Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam

Salam Aleikum

APPOLOS !

Wow THAT was an overwhelming amount of stuff you said.

But lets talk about that Bible for a minute shall we?

1st the bible was not written in English it was written in Hebrew Greek and Aramaic , then translated from that point to other languages,

To be able to read it in its (purest form) you also need another book a strong s biblical concordance & that is a Hebrew Greek and Aramaic dictionary.( from that time era)
ALONG WITH A 1611 VERSION OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE.

The reason you need this is because you can translate a word from one language to another BUT YOU CANNOT always TRANSLITERATE it,s meaning correctly ,

FOR example god asked eve what has though done ,she said the serpent BEGUILED me,

there is no word beguiled in English~ now when you take it back to the original tongue it,s described as ( to be wholly seduced ) it now makes sence,

I could go on and on and tell you things ive discovered that not you or anyone else may beleive but i know.

but lets look at the 1st set of laws the 10 commandments

commandment 1,

Though Shall Have No Other Gods Before Me.

SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THE MUSLIMS UNDERSTOOD IT .

When jesus went to go out to pray for 40 days and nights into the desert when the devil was tempting him.

( who was he praying too Himself ???? )

LETS jump for a second to the 6th Commandment
though shall not kill <--------- !

that one is another translation problem !!!! it was never though shall not kill.

IT WAS THOUGH SHALL DO NO MURDER MEANING HOMICIDAL MURDER.

AND IF A MAN MURDER WHAT IS YOURS ,,,, THEN YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL HIM AS IT WOULD BE ~AN EYE FOR AN EYE AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH~ THAT IS THE TRUE LAW....

The bible in my opinion is missing books & is probably 80% accurate yet every year they keep changing the words to be Easier so they say = have they never read =

Revelations chapter 22 v 19

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophesy, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY.

AND speaking of the Holy CITY ! many things will transpire between NOW and the year 2048,

THE PALESTINIANS WILL HAVE ALL OF ISRAEL !

THERE WILL BE A LAND FOR PEACE DEAL ( MAYBE MANY )BUT THERE IS ONE IN PARTICULAR I HAVE MY EYE ON .

I EVEN KNOW WHAT AREA THEY WILL GET~ AND THEN A TERRIBLE DROUGHT WILL HAPPEN AFTER THAT,

AND THEN THE WAR TO TAKE ISRAEL BEGINS AND HELP COMES FROM MANY LANDS.

I WOULD LIKE TO CHALLENGE YOU TO SOMETHING,

VERY SERIOUSLY READ THE QURAN AND PRAY RECITE IT OUT LOUD TO YOURSELF.

HERE,S WHY ~YOU KNOW THAT SPIRITUAL FEELING THAT YOU GET WHEN YOU COME OUT OF CHURCH ( I CALL IT GODS TOUCH )

YOU WILL RECEIVE IT,, BUT AT A MUCH MORE INTENSE STRENGTH ~~IT,S GOD TALKING TO YOU.

BLOCK OUT ALL MENS WORDS ALL THOUGHTS OF OTHER THINGS
LET GOD DO THE TALKING ..JUST LISTEN.

PEACE BE UPON YOU,
                      SWORD OF Allah,

Apollos, if you do not want to continue this discussion, just say so!  I won't mind, but I will be disappointed! 

Why should I respond to your "key points" when you did not respond to 95% of my rebuttal?  It makes no sense!

Concerning your question, as I have always said, your belief in the resurrection, which is the most important part of your faith, is just that, a matter of faith.  I never said otherwise.  You were the one who interjected the resurrection tangent into this discussion!  Don't you remember?  Since many aspects of both Islam and Christianity revolve around matters of faith (not all but many), I would say neither is less valid or more valid.  However, there are aspects of both faiths which cannot be considered simply matters of faith.  In that regard, I believe Islam is valid and Christianity is not.  I believe that has been proven in the discussions we have had. 

Nur_Ilahi wrote: Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam. The Title should read, WHY A CORRUPT BIBLE IS A PROBLEM FOR CHRISTIANITY. The facts that more and more Christians are dissatisfied of worshipping a powerless God who died on the cross. A Bible which is full of contradictions and traces of pornography and evil. The version of the Bible that existed during Mohammed�s life is the same as we have today However the Christians cannot produce this version as claimed above. If God�s Word the Bible has been corrupted over time, the logical implication is that other revelations from God could also be corrupted. How do we know that the Quran has not also been corrupted the same way? There is nothing in the Bible that says God is The Guardian - Al-Muhaimin, The Preserver = Al Hafiz - The All-Aware - Al-Khabir. And there are sentences in the Quran that Allah himself guaranteed that He Himself will guard this Holy Scripture. This aspects of guardianship of the Holy Scripture is not found in the Bible. I quote from another website - As for the claim that Allah did not preserve Divine Books (such as Torah, Gospel, etc.) or allowed them to be tainted and corrupted, this is not true. This is because Allah entrusted the People of the Book with the task of preserving and guarding their Books from any corruption but they disobeyed Him and failed to do so. This is stated in the Qur'an: "It was We who revealed the law (to Moses): therein was guidance and light. By its standard have been judged the Jews, by the prophets who bowed (as in Islam) to Allah's will, by the rabbis and the doctors of law: FOR TO THEM WAS ENTRUSTED THE PROTECTION OF ALLAH'S BOOK, and they were witnesses thereto..." (Al-Ma'idah: 44) That is why Allah took upon Himself to guard the Qur�an. Almighty Allah says, �Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder (Qur�an), and lo! We verily are its Guardian.� (Al-Hijr: 9)" http://www.islamonline.net/servlet/Satellite?cid=1119503546346&pagename=IslamOnline-English-Ask_Scholar%2FFatwaE%2FFatwaEAskTheScholar I will make this short, and I will say that the Bible is corrupted because the Christians could not produce the authentic one that was written at the times of Jesus. (a Very big headache for the Christians indeed!) If the God that the Christians believe is Powerful, it will not be impossible for this God to preserve the holy scripture.

