how did the devil fall?

JoeB-

Hi

Following on from a previous thread where it was confirmed that God created the devil I'd now like to ask what Catholics / Christians believe as to why the devil fell?

I can only think of three reasons, none of which will be palettable to Catholics.

1) God created the devil and made him effectively insane or sick... i.e The devil has experienced God in all his supposed glory and yet the devil decided that was not enough, surely this was a bad decision on the devils part... hence he must be considered sick, insane or misguided at best. But he was created by God to be what he is and so God must take the responsibility for the devils nature as God created the devils nature.

2) God deliberately hid his true nature from the devil in order that the devil would disobey him... i.e God effectively tricked the devil.

3) God isn't as described, i.e he is not all loving etc, and so the devil made what was effectively the correct choice.

I'd be interested if anyone could provide a 4th reason for the devils fall which doesn't cast God in a bad light. Or perhaps blind ignorant faith is the answer. :rolleyes:


And if someone answers that the devil is intrinsically evil... well, that can be easily countered by saying that the devil is only what God created him to be, I personnally don't hold a created object to be responsible for it's nature and I don't understand how any reasonable person can.


And a further thing to consider.... the catholics say that all things come from God... as they must since God is the only non created thing in existence... so evil therefore comes from God...

I can never accept that all good things come from God but not evil... God creates what are effectively proxies in order to introduce evil into existence... i.e so God can stand back and deny responsibility for any evil and say it was an independent action by one of his created objects.
But the created objects can only act as they were created to do and so, once again, I say that the creator must take the responsibility for his creations.

I'd be very interested in the replies.

Cheers
Joe

Patricide

Philosophy forums that way, haha!

Your right though, im curious to see the usual christanity forum peoples response to this.

Conar

Hi All

I pop the odd silly question in here from time to time I hope its not too annoying.

I was just wondering about the devil.
Another thread made me think about this.

God created the devil as an angel but he turned on God and was cast out of heaven and down to hell.
When did this happen in relation to Gods creation of humans?
Was the devil on his own in hell before the first unrepentant sinners joined him?

PeteK*

Conar wrote:

God created the devil as an angel but he turned on God and was cast out of heaven and down to hell.

First time I heard it like that.

Medina

Conar wrote:

Hi All

I pop the odd silly question in here from time to time I hope its not too annoying.

I was just wondering about the devil.
Another thread made me think about this.

God created the devil as an angel but he turned on God and was cast out of heaven and down to hell.
When did this happen in relation to Gods creation of humans?
Was the devil on his own in hell before the first unrepentant sinners joined him?

God created angels without free will.
This is why an angel rebelling is impossible.
If you want the Islamic perspective I will explain it.

Asiaprod

Medina wrote:

God created angels without free will.
This is why an angel rebelling is impossible.
If you want the Islamic perspective I will explain it.

I think it would indeed be very beneficial for us all for you to explain the Islamic perspective, as I for one, and I am pretty sure many others here, grew up understanding that devil was basically Gods right hand man and did rebel.

Medina

JoeBallantine wrote:

Hi

Following on from a previous thread where it was confirmed that God created the devil I'd now like to ask what Catholics / Christians believe as to why the devil fell?

I can only think of three reasons, none of which will be palettable to Catholics.

1) God created the devil and made him effectively insane or sick... i.e The devil has experienced God in all his supposed glory and yet the devil decided that was not enough, surely this was a bad decision on the devils part... hence he must be considered sick, insane or misguided at best. But he was created by God to be what he is and so God must take the responsibility for the devils nature as God created the devils nature.

2) God deliberately hid his true nature from the devil in order that the devil would disobey him... i.e God effectively tricked the devil.

3) God isn't as described, i.e he is not all loving etc, and so the devil made what was effectively the correct choice.

I'd be interested if anyone could provide a 4th reason for the devils fall which doesn't cast God in a bad light. Or perhaps blind ignorant faith is the answer. :rolleyes:


And if someone answers that the devil is intrinsically evil... well, that can be easily countered by saying that the devil is only what God created him to be, I personnally don't hold a created object to be responsible for it's nature and I don't understand how any reasonable person can.


And a further thing to consider.... the catholics say that all things come from God... as they must since God is the only non created thing in existence... so evil therefore comes from God...

I can never accept that all good things come from God but not evil... God creates what are effectively proxies in order to introduce evil into existence... i.e so God can stand back and deny responsibility for any evil and say it was an independent action by one of his created objects.
But the created objects can only act as they were created to do and so, once again, I say that the creator must take the responsibility for his creations.

I'd be very interested in the replies.

Cheers
Joe

I know you asked for Christian perspective only however you also asked for a fourth reason why the devil fell.

In Islam..the devil is not an angel. He is from a group of creatures known as a Jinn.
Whereas angels are created from light and are without free will, the devil was created from smokeless fire and all Jinns are made this way. And yes all benefit and harm comes from Allah in Islam. (some indirectly but is allowed through the workings of the devil).

God created Adam and taught him the names of everything in creation.
God then assembled the angels and the jinn and commanded them to bow to Adam. the Devil refused to bow, saying why should he bow to a creature made from earth when he is created from fire and fire can destroy earth.

055.015
YUSUFALI: And He created Jinns from fire free of smoke:


018.050
YUSUFALI: Behold! We said to the angels, "Bow down to Adam": They bowed down except Iblis. He was one of the Jinns, and he broke the Command of his Lord. Will ye then take him and his progeny as protectors rather than Me? And they are enemies to you! Evil would be the exchange for the wrong-doers!



002.030
YUSUFALI: Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood?- whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy (name)?" He said: "I know what ye know not."
002.031
YUSUFALI: And He taught Adam the names of all things; then He placed them before the angels, and said: "Tell me the names of these if ye are right."
002.032
YUSUFALI: They said: "Glory to Thee, of knowledge We have none, save what Thou Hast taught us: In truth it is Thou Who art perfect in knowledge and wisdom."
002.033
YUSUFALI: He said: "O Adam! Tell them their names." When he had told them, Allah said: "Did I not tell you that I know the secrets of heaven and earth, and I know what ye reveal and what ye conceal?"
002.034
YUSUFALI: And behold, We said to the angels: "Bow down to Adam" and they bowed down. Not so Iblis: he refused and was haughty: He was of those who reject Faith.


007.011
YUSUFALI: It is We Who created you and gave you shape; then We bade the angels prostrate to Adam, and they prostrate; not so Iblis; He refused to be of those who prostrate.
007.012
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "What prevented thee from prostrating when I commanded thee?" He said: "I am better than he: Thou didst create me from fire, and him from clay."
007.013
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Get thee down from this: it is not for thee to be arrogant here: get out, for thou art of the meanest (of creatures)."
007.014
YUSUFALI: He said: "Give me respite till the day they are raised up."
007.015
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Be thou among those who have respite."
007.016
YUSUFALI: He said: "Because thou hast thrown me out of the way, lo! I will lie in wait for them on thy straight way:
007.017
YUSUFALI: "Then will I assault them from before them and behind them, from their right and their left: Nor wilt thou find, in most of them, gratitude (for thy mercies)."
007.018
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Get out from this, disgraced and expelled. If any of them follow thee,- Hell will I fill with you all.

015.031
YUSUFALI: Not so Iblis: he refused to be among those who prostrated themselves.
015.032
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "O Iblis! what is your reason for not being among those who prostrated themselves?"
015.033
YUSUFALI: (Iblis) said: "I am not one to prostrate myself to man, whom Thou didst create from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape."
015.034
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Then get thee out from here; for thou art rejected, accursed.
015.035
YUSUFALI: "And the curse shall be on thee till the day of Judgment."
015.036
YUSUFALI: (Iblis) said: "O my Lord! give me then respite till the Day the (dead) are raised."
015.037
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Respite is granted thee
015.038
YUSUFALI: "Till the Day of the Time appointed."
015.039
YUSUFALI: (Iblis) said: "O my Lord! because Thou hast put me in the wrong, I will make (wrong) fair-seeming to them on the earth, and I will put them all in the wrong,-
015.040
YUSUFALI: "Except Thy servants among them, sincere and purified (by Thy Grace)."
015.041
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "This (way of My sincere servants) is indeed a way that leads straight to Me.
015.042
YUSUFALI: "For over My servants no authority shalt thou have, except such as put themselves in the wrong and follow thee."
015.043
YUSUFALI: And verily, Hell is the promised abode for them all!


017.061
YUSUFALI: Behold! We said to the angels: "Bow down unto Adam": They bowed down except Iblis: He said, "Shall I bow down to one whom Thou didst create from clay?"
017.062
YUSUFALI: He said: "Seest Thou? this is the one whom Thou hast honoured above me! If Thou wilt but respite me to the Day of Judgment, I will surely bring his descendants under my sway - all but a few!"
017.063
YUSUFALI: (Allah) said: "Go thy way; if any of them follow thee, verily Hell will be the recompense of you (all)- an ample recompense.
017.064
YUSUFALI: "Lead to destruction those whom thou canst among them, with thy (seductive) voice; make assaults on them with thy cavalry and thy infantry; mutually share with them wealth and children; and make promises to them." But Satan promises them nothing but deceit.
017.065
YUSUFALI: "As for My servants, no authority shalt thou have over them:" Enough is thy Lord for a Disposer of affairs.
017.066
YUSUFALI: Your Lord is He That maketh the Ship go smoothly for you through the sea, in order that ye may seek of his Bounty. For he is unto you most Merciful.

Medina

AsiaProd could you merge the threads about how did the devil fall with this one.
I have explained it in it..they are very similar threads

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055108654

Asiaprod

My pleasure:). Might be an idea for you to do a quick recap to help us follow the thought process

JimiTime

Conar wrote:

Hi All

I pop the odd silly question in here from time to time I hope its not too annoying.

I was just wondering about the devil.
Another thread made me think about this.

God created the devil as an angel but he turned on God and was cast out of heaven and down to hell.
When did this happen in relation to Gods creation of humans?
Was the devil on his own in hell before the first unrepentant sinners joined him?

He didn't get thrown out straight away. He rebelled along with other angels and eventually was cast out along with the rebellious angels. He was never 'gods right hand man' Just one of the more powerful angels.

imeatingchips

JoeBallantine wrote:

And if someone answers that the devil is intrinsically evil... well, that can be easily countered by saying that the devil is only what God created him to be, I personnally don't hold a created object to be responsible for it's nature and I don't understand how any reasonable person can.
....
But the created objects can only act as they were created to do and so, once again, I say that the creator must take the responsibility for his creations.

