Print Page | Close Window

Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam

Printed From: IslamiCity.org
Category: Religion - Islam
Forum Name: Interfaith Dialogue
Forum Description: It is for Interfaith dialogue, where Muslims discuss with non-Muslims. We encourge that dialogue takes place in a cordial atmosphere on various topics including religious tolerance.
URL: https://www.islamicity.org/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14279
Printed Date: 29 March 2024 at 3:06pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com


Topic: Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam
Posted By: Apollos
Subject: Why a corrupt Bible is a problem for Islam
Date Posted: 28 February 2009 at 7:39am

In interacting with Muslims in person, on this site and others, I understand how crucial it is for the claim of Bible corruption to be true. (There are so many differences between the Quran and the Bible that they both can�t be said to be God�s Word in their present form). What I have not yet discovered is a detailed comprehensive explanation by Muslims for how this corruption came about. I have learned that the corruption would have to be massive. It therefore seems to me that such a corruption has at least three major problems for Islam. I list them here and welcome any input from Muslims as to how their theory of Bible corruption accounts for these things.

 

1.      The Quran refers to the Bible as a means to evaluate its followers. It states that the Gospel confirmed and guarded previous Scripture. The version of the Bible that existed during Mohammed�s life is the same as we have today. So if the Bible is corrupt, the Quran�s statements here are incorrect.

Surah 5: 46-48

46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed,

 

2.      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?

 

3.      The type of Bible corruption Muslims describe requires a reversal of the attributes of God and the attributes of men. It is analogous to saying: �Raising someone from the dead is something men can do but water flowing down hill is a miracle�. To demonstrate this point, I will break down the issues into small objective aspects that anyone can check and confirm.

 

a.       Doctrine. If the Bible is corrupt as Muslims say it is, scores of words and concepts are definitely part of the corruption � because they are the very things Muslims object to. The list below is not exhaustive but just some of the obvious ones that Muslims reject.

 

Atonement

The Sabbath

Sunday worship (i.e. � the Church meeting on the first day of the week to commemorate Jesus� resurrection).

Heaven

Paradise

Sin

Righteousness

The fall of Adam

The fall of Satan

Abraham�s son

The Messiah being David�s Lord

The Son of God

The Lamb of God

Sacrifice

Savior

Redeemer

Ransom

God�s Grace

God�s Salvation

Prayer (purpose, content, etc.)

Justification

Sanctification

Crucifixion

The Cross

 

The above words and concepts permeate the entire Bible and are woven throughout. For example, references to God as our Savior, our Redeemer or our salvation occur hundreds of times in the Old and New Testaments. For these words to have been incorporated as they are would require a massive re-write if they did not exist in the original writing. (To prove it to yourself, go through the first chapters of Genesis or John or Galatians � highlight the statements that conflict with the Quran and see what is left over). Furthermore such a revision would have created a chopped up awkward writing � but it doesn�t. If it was done at all, it would require a team of geniuses because it had to be done quickly. They would also have to partner with another team who could destroy all copies of the previous non-corrupted original. All of this would have to be done so that no one was aware that they had done these things. But it gets worse.

 

b.      Prophecies. Over a quarter of the Bible�s contents refers to events that were future to the prophet who was given a revelation. Whether the �corruptors� removed some original prophecies or not, they were smart enough to leave hundreds of prophecies intact so the Bible would still have this evidence of divine authorship. If they added any, they had to flow with other prophecies they left intact. But this meant they were adding another aspect of integration to their work.

 

c.       History, archaeology and culture. Everything that we can cross-check in the Bible confirms that it is accurate. If there were �corruptors� they were smart enough to leave references to such things alone and, if they added anything, to be sure their revisions were also accurate. But how could they know what was OK to change and what needed to be left alone? For example, the writers he could have never known so many things about the earlier times and locations the Bible describes like � where the first humans lived, where and when iron was first used, the names and locations of ancient cities and peoples we have only recently discovered. Its not just that the Bible describes things we can check out history-wise, it turns out the Bible can not be found to say anything incorrect about history. Each time someone thinks they�ve found an example, further inquiry shows the opposite. (e.g. � historians used to say Pilate never existed and then they found an engraving in Rome with his name on it; the said Jericho never existed and then they discovered the ruins, etc.). So while it would have been much easier to simply remove these references, the �corruptors� worked around another aspect of the original writing as they wove their fabrication.

 

d.      Science and advanced knowledge. The Bible is not a science book but it makes numerous statements about scientific knowledge that was contrary to the knowledge of when it was written. It mentions things like the gravitational forces of the Milky-way, the existence and incredible speed the belt of Orion is moving through space at, the earth being a sphere, the atmospheric processes that move water from the ocean to land via rain clouds, etc. Like the prophecy hurdle, the �corruptors� had to work around yet another challenge to their effort rather than just remove these references.

