Questions from a would be believer.

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
R

rimuilu

Guest
#1
Although I still believe in God, I no longer have faith that the Bible is true or that Jesus is God's son. The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this. How can I or anyone believe and apply it when it is not intact? How can we use one corrupted book to confirm another book? How can God create a logical being (humans) and then demand that we suspend our innate logic and believe a corrupted and illogical book as proof of his good will towards his creation and then threaten our afterlife with hell if we don't believe the illogical and corrupted information. Can someone please explain this to me?
 

Ezekiel8

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2017
403
4
0
#2
Well pretty simply, the Bible is not corrupted. Whoever has told you this lie has misled you.
 
R

rimuilu

Guest
#3
It's been clearly established that the Bible has been mistranslated, edited and added to by various translators throughout history. One example: Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original Greek writings. Of course this is just one example, but there are many. How can I reconcile this book as the word is God when it had been changed?
 
Jun 6, 2015
171
0
0
#4
Although I still believe in God, I no longer have faith that the Bible is true or that Jesus is God's son. The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this. How can I or anyone believe and apply it when it is not intact? How can we use one corrupted book to confirm another book? How can God create a logical being (humans) and then demand that we suspend our innate logic and believe a corrupted and illogical book as proof of his good will towards his creation and then threaten our afterlife with hell if we don't believe the illogical and corrupted information. Can someone please explain this to me?
You can get yourself a couple of concordance and check the massorah and study from the scripture, thats what I do. God bless
 

Ezekiel8

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2017
403
4
0
#5
It's been clearly established that the Bible has been mistranslated, edited and added to by various translators throughout history. One example: Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original Greek writings. Of course this is just one example, but there are many. How can I reconcile this book as the word is God when it had been changed?
The Bible has not been changed, the fact there are so many copies in so many languages over a period of thousands of years proves this quite well. The argument that the Bible is corrupted typically speaking is pushed by either non-Christian religions or by heretical sects. The purpose for them pretending and lying and saying the Bible is corrupted is simple, if they can undermine the Bible as the objective authority of the Faith to people, then it becomes very easy for that pagan religion or heretical sect to assume a subjective authority for themselves over those weak-minded people.

The Bible has not changed.
 
Last edited:

nddreamer

Senior Member
Aug 31, 2017
142
1
18
#6
It has been my experience that those who condemn the Bible have never read it.
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,772
538
113
#7
Can someone please explain this to me?
There are TWO STREAMS of Bibles today. The pure and the corrupt. No one is compelling you to use the corrupted Bibles. So all you have to do is acquire the King James Bible and believe that it is the Word of God.

But this objection is generally thrown out by Muslims when they do not want to obey the Gospel. The fact is that the Koran itself is a corruption of the Bible (primarily the Old Testament). One blatant example is the claim that Abraham and Ishmael erected the Ka'aba in Mecca.

How could they do so, when Abraham knew that Isaac was the son of promise, and that the Abrahamic Covenant would be fulfilled through Isaac, Jacob, the twelve tribes, and Jesus from the tribe of Judah? Also, erecting the Ka'aba would have been gross idolatry for a man like Abraham, who had met Melchizedek.
 
Last edited:

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,344
113
#8
The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this.
You are spreading popular Islamic lies.

How can Christians believe the Bible is the preserved revealed written Word of God?

By the leading of the Holy Spirit of God. You are treating it like any
old book, have no reverence for it, and are not a credible witness.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
2,955
238
63
#9
Although I still believe in God, I no longer have faith that the Bible is true or that Jesus is God's son. The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this. How can I or anyone believe and apply it when it is not intact? How can we use one corrupted book to confirm another book? How can God create a logical being (humans) and then demand that we suspend our innate logic and believe a corrupted and illogical book as proof of his good will towards his creation and then threaten our afterlife with hell if we don't believe the illogical and corrupted information. Can someone please explain this to me?
Ok you declare the Bible to be corrupt.. But you have offered nothing to substantiate that conclusion.. So do you have a solid undeniable example of scripture that reveals it is corrupted? Or is your opinion founded your faith on someone's word which you have decided is more important then the Word of God?

Please offer up an example of corruption in the Bible..
 

dcontroversal

Senior Member
Dec 12, 2013
30,265
1,166
113
#10
If you NO LONGER have faith.....you never had it to begin with!
 
P

pckts

Guest
#11
Although I still believe in God, I no longer have faith that the Bible is true or that Jesus is God's son. The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this. How can I or anyone believe and apply it when it is not intact? How can we use one corrupted book to confirm another book? How can God create a logical being (humans) and then demand that we suspend our innate logic and believe a corrupted and illogical book as proof of his good will towards his creation and then threaten our afterlife with hell if we don't believe the illogical and corrupted information. Can someone please explain this to me?
Can you tell us specifically why you are doubting God's Word?

Stating "It's a fact" and that worldly scholars undermine it's divinity is not evidence.

