Jesus 64 – Authority Authenticity Of Scriptures 2

Welcome once again to a

continuation of Jesus beloved messenger of Allah is a 64th in the series and second on the authority and the authenticity of the Scriptures. And this, by the way is our concluding program in this series. My name is Ashok munition your host here once again from St. Mary's University, is that the generals are with us our conductor.

Can you help please wrap up last week's program? Sure. The basic theme of the whole series is that the idea of deification of Jesus peace be upon him or the notion of God incarnate can neither be explained in any intelligible terms, nor are they supported by the text of the Bible, old or new testament, assuming even you take the Bible as it is. But in the previous program, we began even to examine as to whether the entire Bible from A to Z each and every word indeed is the word of God or not.

In the previous program, we indicated that there are several passages in the Bible, both Old and New Testament, which indicates that it is not really the Word of God and that it contains ideas and opinions of human beings who at times negated that they received any comments from God in what they say like First Corinthians, For example, chapter seven, in verse 25. So we concluded from that, that the internal evidence does not seem to indicate a consistent, continuous claim of being from divine origin. We did not, however, touch on the external evidence relating to the authority of the Bible, such as the freedom from factual errors, freedom from

any inconsistency or contradiction, or any prophecy that was proven to be incorrect.

Now, let's look at the external evidence. What do you mean when we're talking about the freedom of factual errors? Okay with errors errors in factual methods to be more accurate? Well, this has been discussed in previous series on the Koran ultimate, Americans might best be used to make a quick reference to the to this particular program. According to the book of Genesis, for example, it tells us that the creation of day and night, and the creation of vegetation and fruit trees took place before the creation of firmament such as the sun which we all know that scientifically, this is an impossibility.

Following the chronology of the Bible also seems to indicate that the first homosapien the first human being to live on Earth, Adam, lived on earth less than 5800 years ago, you know, again, that from the standpoint of scientific and archaeological evidence that this is an impossibility.

This examples and many others were discussed. And reference was made through a very interesting volume written by Dr. Murray's book case, called the Bible, the Quran in silence, in which the same criteria were applied to the Quran also, only to discover that there is no single passage in the entire Quran. That is at odds with any established I'm not talking about theory established scientific fact.

There are also some problems which might perhaps be termed as logical impossibilities. For example, if one refers to the description of the Temple of Solomon, as described in the First Book of Kings in chapter six, verse 23, you will find that the measurement is approximately 3000 square feet.

All right. That's what the temple, however is the number of people who are working in that template mentioned elsewhere in the first Chronicle, Chapter 23. Verse four, is a total of 38,000 people, including 24,007

And others officers, judges, worshipers and so on, wants to divide 3000 square feet by 38,000 people that would leave each person was one 10th of a square foot to do his job. Of course, we know that that's another possibility, which seems to indicate that this kind of description could have not been really the product of divine revelation, or guidance of the Holy Spirit, but rather, the understanding and perhaps even exaggeration of the particular authors who give those descriptions.

How about the question of inconsistency? Is there any evidence for this? This is a subject that has been dealt with in great detail, not even by non Christian critics, but by many biblical scholars themselves. In fact, in September of 1957, a Christian publication called awake came with the headline of the the bold letters 50,000 errors in the Bible, actually, in that they were failing to

sort of summary of the resources of many biblical scholars of high repute, indicating that there are numerous errors and problems of inconsistency is the Bible best, both Old and New Testament?

And let me just give a few examples because they say some of them have been reconciled, and I have no dispute with that they could be possibly something that might appear different, but it might be description of the same event from two different angles, but not with any factual error.

But there is no claim that has been made or is being made, that all of them are reconcilable.

For example, who provoked David to make a census or numbers the children of Israel? Well, in one answer, it is in the Bible, or one version, it says it was Satan, and the other is say it was God. This can be compared by looking into the first Chronicles chapter 21. And compare it with Second Samuel, chapter 24. About the periods or duration of famine during David, we have two answers, again, on different places. One version is that it was three years, the other seven years. You can do that by comparing first Chronicle descent chapter 21. And Second Samuel, chapter 24.

The number of Syrians that were

killed by David.

In one version, it says that he killed 700, chariots and 40,000 horsemen. In the second version, it says it was 7000 chariots, and 4000 or 40,000 footmen. So, we have difficulty here in terms of the numbers we have difficulty in terms of mixing horsemen with footmen. That again can be seen from comparing to the second book of Samuel chapter 10. With the first Chronicles chapter 19.