 

e.       Titles, names, types, feasts, patterns. The New Testament accounts incorporate numerous titles, psalms, passages, concepts and traditions from the Old Testament that flow seamlessly with the overall story. Even if these references were not originally intended to be used in the ways the Gospel writers employed them or if they were added to the Old Testament after the originals were destroyed, they have created a rich interwoven effect that is literarily ingenious. Consider below some of the Old Testament terms and titles the writers applied to Jesus.

 

Messiah/Anointed

Cursed

God with us/Immanuel

I AM

King

Servant

Lord

Lamb of God

Good Shepherd

Bread from Heaven

Healing serpent on a pole

Savior

Sacrifice

Redeemer

Condemned

Judge

Passover Lamb

First Fruit

Bridegroom

Son of Man

Son of God

 

You will note that at first glance many of these titles actually appear to be contradictions of other titles � such as Lamb of God (sacrifice) and Savior, Servant and King. The way in which they are used and harmonized in the Gospel accounts demonstrates great complexity and layering. If someone was fabricating this all, why would they select some challenging concepts?

 

Readers of the Gospels will observe that the writers did not incorporate these references awkwardly as we would expect them to. For example, if one just randomly grabbed a title like Levite or Priest from the OT and then tried to apply that title to Jesus as they did the titles above, it would be awkward because the rest of story does not support these titles. Jesus � according to the Gospels - did not come from the tribe of Levi so it would be odd to call him a Levite or a priest after that order. The extensive use of titles creates an enormous challenge for a story-writer if the story is contrived or corrupted.

 

There are also scores of Old Testament quotations that are employed in the New Testament � some to support a particular event, others to explain why an event occurred. Even if the reference were religiously inappropriate to apply to Jesus, interweaving these references as they have creates a complexity that is incredibly difficult to achieve.

 

Some partial references add a layer of depth that the casual reader may miss. For example, we read that while on the cross Jesus cried: �My God, my God  why has thou forsaken me?� This is a direct quote from Psalm 22 and when one reads the entire Psalm we find the next 18 verses sound like a recap of the entire crucifixion experience � even stating that they would cast lots for his clothes. The two Gospels that record the Psalm 22 quote don�t describe the plea a quote which makes it seem like they didn�t even know this themselves.

 

If the Old Testament was revised to fit the New Testament, we can deduce that the New Testament accounts must be historical and accurate � otherwise why not change the New Testament to fit what was already written in the Old Testament? If the New Testament was fabricated to harmonize with the Old Testament, we can deduce that the Old Testament was established and well known � otherwise why not change it to match the New Testament? It doesn�t make sense that both the Old and New Testaments would be rewritten to create some entirely new message. Still, that is the claim.

 

To change the Old Testament to fit the New Testament would not just require another hurdle but that action would also require a change in the practices and celebrations of the Jewish people � almost overnight. Otherwise there would not be a consistency between their traditions and their new Bible. Do you see how incredible this conspiracy is becoming? And were not finished yet.

 

f.       Wisdom. Many of the things the Bible say about Jesus show Him to be an incredibly wise and smart person � refuting Lawyers, Sadducees, etc. in ways no other human has been able to. At the same time many of these passages are the ones Muslims would have a problem with. This means the corruptors are the ones who fabricated these events and words. A very amazing accomplishment.

 

g.      Amazing Word Patterns. In addition to all of the above aspects that had to be harmonized for a corruption to take place, the Bible displays amazing word patterns that are far beyond coincidence. I describe just a couple of the hundreds that have been found already.

 

1.   A recurring aspect of word patterns involves the Bible�s number of completion - 7 or a number divisible by 7.  In the Hebrew version of the Torah � the 5 books of Moses � the word �Torah� (תורה) is spelled out by starting with the first letter, skipping 49 letters and then noting the next letter in the sequence. (You can do this yourself to check). It seems like just an oddity until one finds that the second book also shares this pattern and the last two books spell out Torah backwards. The middle book doesn�t spell out Torah but following the same pattern spells out �Elohim� or �God�. Coincidence? Remember this is just one of many examples.

2.   In the Greek version of the New Testament, all of the Gospels contain unique words � ones that only each writer uses. It turns out that each group of unique words for each writer is divisible by seven. To accomplish this by accident is highly improbable. To accomplish it on purpose would require an extraordinary effort and cooperation on the part of each writer and to what end? It has taken inquiring minds and mathematicians to notice these features. But it gets better � for the unique words of every writer of the New Testament displays this pattern.

 

h.      Timing (Covering the tracks) � When someone claims that something has occurred based on a lack of contrary evidence, the argument is known as �argumentum ex silentio� or  an argument from silence. It is a well known logical fallacy and some think that�s what the Muslim claim about the Bible is. Actually it is worse for there is a host of evidence contradicting this argument. It isn�t just an argument from silence, it is an argument against a symphony of evidence!