Islamispeace,

 

Something you do to the text makes it very hard to reply to. One has to copy it all offline, change all the formatting and then search through the text to see which one of us a comment belongs to. I don�t have an extra hour or two to do this so I am only going to respond to some key areas you posted:

 

IP :

 

The difference is that Islamic traditions have a chain of transmission.  We know who transmitted what.  Whether the stories were altered during the transmission is another issue which would require further study.  The Gospels do not have this.  There is no reliable chain which goes back to Jesus.  All you have is a collection of statements, some of them anonymous, which contradict each other and have huge gaps in the transmission.  At best, I would describe the Gospels as comparable to weak ahadith, those which are rejected by the majority of scholars as unreliable, sort of like the false Hadith about the assassination of Asma bint Marwan.�

 

New From Apollos:

 

You have simply provided your generalized opinion. Please take one fundamental event in Mohammed�s life and show me how the chain of transmission is superior to the chain of transmission that exists for the Gospel of John. E.g. � We know who John the son of Zebedee was from a variety of sources, his gospel account is identified as belonging to himself in the body of the writing and his disciples and their disciples confirmed that John wrote this gospel. He was the last living disciple of Jesus and the believers copied and quoted John�s gospel extensively during and after his life. He was alive when Jesus was and he claimed to know and quote Jesus accurately. There is no contrary evidence to this claim.

 

 

Previous from Apollos:

 

WHERE DOES THE NT OR HISTORY SAY THAT THE DISCIPLES UNDERSTOOD JESUS WOULD RESURRECT? IT DOESN�T. IT REVEALS THAT THEY THOUGHT HE WAS TALKING IN PARABLES AND METAPHORS UNTIL AFTER THEY SAW HIM RISEN.

 

Sorry, my mistake.  OK, so this supports my other contention that the disciples simply misinterpreted what Jesus meant and therefore misunderstood certain unique incidents to be something they were not. 

 

New From Apollos:

 

It is obvious that you are trying to spin a tale anyway you can here even when it requires you to reverse something you previously say. When you can argue that the Disciples� expectations are proof that the resurrection didn�t happen and then turn around and argue that their lack of expectation is proof that the resurrection didn�t happen, it is pretty obvious that you don�t need any basis to arrive at your �conclusion�.

 

 

Previous from Apollos:

YES THE STORY DID SPREAD QUICKLY AND YES THE JEWS AND ROMANS DID MENTION THE MANY FOLLOWERS OF JESUS IN THEIR WRITINGS. THAT�S HOW SECULAR HISTORIANS KNOW POINT 5 IS TRUE.

 

Did they mention the resurrection?  No.  What does mentioning his followers prove?  And can you give examples of any specific reference to the disciples?

 

New From Apollos:

Read what I said and don�t change the subject. Your explanation doesn�t account for the core facts concerning the resurrection claim.

 

Previous from Apollos:

SEE ABOVE WHAT? THE DISCIPLES WERE TRANSFORMED BY GROUP HALLUCINATIONS? JAMES AND PAUL HAD HALLUCINATIONS THAT ACCOMPLISHED THE SAME THING?

 

First of all, all it takes is one confused individual to spread a rumor. 

 

New From Apollos:

So a rumor is the explanation for the disciples believing that Jesus rose from the dead, that he talked to them afterwards, that they should be his witnesses, etc.? I see now why you believe many strange things.

 

 

The evidence suggests that the resurrection claim began simply as a rumor.  Consider that the earliest Gospel account, that of Mark, originally ended at 16:8 with the verse �Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb.

 

 

New From Apollos:

Because some na�ve scholars think Mark ended at 16:8, you assert it as true, ignore other accounts and build a story based on this � wow. Imagine that. Mark takes the time to tell us a lengthy biography about Jesus and then to put a cap on it all, simply says he died and his followers ended up bewildered and afraid. If that was the message the disciples were preaching no one would start proclaiming Jesus was the Messiah. What nonsense.