A fourth example, how old was jiko achine, who ruled in Jerusalem? Again, in one version, it says that he was eight years old when he began to reign in Jerusalem, and that he ran for three months and 10 days. In another place in the Bible describing the same identical person. It says that his age when he began to rain was 18, not eight, and that's your rent for three months. Again, the comparison is there between the second book of Chronicles, Second Chronicles, Chapter 56, versus second Book of Kings in chapter 24.

assists the example the number of stalls of horses which David had, in one place, it says it was 40,000, and another place it say it was 4000. That's a margin of 1,000%. Obviously, it both cannot be corrected at the same time. This can be found by comparing the First Kings chapter four, with the second Chronicle, chapter nine. Like I indicated earlier, the examples are numerous and if the biblical scholar themselves speaks about problems by the 1000s. The main conclusion that one can come with really is that it is untenable clearly to say that the entire Bible, they may be the Word of God continued there, but to say that everything is mentioned there, by the variety of authors who

wrote in different times and places throughout history is all inspired by God or guided by the Holy Spirit is simply untenable, according to biblical scholars.

Since a few perhaps not sure

So far, actually, Jamal, you've given us examples from the Old Testament, do you have any examples possibly from the New Testament, the classic example in the New Testament that many biblical scholars have paid attention to is the issue of lineage of Jesus peace be upon him.

Before I get into that, it's interesting that two gospels, light gospel writers, I should say, Matthew and Luke, have got out gotten out of their way to try to show the human lineage through the flesh of Jesus peace be upon him, even though in the meantime, his claims to be the Son of God, but leaving that philosophical or theological problem aside, which was raised by making good data, and others will discuss that in another program. If you just look at the information given, compared to Matthew chapter one with Luke chapter three, you find that there are three basic problems. One, according to Matthew, Jesus, peace be upon him is set to be the descendant of David, through

Solomon, one of the sons of David.

according to Luke, Jesus is a descendant of David through the other son, Nathan, again, both cannot be correct at the same time. A second problem is that according to Matthew, there are 26 generations between David and Jesus is the upon them both.

according to Luke, the number is given as 41 generations. Well, that's a big divergence.

Certainly, by comparing the names even of the ancestors or supportive ancestors of Jesus, you find that no two names in both lists 26 or 41. No two names are identical, except in one name, the last link, Joseph was supposed to be the legal father of Jesus, peace be upon him. Now, we have indicated in addition to this in the previous program, or more than one program, perhaps, that by analyzing one segment even of what the Gospels speak about, with respect to the life of Jesus, peace be upon him.

That even in the issue of crucifixion, and the events immediately before and immediately after, we have pointed out using charts to 27, irreconcilable discrepancies and inconsistency. So the problem actually, as many biblical scholars are weird applies to the Old Testament and the New Testament, they take the safer position by saying that the Bible contains the word of God. But there are very few who can with any reasonable evidence, say that from A to Z, it's all inspired. Now, how about the question of prophecies? Do you have any specific or any examples of this one, for example, the three synoptic gospels,

Mark, Matthew and Luke, a tribute to Jesus peace be upon him that he said that he is going to come back again to rule and reign in the lifetime of his contemporaries in the present generation. I think we refer to that in a previous occasion, just to give the reference this point, it is found in Matthew, chapter 1016, and 24. In the Gospel, according to Mark and chapter 13, the Gospel according to Luke and chapter 21, all of which seem to indicate that he's coming is imminent in the lifetime of his contemporaries. We all know that this never happened. Secondly, according to Matthew, again, Chapter 19, verses 27 through 29. It is attributed to Jesus that he prophesied that each of the 12

disciples will be sitting to rule over one of the 12 tribes of Israel.

We know that not only that this has not happened, had not happened. But we also know that one of the 12 disciples is Judah that scar you to betray Jesus is a traitor, he cannot even be expected at any point of time to be a ruler. But above all, it never happened. That's why Muslims who have a great deal of respect of Jesus as a truthful messenger of God never believed that Jesus said that, and actually conclude, like many biblical scholars, that it could possibly have been words that were put in the mouth of Jesus, but he never really uttered prophecies or prophets. When he says a prophecy it means it's got to be fulfilled, can't prove to be erroneous at all. These examples, I believe,

are more than enough to show that the theory of the Bible being written owned by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

That is all the Word of God

does not really seem to be

tenable position at all. And that in order to sift through the Bible

and discern the Word of God, Visa V, the words or explanation of other fallible human beings, there was a necessity to have a new revelation, which the Muslims believe is the Quran that removed all of those confusions and put things back into the

original

Jamal now let's turn to the other aspect of the topic without an invasion of authenticity. Now, what does it mean? And how does this apply to the Bible?