 

If a massive corruption of the Bible has taken place, when did it occur? If it happened after Mohammed arrived with the Quran, that would solve one of the problems I listed above. But there were already thousands of manuscripts of the Bible we use today � all around the world by that time. There were also thousands of Lectionaries that we have copies of today. These documents quote the Old and New Testaments and the NT could be recreated from them except for Revelation and Parts of Acts. If the Bible was revised it must have been before these Lectionaries were produced or they would have to have been revised and replaced as well. (Around 500 AD, Churches began writing out Lectionaries - Bible lessons for Sunday Services and Studies. Researchers have catalogued 2,300 of these ancient documents.) I don�t think anyone is claiming this happened. 

 

If the corruption occurred before the time of Jesus, that wouldn�t work because the New Testament is supposed to be corrupted too and it wasn�t written until after Jesus arrived. That means that the corruption would have had to take place sometime after Jesus ascended into heaven and before the Quran appeared. The earlier this date the more it would require the involvement of Jesus� disciples. The later the corruption occurred, the harder it would be to remove copies of the original Bible, remove and replace secular history that referred to it, remove and replace Jewish and Christian documents and letters that referred to the original Bible, etc. They would have also had to reshape Jewish and Christian traditions, hymns, oral creeds, holy days and practices to coincide with the new Bible. This scenario would require killing people to kill to cover up witnesses who saw what was being done. Besides these obstacles, someone would have to rewrite and replace the copies of the Septuagint (the Greek Old Testament) that had been in use for 300 years. Lots more killings and cover ups and now a second version of the Old Testament that had to match with the new corrupted Hebrew version.

 

To accomplish all of these cover up efforts without a trace would require an army of people and series of supernatural events. To minimize inconsistencies they would have to be well coordinated. (The larger the group the more likely inconsistencies would occur). This is on top of the supernatural ability of people who could rewrite the Bible. With all of this supernatural activity being done in opposition to what God desired, we would have to believe that a coup of sorts had been perpetrated against God, something that trumps God�s abilities to safeguard His truth. Obviously this can�t be true so how does one account for all this?

 

i.        Motive � For all of the above to be accomplished, a lot of people had to have a common goal and motive. What would that be? It wasn�t fame for we don�t know who they are. It wasn�t money because there was no money to be made a lot to be spent in this effort. It wasn�t due to devotion of God because they had to know they were corrupting God�s Word. What is the explanation for this question?

 

As I mentioned in the introduction, I welcome a Muslim explanation that accounts for these problems in your claim that the Bible has been corrupted. I think they reflect divine attributes that are impossible for humans to create.

 

Apollos




Replies:
Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 28 February 2009 at 7:15pm

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 - 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.



-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 28 February 2009 at 10:35pm

The version of the Bible that existed during Mohammed�s life is the same as we have today

From Nur_Ilahi:

However the Christians cannot produce this version as claimed above.

From Apollos:

You�ve got to be joking. Are you saying we don�t have manuscripts of the Bible from Mohammed�s time? There are hundreds and the Bible of today is based on these. Please clarify what you are saying or do some study.

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?

From Nur_Ilahi:

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.

From Apollos:

Of course the Bible doesn�t use these terms because it doesn�t use Arabic. But the Bible makes it clear that God has assured us His word will remain and accomplish what He purposes. He never states that He needs humans to accomplish this or that it is uncertain. Below are a few examples.

 

(David re: God) Psa 138:2  I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.

 

(God) Num 11:23  And the LORD said unto Moses, Is the LORD'S hand waxed short? thou shalt see now whether my word shall come to pass unto thee or not.

 

(God) Isa 54:10  For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the LORD that hath mercy on thee.

 

(Jesus) Mat 24:35  Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

 
Additionally, all you have done is say: "The reason the Quran hasn't been corrupted is because it says so." If one is supposed to ignore statements from the Bible that says it won't be corrupted but accept similar ones from the Quran, you are being inconsistent and hypocritical.
 

From Nur_Ilahi:

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.

From Apollos:

I don�t have a clue what you mean by this. Please clarify. And please clarify how anything you have said accounts for the supernatural attributes of the Bible that exists today.

 

Apollos



Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 28 February 2009 at 11:16pm
 Salam Apollos
I'm really glad that you started this topic. Let me first tell you about what Muslims think of the Bible. We think that it is composed of three parts.
1)The part which agrees with the Quran may be true. For example those verses in which God is potrayed as 1, Holy, merciful etc.
2) The part which contradicts with the Quran, we all deem it false. For example, no Muslim can ever say that prophet Lot first drank wine, then commited adultery, with his own daughter, twice (first night with one, 2nd night with the other) Hence we disagree with Gen 19:30-36, and all the other similar parts are interpolation for us.
3) The part which neither contradicts nor matches with the Quran. That part could or couldn't be true.
But for us, Bible is irrelevent. God gives books for guidance and there is complete guidance in Quran for us, so Muslims don't read the Bible for the sake of guidance. They read it to chat with folks like you Smile
 


Posted By: _ALI_
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 6:15am

.      The Quran refers to the Bible as a means to evaluate its followers. It states that the Gospel confirmed and guarded previous Scripture. The version of the Bible that existed during Mohammed�s life is the same as we have today. So if the Bible is corrupt, the Quran�s statements here are incorrect.