 

Previous from Apollos:

SO SOMEONE STOLE THE BODY, IT WAS NEVER DISCOVERED AND LARGE NUMBERS OF PEOPLE HAD MULTIPLE HALLUCINATIONS TOGETHER, INDEPENDENTLY OVER A PERIOD OF 40 DAYS?

 

Considering that the earliest Gospel account says nothing about whom or how many saw Jesus, these details are actually pretty irrelevant. 

 

New From Apollos:

Back to your assertion in a vacuum.

 

They were clearly invented later on to solidify the legitimacy of the story.  But even if they were not invented later on, and people actually believed they saw something, is it not possible that as the rumor started spreading, people suffering from their grief and wanting to believe that he was alive could certainly be manipulated into accepting the story?  And is it not also possible that, as the Quran puts it, that Jesus was simply still alive and had not died in the first place and was simply letting his followers know that he was indeed alive, but some people misinterpreted the events and falsely believed that he had resurrected and that this belief began to spread? 

 

Previous from Apollos:

CONSIDERING HOW IMPLAUSIBLE THIS ALL IS, WHY WOULD YOU IMAGINE THAT THIS SERIES OF IMPLAUSIBLE EVENTS OCCURRED RATHER THAN THE ONE EXPLANATION THE DISCPLES OF JESUS GAVE? FURTHERMORE, WHY WOULD GOD ALLOW SUCH A SERIES OF IMPLAUSIBLE EVENTS TO DECEIVE THE DISCIPLES FROM WHAT REALLY OCCURRED?

 

The disciples could have misinterpreted the events not to mention what Jesus actually said.  That would be their own fault, and not of God.  But even then, you could say that He let Jesus show himself to reassure his followers that he was okay and still they were confused or perhaps even unwilling to believe (even the Gospels state that originally, the disciples were unwilling to believe that he had resurrected, so why not the opposite?). 

 

New From Apollos:

It wouldn�t have been some people who misinterpreted the events of seeing Jesus again, it would be his closest disciples who said Jesus spoke with them extensively. But I get the idea � anything is believable to you if you want to believe in it.

 

Previous from Apollos:

YOU HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHAT THESE DIALECTS ARE. DID THEY EMPLOY DIFFERENT WORDS OR LETTERS IN THE SPELLING OF WORDS? I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW YOU SAY THE QURAN HAD SEVEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS BUT THERE WERE NO DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE VERSIONS.

 

Here is an example according to Dr. Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips: ��the phrase, "'alayhim" (on them), was read by some as "'alayhumoo," and the word "siraat" (path, bridge), was read by some as "siraat" and by others as "ziraat," and the word "mu'min" (believer) was also read as "moomin".[7]  The problem that arose was that some new Muslims were erroneously mixing some of the readings together, and that is why Uthman (ra) decreed that there be one official version.  The differences between the seven were only dialectical. 

 

New From Apollos:

Are you saying some people pronounced the written word �alayhim� as �alayhumoo�? If that was the case I don�t see how that explains different versions of the Quran nor how any version would be read differently.

 

But maybe you are saying that some Muslims pronounced this and other words differently and written copies of their recitations captured the same word with different characters. Is that it? If so, you still have different versions with who knows how many different variations of letters.

 

Once again I ask � how can there be different versions of the Quran in the past that you acknowledge and dispute at the same time?

 

PLEASE PROVIDE AN IMITATION OF THE BIBLE TO PROVE YOUR CLAIM.

 

 

IP:

Oh, I don�t know�the Book of Mormon?  It is written in the same way that the Bible is.  Here is an example from the �The First Book of Nephi�:

 

New From Apollos:

Where is the proof that this is an imitation of the Bible? It does not sound anything like the Bible to me or scholars. I could just as easily say this is an example of the imitating the Quran. It makes the same sense to me.

 

Previous from Apollos:

THE UPSHOT OF ALL THIS FOR ME IS: ISLAMISPEACE DOESN�T BELIEVE OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS A PLACE IN ONE�S FAITH. HE LIKES TO CRITICIZE THE BIBLE AND CHRISTIANITY AS IF OBJECTIVE THINGS LIKE HISTORY AND SCIENCE MATTER TO HIM BUT THEY DON�T. HE REALLY ONLY WANTS CHRISTANS TO GIVE UP BASING THEIR FAITH ON OBJECTIVE THINGS LIKE THE RESURRECTION AND THE RELIABLENESS OF THE BIBLE AND JOIN HIM IN A SUBJECTIVE BASED FAITH. HE HOPES THAT IF THEY DO THIS, THEY WILL LOOK AT ISLAM AND ASSESS IT FROM A PURELY SUBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE AND LIKE IT. (DON�T YOU LIKE WHAT ISLAM IS ABOUT? DOESN�T IT SEEM LIKE SOMETHING GOD WOULD TELL US?)

New From Apollos:

Please look at this last summation and tell me if and where I am wrong. As it is, I am wasting my time discussing objective things with you as you don�t value such things anyway, do you?