Lucifer had free will. So God can't be held responsible for what Lucifer did or thought anymore than you can be held responsible for what your son or daughter does* even though you (and yer missus) created them.

Dr. Frankenstein would also agree with this.

* you can put them on the right path etc etc but ultimately you know you can't make their decisions for them

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

He didn't get thrown out straight away. He rebelled along with other angels and eventually was cast out along with the rebellious angels. He was never 'gods right hand man' Just one of the more powerful angels.

Can you post the verses explaining the fall of the devil from the bible?
I had a look and I couldnt find them.
The first mention of the devil is as the serpent in the garden in Genesis 3. He is already on earth tempting man at this stage...


Thanks

imeatingchips

Medina wrote:

God created angels without free will.

I didn't know that?

If Lucifer didn't have free will well then god's just doing the oul good-cop/bad-cop routine :eek:

Seriously, how could angels not have free will if some decided that it'd be btter to reign in hell than serve in heaven?

Medina

imeatingchips wrote:

I didn't know that?

If Lucifer didn't have free will well then god's just doing the oul good-cop/bad-cop routine :eek:

Seriously, how could angels not have free will if some decided that it'd be btter to reign in hell than serve in heaven?

Hi

I posted above that this is the Islamic interpretation...
And I explained angels/devils from Islamic interpretation at an overview.
Did you see that before posting this?

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Can you post the verses explaining the fall of the devil from the bible?
I had a look and I couldnt find them.
The first mention of the devil is as the serpent in the garden in Genesis 3. He is already on earth tempting man at this stage...


Thanks

Look at the whole book of Job, and he is in Gods presence. There is also the Angels who came to earth and had relations with women that eventually bore the Nephelim. As for the moment when Satan and his rebellious angels were cast down. Here's Revelation 12:

1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. 4His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. 5She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.
7And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. 8But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. 9The great dragon was hurled down—that ancient serpent called the devil, or Satan, who leads the whole world astray. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him.

10Then I heard a loud voice in heaven say:
"Now have come the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God,
and the authority of his Christ.
For the accuser of our brothers,
who accuses them before our God day and night,
has been hurled down.
11They overcame him
by the blood of the Lamb
and by the word of their testimony;
they did not love their lives so much
as to shrink from death.
12Therefore rejoice, you heavens
and you who dwell in them!
But woe to the earth and the sea,
because the devil has gone down to you!
He is filled with fury,
because he knows that his time is short."

13When the dragon saw that he had been hurled to the earth, he pursued the woman who had given birth to the male child. 14The woman was given the two wings of a great eagle, so that she might fly to the place prepared for her in the desert, where she would be taken care of for a time, times and half a time, out of the serpent's reach. 15Then from his mouth the serpent spewed water like a river, to overtake the woman and sweep her away with the torrent. 16But the earth helped the woman by opening its mouth and swallowing the river that the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17Then the dragon was enraged at the woman and went off to make war against the rest of her offspring—those who obey God's commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.

Also Medina, Just to clarify, allah created angels with no free will, but created jinns with free will? Were jinns bad to start with? If so, why did allah purposely create bad spirits? or was it just their free will led them away from allah? If this is the case, are there also jinns who remained good?

imeatingchips

Hi Medina,

Ok, I misunderstood post#5 then. I thought post #5 was from a Christian perspective and you were then offering the Islamic perspective (post #7) to shed some light on the subject (very interesting btw).

The two scenarios are completely different though because the key point (free will versus no free will) is pivotal.

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

Look at the whole book of Job, and he is in Gods presence.

I did read a part of it abd the devil is present on earth in the bits I read. Sorry ....I meant the explanation of how he came to be sent out of heaven. Which you have answered with the passages from Revealation.

Regarding Revealation: Do you consider this to be the authentic account inspired by the Holy Spirit to the 'John' who wrote the Revelation?

jimitime wrote:

Also Medina, Just to clarify, allah created angels with no free will, but created jinns with free will? Were jinns bad to start with? If so, why did allah purposely create bad spirits? or was it just their free will led them away from allah? If this is the case, are there also jinns who remained good?

Yes Jinns have free will.
They can be bad or good. They can follow religions as we do if they so choose. The rest of the Jinns are also subject to the whisperings of Satan (though he is from among them).
So they were not wasn't purposely bad...like any creature with free will it has the capability to do bad..why ..well thats another topic..
Yes there are jinns who do good.

You might like to read this ebook: http://www.streetdawah.com/books/JinnDevils.pdf

Some quotes from Quran regarding Jinn taken from the chapter Al-Jinn in the Quran http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/072.qmt.html

For anyone who is unsure about when 'Say' appears in the Quranic text like this it is an instruction from Allah swt for Muhammad peace be upon him to tell the people what follows in the text:


072.001
YUSUFALI: Say: It has been revealed to me that a company of Jinns listened (to the Qur'an). They said, 'We have really heard a wonderful Recital!

072.002
YUSUFALI: 'It gives guidance to the Right, and we have believed therein: we shall not join (in worship) any (gods) with our Lord.

072.003
YUSUFALI: 'And Exalted is the Majesty of our Lord: He has taken neither a wife nor a son.

072.004
YUSUFALI: 'There were some foolish ones among us, who used to utter extravagant lies against Allah;

072.005
YUSUFALI: 'But we do think that no man or spirit should say aught that untrue against Allah.


Other references to Jinn:

006.100
YUSUFALI: Yet they make the Jinns equals with Allah, though Allah did create the Jinns; and they falsely, having no knowledge, attribute to Him sons and daughters. Praise and glory be to Him! (for He is) above what they attribute to Him!

006.112
YUSUFALI: Likewise did We make for every Messenger an enemy,- evil ones among men and jinns, inspiring each other with flowery discourses by way of deception. If thy Lord had so planned, they would not have done it: so leave them and their inventions alone.

006.128
YUSUFALI: One day will He gather them all together, (and say): "O ye assembly of Jinns! Much (toll) did ye take of men." Their friends amongst men will say: "Our Lord! we made profit from each other: but (alas!) we reached our term - which thou didst appoint for us." He will say: "The Fire be your dwelling-place: you will dwell therein for ever, except as Allah willeth." for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.


007.038
YUSUFALI: He will say: "Enter ye in the company of the peoples who passed away before you - men and jinns, - into the Fire."

007.179
YUSUFALI: Many are the Jinns and men we have made for Hell: They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattle,- nay more misguided: for they are heedless (of warning).

015.026
YUSUFALI: We created man from sounding clay, from mud moulded into shape;
015.027
YUSUFALI: And the Jinn race, We had created before, from the fire of a scorching wind.

037.158
YUSUFALI: And they have invented a blood-relationship between Him and the Jinns: but the Jinns know (quite well) that they have indeed to appear (before his Judgment-Seat)!

046.029
YUSUFALI: Behold, We turned towards thee a company of Jinns (quietly) listening to the Qur'an: when they stood in the presence thereof, they said, "Listen in silence!" When the (reading) was finished, they returned to their people, to warn (them of their sins).


055.056
YUSUFALI: In them will be (Maidens), chaste, restraining their glances, whom no man or Jinn before them has touched;-

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

I did read a part of it abd the devil is present on earth in the bits I read.

He is in Gods presence after roaming the earth.
Job 1

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

Regarding Revealation: Do you consider this to be the authentic account inspired by the Holy Spirit to the 'John' who wrote the Revelation?

1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show His servants—things which must shortly take place. And He sent and signified it by His angel to His servant John, 2 who bore witness to the word of God, and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, to all things that he saw. 3 Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written in it; for the time is near.

I believe the above to be true yes.

Yes Jinns have free will.
They can be bad or good. They can follow religions as we do if they so choose. The rest of the Jinns are also subject to the whisperings of Satan (though he is from among them).
So they were not wasn't purposely bad...like any creature with free will it has the capability to do bad..why ..well thats another topic..
Yes there are jinns who do good.

So Jinns were created to dwell on earth? They are spirits who roam the earth? or do the Good Jinns dwell in heaven? or can they, like humans, earn a place in heaven? They can possess a person, yet they are in subjection to man by order of allah (i.e. bow down to Adam). I realise, that the Jinns did not bow to Adam, but surely Adam was more powerful if the Jinns were supposed to be in subjection to him? Also, why did allah want his creations bowing to Adam, whom he created? Does he not demand subjection only to himself?

JoeB-

imeatingchips wrote:

Lucifer had free will. So God can't be held responsible for what Lucifer did or thought anymore than you can be held responsible for what your son or daughter does* even though you (and yer missus) created them.

I don't accept this and here's why...

Free will can only be exercised through decision making... and the devil's decision making processes have been provided by God, and God's omniscience allowed him to know exactly how the decision making processes worked. And so God is responsible for the results of the decision making process regardless of (apparent) free will.

In other words God gave the devil a defective decision making process simply so that God could deny responsibility for the devils actions. God deliberately created the devil knowing how it would end.. and yet you believe that God isn't responsible for this?

If I was omniscient and I knew (incontrovertably) that my child would be a murderer and I went ahead and wilfully had that child... can I be completely absolved of responsibility when what I knew would happen happens?

If a pharmacist sells drugs to a drug abuser, can the pharmacist say 'Well, I only sold him the drugs, I didn't force him to abuse them' in good conscience? Again I don't think so.

imeatingchips wrote:

So God can't be held responsible for what Lucifer did or thought ...

Of course God must be held responsible for what his creations 'think'... how can it be otherwise... free will and thought patterns are seperate things. Thought patterns are created things, created by God.

God created the devil to act as his proxy in introducing evil to the world, it is as simple as that. (in my opinion )

Cheers, Joe

imeatingchips

JoeBallantine wrote:

Free will can only be exercised through decision making... and the devil's decision making processes have been provided by God, and God's omniscience allowed him to know exactly how the decision making processes worked. And so God is responsible for the results of the decision making process regardless of (apparent) free will.

If God did know that certain angels were going to rebel and Hell be created well then you're right; "God created the devil to act as his proxy in introducing evil to the world".

And, in that case, the whole earth is just an elaborate setup where we think we have choices but we don't because we only think we have free will. So, no one can take responsibility for their own actions, good or bad, because they're only doing what the big man wired them up to do.

But I don't believe that at all. I think God's disapointed when we choose to do bad things.