Surah 5: 46-48

I�ll just explain these verses 1 by 1

46. And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.

 

46: We Muslims believe that God sent many revelations. To Moses, He gave Torah. To Jesus, He gave Injeel(translated gospel). Now Injeel confirmed what was present in Torah (i.e God is one, all the fundamental commandments etc). That is what this verse says

47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

 

47:Here therein refers to the Gospel, not Bible. Which gospel is it? Gospel of Mark, John, Mathew? No, it is the Gospel of God given to Jesus. You guys don�t have that gospel, you only have a corrupted form of that gospel in the shape of gospel of Mark, Mathew, John etc. Part of it may be God�s word like I said before. Here Allah is saying that you should judge right from wrong by what Allah has revealed in the gospel, meaning that part of the gospels of Mark, Luke, John  which is God�s word in the true sense. And Shakir translates this verse a bit differently

SHAKIR: And the followers of the Injeel should have judged by what Allah revealed in it; and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the transgressors.

48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed,

Meaning prophet Muhammad (referred here are thee/you) has been given scripture (i.e Quran) which confirms the scripture that came before it (meaning it confirms what Injeel, Torah really said, note that scripture that came before it is not Bible, its Torah, Injeel and Zabur). This verse further says that Quran is guarding Torah and Injeel i.e gospel, meaning that Quran has the truth given by Torah and Injeel but you lost that, and turned Injeel into NT and Torah into OT. The verse is explained by Maududi in tafheem.net:

*78. This points to a fact of major significance. It could also have been said that the Qur'an confirms all those parts of the earlier divine books which are still extant in their true and original form. But the sense has been conveyed by employing the word 'the Book' rather than 'the previous Books'. This expression reveals that the Qur'an and all those Books sent down by God at various times and in different languages in reality constitute one and the same Book. Their Author is one and the same; their aim and purpose are the same; their teaching is the same; and the knowledge which they seek to impart to mankind is the same. The difference between these Books lies in their modes of expression, and this was necessarily so since they were addressed to different audiences. It is, therefore, not merely that these divine books support rather than contradict each other but that they are actually different editions of one and the same book - 'the Book'.

*79. In Arabic, haymana, yuhayminu, hayamanah signify 'to protect, to witness, to keep trust, to back and to support'. The expression 'haymana al-rajul al-shay' means that the man protected and guarded the thing. Likewise, 'haymana al-ta'ir 'alafirdkhih' means that the bird took its young ones under the protection of its wings. Once 'Umar said to the people: 'Inni da'in fa hayminu' ('I am praying; support me by saying amen'). To say that the Qur'an is muhaymin of al-kitab means that it preserves all the true teachings of the earlier divine books; that it has secured them from loss. The Qur'an also confirms those Books in that the contents of the Qur'an testify to the truth of those parts which are indeed from God. The Qur'an is, further, a witness over those Books in the sense that, with its help, the elements which embody true revelations from God can be distinguished from the accretions which have corrupted them. Whatever in these Books accords with the Qur'an is from God, and whatever is not in conformity with it is from human beings.



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 6:48am

FROM ALI:

Surah 5: 46-48

I�ll just explain these verses 1 by 1

47. Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein. If any do fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel.

 47:Here therein refers to the Gospel, not Bible. Which gospel is it? Gospel of Mark, John, Mathew? No, it is the Gospel of God given to Jesus. You guys don�t have that gospel, you only have a corrupted form of that gospel in the shape of gospel of Mark, Mathew, John etc. Part of it may be God�s word like I said before. Here Allah is saying that you should judge right from wrong by what Allah has revealed in the gospel, meaning that part of the gospels of Mark, Luke, John  which is God�s word in the true sense.

FROM APOLLOS:

Ali � How would these believers be expected to know what the true parts are? This passage does not say that there are true and false parts nor does it say that these believers are to look to the Quran as their guide for finding true and false parts. And if one reads that thinking into the passage, the whole point of the passage disappears � That Christians can judge or should have judged by what is in the Gospel.

