt for the Newer Versions. It's better fishing with the old bait - the KJV and the RCV (Roman Catholic Version).



1. For greater detail on the RSV see "Is the Bible God’s Word?"



With the new change in spirit, the verse under scrutiny will read:



But the Comforter, Which is The Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (Emphasis added).



(HOLY BIBLE) John 14: 26



You do not have to be a Bible scholar of any calibre to sense that the expression "which is the Holy Spirit" is actually an interpolation. It ought to be in parenthesis, in brackets, like my words which have been interpolated in the quotation, i.e. "(emphasis added)." Although the editors of the RSV have expunged dozens of interpolations from their boasted Revised Standard Version, they have retained this jarring phrase which contradicts other explicit predictions of Jesus (pbuh) on the subject of the Comforter itself.



"HOLY SPIRIT" IS HOLY PROPHET



(i) It may be noted that no Biblical scholar of any standing has ever equated the "paracletos" of John in the original Greek with the Holy Ghost. Now we can say with one breath that if the Comforter is the "Holy Spirit" then that Holy Spirit is the Holy Prophet!



As Muslims we acknowledge that every true prophet of God is Holy and without sin. But whenever the expression "The Holy Prophet" is used among Muslims it is universally accepted as referring to the Holy Prophet Muhummed (pbuh). So even if we accept the above incongruous saying — "the Comforter which is the Holy Spirit," as Gospel truth, even then this prophecy will fit Muhummed (pbuh) like a glove, without any stretching of its meaning.



The same John, who is supposed to have authored the Gospel bearing his name, also penned three more Epistles which are also part of the Christian Bible. Amazingly he has used the same terminology of "Holy Spirit" for "Holy Prophet."



Beloved, believe not every Spirit, but try the Spirits whether they



are of God; because many false Prophets are gone out into the World.



(HOLY BIBLE) 1 John 4: 1



You can observe that the word spirit is used here synonymously with a prophet. A true spirit is a true prophet, and a false spirit is a false prophet But for the so-called "born-again" Christians who see only with eyes of emotion, I recommend that they lay their hands on C.I. Scofield's Authorized King lames Version of the Bible who with an Editorial Committee of 9 D.D.’s adding their notes and comments. When they come to the First word "spirit" in the above verse they should give a notation to compare it with Matthew 7: 15 which confirms that false prophets are false spirits. So according to St. John the Holy Spirit is the Holy Prophet, and the Holy Prophet is Muhummed (pbuh) the Messenger of God.



A VALID TEST



But St. John does not leave us in the air, guessing the true from the false. He gives us an acid test for recognising the true Prophet, he says —



Hereby know ye the Spirit 1 of God: Every Spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.



(HOLY BIBLE) 1 John 4: 2



According to John's own interpretation in verse one above the word "spirit" is synonymous with the word prophet So verse two "Spirit of God" would mean Prophet of God and "Every spirit" would stand for every Prophet You have a right to know as to what the Holy Prophet Muhummed (pbuh) says about "Jesus Christ." 2



1. For SPIRIT, read PROPHET



2. See "Christ in Islam" for detailed information of the high positon that Jesus (pbuh) occupies in the house of Islam



Jesus Christ (peace be upon him) is spoken by name no less than 25 times in the Holy Qur'an. He is honoured as —



Isa ibn Maryam (Jesus, the son of Mary)



An-nabi (The Prophet)



As-saaliheen (The Righteous)



Kalimatu'Llah (Word of God)



Ruhu-Llah (Spirit of God)



Masih-uLlah (Christ of God)







Behold the angels said: "O Mary! God giveth thee Glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held In honour in this world and The Hereafter and of (the Company of) those nearest to God-

(SURA al-i-'imran) Holy Qur'an 3:45



MUHUMMED (PBUH) IS THE "OTHER"



(ii) The Comforter in John 14: 26 can never be the "Holy Ghost" because Jesus (pbuh) had already explained—



And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you Another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever.



(HOLY BIBLE) John 14: 16



The emphasis here is on the word "ANOTHER," an other, a different one, an additional one, but of the same kind, yet distinctly different from the first. Who is then the first Comforter? The Christian world is unanimous that in this case the speaker himself — Jesus Christ (pbuh) is the first Comforter; then the other, the one to follow must be of like nature, subject to the same conditions of hunger, thirst, fatigue, sorrow and death.



But this promised Comforter was to "abide with you for EVER!" No one lives for even Jesus (pbuh) was mortal so must the coming Comforter also be mortal. No son of man can ever be immortal!