JoeBallantine wrote:

Of course God must be held responsible for what his creations 'think'... how can it be otherwise... free will and thought patterns are seperate things. Thought patterns are created things, created by God.

They are seperate but I think it's fair to say that you need the latter to excercise the former and if god controls one he effectively controls the other.

It all pretty much boils down to belief in free will. If you don't believe in free will then you have to reach despairing conclusions, such as: what's the point in doing/not doing anything because whatever I do is exactly what God made me to do ... we're all effectively actors playing out a script ... poor oul Hitler was just a patsy ... and on and on until you inevitably reach: what's the feckin point... pass me the rope.

Maybe the word "omniscience" as we understand it isn't actually one of God's attrributes. If it were then, as I've already said, I'd have to agree with you and also reach the desperate conclusions above.

Actually, I've just looked the word up again and found an interesting paragraph:

WIKI wrote:

Definition
There is a distinction between:

inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known

and

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.
Many modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

-edit fixed couple o typos

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

He is in Gods presence after roaming the earth.
Job 1

6 One day the angels [a] came to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan also came with them. 7 The LORD said to Satan, "Where have you come from?"
Satan answered the LORD, "From roaming through the earth and going back and forth in it."

I found that verse and understood it to be the fact..as in Satan has already been rejected by God.

Jimitime wrote:

I believe the above to be true yes.

ok fair enough.
can you tell me who this John is?

Jimitime wrote:

So Jinns were created to dwell on earth?.
051.056
YUSUFALI: I have only created Jinns and men, that they may serve Me.

They are spirits who roam the earth? Yes

do the Good Jinns dwell in heaven or can they, like humans, earn a place in heaven? Yes they can earn a place in heaven....they don't automatically dwell there...

006.128
YUSUFALI: One day will He gather them all together, (and say): "O ye assembly of Jinns! Much (toll) did ye take of men." Their friends amongst men will say: "Our Lord! we made profit from each other: but (alas!) we reached our term - which thou didst appoint for us." He will say: "The Fire be your dwelling-place: you will dwell therein for ever, except as Allah willeth." for thy Lord is full of wisdom and knowledge.

Jimitime wrote:

They can possess a person, yet they are in subjection to man by order of allah (i.e. bow down to Adam).
I realise, that the Jinns did not bow to Adam, but surely Adam was more powerful if the Jinns were supposed to be in subjection to him? Also, why did allah want his creations bowing to Adam, whom he created? Does he not demand subjection only to himself?

Jinns dwell on earth..they were created as were man to serve Allah swt.
Yes they can enter the bodies of a human and 'possess' them. They can all whisper evil things to us if they so wish. They can earn a place in heaven.

I think the bowing down to Adam was a test for the Jinn...to obey Allah. An Islamic scholar would probably be able to answer this best sorry I dont want to make conclusions myself which may not be right..so these are just my uneducated opinions now....

015.028
YUSUFALI: Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: "I am about to create man, from sounding clay from mud moulded into shape;
015.029
YUSUFALI: "When I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit, fall ye down in obeisance unto him."

Notice that they were not commanded to worship us. Only to obey us. As they are not visible to us but they can see and hear us, then the only way they can obey us is with respect to Messengers of Allah....

However I take your point and will raise it elsewhere to find the true answer.

Asiaprod

I would respectfully request that we cut down on this large volume of quoting from the good books, It is becoming very hard to read and follow. Linking to the said quotes would be better IMO.

Medina

JoeBallantine wrote:

In other words God gave the devil a defective decision making process simply so that God could deny responsibility for the devils actions. God deliberately created the devil knowing how it would end.. and yet you believe that God isn't responsible for this?

Hi Joe...
This is most interesting and the foundation of your argument but fundamentally to me it appears flawed.

Be it the Islamic or the Christian interpretation of angels, one cannot have a 'defective decision making process'. Because if by your reasoning followed through, it was to be 'non-defective' then the decisions would only be between good and good and evil would not exist.

The devil had a choice. Before he said no he had a choice. Is having a choice an evil in itself? i dont believe so, therefore there is no such thing as a defective decision making process.

The devil does not create. Only Allah swt / God is the Creator. Of all good and all harm. The devil is allowed to tempt people but ultimately they are responsible for their own choices and the evil comes from the action on the temptation.

Medina

Asiaprod wrote:

I would respectfully request that we cut down on this large volume of quoting from the good books, It is becoming very hard to read and follow. Linking to the said quotes would be better IMO.

Sorry

Red Hand

imeatingchips wrote:

Lucifer had free will. So God can't be held responsible for what Lucifer did or thought anymore than you can be held responsible for what your son or daughter does* even though you (and yer missus) created them.

Dr. Frankenstein would also agree with this.

* you can put them on the right path etc etc but ultimately you know you can't make their decisions for them

In a universe created by an omnescient God, no creature other than God himself can have free will. The moment God creates the universe (be it Big Bang theory of the universe or Seven Day Creation), all humans (and the Devil) will follow an ordained path that cannot waver.

Free will is an illusion (to us humans and presumably the Devil)under the circumstances of having an omnescient God who is the creater of the universe.

Fanny Cradock

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

In a universe created by an omnescient God, no creature other than God himself can have free will. The moment God creates the universe (be it Big Bang theory of the universe or Seven Day Creation), all humans (and the Devil) will follow an ordained path that cannot waver.

Free will is an illusion (to us humans and presumably the Devil)under the circumstances of having an omnescient God who is the creater of the universe.

FYI, there is a 7 page thread on free will here:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055089804&page=7

Red Hand

I'm aware of that, Fanny. I just thought I'd bring it into this thread as it is a very important point. How can the Devil fall or choose to fall if he effectivly has no choice ie it is God's plan for him to fall?

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

ok fair enough.
can you tell me who this John is?.

'He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John.'
John a servant in Christ. Some say it is John the apostle, however, apostleship is higher than prophetship, and the John here seems to be called a prophet and not apostle, so it seems to indicate a different John. However it is a John that is obviously known to the christian congregations as a prophet of the true God as is indicated by the way the text is writen.

However I take your point and will raise it elsewhere to find the true answer.

Thank you for your time.

imeatingchips

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

In a universe created by an omnescient God, no creature other than God himself can have free will. The moment God creates the universe (be it Big Bang theory of the universe or Seven Day Creation), all humans (and the Devil) will follow an ordained path that cannot waver.

Free will is an illusion (to us humans and presumably the Devil)under the circumstances of having an omnescient God who is the creater of the universe.

What makes you so sure of that?

If that is the case then, whatever I decide to do, God has already decided that I'll do it?

Again, I'd point to the definition of the word 'omnescient' [sic]:

WIKI wrote:

Definition
There is a distinction between:

inherent omniscience - the ability to know anything that one chooses to know and can be known

and

total omniscience - actually knowing everything that can be known.

Many modern theologians argue that God's omniscience is inherent rather than total, and that God chooses to limit his omniscience in order to preserve the freewill and dignity of his creatures.
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

As I have said, what this essentially boils down to is belief in free will so not sure the discussion can go any further. I'll have a read of the free will thread.

thanks

DublinWriter

I always thought the story went that Lucifer refused to serve and God cast him out of heaven?

I heard a discussion recently about the whole concept of the Devil on Melvyn Bragg's R4 programme and what was surprising was the very few times the Devil actually shows up in the Bible (about 3 times in total I think) and also how our current cloven-hoofed and horned image of the Devil came about through mediaeval folk-lore.

I also think it's interesting to talk about comparative-relgious studies in the context that nearly most relgions evolve around a carrott-and-stick motivation for belivers, i.e. - follow the dogma or something really bad will happen to you in the afterlife.

Red Hand

imeatingchips wrote:

What makes you so sure of that?

If that is the case then, whatever I decide to do, God has already decided that I'll do it?

Again, I'd point to the definition of the word 'omnescient' [sic]:



As I have said, what this essentially boils down to is belief in free will so not sure the discussion can go any further. I'll have a read of the free will thread.

thanks

I think that inherent omniescience is a cop-out. He only "chooses" to know what he knows? Sheesh...talk about covering all bases, eh? Doesn't fit in with the All Powerful, All Knowing God that I grew up with.

Medina

Jeremiah 16:1 wrote:

In a universe created by an omnescient God, no creature other than God himself can have free will. The moment God creates the universe (be it Big Bang theory of the universe or Seven Day Creation), all humans (and the Devil) will follow an ordained path that cannot waver.

Free will is an illusion (to us humans and presumably the Devil)under the circumstances of having an omnescient God who is the creater of the universe.

Jeremiah, God knows everything that every human being will choose to do. That does not alter the fact that we choose our own paths. He just knows about it before we do. He did not make our decisions for us. I appreciate there has been a 7 pager about this already so thats all im gonna say.

dublinwriter wrote:

most religions evolve around a carrott-and-stick motivation for believers, i.e. - follow the dogma or something really bad will happen to you in the afterlife.

Some religions like Christianity and Judaism 'evolve'. It you meant 'revolve around' then you are wrong. Monotheistic religions revolve around the fact that our purpose in life is to serve God/Allah swt. If you choose to ignore God in your life then God will ignore you in your afterlife. Tell me what is the point in striving to live a good God fearing life if God treated us all the same after our death? Obviously there would be none. Therefore the good are rewarded with good and the bad are reward with bad and Allah swt knows best who is good and who is bad.

jimitime wrote:

John a servant in Christ. Some say it is John the apostle, however, apostleship is higher than prophetship, and the John here seems to be called a prophet and not apostle, so it seems to indicate a different John. However it is a John that is obviously known to the christian congregations as a prophet of the true God as is indicated by the way the text is writen.

I dont want to harp on about this but two points:
1) where is stated the ranking of an apostle higher than a Prophet? To my mind a Prophet would be higher than an apostle..as the Prophet carries a divine message to people..an apostle is an aide to that Prophet and one who propogates the message for the Prophet.

2)John is obviously known to which christian congregations? Once of the major problems I have with the Bible is that its original authors are unknown. Perchance if you found an ancient manuscript tomorrow with a story like this written would you believe it? Or how did the vatican come to the conclusion that this manuscript should be included? How did they verify it? Who wrote it? My point is really that the bible is unreliable.

philologos

Medina wrote:

Perchance if you found an ancient manuscript tomorrow with a story like this written would you believe it? Or how did the vatican come to the conclusion that this manuscript should be included? How did they verify it? Who wrote it? My point is really that the bible is unreliable.