Look into the Khaboris Codex if you need an additional source to validate the scripture beside the greek.

And understand that its within God's power to provide us His word, and I doubt you have read the story of Christ for yourself if you doubt his divinity.

Is there something occurring in your life or an issue you are having that is leading you to this conclusion? Is there a reason you are rebelling from God? A rule you no longer want to follow, or suffering experienced making you have doubts?
 
R

rimuilu

Guest
#12
You obviously didn't read the entire thread as I did offer an example. I can offer several more, but my sincere questions have been taken as an assault on the religion. I grew up in the church and the intellectually dishonest responses in this thread is the reason that people do not seek knowledge, but simply leave the church. You can feel free to respond, but I'm finished here. I feared it was pointless to try to reaffirm my faith through talking to people who claim Christianity and I was right. Good bye.
 

MarcR

Senior Member
Feb 12, 2015
5,486
173
0
#13
Well pretty simply, the Bible is not corrupted. Whoever has told you this lie has misled you.
Looking at 1Chr chapters 7 and 8 it is obvious that verses are missing and others are out of place.

Whether or not corrupted is the most appropriate word is arguable.

The main point is that none of the questionable texts is of such a nature that the message or its intent are in any way perverted.

The Bible, is still the absolute standard of truth and anything that contradicts it is a lie or an error.

Any errors embedded in the text are not of such a nature as to detract from the truth of the message.
 

maxwel

Senior Member
Apr 18, 2013
7,411
534
113
#14
You are spreading popular Islamic lies.

How can Christians believe the Bible is the preserved revealed written Word of God?

By the leading of the Holy Spirit of God. You are treating it like any
old book, have no reverence for it, and are not a credible witness.


I suspect this may be the issue.

rimuilu,
If you believe in God, but you don't believe in Christianity, are you a muslim?




 
P

pckts

Guest
#15
You obviously didn't read the entire thread as I did offer an example. I can offer several more, but my sincere questions have been taken as an assault on the religion. I grew up in the church and the intellectually dishonest responses in this thread is the reason that people do not seek knowledge, but simply leave the church. You can feel free to respond, but I'm finished here. I feared it was pointless to try to reaffirm my faith through talking to people who claim Christianity and I was right. Good bye.
Growing up in the church means you inherited your parents faith, and went inside of a building with them on occasion. You never had understanding of The Bible or Christianity, and with that weak foundation you lost faith.

The example you provided is laughable, and is no reason to doubt the divinity of scripture. You are actively looking for reasons to reject The Bible, and have come here to see how strong your logic is. It faltered and now you are running away.

Look for reasons to believe in the divinity of The Bible rather than reasons to reject it, Google will lead you to any conclusion you want. You have to analyze all the evidence for yourself.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
2,955
238
63
#17
Matthew 6:13: The Lord's Prayer traditionally ends: "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." This seems to have been absent from the original Greek writings.
What original Greek writings? Where they the originals ? How do you know? Placing your faith in supposed scholars again?
 

Magenta

Senior Member
Jul 3, 2015
23,391
1,344
113
#18
Manuscript Support for
the Bible's Reliability
by Ron Rhodes

Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.

Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.


Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.

From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.

God's Preservation of the Bible


The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.

The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.

Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.

By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.

Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully
reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.
Manuscript Evidence for the Bible (by Ron Rhodes)

 

Test_F_i_2_Luv

Senior Member
Jan 24, 2009
1,601
28
48
#19
Although I still believe in God, I no longer have faith that the Bible is true or that Jesus is God's son. The fact is that the Bible is corrupted. Even Christan scholars admit this. How can I or anyone believe and apply it when it is not intact? How can we use one corrupted book to confirm another book? How can God create a logical being (humans) and then demand that we suspend our innate logic and believe a corrupted and illogical book as proof of his good will towards his creation and then threaten our afterlife with hell if we don't believe the illogical and corrupted information. Can someone please explain this to me?
My recommendation is Evidence That Demands a Verdict, chapters 3-4.

Chapter 3: Is the New Testament historically reliable?
Chapter 4: Have the Old Testament manuscripts been accurately transmitted?

Turns out a new edition of Josh McDowell's book was just released a couple months ago! Time to update my library!

Available in hardcover and ebook.
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
2,955
238
63
#20
You obviously didn't read the entire thread as I did offer an example. I can offer several more, but my sincere questions have been taken as an assault on the religion. I grew up in the church and the intellectually dishonest responses in this thread is the reason that people do not seek knowledge, but simply leave the church. You can feel free to respond, but I'm finished here. I feared it was pointless to try to reaffirm my faith through talking to people who claim Christianity and I was right. Good bye.
Only 4 posts and she runs... That shows how disingenuous her desire was to really have a dialogue with Christians..
A person who has abandoned salvation who is only looking for a cheer squad to pat her on the back and tell her she has done the right thing... She only wanted one kind of response. Ones that submitted to and affirmed her POV...