Every soul shall have a taste of death.



(SURAAL-I-IMRAN) Holy Qur'an 5:185



ALIVE IN THEIR TEACHINGS



The soul does not really die, but when it separates from the body at the time of the death of the body, the soul will get a taste of death. But our Comforter was to "ABIDE" continue, endure for ever. All Comforters abide with us for ever. Moses is here with us today in his teachings. Jesus is here with us today in his teachings and Muhummed also is here with us in his teachings today. (May the peace and blessings of God be upon them all). This is not my novel idea trying to justify the preposterous. I say this with conviction and on the authority of Jesus Christ (pbuh) himself.



In Luke, chapter sixteen, Jesus (pbuh) tells us the story of the "Rich Man, Poor Man.' At death both find themselves at opposite ends — one in Heaven and the other in Hell. The rich man (Dives) simmering in Hell cries to Father Abraham to send the beggar (Lazarus) to assuage his thirst. But when every plea fails, he, as a last favour, requests that Father Abraham send the beggar back to earth to warn his living brothers against their impending doom if they heeded not the warnings of God.



But Abraham said, "If they (those still alive on earth) won't listen to Moses and the prophets, they won't listen even though someone rises from the dead. " (to warn them)



(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 16: 31



Jesus (pbuh) uttered the above fact centuries after the demise of the prophets of Israel like Jeremiah, Hosea, Zechariah, etc and over thirteen hundred years after Moses (pbuh). The Pharisees at the time of Jesus (pbuh) and we today can still listen to "MOSES AND THE PROPHETS," for they are still alive, and with us here today in their teachings.



'YOU' OF THE TIME



If it is said that the Comforter was promised to the immediate disciples of Jesus (pbuh) and not to a people six hundred years later:





and he (God) shall give You another Comforter, that he may abide with You for ever.



(HOLY BIBLE) John 14:16



Surprisingly, the Christian sees no difficulty in justifying the fulfilment of prophecies "since the world began," 1 and after over a millennium2 when Peter in his second sermon to the Jews, reminds them:



For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord Your God raise up unto You of Your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear In all things what-soever he shall say unto You.



(HOLY BIBLE) Acts 3: 22



All these "YE, YOU and YOURS" are from the Book of Deuteronomy, chapter 18, 3 when Moses (pbuh) addressed his people and not the Jews at the time of Peter, thirteen hundred years later. The Gospel writers have put the same compromising words in the mouth of their Master which are begging for fulfilment for two thousand years. I think just one example will suffice:



But when they persecute You in this city, flee Ye into another: for verily (most assuredly) I (Jesus) say unto You, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel till the son of man (Jesus) be come.



(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 10: 25



1. Acts 3:21



2. Millennium: A thousand years



3. For an elaboration on this prophecy, see "WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS ABOUT MUHUMMED (PBUH)"







SCANNING THE CLOUDS



These early followers of the Messiah, forever ran, forlornly fleeing persecution. They ran from one city to another in Israel, scanning every dark cloud for the descent of Jesus (pbuh) in his second coming. The missionaries see no anomaly in their millennium of unfulfilled prophecies. God Almighty did not keep them waiting for even a quarter of the time for the advent of the "paracletos," — the Comforter or Ahmed which is another name for the Praised One. Let them show gratitude to God by accepting this Last and Final Messenger of God — Muhummed (pbuh)!



ADVENT OF COMFORTER CONDITIONAL



(iii) The Comforter is definitely not the "Holy Ghost" because the coming of the Comforter was conditional whereas that of the Holy Ghost was not as we observe in the prophecy —



Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: It is expedient for you that I go for If I Go Not Away, The Comforter Will Not Come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.



(HOLY BIBLE) John 16: 7



"lf I don't go he won't come, but if I go, I will send him." There are numerous instances in the Holy Bible about the coming andgoing of the HOLY GHOST, before the birth and departure of the Messiah. Do yourself a favour, please verify these references in your Bible -



B.C. BEFORE CHRIST'S BIRTH:



1. ... and he (John the Baptist) shall be

filled with the Holy Ghost,

even from his mother's womb.

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1: 15



2. ... and Elizabeth was filled

with the Holy Ghost.

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1: 41



3. And his father Zacharias was

filled with the Holy Ghost.

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 1:67



A.C. AFTER CHRIST'S BIRTH:



4. ... and the Holy Ghost was upon him (Simeon).