We're already having such difficulties with gnostics, and the Gospel of Judas. The Vatican does not have authority over all Christian churches, and that should be recognised. But generally the Bible has gone unaltered even with the gnostic texts going around.

Medina

Jakkass wrote:

But generally the Bible has gone unaltered even with the gnostic texts going around.

Thats simply not true and you know it

Here are some of the many variants of the bible:
One of many points to be made on the bible evolution: I have seen bible differentiate in such huge theological issues as translating a piece of text as 'the Christ' or 'the Son of God'.




Abbreviated Bible - TAB - 1971, eliminates duplications, includes the Apocrypha
American Standard Version - ASV - 1901, a.k.a. Standard American Edition, Revised Version, the American version of the Holy Bible, Revised Version
American Translation (Beck) - AAT - 1976
American Translation (Smith-Goodspeed) - SGAT - 1931
Amplified Bible - AB - 1965, includes explanation of words within text
Aramaic Bible (Targums) - ABT - 1987, originally translated from the Hebrew into the Aramaic
Aramaic New Covenant - ANCJ - 1996, a translation and transliteration of the New Covenant
Authentic New Testament - ANT - 1958
Barclay New Testament - BNT - 1969
Basic Bible - TBB - 1950, based upon a vocabulary of 850 words
Bible Designed to Be Read as Literature - BDRL - 1930, stresses literary qualities of the Bible, includes the Apocrypha
Bible Reader - TBR - 1969, an interfaith version, includes the Apocrypha
Cassirer New Testament - CNT - 1989
Centenary Translation of the New Testament - CTNT - 1924, one of the few versions translated solely by a woman
Common English New Testament - CENT - 1865
Complete Jewish Bible - CJB - 1989, a Messianic Jewish translation
Concordant Literal New Testament - CLNT - 1926
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation - CCDT - 1953, includes the Apocrypha
Contemporary English Version - CEV - 1992, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Coptic Version of the New Testament - CVNT - 1898, based on translations from northern Egypt
Cotton Patch Version - CPV - 1968, based on American ideas and Southern US culture, only contains Paul's writings
Coverdale Bible - TCB - 1540, includes the Apocrypha
Darby Holy Bible - DHB - 1923
Dartmouth Bible - TDB - 1961, an abridgment of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
De Nyew Testament in Gullah - NTG - 2005
Dead Sea Scrolls Bible - DSSB - 1997, translated from Dead Sea Scrolls documents, includes the Apocrypha
Documents of the New Testament - DNT - 1934
Douay-Rheims Bible - DRB - 1899
Emphasized Bible - EBR - 1959, contains signs of emphasis for reading
Emphatic Diaglott - EDW - 1942
English Standard Version - ESV - 2001, a revision of the Revised Standard Version
English Version for the Deaf - EVD - 1989, a.k.a. Easy-to-Read Version, designed to meet the special needs of the deaf
English Version of the Polyglott Bible - EVPB - 1858, the English portion of an early Bible having translations into several languages
Geneva Bible - TGB - 1560, the popular version just prior to the translation of the King James Version, includes the Apocrypha
Godbey Translation of the New Testament - GTNT - 1905
God's Word - GW - 1995, a.k.a Today's Bible Translation
Holy Bible in Modern English - HBME - 1900
Holy Bible, Revised Version - HBRV - 1885, an official revision of the King James Version which was not accepted at the time
Holy Scriptures (Harkavy) - HSH - 1951
Holy Scriptures (Leeser) - HSL - 1905
Holy Scriptures (Menorah) - HSM - 1973, a.k.a. Jewish Family Bible
Inclusive Version - AIV - 1995, stresses equality of the sexes and physically handicapped, includes Psalms
Inspired Version - IV - 1867, a revision of the King James Version
Interlinear Bible (Green) - IB - 1976, side-by-side Hebrew/Greek and English
International Standard Version - ISV - 1998
Jerusalem Bible (Catholic) - TJB - 1966, includes the Apocrypha
Jerusalem Bible (Koren) - JBK - 1962, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Jewish Bible for Family Reading - JBFR - 1957, includes the Apocrypha
John Wesley New Testament - JWNT - 1755, a correction of the King James Version
King James Version - KJV - 1611, a.k.a. Authorized Version, originally included the Apocrypha
Kleist-Lilly New Testament - KLNT - 1956
Knox Translation - KTC - 1956, includes the Apocrypha
Lamsa Bible - LBP - 1957, based on Pe****ta manuscripts
Lattimore New Testament - LNT - 1962, a literal translation
Letchworth Version in Modern English - LVME - 1948
Living Bible - LB - 1971, a paraphrase version
McCord's New Testament Translation of the Everlasting Gospel - MCT - 1989
Message - TM - 1993, a.k.a. New Testament in Contemporary English, a translation in the street language of the day, includes Psalms and Proverbs
Modern Reader's Bible - MRB - 1923, stresses literary qualities, includes the Apocrypha
Modern Speech New Testament - MSNT - 1902, an attempt to present the Bible in effective, intelligible English
Moffatt New Translation - MNT - 1922
New American Bible - NAB - 1987, includes the Apocrypha
New American Standard Version - NAS - 1977
New Berkeley Version in Modern English - NBV - 1967
New Century Version - NCV - 1987
New English Bible - NEB - 1970, includes the Apocrypha
New Evangelical Translation - NET - 1992, a translation aimed at missionary activity
New International Version - NIV - 1978
New Jerusalem Bible - NJB - 1985, includes the Apocrypha
New JPS Version - NJPS - 1988
New King James Version - NKJ - 1990
New Life Version - NLV - 1969, a translation designed to be useful wherever English is used as a second language
New Living Translation - NLT - 1996, a dynamic-equivalence translation
New Millenium Bible - NMB - 1999, a contemporary English translation
New Revised Standard Version - NRS - 1989, the authorized revision of the Revised Standard Version
New Testament in Plain English - WPE - 1963, a version using common words only
New Testament: An Understandable Version - NTUV - 1995, a limited edition version
New Translation (Jewish) - NTJ - 1917
New World Translation - NWT - 1984
Noli New Testament - NNT - 1961, the first and only book of its kind by an Eastern Orthodox translator at the time of its publication
Norlie's Simplified New Testament - NSNT - 1961, includes Psalms
Original New Testament - ONT - 1985, described by publisher as a radical translation and reinterpretation
Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha - OJBC - 1996, an Orthodox version containing Rabbinic Hebrew terms
People's New Covenant - PNC - 1925, a version translated from the meta-physical standpoint
Phillips Revised Student Edition - PRS - 1972
Recovery Version - RcV - 1991, a reference version containing extensive notes
Reese Chronological Bible - RCB - 1980, an arrangement of the King James Version in chronological order
Restoration of Original Sacred Name Bible - SNB - 1976, a version whose concern is the true name and titles of the creator and his son
Restored New Testament - PRNT - 1914, a version giving an interpretation according to ancient philosophy and psychology
Revised English Bible - REB - 1989, a revision of the New English Bible
Revised Standard Version - RSV - 1952, a revision of the American Standard Version
Riverside New Testament - RNT - 1923, written in the living English language of the time of the translation
Sacred Scriptures, Bethel Edition - SSBE - 1981, the sacred name and the sacred titles and the name of Yahshua restored to the text of the Bible
Scholars Version - SV - 1993, a.k.a. Five Gospels; contains evaluations of academics of what are, might be, and are not, the words of Jesus; contains the four gospels and the Gospel of Thomas
Scriptures (ISR) - SISR - 1998, traditional names replaced by Hebraic ones and words with pagan sources replaced
Septuagint - LXX - c. 200 BCE, the earliest version of the Old Testament scriptures, includes the Apocrypha
Shorter Bible - SBK - 1925, eliminates duplications
Spencer New Testament - SCM - 1941
Stone Edition of the Tanach - SET - 1996, side-by-side Hebrew and English
Swann New Testament - SNT - 1947, no chapters, only paragraphs, with verses numbered consecutively from Matthew to Revelation
Today's English New Testament - TENT - 1972
Today's English Version - TEV - 1976, a.k.a. Good News Bible
Twentieth Century New Testament - TCNT - 1904
Unvarnished New Testament - UNT - 1991, the principal sentence elements kept in the original order of the Greek
Versified Rendering of the Complete Gospel Story - VRGS - 1980, the gospel books written in poetic form, contains the four gospels
Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures - WVSS - 1929
Wiclif Translation - TWT - 1380, a very early version translated into English
William Tindale Newe Testament - WTNT - 1989, an early version with spelling and punctuation modernized
William Tyndale Translation - WTT - 1530, early English version, includes the Pentateuch
Williams New Testament - WNT - 1937, a translation of the thoughts of the writers with a reproduction of their diction and style
Word Made Fresh - WMF - 1988, a paraphrase with humour and familiar names and places for those who have no desire to read the Bible
Worrell New Testament - WAS - 1904
Wuest Expanded Translation - WET - 1961, intended as a comparison to, or commentary on, the standard translations
Young's Literal Translation, Revised Edition - YLR - 1898, a strictly literal translation

