2.1.6 Show me some examples of these ‘grave defects’: So if these highly esteemed 32 Christian Biblical scholars backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations tell us that through their study of recently discovered manuscripts of the Bible they have found many grave and serious defects in the King James Version of the Bible then where are some examples of these “defects”? A good question, let us have a look:

In 1 John 5:7 (King James Version) we find:

“For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one.”

As we have already seen in section, this verse is the closest approximation to what the Church calls the holy Trinity. However, as seen in that section, this cornerstone of the Christian faith has been scrapped from the RSV by these thirty two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, once again all according to the “most ancient manuscripts.” However, we find that the noble Qur’an did not need to wait for 2000 years for these Christians to discover this fact. Indeed God revealed it to us fully fourteen hundred years ago:

“O people of the book! commit no excesses in your religion: nor say of Allah aught but the truth. Christ Jesus the son of Mary was (no more than) a Messenger of Allah, and his Word, which he bestowed upon Mary, and a spirit preceding from him so believe in Allah and his messengers. Say not “Three” desist It will be better for you for Allah is one God Glory be to him Far exalted is he above having a son. To him belong all things in the heavens and the earth. And enough is Allah as a disposer of affairs.” The noble Qur’an, Al-Nissa(4):171

RESPONSE: 1 John 5:7 has long been known not to be original. It was never in the Greek manuscripts (the original language of the New Testament), but surfaced in the LATIN translation in the fifth century, AFTER the Trinity doctrine had been accepted! It appears that a "gloss" (a marginal comment in a Bible) accidentally found its way into the Latin Bible. Due to some unfortunate politics, Erasmus (who compared various manuscripts in the 16th century to select what he thought was the best Greek text) included the verse against his better judgement. From there it found its way into the King James Version (which was based on Erasmus' text).

The Trinity doctrine can be (and nearly always is) demonstrated WITHOUT recourse to 1 John 5:7.

Are there any other examples? Well, how about John 3:16(KJV) ?:

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life..”

This verses is a cornerstone of Christian preaching the world over. Even at american football matches you will find people in the stands holding up massive signs declairing: “JOHN 3:16”

But as seen in section, this fabrication “begotten” has now been unceremoniously removed from the Bible by these most eminent of Bible revisers. However, once again, humanity did not have to wait 2000 years for this revelation. In Maryam(19):88-98 of the noble Qur’an we read:

“And they say 'Allah Most Compassionate has begotten a son!'. Indeed you have put forth a thing most monstrous! The skies are ready to burst (at such a claim), and the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin. That they should ascribe a son to the Most Compassionate. But it is not befitting [the majesty of] the Most Compassionate that He should beget a son. [snip]

RESPONSE: Al-Kadhi is trying to imply that the Greek manuscripts of John 3:16 has been tampered with. They haven't. In fact, the issue of the word "begotten" is one of ENGLISH TRANSLATION, not of variants in the manuscripts at all! There has never been any question over what the Greek says.

The issue is: does the Greek word "monogenes" mean "only" or "only begotten"? In either case, Jesus is called God's "only Son". Jesus is called the "Son of God" many times in the Bible.

I am not doing the response to part 1, but may I say this: part of the problem is that Muslims and Christians understand "Son of God" in entirely different ways. Muslims seem to understand it in a very literal way: God the Father inseminated the Virgin Mary and a "new God" (Jesus, the Son of God) was born. This idea is both repulsive, and very far from the Biblical truth. The Bible teaches that the Son was ETERNAL, and became a person (Jesus) (John 1:1-17, Philippians 2:5-9).

The reader is encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version and to compare it to the King James Version. Specifically, notice that the following 17 verses have been omitted outright in the newer and more faithful translations:

Matt. 17:21; 18:11; 23:14; Mk. 7:16; 9:44; 9:46; 11:26; 15:28; 17:36; 23:17; Jn. 5:4; Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29; Rom. 16:24; and 1 John 5:7.

REPSONSE: Now we get on to the issue of textual transmission. As I have mentioned a few times already, Christians willingly acknowledge that there have been errors in transmission in the Bible. In the days before printing presses, all manuscripts had to be copied by hand. Errors in copying are inevitable.