Well, when we speak about authenticity, we speak about the extent to which a given document or information or revelation, whatever has been preserved over time, aside from the question or thority, as to whether it is the word of God or not.

And I should note here that a document or information could possibly be authentic, but not authoritative. In other words, it could be authentic, in essence that has been preserved over time. But it doesn't mean necessarily that it is the word of God. You could say right, I can produce the preserved writings of Shakespeare's but that doesn't mean that is the word of God is preserved, but it's not the word of God. On the other hand, something could have been originally authoritative, ie Word of God. But throughout time, it was not possible to preserve it. In its purity, separate from commentaries and ideas of other human being in that sense, it could be originally authoritative, but

the way it exists at a given point of time, it is not authentic has not been preserved.

Just to clarify that, in the series that we had on the Koran.

We have given detailed evidence that the Quran is authoritative, both from internal and external evidence that is, could have not been the words of Prophet Mohammed or any other human beings examples were quite plentiful.

In the second half of the series, we examine the issue of authenticity of the Quran, and how it was transmitted to us how it was written down and memorized simultaneously, by large number of people during the lifetime of the Prophet under his supervision, in the original language that the Prophet spoke

with the revision every year of the 23 years of the mission of the prophets,

and that it has come to us and transmitted generation after generation through both means writing and memorization without the slightest change. It is true, as we indicated in some of those programs, that they might have been karats, or dialects or ways or modes of recitation that the Prophet allows for some types of the same words or the same meaning at least,

it is true that there have been some unofficial collections that some of the companions like Ali obey, and liberty meszaros might have had. But we're really stoked, we still talk about the same person. Today we have translations of the Quran, but that's different from versions you can have.

You could have collections, you could have translations, but these are not really versions are different or containing, you know, different things. But in the case of the Bible, I think the situation is quite, it's quite different. We're not ready to talk about just translations. It's really versions. What do you see as the main differences between between the Bible and the Quran? I think perhaps it centers around that version versus translation.

Of course, when you speak about the Bible, or the Quran, or any scripture, for that matter, it is quite possible to have different kinds of translations, even in the same language, using the same origin and

quote unquote, original manuscripts. But when we really speak about translations, and speak like some scholar once quoted, the difference between spelling color C or an R or A or C, or you are, but that's in the case of the Bible. It is really far from just talking about translations. They are really versions. Example.

We all know that the Catholic Bible is different from the trust and the Catholic Bible contains 73 books total on a New Testament.

The Protestant Bible is composed of 66 books. Now, each side believes that the Bible A through Z, at least some groups, is the word of God which one with the difference of four

seven books.

In addition to this, there is substantial, or there are substantial differences between, for example, the King James Version. And that's what the current version they admit, and the Revised Standard Version of the Bible. First of all, as indicated in a previous program in john 316, because according to john, there's a crucial difference. In one case, it says, For God so loved the word he gave his only begotten Son, and the other return production is dropped, which has a very important theological implication. And historically, I've had

the first epistle of john chapter five, verse seven, which speaks about the three that bear witness in heaven, which can the closest thing to describing Trinity was proven to be an authentic and did not exist in the most authentic and ancient manuscripts. So here, one Bible containing the other one doesn't.

The Gospel according to Mark, we find that again, verses nine through 20 is there in King James Version. And the Revised Standard Version is not in the Texas put in the footnotes, with the observation that some less authentic or other

copies include those endings.

We really don't have any copy at all of the New Testament, in the language in which Jesus spoke, like, for example, the Quran is still available until today in the Arabic language in which Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him spoke, there is no parallel to that at all. By having, let's say, teaching of Jesus in Aramaic.

Not even an evidence that even if such manuscripts might have existed at any point of time, that it was the sole source, the only source of others New Testament literature that was written in different languages afterwards. We all know historically that there have been dozens of gospels not only before, and we are not really clear, many scholars are not clear as to how this particular four came to be chosen as the Canon or canonical gospels. And the rest was dismissed as

apocrypha, for example, in

An Encyclopedia Americana,

on volume three,

that's the 59th edition, pages 651 through 653, we find there is a clear indication of the difficulty of discerning how this gospels came to be chosen. And they could, quote we have neurosurgeon knowledge as to how or where the fourth four gospels, or the gospel canon came to be formed. Similar statements are made in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1960 edition, in the second Volume, page 514. But even if we take these four canonical gospels, and I'd say

many of the biblical scholars are not even sure whether these were the exclusive works of their respective four authors alone. In fact, some of their scholars like Reverend Jerome aachener, was a professor of New Testament, in a court biblique in Jerusalem, which is a by the way a Roman Catholic school that was established sometimes, but for Biblical Studies.