All the Books of the Old and New Testaments (Purver, 1764)
Analytical-Literal Translation, The (not yet published)
Aramaic Bible (Alexander, not yet published)
Bible, The (Barker, 1615)
Bible in Living English (Byington, 1972)
Bible Revised (Barham, 1850)
Bishop's Bible (1568)
Black Bible Chronicles (McCary, 1993)
Book of the New Covenant (Penn, 1836)
Christian Community Bible (Grogan, 1995)
Christian's Bible (Lefevre, 1928)
Clementine Edition (1790)
Commonly Received Version of the New Testament (Cone, 1850)
Complutensian Bible
Cotton Patch New Testament (Jordan, 1970)
Cranmer Version
David Macrae Translation (Macrae, 1799)
Dramatized Bible (Perry, 1989)
English Translation of the Bible (Mace, 1729)
Family Expositor (Dodderidge, 1755)
Good News of Our Lord Jesus, the Anointed (Whiting, 1849)
Great Bible (Grafton and Whitchurch)
Hebrew Name Bible
Holy Bible (Bellamy, 1818)
Holy Bible (Conquest, 1841)
Holy Bible (Forshall, 1850)
Holy Bible (Fry, 1812)
Holy Bible (Geddes, 1797)
Holy Bible (Madden, 1850)
Holy Bible (Sharpe, 1892)
Holy Bible (Julia Smith, 1876)
Holy Bible (Thomson)
Holy Bible (Wordsworth, 1885)
Holy Bible: An Improved Edition (American Bible Union, 1912)
Holy Bible Containing the Old and the New Testaments (Sawyer, 1862)
Holy Bible with Amendments (Webster, 1833)
Holy Scriptures (Leeser, 1855)
Holy Scriptures (Wellbeloved, 1859)
Interlinear Literal Translation of the Hebrew Old Testament (George Richter Berry)
Jewish Bible (Kaplan)
Jewish School and Family Bible (Benisch, 1861)
Liberal Translation of the New Testament (Harwood)
Matthew's Bible
Mr. Whiston's Primitive New Testament (Whiston, 1745)
Modern Bible Version (Pratt / American Bible Society, 1893)
Modern King James Version of the Holy Bible (McGraw-Hill, 1962)
New and Corrected Version of the New Testament (****inson, 1833)
New Dispensation: The New Testament (Weekes, 1897)
New Family Bible (Boothroyd, 1833)
New International Reader's Version (1995)
New Literal Translation (MacKnight, 1795)
New Testament (Belsham, 1809)
New Testament (Bowes, 1870)
New Testament (Brotherhood Authentic Bible Society)
New Testament (Campbell, 1826)
New Testament (Clementson, 1938)
New Testament (Cunnington)
New Testament (Greber, 1937)
New Testament (Haweis, 1795)
New Testament (Highton, 1862)
New Testament (Hollybushe, 1538)
New Testament (Jefferson, 1820)
New Testament (Joye)
New Testament (Kneeland, 1822)
New Testament (Morgan, 1848)
New Testament (Murdock, 1851)
New Testament (Panin / Bible Numerics, 1914)
New Testament (Richter, 1877)
New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
New Testament (Sharpe, 1856)
New Testament (Simon, 1730)
New Testament (Thorn, 1861)
New Testament (Wakefield, 1791)
New Testament (W. Williams, 1812)
New Testament (Wynne, 1764)
New Testament in an Improved Version (1808)
New Testament of Our Messiah and Saviour Yashua (Traina, 1950)
New Testament or New Covenant (Worsley, 1770)
New Translation (Archbishop Newcome)
New Version of All the Books of the New Testament (Batly and Chandler, 1726)
Newe Testament of Our Saviour Jesu Christe (Jugge, 1552)
Numberical Bible (Grant)
Old and New Testaments (J. Clarke and Co., 1899)
Old Covenant, The (Thompson, 1808)
Old Testament Scriptures (Spurrell, 1885)
Poetic Bible, The (Gray, 1973)
Pulpit Bible, The (Parker, 1937)
Revised Translation and Interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures (Ray, 1799)
Revised Translation of the Old Testament (Cookesley, 1859)
Rheims-Challoner Version
Semitic New Testament (Trimm)
Short Bible, A (Farrer, 1956)
Taverner's Bible (Taverner, 1759)
Thomas Cromwell Version (1539)
Translation of the New Testament (Scarlett, 1798)
Translator's New Testament (1975)
World English Bible

Some of these may be duplicated in the above list.

(AAT) The Complete Bible: An American Translation, by Edgar Goodspeed and J. M. Powis Smith, 1939.
(ABT) The Afro Bible Translation
(ATB) The Alternate Translation Bible
(ASV) American Standard Version (purchase ASV)
(AB) The Amplified Bible (editions for sale)
(ALT) Analytical-Literal Translation
(ASL) American Sign Language Translation
(AV) Authorized Version (same as KJV)
(Bar) The New Testament: A New Translation, by William Barclay
(BLB) The Better Life Bible
(BWE) Bible in WorldWide English
The Bible Gateway Translation Information (see BWE description)
(CCB) Christian Community Bible
(CE) The Common Edition: New Testament
(CJB) Complete Jewish Bible
Comparison with NIV
(CV) Concordant Version
(CEV) Contemporary English Version
CEV online
Energion review
Interview: On the Shoulders of King James
Ken Anderson review
Michael Marlow review
Tyndale website overview
(Dar) Darby
(DR) Douay-Rheims
(DRP) David Robert Palmer's translations of the gospels
(EMTV) English Majority Text Version
(ENT) Extreme New Testament (revision of Simple English Bible, below)
Forward, by Tommy Tenney
(ERV) Easy-to-Read Version
(ESV) English Standard Version
(FF) Ferrar Fenton Bible
(GLW) God's Living Word
(GNC) God's New Covenant: A New Testament Translation, by Heinz W. Cassirer
(GNT) Good News Translation [formerly, (GNB) Good News Bible, and (TEV) Today's English Version]
(GW) God's Word
God's Word online
Review of God's Word, by Wayne Leman
(HCSB) Holman Christian Standard Bible (online, see Access Bibles section, below
article
(HNV) Hebrew Names Version
(ICB) International Children's Bible (children's version of the NCV)
(ISB) International Standard Bible (formerly titled The Simple English Bible)
(ISV) The International Standard Version
ISV Naturalness and Comprehension Survey, by Phil Fields
(JBP) New Testament in Modern English, by J.B. Phillips
New Testament in Modern English, Revised, by J.B. Phillips
Student edition
The J. B. Phillips Translation: A Guided Tour
(JNT) Jewish New Testament: A Translation of the New Testament That Expresses Its Jewishness (see Complete Jewish Bible)
(JPS) Jerusalem Publication Society: Tanakh: The Holy Scriptures, The New JPS Translation According to the Traditional Hebrew Text

(KJV) King James Version and recent revisions
KJV
Translators to the Reader

(DKJB) Defined King James Bible
DKJB reviewed by Joseph Ng
DKJB reviewed by David W. Cloud
(KJII) King James Version II (renamed to Literal Translation of the Holy Bible)
(KJ21) King James for the 21st Century
KJV21 review
(KJ2000) King James 2000
(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (formerly named King James II)
LITV download site
The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible Frequently Asked Questions
(MKJV) Modern King James Version
alternate site
MKJV download site
(NKJV) New King James Version
(RAV) Revised Authorised Version (British edition of the NKJV), review
(RKJV) Revised King James New Testament
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(UKJV) Updated King James Version

(LITV) The Literal Translation of the Holy Bible (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(LB) Living Bible
(MAEV) Modern American English Vernacular
discussion list for MAEV
(MLB) Modern Language Bible: New Berkeley Version
(Mof) Bible: James Moffatt Translation (amazon.com)
(NAB) New American Bible
"The New American Bible": A Voice From the Past
(NAB) New American Bible (access entire Bible)
(NASB) New American Standard Bible
What is the philosophy of translation set forth by The Lockman Foundation?
New Berkeley Version (see Modern Language Bible)
(NCV) New Century Version
(NEB) New English Bible
(NET) New English Translation
NET Bible online
Try the NET Bible! (a critique)
An Open Letter Regarding The NET Bible, New Testament (a reply to the critique)
(NET) New Evangelical Translation
(NIrV) New Internation Reader's Version
(NIV) New International Version
The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation
(NJB) New Jerusalem Bible
(NKJV) New King James Version (see under KJV and recent revisions)
(NLV) New Life Version
(NLT) New Living Translation
The Living Bible Reborn
Re: New Living Translation (a review)
(NRSV) New Revised Standard Bible
NRSV critiqued by John H. Dobson
(NWT) New World Translation (published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of the Jehovah's Witnesses)
(OBP) The Original Bible Project
(OSB) Orthodox Study Bible
(ONT) The Original New Testament: The First Definitive Translation of the New Testament in 2000 Years, by Hugh Schonfield
(PMB) Postmodern Bible - Amos
(Rec) Recovery Version
(REB) The Revised English Bible (revision of NEB)
(RSV) Revised Standard Version
(RV) Revised Version, 1885
(RYLT) Revised Young's Literal Translation
(Sch) The Schocken Bible
(SEB) The Simple English Bible
(SENT) Spoken English New Testament
(TM) The Message
A Summary Critique: The Message, by John R. Kohlenberger III
(TMB) The Third Millennium Bible
(TEV) Today's English Version [see (GNT) Good News Translation]
Book Review: Today's English Version (TEV)
(TNIV) Today's New International Version
TNIV website
TNIV Debate Between Dr. Wayne Grudem and Dr. Mark Strauss
TNIV links
(Tyn) Tyndale
(Wey) Weymouth
Preface to the First Edition
(WEB) World English Bible
(Wms) The New Testament in the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams (another website)
(WNT) Wesley's New Testament
(Wuest) The New Testament (An Expanded Translation) purchase
Yes Word (update of Tyndale translation)
(YLT) Young's Literal Translation of the Bible (download entire text)
view Young's Literal Translation of the Bible
Preface to the First Edition

Fanny Cradock

Some notable ones:

The Afro Bible Translation; The American Sign Language Translation; Orthodox Jewish Brit Chadasha; The Simple English Bible; and numerous on-line sources.

I don't think your list proves anything beyond the fact that the Bible has been widely adapted to fit many vernaculars whilst, one would assume, retaining its original meaning.

I would vouch that any text which has undergone mass distribution - be it the Bible, The Iliad, Crime and punishment or, yes, even The Koran - has been subject to variations over the ages. Bar an intellectual debate over the precise meaning of some key words, I would think that the sentiment and message remains the same. That of course is a sweeping statement. But as language isn't stagnant, I have absolutely no problem with reading a translation of the Bible - I don't speak Greek after all - while also assuming that said translation retains the true meaning.

I have seen bible differentiate in such huge theological issues as translating a piece of text as 'the Christ' or 'the Son of God

As for the above, could you please expand? For me the two terms you speak of would be interchangeable.

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Some religions like Christianity and Judaism 'evolve'.

Christianity is not a religion! Catholocism, calvanism, CofE, Jehovahs Witnesses,. They are religions that meet under the banner of 'Christianity'. Christianity by its very nature cannot 'evolve' as you put it. The religious orders that claim it can, but Christianity itself cannot. If I was to say Islam has evolved into a western hating murderous group, would you acept it? No. Have Islamic groups done unspeakable things in the name of Islam, Yes. Does this mean Islam has evolved. No. It means that certain sects have evolved under the guise of Islam. Would you say that their behaviour is Islamic? I hope not. Would I say the behaviour of the inquisition was Christian? No. The message is constant.

I dont want to harp on about this but two points:
1) where is stated the ranking of an apostle higher than a Prophet? To my mind a Prophet would be higher than an apostle..as the Prophet carries a divine message to people..an apostle is an aide to that Prophet and one who propogates the message for the Prophet.

