Please notice that there are only two places in the whole New Testament that mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven. They are Mark 16:19 and Luke 24:51. As we have just seen, both of these passages are questioned by the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible as well as most other honest recent translations of the Bible, with the obvious exception of the KJV.
RESPONSE: This has already been dealt with in section 2.1.6. Al-Kadhi has his facts wrong: the ascension of Jesus is mentioned about 10 other times in the New Testament.
On the topic of omissions affecting the doctrine of the Atonement, we find
the following changes in most modern Bibles (based upon the most ancient
manuscripts available today):
Colossians 1:14--The KJV reads, “In whom we have redemption through his
blood, even the forgiveness of sins.” More correct versions of this verse such as
in the NASB, or the NRSV omit “through his blood”
Besides, "blood of Christ" is really just a metaphor for "death of Christ", so we can add the many times which mention that we are saved through the death of Jesus (Mark 10:45, Romans 4:25, etc.)
Hebrews 1:3--The KJV reads, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.” The more recent and accurate translations omit “by himself.” RESPONSE: First we must make it clear that "by himself" is not a very good translation for of the disputed Greek phase "di' heautou". In modern English, "by himself" implies "by himself ALONE". That is NOT what the Greek phrase "di' heautou" means. All it does is add emphasis to the word "he", so the meaning would be: "after HE had purged our sins".
So the issue is simply one of whether the author wished to place special emphasis on the "he". No doctrine is affected. It is only a question of literary style.
1 Peter 4:1--The KJV reads, “Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us
in the flesh ...” The correct reading, as in the NASB, omits “for us”
1 Corinthians 5:7--The KJV reads, “... For even Christ our passover is
sacrificed for us.” Again, more faithful translation now honestly omit “for us”
Other insertions of the Church which are only starting to be recognized and
removed by today’s foremost Christian scholars are:
LORD--Omitted in Matt. 13:51; Mark 9:24; Acts 9:6; 2 Cor. 4:10; Gal. 6:17;
2 Tim. 4:1; Titus 1:4.
JESUS--Omitted in Matt. 8:29; Matt. 16:20; 2 Cor. 4:6; 2 Cor. 5:18; Col. 1:28; Phile. verse 6; 1 Pet. 5:14. RESPONSE: These differences are utterly trivial. Look at the first (Matthew 8:29). Was Jesus addressed as "Son of God" or "Jesus, Son of God"? Surely it makes no difference to the meaning!
CHRIST--Omitted in Lk. 4:41; Jn. 4:42; Acts 16:31; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 16:23; 2 Cor. 11:31; Gal. 3:17; Gal. 4:7; 1 Thes. 2:19; I Thes. 3:11; 1 Thes. 3:13; 2 Thes. 1:8; Heb. 3:1; 1 Jn. 1:7; Rev. 12:17. RESPONSE: These are also trivial. In Acts 16:31, is he referred to as "Lord Jesus" or "Lord Jesus Christ"? Since Jesus is called "Christ" hundreds of times in the New Testament, again these omissions do not affect doctrine.
JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 6:15; Eph. 3:9; 2 Tim. 4:22.
LORD JESUS CHRIST--Omitted in Romans 16:24; Eph. 3:14; Col. 1:2.
SON OF GOD--Omitted in John 9:35; John 6:69. RESPONSE: No doctrine is affected. Even in John's gospel alone, there are many other instances of Jesus being called "Son of God": John 1:34, 1:49, 3:16, 3:17, 3:18, 10:36, 11:4, 11:27, 14:13, 17:1, 19:7, and most clearly in John 20:31:
"But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name"
Slowly but surely these Christian scholars are beginning to recognize the
subtle and “insignificant” “corrections” which the Church has been applying to
the text of the Bible over the centuries in order to make their established
doctrines “clear” to the reader.
The reader is encouraged to go back and read all of these inserted verses that
the conservative Trinitarian scholars themselves now admit were later forgeries
of the Church. Notice the intricate detail that is to be found in them. Notice
the attention to the minutest aspect that is lavished upon these inserted verses.
Notice how “spiritual” they are. Notice how truly “inspired” they are. What
does all of this tell us?
Please keep in mind that these are only but a few of the most outstanding of
these discrepancies.
In many cases the translators appear to have been unable
to determine the true wording in any truly scientific and unbiased fashion, thus,
they appear to have been reduced to such actions as choosing the version
adopted by the majority of the “ancient authorities.” I am sure no one will
mistake this for a truly scientific determination (e.g. perhaps the minority
version is found in the most ancient manuscripts, as seen above). On other
occations they admit to actually having been reduced to nothing more than
personal judgement in their attempt to resolve some of the more serious
discrepancies.
For example, in the introduction of the New Revised Standard Version of the
Bible by Oxford press we read:
“Occasionally it is evident that the text has suffered in the
transmission and that none of the versions provides a
satisfactory restoration. Here we can only follow the best
judgement of competent scholars as to the most probable
reconstruction of the original text” (emphasis added)
“O People of the Book! Our messenger has come to you
revealing to you much of what you used to hide of the Book and
forgiving much. There has come to you from Allah a light and a
plain scripture”
The noble Qur’an, Al-Maida(5):15
As we have seen, these are not simply the ramblings of a small number of
obscure crackpot Christian-haters. This information has become so well
recognized and acknowledged in the Christian West today that even their own
encyclopedias affirm it, and although no one will ever mistake an encyclopedia
for an official Christian reference, still, this does go to show the extent that this
information has become accepted in the West today. Grolier’s encyclopedia
says under the heading “Jesus Christ”:
“The Gospels According to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John,
the first four books of the New Testament of the Bible, are the
principal sources for the life of Jesus. These works are primarily
testimonies to the faith of the early Christian community,
however, and have to be used critically as evidence for the
historical Jesus. The methods include source, form, and
redaction criticism...These methods provide criteria to sift
through the redaction and tradition and reconstruct the message
and the mission of the historical Jesus...Application of the
critical methods described above reveals that the gospel
tradition apparently started originally with Jesus' baptism by
John the Baptist (Matt. 3:13-17; Mark 1:9-11; Luke 3:21-22;
John 1:29-34). The stories concerning the birth of Jesus were
probably later additions. These stories--the annunciations to
Mary and Joseph, their journey to Bethlehem for the Roman
census, and Jesus' birth there (Luke 2:1-7); the visits of the
shepherds (Luke 2:8-20) and the three magi from the East (Matt.
2:1-12); and the flight of the family to Egypt to escape the
massacre of young boys that had been ordered by King Herod
(Matt. 2:13-23)--may be characterized conveniently, if loosely,
as ‘Christological midrash,’ expressions of Christological faith
cast into narrative form. If there are any factual elements in
them, these will be found among the items on which Matthew and
Luke agree: the names of Mary, Joseph, and Jesus; the dating
of Jesus' birth toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great (d.
4 BC); and, less certainly, the Bethlehem location of the birth”