48. To thee We sent the Scripture in truth, confirming the scripture that came before it, and guarding it in safety: so judge between them by what Allah hath revealed,

Meaning prophet Muhammad (referred here are thee/you) has been given scripture (i.e Quran) which confirms the scripture that came before it (meaning it confirms what Injeel, Torah really said, note that scripture that came before it is not Bible, its Torah, Injeel and Zabur). This verse further says that Quran is guarding Torah and Injeel i.e gospel, meaning that Quran has the truth given by Torah and Injeel but you lost that, and turned Injeel into NT and Torah into OT.

From Apollos:

Ali � Your explanation for this seems contrived to me. It brings in a host of outside concepts into this passage that aren�t stated here and turns �safe guarding� on its head by redefining this as �replacing� previous Scripture. Nonetheless, I grant Muslims great latitude in interpreting the Quran for it is your book, not mine. Thanks for your explanation of this.

Do you have an explanation for how the corruption of the Torah and Gospel occurred � accounting for the various features I described?

Apollos



Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 8:53am
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece -
- From The Times
-
- October 5, 2005

Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
 

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect �total accuracy� from the Bible.

 
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 9:29am
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece -
- - From - The Times
-
- October 5, 2005
-

- Catholic Church no longer swears by truth of the Bible

- By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
-  
-

THE hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church has published a teaching document instructing the faithful that some parts of the Bible are not actually true.

The Catholic bishops of England, Wales and Scotland are warning their five million worshippers, as well as any others drawn to the study of scripture, that they should not expect �total accuracy� from the Bible.

 
 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article574768.ece
 
Chrysalis,
 
I am aware that many other groups hold similar ideas about the Bible being corrupted - including apostate "church" leaders that you reference here. My challenge here then could be put to them as well. I am not intimidated in the slightest by so called "scholars", atheists, and others who claim that Jesus was wrong. 
 
Feel free to look to these type of people to find quotes, theories or explanations that account for the supernatural attributes of the Bible I list. I know their explanations are inadequate. I don't know what yours is.
 
Apollos


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 12:17pm
Chyralis -Now that is definately a problem for catholics!!
 
More clarification:
 
The Torah is Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy the Quran validates these.
 
The Gospel Matthew, Mark, Luke and John that we have today is the Gospel that was used by the earliest Christians as early or even earlier then 67AD and was available to Mohammad and validated by the Quran.
 
There is no mention of the Epistles in the Quran.  Through the epistles we know that the Gospel Matthew, Mark, Luke and John was in use by that 67AD date.   St. Paul referenced them in his letters- Epistles and we know that Paul died in 67AD.
 
The New Testament combines the Gospel and Epistles into the New Testament.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 01 March 2009 at 12:20pm

The Quran never mentions that the Gospel and Torah have been lost or corrupted.

And if it did then what is to say that the Quran has been protected from coruption and loss?  It makes no sense!!  LOL!!
 

If you look at the literal- the Book could actually be the Bible in this verse.  It is not separating out the Gospeel and Torah as in other verses.  The Bible was in existance as we have it much earlier then Mohammad.

Literal:
And this the Koran was/is not that it be fabricated from (by) other than God, and but confirmation (of) what (is) between his (Prophet Mohammad's) hands, and detailing/explaining The Book , no doubt/suspicion in it, (it is) from the creations all together's/(universes') Lord.
 
YUSUFALI: This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds.
PICKTHAL: And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be invented in despite of Allah; but it is a confirmation of that which was before it and an exposition of that which is decreed for mankind - Therein is no doubt - from the Lord of the Worlds.
SHAKIR: And this Quran is not such as could be forged by those besides Allah, but it is a verification of that which is before it and a clear explanation of the book, there is no doubt in it, from the Lord of the worlds.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 5:03am
As Salamu Alaikum Brothers and Sisters.I see we are at it again Apollos.We Muslims believe in The Books of Allah.Believer, if what you said in your first statement is true then why is it a reason for the Holy Qur'an in the first place?You failed to prove your point but I will (Ameen) your quotes from The Qur'an.The Holy Qur'an is Allahs last Book for us all re-affirming His first Revelations La illaha illallah .The Bible even speaks of the coming of Prophet Muhammed.Like Sister Nur says the topic should be change.


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 5:43am
Quote
And if it did then what is to say that the Quran has been protected from coruption and loss?  It makes no sense!!  LOL!!
 
Maybe it doesnt make sense to you because you believe in a book that has been corrupted, so assume the Qur'an must be corrupted as well. Lots of reasons why this is untrue:
 
1. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an's timeline and preservation is recorded and has been traced through the centuries. Even the people who do not believe the Qur'an is divine, believe it is the same Qur'an that was revealed during Prophet Muhammad's time. 
 
2. The Bible's timeline has gaps and loopholes, that leave ample time and opportunity for corruption. On top of it, the Bible was kept away from the common man for centuries, niether was it ever allowed to translated and only priests could read it. I wonder why? Was it so noone could detect any changes in it? VS the Qur'an : common men were allowed to not only learn and recite - but have copies of the Qur'an - which meant that no particular entity ever had a sole right over it - thus making it impossible to change without people noticing.
 