1 Corinthians 12
28And some, indeed, did God set in the assembly, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, afterwards powers, afterwards gifts of healings, helpings, governings, divers kinds of tongues;
29[are] all apostles? [are] all prophets? [are] all teachers? [are] all powers?
30have all gifts of healings? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31and desire earnestly the better gifts; and yet a far excelling way do I shew to you:

2)John is obviously known to which christian congregations?

The congregations he's writing to

One of the major problems I have with the Bible is that its original authors are unknown. Perchance if you found an ancient manuscript tomorrow with a story like this written would you believe it? Or how did the vatican come to the conclusion that this manuscript should be included? How did they verify it? Who wrote it? My point is really that the bible is unreliable.

TBH, this line of reasoning can be taken for most things of ancient origin. Let the reader be discerning. I agree in not accepting things as fact just because it has been the norm. I agree also, that certain things could have been lost in translation etc. However, the message rings through. We are talking about Gods people (the Jews) keeping their scrolls for centuries and passing on the message. The Christian scriptures then carry on this tradition, constantly quoting the hebrew scriptures. However, its far from, aren't we great, we are still the chosen etc. Jesus came and caused a great division. There is then a real honesty in the writings of the apostles, about their lack of understanding, and sometimes their impetulence (usually Peter:) ). Then their absolute dedication to their service in Christ after they 'finally realise' who they had in their midst. You can go into the islamic conspiracy theories of absolute corruption of the scriptures. But I find them baseless and quite frankly I could equally write a false prophetic work, claiming that it is the final revelation by God to man and that the scriptures have been corrupted. The great thing about the scriptures is that you have the writings and testimonies of many. Also the fact that the writers quote and mention previous writers, confirming their authenticity amongst the breatheren. I have 'Faith' in Christ and proclaim him the messiah. The greek scriptures proclaim this also. the greek scriptures in turn quote the hebrew scriptures, so they then become part of my world. We are actually told that false prophets will rise and mislead many. So why would you say, muhammads revelation is ligit and the scriptures bogus?

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

Thats simply not true and you know it

Here are some of the many variants of the bible:
One of many points to be made on the bible evolution: I have seen bible differentiate in such huge theological issues as translating a piece of text as 'the Christ' or 'the Son of God'.

What you have to understand Medina is that every translation you mentioned utilizes the same text as it's base for the translation. I concede that there may a couple in their that use the Latin Vulgate.

Every translation I use in my study is all translated form the same greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

So the Bible itself has not undergone any changes whatsoever.

BrianCalgary

Medina wrote:

2)John is obviously known to which christian congregations? Once of the major problems I have with the Bible is that its original authors are unknown. Perchance if you found an ancient manuscript tomorrow with a story like this written would you believe it? Or how did the vatican come to the conclusion that this manuscript should be included? How did they verify it? Who wrote it? My point is really that the bible is unreliable.

Authorship of the NT texts are well known. The only exception is the Book of Hebrews.

Many of Paul's letters to the different churches state Paul as the author within the first few verses. Authors are also identified in extant writings.

Historians do not have doubts as to authorship of any of the NT.

JimiTime

BrianCalgary wrote:

Historians do not have doubts as to authorship of any of the NT.

I thought there were doubts about Revelation? There are historians who say it was not John the apostle? I also remember seeing some things about certain letters attributed to Paul? I'm not saying that the doubters are right, its just you seem so certain that it is taken as fact. Is it accepted as fact? Genuine question BTW, I'm not an authority in this at all.

Soul Winner

“And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.”
Luke 10:18



Ok my two cents worth. Going back to the original question. “How did the devil fall?”

Before we can discuss “how the devil fell” from his first estate we first need to believe that the devil exists. Who told us about the devil? How do we know about him and how can that source be trusted? Well there are many sources in scripture alone that refer to the devil, or Satan. But let’s start with the Lord Himself. He talks about Satan all the time in the New Testament.

Matthew 4:10
Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Matthew 12:26
And if Satan cast out Satan, he is divided against himself; how shall then his kingdom stand?

Matthew 16:23
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

Mark 1:13
And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him.

Mark 3:23
And he called them unto him, and said unto them in parables, How can Satan cast out Satan?

Mark 4:15
And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

Mark 8:33
But when he had turned about and looked on his disciples, he rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.

Luke 4:8
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luke 11:18
If Satan also be divided against himself, how shall his kingdom stand? because ye say that I cast out devils through Beelzebub.

Luke 22:3
Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.

Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat:


Ok if we are all agreed that the Lord at least believed the devil existed (and that’s good enough for me) then we can proceed with the question of how he (the devil) fell.

If we are to believe what the Lord says about his existence then why not believe the books He (the Lord) read from in the synagogues when He was on the earth. One of the books He read from in His earthly ministry was the book of Isaiah, Luke 4:17. So let us see what Isaiah says about the devil or Lucifer as his name was before his fall.

Isaiah 14
“12How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
15Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
16They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the one that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
17That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?”

This gives us the best picture of how and why the devil fell. He was lifted up in pride. Another picture is given in Ezekiel.

Ezekiel 28
“13Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.
14Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.
15Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.
16By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.
17Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.
18Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.
19All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more.”

When you put all these versus of scripture together they make their own picture of what went on in the eons of time before God said “let us make Adam in our own image” Genesis 1 verse 26. We mustn’t forget that Satan had access to the Heavenlies when he appeared with the sons of God before the throne in the book of Job. Some how he was able to gain access back in. How did this happen? Well one might speculate that it was after Adam believed Satan and disbelieved God. That Adam gave over to Satan his estate and inherited death for mankind. The only way this could be reversed was for the Lord himself to redeem mankind by giving His life and thus snatch back the keys of death hell and the grave that Satan had up until Christ’s Resurrection and Ascension back into the Heavenlies but this is another subject.

I read in some of the previous posts that only God has free will. Well as the creator of everything don’t you think that he can also give to others in His creation that same free will? Maybe not in the measure that God Himself has it but a measure of it none the less. If we are to believe the scriptures we just looked at then its obvious that Satan could do other than what he was created for. “Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.” “For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north” So somewhere along the road Lucifer got the warped idea that he was going to ascend into heaven and be like the most high. That sounds pretty much like someone with free will to me. Again that's another subject.

Maybe to understand what happened is beyond our comprehension in our current fallen state and until we get over there we can never understand the war that continues to rage in the Heavenlies until he (Satan) is finally put down as described in Revelation.

“And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.”
Revelation 20:10

BrianCalgary

JimiTime wrote:

I thought there were doubts about Revelation? There are historians who say it was not John the apostle? I also remember seeing some things about certain letters attributed to Paul? I'm not saying that the doubters are right, its just you seem so certain that it is taken as fact. Is it accepted as fact? Genuine question BTW, I'm not an authority in this at all.

Your are correct in this. I don't have my notes in front of me but the hsitorical consensus has the Apostle John writing Revelation

Of the authorship of Revelation the power bible commentaries are heavily in favor of the Apostle John. In three places in chapter 1[5] and two places later[6] John identifies himself simply by name; as if he needed no further introduction. The mention of his exile[7] accords with the tradition of John the Apostle having been exiled in that manner. For those that place weight on church tradition (and those doubting an apostolic authorship are the ones most likely to place weight upon church tradition) the early writings all support John the apostle as author including: Justin Martyr (100-165AD), Irenaeus (175-195AD), Clement of Alexandria (c200), Origen (c233), and an anonymous papyrus believed to be written around 150AD that claims Revelation was written by ‘John the brother of James, those who were the sons of Zebedee’.

The first noted dissenter to this view was Dionysius who died in c264. However if you read his other writings he was one of the first to try to pull away from the premillennial view so he was probably trying to weaken the voice of Revelation as part of his agenda.

the above quoted from: http://www.bible-exposition.org/Essays/NT518B%20C1.htm

robindch

JimiTime wrote:

Christianity by its very nature cannot 'evolve' as you put it.

What exactly do you mean by this? And what exactly do you mean by 'Christianity by its very nature'? I don't understand what you're referring to here.

Medina

jimitime wrote:

Christianity is not a religion! Catholocism, calvanism, CofE, Jehovahs Witnesses,. They are religions that meet under the banner of 'Christianity'. Christianity by its very nature cannot 'evolve' as you put it.

Immediately after the death of Jesus Christianity was a religion. It wasnt until later that the church began to divide. As there was at one point one common belief, then Christianity 'was' a religion but it has 'evolved' into sects.

BrianCalgary wrote:

What you have to understand Medina is that every translation you mentioned utilizes the same text as it's base for the translation. I concede that there may a couple in their that use the Latin Vulgate.

Every translation I use in my study is all translated form the same greek and Hebrew manuscripts.

So the Bible itself has not undergone any changes whatsoever.

This is just not true Brian.
The Bible has evolved as revisers have used various different previous versions as the basis for their next versions. Although many of them have referred to Greek manuscripts they are not all referring to the oldest copies of the manuscripts.

I would direct you here to numerous links some of which I have included below. The point which is apparent in all these is that the bible has been accummulated at man's discretion to various different formats. It has been 'sliced and diced' so to speak by the various religions under the banner of Christianity. The fact that I would need to ask you 'which version of the bible do you use?' indicates a lot dont you think? NOT talking about translation but VERSION...books are included/excluded in various versions...which is wrong/right? Which is complete/incomplete?


In the 1490’s Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

http://www.bible-researcher.com/rsv.html

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157cont.asp

http://netministries.org/bbasics/bbasics.html

http://www.bibles.com/brcpages/AConciseHistory

jimitime wrote:

The Christian scriptures then carry on this tradition, constantly quoting the hebrew scriptures.

They do not. They quote greek/lation/hebrew/even other english versions.

The WORST thing that I can see is that all these versions never include the original greek or hebrew texts beside them. They are renderings that quote without the source.

briancalgary wrote:

Authorship of the NT texts are well known. The only exception is the Book of Hebrews.

.

Can you post some information on this please or PM it to me?

briancalgary wrote:

the above quoted from: http://www.bible-exposition.org/Essays/NT518B%20C1.htm

This link provides confusing information ..at least confusing to me. If Im reading it right..it says 95-100AD...but John could not have been alive at that time?!?

jimitime wrote:

You can go into the islamic conspiracy theories of absolute corruption of the scriptures.

