Bible Corruption

If the Apocryphal books were not accepted by the Jewish canon, how can Christians consider them inspired?

The early Church Fathers had diverse views on the Apocryphal books, with some accepting them and others rejecting them based on their alignment with the Hebrew canon. The Christian tradition acknowledges the complexity of this issue, emphasizing that inspiration is ultimately determined by God's authority rather than human consensus.

The Holy Bible never refers to itself as the Holy Bible, unlike the Quran which explicitly names itself.

The term 'Bible' is derived from the Greek word 'biblia', which means 'the books', and it is used in the Scriptures to refer to the sacred writings. While the word 'Bible' may not appear in the text, the concept of the Scriptures as a singular holy collection is well established.

When Paul wrote that all scripture is God-breathed, he was only referring to the Old Testament, not the New Testament.

The Christian response is that Paul was not limited to the Old Testament writings; he included his own Epistles as Scripture. Paul cites Luke's Gospel as Scripture, demonstrating that he recognized the authority of New Testament writings.

Muslims argue that the Epistle of 2 Peter is a forgery and not written by the Apostle Peter.

Christian scholars, including John MacArthur, defend the authenticity of 2 Peter by highlighting its internal claims of authorship and the use of Peter's Hebrew name. They argue that the letter's content and references to Peter's experiences lend credibility to its authorship.

Muslims often argue that the New Testament, including the Epistle of 2 Peter, is not authentic and has been altered over time.

Christian scholars defend the authenticity of the Epistle of 2 Peter by highlighting its unique personal allusions and the lack of strong evidence for pseudepigraphic origins. The claims made within the letter, including references to Peter's eyewitness experiences, support the argument for its genuine authorship.

Muslims might argue that the New Testament contains forgeries and that the authorship of its books, like 2 Peter, is questionable.

Christian scholars assert that the early Church was diligent in recognizing authentic texts, and the arguments against the authorship of 2 Peter lack substantial evidence. Historical context and the acceptance of 2 Peter as canonical suggest that it was indeed written by the Apostle Peter.

How can the Bible be considered reliable when it contains fewer books than the Roman Catholic Bible, which includes the Apocrypha?

The reliability of the Bible is not determined by the number of books it contains but by the authority and inspiration of the texts recognized by God. Both the New Testament and the Old Testament affirm that the Hebrew Scriptures were entrusted to the Jews, which supports the Protestant canon of 66 books as the true Word of God.

Muslims believe that the Apocrypha should be considered as part of the inspired scripture.

The Christian response is that neither Jesus nor the New Testament writers recognized the Apocrypha as inspired scripture. The New Testament does not quote from the Apocrypha, indicating that it was not considered authoritative.

Muslims might argue that the Jewish Apocrypha contains inspired teachings and should be considered part of the scripture.

Christianity holds that the Jewish Apocrypha does not meet the criteria for inspired scripture as outlined in the Old Testament canon. The Apocrypha itself acknowledges the absence of prophets and the reliance on existing holy books, indicating its non-canonical status.

The New Testament contains allusions to the Apocrypha, which means these writings are accepted as scripture by Jesus and his followers.

While the New Testament does reference material from the Apocrypha, it does not do so with the formal expressions of canonicity. The absence of such expressions indicates that the New Testament writers did not regard these texts as inspired scripture.

Muslims argue that the Gospel of John is not historically reliable and contradicts the Synoptic Gospels.

Christian scholars, including John MacArthur, affirm that the differences between John's Gospel and the Synoptics are not contradictions but rather complementary accounts that provide a fuller understanding of Jesus' life and mission. They emphasize that all four Gospels present a unified message about Jesus as the Son of God and Savior.

Muslims often argue that the Bible allows for marriage at a very young age, which is similar to practices in some Islamic traditions.

The Christian response emphasizes that the Bible, particularly in 1 Corinthians 7:36, indicates that marriage is appropriate only when individuals have reached maturity beyond puberty. This suggests a standard of maturity that aligns with responsible adulthood rather than early marriage.