3.  Kings, Monarchs, Leaders were allowed to produce 'versions' of the bible, and change it on whims. They as the 'God's representative' on earth, could decide which 'scriptures' and scrolls to keep, and which to discard. . . basically - they had complete control over the Bible, and made use of that control ample times. Muslim leaders never had a right to make changes in religion, or dictate it. . .
 
4. The 'Bible' today consists more of the ramblings of St. So-and-So than it does actual wordings of 'Jesus'. I thought Jesus was the founder of Christianity? why is it that Paul gets to have his say? Should it not be Paulism instead? VS Islam: Muslims too, respect certain human biengs, but never confused them with 'spiritual biengs' nor did they believe false saints and prophets, or let them claim a supernatural status.
 
5. Anybody in christian history could simply stand up and claim communication with God, and be titled a Saint, and be allowed to mix thier opinions with Christianity. After Prophet Muhammad's death, anybody claiming prophethood or sainthood is sent to the loony-bin - rather than be revered.
 
6. The Christians couldnt even keep the words of men seperate from the word's of Jesus and God !!!! They ended up giving equal importance to the words of common man, and let them penetrate the Bible. Au contraire, Muslims have kept a detailed record of sayings of men, kept it a seperate entity and have not even mixed the words of Prophet Muhammad himself in the Quran . . .
 
7. Majority of Christian tenets were created AFTER Jesus's passing . . . you expect Muslims to believe, that the religion that is based on Jesus - was actually perfected AFTER his "crucifiction"? Why were concepts allowed to enter Christianity AFTER Jesus? Did he Nauzubillah/God forbid not do his job? that Paul had to take over? As a muslim, I can trust Jesus - but I cannot trust false prophets like Paul.
 
8. The languge of the Bible etc was not easily understood and commonly spoken by the majority of christians- which made changes in it easier and undetectable. Unlike Arabic, which was spoken and understood by many muslims.
 
9. Non-muslim Historians and scholars doubt the accuracy of the bible.
 
10. Christian denominations/sects whatever you wanna call it - doubt the accuracy of the bible, whereas no Muslim denomination or "sect" doubts the validity of the Qur'an. If the once-followers of the Bible doubt it themselves, it raises alarm-bells.
 
11. Bible is based 100% on blind-faith . . . . the Qur'an uses logic, and commonsense and facts - and then expects its believers to have a certain level of blind-faith on certain matters.


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 10:40am

From Chrysalis:

 

Maybe it doesnt make sense to you because you believe in a book that has been corrupted, so assume the Qur'an must be corrupted as well. Lots of reasons why this is untrue:

 

Chrysalis � in the above statement and elsewhere you constantly refer to the Bible being corrupted but you don�t offer one example of this. Will you please provide us at least one example so we can know what you are talking about.

 

1. Unlike the Bible, the Qur'an's timeline and preservation is recorded and has been traced through the centuries. Even the people who do not believe the Qur'an is divine, believe it is the same Qur'an that was revealed during Prophet Muhammad's time. 

 

Chrysalis � are you being serious? The New Testament alone has a chain of writings from the eyewitnesses who spoke and lived with Jesus all the way to the Greek versions of the New Testament we have copies of today. This chain of written documentation includes letters from contemporaries and the Disciples, their students, Roman historians, the followers of the first students and so on. For example, the last living disciple was John. He confirmed what the other Disciples wrote and his disciples (Polycarp, Papias and Ignatius) confirmed in writing that John wrote the Gospel attributed to him. There were others like Clement of Rome who also confirmed the authorship of the Gospels and the Church was using these Gospels as part of their teaching and practice. Polycarp, Papias and Ignatius had their students and we have the chain of their confirmation in writing as well. E.g. � Irenaeus. During the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian the Church quoted the New Testament in their lectionaries so extensively that we could recreate all but a few verses of the Bible of today from these lectionaries. (The �missing� verses aren�t corrupted or replaced with something else � they simply aren�t quoted). Across this same time frame we have manuscripts and fragments of manuscripts with the same content as the collections we have today � the same ones that were in existence when Mohammed arrived.

 

So please tell us how two hundred years of written gap between Mohammed and the documents Muslims have today is superior to what I have just summarized.

 

 

2. The Bible's timeline has gaps and loopholes, that leave ample time and opportunity for corruption.

 

Please provide an example of this claim.

 

On top of it, the Bible was kept away from the common man for centuries, niether was it ever allowed to translated and only priests could read it.

 

 

This was during the Dark Ages � after Mohammed�s time and after the documents we have in hand today. Any changes made during this time can be identified. Do you have any examples to back up your suspcicions?