Would you have said this if you did not know I was a Muslim? I doubt it. My points here are valid and I haven't quoted one Islamic view of the bible..NOT ONE...so personally I find this a very low cheap shot Jimitime aimed at undermining the validity of my arguments because you know I have a different faith. I found this with the bible even before I became a Muslim.

jimitime wrote:

I have 'Faith' in Christ and proclaim him the messiah. The greek scriptures proclaim this also. .

Obviously you know an awful lot less about Islam than you think you do..
Islam believes that Jesus is both the Christ and the Messiah.
Islam does NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God
Therefore You and I have the same belief in Jesus in this respect.

For Fanny Craddock, Christ comes from greek 'Christos' meaning 'anointed one'. Son of God is a completely different kettle of fish therefore!

Some Quotes from the Quran
(forgive me Asiaprod I think its very important to put them in here)

Please refer to these for mentionings of Jesus in the Quran:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html#003.045

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/004.qmt.html#004.157

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.017

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/005.qmt.html#005.075

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/009.qmt.html#009.030

JoeB-

Medina wrote:

Hi Joe...
This is most interesting and the foundation of your argument but fundamentally to me it appears flawed.

Be it the Islamic or the Christian interpretation of angels, one cannot have a 'defective decision making process'. Because if by your reasoning followed through, it was to be 'non-defective' then the decisions would only be between good and good and evil would not exist.

The devil had a choice. Before he said no he had a choice. Is having a choice an evil in itself? i dont believe so, therefore there is no such thing as a defective decision making process.

Unfortunately I must disagree... what I meant is that if God is so good and lovable, then only an insane person or angel would choose to disobey him, this seems quite clear to me...

Think about it... The devil experienced God in all his glory and yet, for some unexplained reason, he choose to disobey him, for me this makes the devil seriously sick or defective in some way. And God made him whatever way he is...
(This isn't the only possibility, I have two others at the top of the thread, i.e God tricked him (by hiding his goodness), or God isn't as described.)

It would be like a hungry person cutting off their own head because they felt this was the best way to stop the hunger.... hmmmmm, most people would say that such an individual was sick or defective in some way! (insane obviously) :rolleyes: (in other words doing things that are obviously harmful to oneself must be considered crazy)

The devil knew God was great, omniscient and omnipotent and yet he choose (whether of his own free will or not) to disobey him... this indicates insanity to me... and God made him to be what he is so ultimitely God is responsible.

Some people may say that good can't exist without evil... or that free will requires evil to be possible... this may be true BUT.... in heaven people will have free will (apparently) and yet they will do no harm, how does God achieve this? Why couldn't God create the devil in such a way that he would do no harm and yet have free will? Is God truly omnipotent or is this something he cannot do? How will he do it in heaven then?

He he he, I got the above argument from Wikipedia but it's good... God apparently will be able to construct heaven in such a way so that evil is impossible... yet evil exists on Earth so it must be here because God wants it to be here....

I know you mentioned that in Islam God is the source of all good AND evil (you said 'harm' specifically) but in Catholicism he is only the source of good... there's not an evil bone in his body!

I like the Islamic approach by the way, at least the Muslims recognize the 'problem of evil' and by accepting that evil comes from God they prevent these problems.

The Riddle of Epicurus
(Earliest known statement of the Problem of Evil)

If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.

If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.

If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?

If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?

(quoted from http://www.riddleofepicurus.com/)

As always I'd be interested in the responses...

(As an aside I bought Dawkins 'The God Delusion' today, he he he, it should provide many more arguments for me! :cool: , so far it is most amusing.)

Medina

JoeBallantine wrote:

Think about it... The devil experienced God in all his glory and yet, for some unexplained reason, he choose to disobey him, for me this makes the devil seriously sick or defective in some way. And God made him whatever way he is...

The devil had arrogance. Because he had free will (in my opinion, as he is a Jinn). God created him like this yes that is not to say the creation is 'defective'. The creation merely had the capability to break rules. God did not intend for us to be perfect creatures otherwise he would not have given us this ability. Therefore our creation and the creation of the devil is not defective as we are 'as designed as intended' . Remember that as long as forgiveness and repentence is sought, forgiveness is available to us. When we refuse to seek repentence or reject the truth about God (obviously people have different ideas as to what the truth is but at the lowest common denominator that He is ONE) that is when act wrongly (i wont say defectively as we are not innately defective). But just by having free will does not make us defective.

JoeBallantine wrote:

The devil knew God was great, omniscient and omnipotent and yet he choose (whether of his own free will or not) to disobey him... this indicates insanity to me... and God made him to be what he is so ultimitely God is responsible.

Isn't this what human beings do? We have free will but we disobey God? Yes u are right it is insanity . Perhaps the devil was unaware at that time of the punishment (as he was the first creation we know of to disobey). I dont think he repented perhaps that is why ultimately he was therefore rejected by God. I don't think it makes God ultimately responsible.


[quote=joeballintinein heaven people will have free will (apparently) and yet they will do no harm, how does God achieve this? Why couldn't God create the devil in such a way that he would do no harm and yet have free will? Is God truly omnipotent or is this something he cannot do? How will he do it in heaven then? [/quote]

First off...God could have created the devil as a perfect sinless creation like an angel. Its not the case that He couldnt have..He just didn't.

In heaven I 'imagine' we will be so overjoyed at having been forgiven that we will not dare use our free will to do bad. In Islam it is said that on Judgement Day we will be shown the place prepared for us in Hell that we would have received had God not forgiven us.

joeballintine wrote:

I know you mentioned that in Islam God is the source of all good AND evil (you said 'harm' specifically) but in Catholicism he is only the source of good... there's not an evil bone in his body!

I should clarify that by mentioning that evil that happens to us is allowed to happen by God either directly or through the devil as a result of our own bad actions or sometimes for a reason only Allah knows. Allah forgive me if i make a mistake here in this but this is how i understand it.


If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.


Says who? Some poet? Are we so arrogant to think we can ever really understand God in all His fullness?

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

Immediately after the death of Jesus Christianity was a religion. It wasnt until later that the church began to divide. As there was at one point one common belief, then Christianity 'was' a religion but it has 'evolved' into sects.

No, true christianity is following Jesus christ. But many disagree with me on that so you're not alone, but that is my definition, and thats the way it will
stay with me. Jesus' message does not evolve!

Would you have said this if you did not know I was a Muslim? I doubt it.

I can categorically confirm that I absolutely said it because I know you are a muslim. I don't see a problem with that, I think its relevant

My points here are valid and I haven't quoted one Islamic view of the bible..NOT ONE...so personally I find this a very low cheap shot Jimitime aimed at undermining the validity of my arguments because you know I have a different faith. I found this with the bible even before I became a Muslim.

Its not a cheap shot, I don't operate like that. The validity of your arguement I had a shot at, and then questioned why you would believe the quoran to be ligit and not the bible. Basically, why do you argue the bible to be false yet believe the quoran to be the word of your god allah? Sorry if this seemed a cheap shot, its certainly not intentional, its a genuine question.

Obviously you know an awful lot less about Islam than you think you do..
Islam believes that Jesus is both the Christ and the Messiah.
Islam does NOT believe that Jesus is the Son of God
Therefore You and I have the same belief in Jesus in this respect.

Firstly, I never claimed to know alot about Islam. My Islamic experience is as follows: Talking to muslims on hyde park corner, kilburn high road and an old boss. After that its stuff from here there and everywhere. Never in my time talking to Muslims did they proclaim Jesus as our saviour (messiah). In Islam, What did he save us from? How did he save us? Also, I do believe Jesus was Gods Son. I just don't believe Jesus was God almighty.

If you think that I'm being disrespectful or 'taking cheap shots', just ignore me and I'll go away for that is exactly what i do to posters that seem to carry on that way and must admit, boards has become a better place for me because of it. No offence will be taken I assure you.

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

No, true christianity is following Jesus christ. But many disagree with me on that so you're not alone, but that is my definition, and thats the way it will
stay with me. Jesus' message does not evolve!

You said to me christianity is not a religion . now you say it is following Jesus Christ..which to me is a religion. With regard to Jesus' message, I think his own message is still partially intact in the bible and while the message itself should never have evolved, I believe it has been evolved due to biblical changes and interference from mankind and I think the evolution of the church and the practises which are in place today are a proof of that.

jimitime wrote:

confirm that I absolutely said it because I know you are a muslim. I don't see a problem with that, I think its relevant
Its not a cheap shot, I don't operate like that. The validity of your arguement I had a shot at, and then questioned why you would believe the quoran to be ligit and not the bible. Basically, why do you argue the bible to be false yet believe the quoran to be the word of your god allah? Sorry if this seemed a cheap shot, its certainly not intentional, its a genuine question.

You are welcome to question and take shots at the validity of my arguments this what Boards is all about. Saying that my arguments are just 'islamic conspiracy theories' in an attempt to dismiss them is a bit ridiculous. Disprove my arguments from within your own self or from Christian sources. If you were to criticise Islam I couldnt make your arguments invalid by saying 'well you're just a Christian'.

jimitime wrote:

. Never in my time talking to Muslims did they proclaim Jesus as our saviour (messiah). In Islam, What did he save us from? How did he save us? Also, I do believe Jesus was Gods Son. I just don't believe Jesus was God almighty.

Your understanding of Messiah is Saviour. Our understanding is somewhat different:
I would refer you here to the middle english translations underneath the 3 explanations: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Messiah

Translation of messiah can mean saviour/anointed one/liberator/deliverer/. We believe in the latter three but not saviour. He was sent to deliver the Jews :

Context: Allah speaking to Mary.

003.048
YUSUFALI: "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
003.049
YUSUFALI: "And (appoint him) a messenger to the Children of Israel, (with this message): "'I have come to you, with a Sign from your Lord, in that I make for you out of clay, as it were, the figure of a bird, and breathe into it, and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave: And I heal those born blind, and the lepers, and I quicken the dead, by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat, and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe;


Context is Jesus speaking:
003.050
YUSUFALI: "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me. And to make lawful to you part of what was (Before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah, and obey me.

JimiTime

Medina wrote:

You said to me christianity is not a religion . now you say it is following Jesus Christ..which to me is a religion.

And to me it is not. I think religion is a dirty word, associated with churches and traditions and idols and doctrines etc etc. It allows people to say 'oh your one of those' and conjour up preconceptions which are often negative. Being a follower of Christ is the extent of my description of my spirituality. However correct the term is, I like to disassociate myself from it for it certainly brings reproach on the name of Christ IMO. But I suppose thats not really important.