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 2:26



5. And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily

shape like a dove upon him (Jesus).

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 3:22



From the above quotations, before and after the birth of Jesus (pbuh), one cannot help admiring St. Luke who appears to be a specialist on the Holy Ghost We may well ask the Christians, after the descent of the "dove", with whose help did Jesus (pbuh) perform his many miracles if not with the help of the Holy Ghost? Let the Master himself tell us. When accused by his own people, the Jews, that he was working in league with Beelzebub (the chief of the devils) to work his miracles, Jesus (pbuh) rhetorically questions them, "How can Satan cast out Satan?" The Jews imputed that this spirit of holiness - the Spirit of God - which was helping him, was devilish. This was treason of the highest order. So he gives them a dire warning:



... but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, it shall never be forgiven

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 12:31



This "Holy Ghost" is non other than what Matthew himself has described in three verses before quoting the Master:



But if I (Jesus) cast out devils by the Spirit OF God, then the kingdom of God is come upon you.

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 12:28



Compare the same statement by another Gospel writer1



But if I (Jesus) by the Finger Of God cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come upon you.

(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 3:22



1. Give a second glance at the two verses, top and bottom, and you cannot help concluding that they are almost indentical. Why? The answer is in "Is the Bible God’s Word?".



You do not have to be a Bible scholar to understand that the expressions (a) "Finger of God" (b) "Spirit of God" and (c) "Holy Ghost" are all synonymous phrases. So the Holy Ghost was helping Jesus (pbuh) in his ministry. The Holy Ghost was also helping his disciples on their missions of preaching and healing. If there is still any doubt in your minds about the workings of the Holy Ghost then please read:



EMPTY PROMISE



...as my Father hath sent me, even so I send you (the disciples of Jesus),

And when he had said this, be breathed on them, and saith unto them,

Receive Ye The Holy Ghost

(HOLY BIBLE) John 20: 21 –22



This was surely no empty promise. The disciples must have received the gift of the Holy Ghost. So if the "Holy Ghost" was with (1) John the Baptist, (2) Elizabeth. (3) Zacharias. (4) Simeon. (5) Jesus and (6) the Disciples of Jesus; then all this makes nonsense of the saying that "if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you." Therefore the Comforter is not the Holy Ghost?



The verse under discussion is John 16: 7. I remember the thrill and joy 1 got out of it when quoting it in Arabic to the Coptic Christian lady in the land of the Pharaohs ( discussed earlier). The pleasure is immense when expounding Biblical verses in the standard native language of a country or locality. I have done it in a dozen different vernaculars. Won't you master the above verse in a language or two of your choice for the good of Islam?





DISCIPLES NOT FIT



We now come to the four most comprehensive and decisive verses in John. chapter sixteen to solve the enigma of the Successor to Christ. For Jesus (pbuh) did truly say:



I have yet Many Things to say unto you, but Ye Cannot Bear Them Now.



(HOLY BIBLE) John 16: 12



We will later tie up the phrase "many things" from the above verse with "guide you into all truth" from the verse that follows, when discussing it. For now. let us discuss the phrase — "YE CANNOT BEAR THEM NOW"

The truth of this statement "ye cannot bear them now" is repeated monotonously throughout the pages of the New Testament:



And he (Jesus) saith unto them (the disciples). Why are ye fearful, O Ye Of Little Faith?

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 8. 26



AND (JESUS) said unto him (Peter) O Thou of Little Faith...

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 14:31



... he (Jesus) said unto them (the disciples), O Ye Of Little Faith, why reason among yourselves ...

(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 16: 8



And he (Jesus) said unto them (his disciples). Where Is Your Faith?



(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 8: 25



We must bear in mind that this is not the indictment of Jesus (pbuh) on the indecisiveness of the Jews, but on his very own elect. He stoops down to the level of little children to make things plain to his disciples but he is compelled to burst out in frustration



And Jesus said, Are Ye Even Yet Without Understanding?



(HOLY BIBLE) Matthew 15:16



And when he was provoked to breaking point, he rails against his chosen ones —



' ... O Faithless And Perverse Generation, how long shall I

be with you, how long shall I bear with you?



(HOLY BIBLE) Luke 9: 41



OWN FAMILY THOUGHT HIM MAD



If Jesus (pbuh) would have been a Japanese instead of a Jew. he would happily have committed that honourable "harakiri" (suicide). Sadly, he was the most unfortunate of God’s Messengers. His family disbelieved him For neither did his (]esus’) brethren believe in him (John 7: 5). In fact they went to the extent of wanting to apprehend him. believing that he was mad.