Al-Kadhi, it seems, is trying to allege that the errors reveal a systematic distortion of doctrine. But do they?

Of the 17 listed, 11 are nothing more than "assilimations" - copies (almost verbatim) from another verse:

Since the other verse already existed, they can not POSSIBLY affect doctrine.

Of the remaining 6, 5 are simply additions of historical detail (John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29). They deal with specific incidents and have no bearing on doctrine.

That leaves ONLY 1 John 5:7, which has been discussed above.

So with the possible exception of 1 John 5:7, none of these changes can possibly be construed to be attempts to corrupt the scriptures to fit a doctrine. Rather, they are haphazard changes, inevitable in the routine process of faithfully copying manuscripts.

AK: Further, in the NRSV Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53 - 8:11 are also marked as highly questionable since they do not appear in the most ancient copies of the Bible. This Bible also questions four other verses with footnotes-- Matt. 12:47; 21:44; Lk. 22:43; 22:44. This makes a total of 45 entire verses which are removed entirely or seriously questioned. In addition there are 147 other verses with significant portions missing (eg. Rev 1:11 etc.).

RESPONSE: The two verses from Matthew, even if not genuine, are almost identical to two verses elsewhere:

So again there is no possibility of them affecting doctrine.

The remaining verses mentioned are dealt with in section 2.1.10.

Prior to 1952 all versions of the Bible made mention of one of the most miraculous events associated with the prophet Jesus peace be upon him, that of his ascension into heaven. This great event is mentioned in only two places in the NT. They are:

“So then the lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God” Mark 16:19

and once again in Luke:

“While he blessed them, he parted from them, and was carried up into heaven. And they worshipped him, and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.” Luke 24:51-52

In the 1952 RSV Mark 16 ends at verse 8 and the rest is relegated in small print to a footnote (more on this later). Similarly, in the commentary on the verses of Luke 24, we are told in the footnotes of the NRSV Bible “Other ancient authorities lack “and was carried up into heaven’” and “Other ancient authorities lack ‘and worshipped him’”. Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in it’s original form only said:

“While he blessed them, he parted from them. And they returned to Jerusalem with great joy.”

It took centuries of “inspired correction” to give us Luke 24:51-52 in their current form.

RESPONSE: As anyone who has actually read the New Testament will tell you, Al-Kadhi has his facts totally wrong. The ascension of Jesus is mentioned some TEN other times in the New Testament! It is described in Acts 1:9-11, and mentioned or alluded to in John 6:62, Acts 2:33-34, Acts 3:21, Eph 4:8-10, 1 Thess 1:10, Heb 4:14, Heb 9:24, 1 Peter 3:22, Rev 5:6.

Besides, the UBS4 gives the Luke 24:51-52 a "B", which means that it is "almost certain" that the description of Jesus' ascension is original. So Al-Kadhi again has interpreted the facts wrongly when he confidently asserts: "Thus, we see that the verse of Luke in its original form only said"

Mark 16:9-20, as I have already said, will be discussed in section 2.1.10. Suffice is to say that we have just shown that the NT provides vast evidence for Jesus' ascension, even if this ending is a later addition.

As another example, in Luke 24:1-7 we read: “Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher. And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus. And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments: And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.”

Once again, in reference to verse 5, the footnotes say: “Other ancient authorities lack ‘He is not here but has risen’” Also, please read entries 16 and 17 in the table in section 2.2.

RESPONSE: Again, UBS4 gives this sentence a "B", i.e. it is "almost certain" that the words are original. Even if not, they are merely an assimilation (copy) from Matthew 28:6 or Mark 16:6. Or is Al-Kadhi seriously suggesting that the early writers of the gospels did not believe Jesus had risen from the dead?

The examples are far too numerous to list here, however, you are encouraged to obtain a copy of the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible for yourself and scan through the four gospels. You shall be hard pressed to find even two consecutive pages that do not contain the words “Other ancient authorities lack...” or “Other ancient authorities add...” etc. in the footnotes..

RESPONSE: This is because the Christian community is OPEN and HONEST about uncertainties in certian elements of the Biblical text. Compare this with the Muslim myth of the non-corruption of the Qur'an.

Click here for information on the Textual Corruption of the Qur'an