According to urban corner, he says that, if you examine some of those, you know, texts, there is lack of what he called literal unity. So by analyzing them, the gospel doesn't seem to indicate that it was written just by one man. So they seem to have been given joint ownership, or authorship, I should say, and some of them. In addition to this, we find that in fact, most of the New Testament literature has been written by people who were not eyewitnesses of the life and mission of Prophet Jesus.

Now, you see that most of these witnesses, or most of these writings were not eyewitnesses. How would you explain it? All right. The it is known as the New Testament contains 27 books, which include the four gospels, the book of Acts, and other books, letters and so on. Now, about one half of the entire New Testament was written by a non eyewitness by Paul was never a disciple of Jesus during his mission

13 books

and that's one.

There is also another book written by a man or a woman.

The book of Jude JU de,

that you will never appears anywhere in the rest of the disciples in any of the

Synoptic Gospels.

And then you have also the book of Acts written by Mark by Luke. And we'll see again that Luke was not really an eyewitness of Jesus.

In the New Testament, you find also that there are three epistles attributed to john. So is the book of Revelation. And again, there is a big dispute as to whether this is the same john who is the author of the fourth gospel, and whether he has anything to do with john son of zbb, who was a disciple of Jesus, this is highly doubtful, and most people, most scholars actually believed that it was it was mostly john, the disciples, the disciples of Jesus, non eyewitness.

And then if you look at the four gospels themselves, take for example, the oldest, according to most scholars, mark the Gospel according to Mark.

Now, according to a biblical scholars, well known scholar by the name of Dennis mainhand, in his book call, center mark, he says that this mark is quite different

from the john mark, for example, was mentioned in the act or other places, or letters in the New Testament. And he says that as a scholar, there is no person who was close to Jesus, or was famous in the early church was known by that name, Mark.

That's one.

Secondly,

many of the scholars indicate or believed that the Gospels according to Matthew and Luke, were based essentially on Mark who we said again, is highly unlikely to be a nun, eyewitness of Jesus. Plus some additional material, of course, they use take Matthew, for example.

Some biblical scholars like john Cintron, fpmt EMT, or and

he says that

the Matthew

is not really as some people believe the same person as Navy, and he, VI. That's not the same as some people claim. And it's interesting to notice here that in the oldest gospel, Mark, in chapter two, verse 14, it describes an incident when Jesus peace be upon him was passing by. And then he saw a man by the name of Levy,

who was a tax collector, and he asked him to follow him and he did for him.

In the Gospel, according to Matthew, in chapter nine, verse nine, it describes the identical story. But instead of calling him Levy, of course, him, Matthew, and that's where, where john Simpson say, this is not really the same person. And apparently, the writer of the gospel, according to Matthew, changed the names, but this was not the name of the same person, just change the name somehow to give authority to the gospel, because it's related to someone who used to be a disciple of Jesus, according to the Gospel of Luke, as indicated before, suffice to look into the introduction, in which he says again, clearly that he is basing his writing not on eyewitness, but on the basis of

what he has been told by others.

Coming now, for example, to the non synoptic gospel, john, again, many scholars believe it is not john the son of Zebedee, as some people believe. In fact, in john 1965, he speaks and says, He who saw it bear witness, he knows that he tells the truth, Who is he, apparently, to say the gospel, according to my give an impression that actually it was based on what was believed to be teaching of john, we don't know even whether that john was the disciple or not. That leaves us actually with two letters attributed to Peters and one to James, who were both disciples. If this were true, even there are nine pages out of 242 pages in the New Testament, less than 4% of the New Testament

literature. The problem is not just the authorship, but even the manuscripts of the same gospel, attributed to the same authors, we have some difficulties. Can you elaborate on that last point, the manuscript attributed to the same author is not being consistent when many scholars say that even though we have the plenty of Greek manuscripts, for example,

that many of them have very informed that some of those variants were written as late as two or three centuries later.

We indicated for example, in the previous quotations from biblical scholars

indicating that the selection arrangement and preservation of materials were based on the faith of the writers than anything else, that interpretive material actually was placed upon the the lips of the Prophet Jesus is

not we deal with to conclude this lipstick may have to carry over quite a bit in this program and we'll see how it goes. Thank you all for joining us here in Assam focus our phone number and address will be on the screen would appreciate any questions or any comments a lot of the serums Some ask them or I can hope to see an increase in show