 

 

VS the Qur'an : common men were allowed to not only learn and recite - but have copies of the Qur'an - which meant that no particular entity ever had a sole right over it - thus making it impossible to change without people noticing.

 

Please provide an account for how and when the Quran came to be � identifying what the oldest copy you have today is.

 

3.  Kings, Monarchs, Leaders were allowed to produce 'versions' of the bible, and change it on whims.

 

Please show an example of this.

 

 

4. The 'Bible' today consists more of the ramblings of St. So-and-So than it does actual wordings of 'Jesus'.

 

The writers you impugn were eyewitness followers of Jesus who claimed that Jesus authorized them to write and tell others about what He had said. They were given miracle working power to confirm that God had given this authority as well. If you are going to dismiss their accounts and mutual endorsement of each other, you had better have a better reason than you think Jesus should have written down His own words.

 

5. Anybody in christian history could simply stand up and claim communication with God, and be titled a Saint, and be allowed to mix thier opinions with Christianity. After Prophet Muhammad's death, anybody claiming prophethood or sainthood is sent to the loony-bin - rather than be revered.

 

Where did you ever get this idea? First of all, all followers of Jesus are �saints�. The term has come to mean to the world a person the Catholic Church deems worthy of the title but the New Testament refers to all believers as saints. The criteria for being included in the NT as Scripture was � Apostleship by Jesus, writings that had already been accepted and were being read aloud in services by the believers, consistency with other Scripture and contradiction-free, writings created during the Apostolic age, and orthodoxy with Church beliefs. This criteria was also documented in writing before the NT was canonized and it refutes your assertion that anybody could do anything they want.

 

6. The Christians couldnt even keep the words of men seperate from the word's of Jesus and God !!!! They ended up giving equal importance to the words of common man, and let them penetrate the Bible. Au contraire, Muslims have kept a detailed record of sayings of men, kept it a seperate entity and have not even mixed the words of Prophet Muhammad himself in the Quran . . .

 

7. Majority of Christian tenets were created AFTER Jesus's passing . . . you expect Muslims to believe, that the religion that is based on Jesus - was actually perfected AFTER his "crucifiction"? Why were concepts allowed to enter Christianity AFTER Jesus? Did he Nauzubillah/God forbid not do his job? that Paul had to take over? As a muslim, I can trust Jesus - but I cannot trust false prophets like Paul.

 

 

If you trust Jesus you will listen to Him when He says He says to His disciples:

 

Joh 15:26  But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Joh 15:27  And ye also shall bear witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning.

 

Joh 16:12  I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

Joh 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

Joh 16:14  He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 16:15  All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

Joh 16:16  A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.

 

 

8. The languge of the Bible etc was not easily understood and commonly spoken by the majority of christians- which made changes in it easier and undetectable. Unlike Arabic, which was spoken and understood by many muslims.

 

Completely false � please provide examples to support your assertion. Also, the Quran is written in Arabic and only 15% of Muslims today speak Arabic. At the same time, don�t you believe that reading the Quran in anything but Arabic is imperfect? How can 85% of Muslims today know what the Quran is really saying � without relying on the interpretations by Muslim rulers today?

 

9. Non-muslim Historians and scholars doubt the accuracy of the bible.

 

Because they doubt that God could speak to people or that miracles could ever have happened. They start from that bias and conclude � what they already presumed: That God doesn�t speak to people and miracles can�t occur. If they or you have any objective evidence for the Bible being inaccurate I would love to see it. E.g. � an historical event didn�t happen, an historical person didn�t exist, etc. Otherwise, this is a meaningless statement. These same �scholars� doubt the accuracy of the Quran even more.

 

10. Christian denominations/sects whatever you wanna call it - doubt the accuracy of the bible, whereas no Muslim denomination or "sect" doubts the validity of the Qur'an. If the once-followers of the Bible doubt it themselves, it raises alarm-bells.

 

This is a subjective criteria in two ways. One � why does this matter? It is just your idea of what should exist. Two � the only �Christians� who doubt the accuracy of the Bible are Liberals. Do you include Liberal Muslims in your statement? I think many Liberal Muslims doubt the accuracy of the Quran; they certainly do doubt the reliability of the Hadiths.

 

 

11. Bible is based 100% on blind-faith . . . . the Qur'an uses logic, and commonsense and facts - and then expects its believers to have a certain level of blind-faith on certain matters.

 

I have listed numerous objective attributes of the Bible that you can confirm or refute with facts. Please stop with the naked assertions and counter with some evidence to support your claims. Show where the word patterns don�t exist or how humans can create these. Show where and when the chain of manuscripts and history is broken. Show us how hundreds of prophecies were created and fulfilled by mere men.

 

Apollos



Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 1:00pm
The Holy Bible is the Word of GOD.  Why would GOD let one scripture become corrupt and not any others?!?
 
