IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   Dear Shibboleth

first of all, you mentioned several times that a list of well known scholars, whom you mentioned their names don't believe in the corruption/alteration of the bible 
I asked you more than once I think to provide reference for this, still waiting for it 

 Shibboleth wrote:

Homework???????????????????????????????????????

Yes, because you claim that what you have now is the same that was revealed to Moses and Jesus ( PBUT ) 
Then what is your proof for that ? 

 Shibboleth wrote:

Sorry, Jesus confirmed the Torah, the Psalms and the Injil waaaaay before you and I or the prophet were ever born. Schools out!

This is not the point of difference, Prophet Muhammad also confirmed the existence of the  Ta'rah and Injil

The point of difference is whether what we have now is the same as what was revealed , or had it been altered ? intentionally or non-intentionally ?

 Shibboleth wrote:

 All my posts attests to what Jesus said regarding people who would come after him when he died 2000 yrs ago, the uncensored and uncorrupted version. I even posted the Aramaic version to prove every point regarding  the 'messenger'

I recall that it was me who posted the link to the oragnization that's trying to translate the bible from Aramic
I also recall there was quite difference between going from Greek to English , or from Aramic to English
What language did Jesus ( PBUH ) speak anyways ? 

 Shibboleth wrote:

But, show me what scriptures was corrupted in the Bible regarding Muhammad, that's the real issue.  As Muslims say the Quran mentions Jesus by NAME several time, it had to.

It is true, Jesus ( PBUH ) is mentioned several
times in the Qur'an, there's a whole surat in the name of his mother
Mariam ( PBUH ) 

 Shibboleth wrote:

 But No where will you or anyone find Muhammad's name in the Bible. 

 This is the difference between us muslims and you, while we endorse all Prophets and books revealed from God, you choose to endorse only some 
Quite similar to how the jews don't believe in Jesus

 Shibboleth wrote:

Do you know Umayya bin abi al-Salt, a maternal cousin of
Mohammed, claimed to be a prophet? A lie.

Do you know The Midianites never
even heard of Mecca
and Moses never mentioned it? Truth

Assuming this is true, so ? 

BTW, the Bible has always appeared to be corrupted to non-believers and those who deny the Christ, that's nothing new.

[/QUOTE]

I can't speak for others throughout the years, but today, in year 2009 It seems to be the only scientific logical conclusion that the current bible is not 100 % what was revealed to Moses and Jesus ( PBUH ) 

a member here of the name 'Moses' recently posted here

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15160&PN=6

how the bible was collected/written bringing dates of the collection

This is my reply to him hope you find it useful 

>>>

Summarizing what you said it means : 

New testament was written in Greek between the years 45-95 , these writings we have no reference to at the moment, correct ? 

There're 5600 greek manuscripts that still exist 

The oldest papyrus we have was copied year 125 

The oldest compilation that contains almost what's called now new and old testament dates back to year 350 

First : The old testament

A scientific approach would mean we need to know

When was it revealed

How it was written

Which language it was written in 

Who wrote it 

How did reach us

Without knowing these answers, can we tell that what we call today 'the old testament' is what was revealed to Moses ( PBUH ) ?

Second : The new testament

Which language did Jesus speak ? Greek, Hebrew or Aramic ? 

Combining the 5,600 manuscripts you speak of together, what percentage would it make of the new / old testament ? 

Assuming the earliest dates you mentioned 

What is the guarantee that something that was written on the year 45
then copied on year 125 ( and stretches in parts to year 225 at least )
retains completely it's original

For us muslims, having a 45 days gap ( not a 45 months or a 45 year,
not mention tens or hunderds  ) between a person who receives a message
/ text ...etc. and the next person who reports / writes it , makes it
an unacceptable

The weakest category of sayings of Prophet Muhammad ( PBUH ), hadeeth
da'eef ( weak hadeeth ) which some scholars don't even accept to use it
as evidence, have way far authenticity that this    

Add to that, that according to the three categories you mention 

Originally posted by Moses

   First, the books must have apostolic authority-- that is, they must have been written either by the apostles themselves, who were eyewitnesses to what they wrote about, or by associates of the apostles.
�         Second, there was the criterion of conformity to what was called the "rule of faith." In other words, was the document congruent with the basic Christian tradition that the church recognized as normative.

�         Third, there was the criterion of whether a document had enjoyed continuous acceptance and usage by the church at large.

Means they didn't only accept what was written by the apostles or their
associates , they accepted what seems to suit ( the rule of faith ) and
the general acceptance and usage by the church at large! 

This in any logical sense makes us sure what was written can not be proven to be 100 % exactly what was revealed 

Also , the words rule of faith , and general acceptance and usage by the curch seem to be very flexible words

Which rule of faith you speak of ? the one that says Jesus is God, or Son of God ?

Which church acceptance , the catholic church, orthodox church, angelic church ? Which church did accept this ? 

Set aside that we're muslims, how can you prove to someone who's not
muslim, that the current bible have any links to Jesus ( PBUH ) ? you
have no direct links, 

you don't  know for sure who wrote each of these manuscripts

you don't know whom they received it from

you don't know what were their ideologies, if they had motives to alter it or not

How can you convince someone to accept such links to what you claim is
the source of salvation and eternal happiness ? Even if I wasn't
muslim, it wouldn't make any sense from a logical / scientific point of
view

Which is no surprise most of the west today reject faith in all, or think of it as something contradictory to science 

That said about the old compilations, I urge you to fetch a copy of the
bible that's only 200 years old, and closely start comparing it with
the current printed version, I'm sure you'll be very surprised 
>>>>>

Best Regards