With regard to Jesus' message, I think his own message is still partially intact in the bible and while the message itself should never have evolved, I believe it has been evolved due to biblical changes and interference from mankind and I think the evolution of the church and the practises which are in place today are a proof of that.

This is the thing. Evolution of the church and church practice...Yes I agree.
Evolution of Christs message.....no I don't agree. As I said though, I don't see the evidence of the message 'evolving'. I see interpretations changing etc, but wheres the evidence that the Torah, books of prophecy etc have been corrupted? As I said, i can accept there can be bad translation, but corrupted and altered? What is that notion based upon? at that point is when I ask, why you believe the quoran to be ligit and the bible corrupted? A genuine question I think?

You are welcome to question and take shots at the validity of my arguments this what Boards is all about. Saying that my arguments are just 'islamic conspiracy theories' in an attempt to dismiss them is a bit ridiculous. Disprove my arguments from within your own self or from Christian sources. If you were to criticise Islam I couldnt make your arguments invalid by saying 'well you're just a Christian'.

I have been very open and honest to be fair. You said you believed the bible to be corrupted , I said I didn't think so and that such comment I found baseless. In my talks with muslims, that is one of the biggest points they pushed to me, which is why I called it an 'Islaic conspiracy theory'. I have seen nothing to indicate corruption in the bible, and also went into detaill of why I think it is better to have many writers. So I didn't just attack your muslim beliefs, but rather asked you to reconsile your faith in the quoran with the fact that you believe the bible is corrupt? As you seen from other threads I am genuinely intrigued that your journey took you to Islam, which is why I'll bring it up.

Your understanding of Messiah is Saviour. Our understanding is somewhat different:
I would refer you here to the middle english translations underneath the 3 explanations: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Messiah

Translation of messiah can mean saviour/anointed one/liberator/deliverer/. We believe in the latter three but not saviour. He was sent to deliver the Jews :

Deliver them from who or what? The lines you posted weren't very clear about what he was delivering them from. Not to me anyway.

PDN

Medina wrote:

The Bible has evolved as revisers have used various different previous versions as the basis for their next versions. Although many of them have referred to Greek manuscripts they are not all referring to the oldest copies of the manuscripts.

Christians believe that the 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God. This inspiration, of course, applies to the original Greek and Hebrew texts, not to translations. Translations, or versions, seek to render those texts as faithfully as possible in modern languages. Some translations try to provide a word-for-word translation (eg the NASB) while others, such as paraphrases, try to make idioms more understandable to different cultures (for example, a paraphrase for a group of pacific islanders might speak of our sins being washed "as white as the inside of a coconut" instead of "as white as snow").

This is because we believe the message contained within the Bible, rather than the actual Bible itself, is what produces salvation. Therefore we want to reduce the linguistic and cultural 'distance' between the original texts and the modern hearer. This is, as Medina will know, very different to Islam's approach to the Quran. It is also why I, as a Christian, would not be outraged by someone flushing a Bible down a toilet.

In the 1490’s Oxford professor, and the personal physician to King Henry the 7th and 8th, Thomas Linacre, decided to learn Greek. After reading the Gospels in Greek, and comparing it to the Latin Vulgate, he wrote in his diary, “Either this (the original Greek) is not the Gospel… or we are not Christians.” The Latin had become so corrupt that it no longer even preserved the message of the Gospel… yet the Church still threatened to kill anyone who read the scripture in any language other than Latin… though Latin was not an original language of the scriptures.

One of the tasks of Christian theology is to get back as much as possible to the original manuscripts. It is natural, after the mess of the Dark Ages and the Catholic Church's championing of Latin as the only appropriate vehicle to transmit Scripture, that this should be a process. Continual improvement in our understanding of ancient languages, added to archeological discoveries of previously unknown manuscripts, and the continual development and changes of meaning in modern languages, means that new translations and versions will always be necessary.

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157cont.asp

I must say that this is a first for me. I have never before encountered a Muslim quoting Jack Chick as an authority.

The WORST thing that I can see is that all these versions never include the original greek or hebrew texts beside them. They are renderings that quote without the source.

Not true. Have you never seen an interlinear Bible, where the English words appear above the Greek or Hebew words? I have several in my bookcase.

This link provides confusing information ..at least confusing to me. If Im reading it right..it says 95-100AD...but John could not have been alive at that time?!?

Jesus called the disciples when he was about 30 years old. Many commentators believe the apostles were very young when called, possibly only 17 or 18 years old. That would mean that John could have been about 85 years old at the dates you mention. Hardly impossible.

Obviously you know an awful lot less about Islam than you think you do.

Most people who post on these boards know a lot less about everything than they think they do (myself included).

Medina

JimiTime wrote:

And to me it is not. I think religion is a dirty word, associated with churches and traditions and idols and doctrines etc etc. It allows people to say 'oh your one of those' and conjour up preconceptions which are often negative. Being a follower of Christ is the extent of my description of my spirituality. However correct the term is, I like to disassociate myself from it for it certainly brings reproach on the name of Christ IMO. But I suppose thats not really important.

Ok we should leave this topic then with regard to the Message of Jesus evolving since you are non conformist to a prescribed 'religion'. I hope this is a fair comment, I'll edit it if its not.

jimitime wrote:

This is the thing. Evolution of the church and church practice...Yes I agree.
Evolution of Christs message.....no I don't agree. As I said though, I don't see the evidence of the message 'evolving'. I see interpretations changing etc, but wheres the evidence that the Torah, books of prophecy etc have been corrupted? As I said, i can accept there can be bad translation, but corrupted and altered?

I feel its more than interpretations or translations changing, all the links I posted to show that the bible has evolved. As it is we can never be sure of their original truth, since the oldest copies are written in Greek a language Jesus himself didnt speak. Therefore if the NT was written by eyewitnesses which I dont believe it was (see verse below from Luke indicating the writer was not an immediate eyewitness) whoever wrote it in Greek translated it the 'speech' of Jesus (and his companions presumably) from Aramaic to Greek to begin with. As all translations are like blurred photocopies of an original..so too would these Greek manuscripts.

1Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled[a] among us, 2just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

jimitime wrote:

at that point is when I ask, why you believe the quoran to be ligit and the bible corrupted? A genuine question I think?

Definitely a genuine question which you have repeatedly asked and I have repeatedly avoided for valid reasons. One being that it will do nothing to further our conversation about whether the Bible is legit or not. The second being I dont want this turning into a Christianity versus Islam debate. Dont get me wrong I would love to answer this, so I will open a separate thread within the Islam forum.

Jimitime wrote:

I have been very open and honest to be fair.

And I appreciate that.

Jimitime wrote:

You said you believed the bible to be corrupted , I said I didn't think so and that such comment I found baseless.

I said I believed it has evolved. Therefore the message within has been corrupted. For example:

Mark 1:
John the Baptist Prepares the Way
1The beginning of the gospel about Jesus Christ, the Son of God.[a]

Two points on this:
1) The writer is stating his belief that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Because this is written in this historical account does not mean that Jesus was the Son of God. It means this writer believes he was.

2) There is note appended to this verse..the [a]. The footnote is:Mark 1:1 Some manuscripts do not have the Son of God.


Luke 1
35The angel answered, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called[a] the Son of God. 36Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be barren is in her sixth month.

Footnote: Luke 1:35 Or So the child to be born will be called holy,

jimitime wrote:

I have seen nothing to indicate corruption in the bible,

***sigh***... the evidence is in the bible itself..you know differences in translation don't generally mean too much for the overall message of a text when they are differences in idiom or such like..however when its huge theological issues such as 'son of God' or 'Christ' or 'prophet' or 'holy' I think its makes a massive difference. You haven't come up with anything to counter this other than that you don't see corruption and I am a muslim..you have not proved the text has remained faithful to the original..(which we dont have) but the 'original' copies which are not the language of Christ anyway...

jimitime wrote:

As you seen from other threads I am genuinely intrigued that your journey took you to Islam, which is why I'll bring it up.

and i havent forgotten and am putting together all my reasons. This is definitely one of them. I see huge problems with the bible, and the reliability of the text and the lack of linkage of doctrines and practises to biblical references is definitely one of the reasons.

jimitime wrote:

Deliver them from who or what? The lines you posted weren't very clear about what he was delivering them from. Not to me anyway.

Quite true you are right. I thought the quote was enough. To deliver the Jews back to the true belief in God as they has strayed. "'(I have come to you), to attest the Law which was before me." They had strayed far from the law of Moses.

Medina

PDN wrote:

Christians believe that the 66 books of the Bible are inspired by God.

Please explain to me the difference between believing it is inspired by God and believing it is the literal word of God written by a man as a proxy.

PDN wrote:

Some translations try to provide a word-for-word translation (eg the NASB) while others, such as paraphrases, try to make idioms more understandable to different cultures (for example, a paraphrase for a group of pacific islanders might speak of our sins being washed "as white as the inside of a coconut" instead of "as white as snow").

Quite a valid point, however when it comes to 'and he is the Son of God' versus 'and he is the Christ' or 'and he is a Prophet..then thats a lot different wouldn't you say?

PDN wrote:

It is also why I, as a Christian, would not be outraged by someone flushing a Bible down a toilet.

Even as a Muslim I would be outraged at someone flushing a Bible down the toilet...

PDN wrote:

Continual improvement in our understanding of ancient languages, added to archeological discoveries of previously unknown manuscripts, and the continual development and changes of meaning in modern languages, means that new translations and versions will always be necessary.

And i completely agree with you. The problem i have is that the versions are not always revising the original Greek with more modern English or whatever language...they are revising previously translated versions or Latin versions or not the original versions, or removing some of the books, or changing some of the most important parts which in effect changes the whole belief of him as Son of God

PDN wrote:

I must say that this is a first for me. I have never before encountered a Muslim quoting Jack Chick as an authority.

He not an authority for me, merely a good illustration that many Christians giving accounts of the history of the bible have showed how it has been changed..obviously much to your disbelief. I wonder is there any Christian out there who is brave enough to recognise that some translations have distorted the bible.

PDN wrote:

Not true. Have you never seen an interlinear Bible, where the English words appear above the Greek or Hebew words? I have several in my bookcase.

No I haven't, I've never even seen one on sale. Its great to see it does exist.

PDN wrote:

Jesus called the disciples when he was about 30 years old. Many commentators believe the apostles were very young when called, possibly only 17 or 18 years old. That would mean that John could have been about 85 years old at the dates you mention. Hardly impossible.

Fair enough. But that still doesn't explain who wrote the other gospels.