And when his relatives heard of it, they went out to lay hold on him (Jesus); for they said, he is beside himself.

(HOLY BIBLE) Mark 3. 21



Who were these friends and relatives of Jesus (pbuh) which had concern for his sanity? Let Rev. J.R. Dummelow. M.A. in his One Volume Bible Commentary tell us. On page 726 he says —



"FROM V.31" (just 10 verses following the above quotation) "THEY APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN HIS MOTHER AND BRETHREN… HIS FAMILY SAID ‘HE IS BESIDE HIMSELF,’" (meaning that he is not right in his head); "THE SCRIBES SAID, ‘HE IS POSSESSED BY THE DEVIL HIMSELF.’ IT IS NOT, HOW EVER, IMPLIED AT ALL THAT HIS FAMILY WAS IN SYMPATHY WITH THE SCRIBES" (the learned men of the Jews). "THEIR APPREHENSION BEING SIMPLY THAT HIS MIND WAS UNSETTLED. AND THAT HE NEEDED TO BE PUT UNDER RESTRAINT."



JESUS - REJECTED BY HIS NATION



That was the verdict of the close relations of Jesus (pbuh). What then was the response of his own nation, the Jews, after all his beautiful preachings and mighty miracle workings? His disciple puts it very mildly:



He came unto his own (the Jews) and his own received him (Jesus) not.



(HOLY BIBLE) John 1:11



Actually "his own" mocked him. scorned him and vehemently rejected him. To the extent of making an attempt to crucify him.' Despite two thousand years of Christian persecutions and pogroms, and now their overweening love and infatuation for them, so as to salve their own conscience, the Jews as a people and as a whole can never accept Jesus as their Saviour, their Deliverer, their God, simply because of their one sound judgement —



"THAT NO JEW CAN EVER ACCEPT ANOTHER JEW AS A GOD!"



It is only in Islam that the Jews, the Christians and the Muslims can find accommodation — all believing in Jesus Christ (pbuh) for what he really was — one of the mightiest Messengers of God; and not as God or His son!



DISCIPLES DESERTED HIM



What was the response of the chosen twelve; of his own "mother and bretheren!" (Mark 3: 34), as he called them? I will allow Professor Momerie to describe it in his own inimitable words—



"HIS IMMEDIATE DISCIPLES, WERE ALWAYS MISUNDERSTANDING HIM AND HIS WORK: WANTING HIM TO CALL DOWN FIRE FROM HEAVEN; WANTING HIM TO DECLARE HIMSELF KING OF THE JEWS; WANTING TO SIT ON HIS RIGHT HAND AND ON HIS LEFT HAND IN HIS KINGDOM; WANTING HIM TO SHOW THEM THE FATHER. TO MAKE GOD VISIBLE TO THEIR BODILY EYES;



WANTING HIM TO DO. AND WANTING TO DO THEMSELVES. ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH HIS GREAT PLAN. THIS WAS HOW THEY TREATED HIM UNTIL THE END. (and) WHEN THAT CAME. THEY ALL FORSOOK HIM. AND FLED."



Quoted from Sayed Amir All in his "The Spirit of Islam" page 31.



It was most unfortunate that Jesus Christ (pbuh) had no real choice in selecting his disciples. They let him down as no other group of devotees had ever let down their prophet before. It was no fault of the Master. He bewailed his plight: "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh "The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh (clay) is weak" (Matthew 26: 41). Truly, this is not the clay out of which a new Adam could be made. He passes on that responsibility to his Successor, whom he calls here — "The Spirit of Truth," ie the Prophet of Truth, the Prophet of Righteousness!



"SPIRIT" AND "PROPHET" SYNONYMOUS



Howbeit when he, the Spirit Of Truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth



(Holy Bible) John 16:13



It has already been established that. Biblically, the word "Spirit" is used synonymously for "Prophet," by the same author in 1 John 4: 1 (as seen earlier).



Hence the "Spirit of Truth" would be the Prophet of Truth. A prophet in whom Truth is personified. He had walked through life so honourably and industriously that he had won for himself even from his pagan fellow countrymen the noble designation of as-Saadiq (the Truthful One) and al-Amin, "the Honest," "the Upright." "the Trustworthy;" the Man of Faith who never broke his word. His life, his personality, his teachings are the veritable proof of Muhummed (pbuh) being the embodiment of Truth (al-Amin) — the Spirit of Truth!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...