LOL!!  Now repeat after me the Quran validates the Gosepl and Torah.
 
1.  But it has not- Uthmann burned copies that varied and we have no proof what was burned.  Where are the bones and leaves where the first verses are written?  That would be a complete timeline.  Where is the original written Quran?  Goodness we have the Dead Sea Scroll for hundreds of years, a thousand years earlier.
 
2. The majority of people could not read anyway and would have done them no good.  Not sure what you mean by loopholes, but the gaps in the timeline of the Bible have been filled in from vast collections of manuscripts and writings of early church fathers.  They used scripture in their writings, sermons, etc. 
 
3. I think you and many Muslims are blind to the history of the codexes and canon of the Quran.  A quick study of your hadith shows that there is a big question as to what has been ommitted from the "official" Quran.  You can read the various translations of the Bible and see that the main theme exists and has not been erased or burned.  LOL!!
 
4.  Jesus was the message.  Muslims have 1 "inspired" writer.  Christians have over 40 inspired writers.
 
5.  LOL!! 
 
6.  The Bible is the inpired Word of GOD.  Not only were Jesus words used but also GOD inspired/spoke to the scribes.  No angel go between for the Bible
 
7.  Not sure what you mean here- maybe in the case of the Catholic Church, they hold tradition and scripture equal.  Most christian Churches hold GOD's Scripture as their guide. 
 
8.  What we have the Aramaic Bible, Jesus spoke that and Greek, most people during His lifetime spoke Greek too and the Gospels were written in greek.  The Bible can easily be translated into any langage of the world, yet it is difficult to do with the Quran.
 
9.  Archealogy is proving the Bible accurate in history
 
10.  That is definately their mistake.  The church I attend does not.
 
11.  Again with the blind faith that is not true.If you would read the Bible you would see it is filled with evidence.
 
1 Thessalonians 5
21Test everything. Hold on to the good.
 
Acts 17

11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true.



-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 1:09pm

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:25pm
You either believe that the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God or that it is not. If you believe it to be uncorrupted then you must believe that God has made many mistakes within the texts of the Bible. Numerous lists of these mistakes, corruptions, contradictions, whatever you wish to call them, can be found everywhere.
 
Here are a few that are particularly troublesome.
 
I have posted this before but got no response:
 
Matthew 11:27 All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.
 
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
 
Matthew 24:36"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.
 
In Matthew 11 and 28 Jesus states that he has authority over all things regarding the heavens and the earth, yet in Matthew 24 he states that no one knows the time of the end, not even him, just the Father. 
 
This one is regarding Judas and the betrayal of Jesus. According to the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, Judas betrayed Jesus for pay:
 
Matthew 26:14 Then one of the twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,

 15 and said, What are ye willing to give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they weighed unto him thirty pieces of silver.

 16 And from that time he sought opportunity to deliver him unto them.

Mark 14:10Then Judas Iscariot, one of the Twelve, went to the chief priests to betray Jesus to them.
 
11They were delighted to hear this and promised to give him money. So he watched for an opportunity to hand him over.
 
According to John the devil gave Judas the idea:
 
John 13:2 And during supper, the devil having already put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him,
 
and according to the Gospel of Luke Satan possessed Judas:
 
Luke 22:3 And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.
 
If Judas were indeed possessed by Satan this is a whole new story. How could Judas be held responsible for the actions of Satan?  Judas' body would have just been an unwitting pawn used by Satan to betray Jesus, and Jesus' statement that Judas would betray him would also be incorrect. It would change the whole concept of the Judas kiss and his subsequent suicide.
 
So, which of these versions is correct and how did there come to be three differing versions to begin with IF the Bible is the uncorrupted Word of God?
 
What about the Biblical, I should say Torah here, version of the creation of man:
 
Genesis 1:25 And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good.

 26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

 27 And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:7Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

 8The LORD God planted a garden toward the east, in Eden; and there He placed the man whom He had formed.

 9Out of the ground the LORD God caused to grow every tree that is pleasing to the sight and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

 10Now a river flowed out of Eden to water the garden; and from there it divided and became four rivers.

 11The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole land of Havilah, where there is gold.

 12The gold of that land is good; the bdellium and the onyx stone are there.

 13The name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole land of Cush.

 14The name of the third river is Tigris; it flows east of Assyria And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

 15Then the LORD God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it.

 16The LORD God commanded the man, saying, "From any tree of the garden you may eat freely;

 17but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die."

 18Then the LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him."

 19Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name.

 20The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him.

 21So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then He took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place.

 22The LORD God fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man.

 In Genesis 1 God created the beasts of the earth, then created man and woman simultaneously as a pair. In Genesis 2 God created man first, then created the beasts of the earth, then created woman. Which is the correct account?

If these scriptures are uncorrupted then the only explanation can be that God has made mistakes. As Muslims we do not believe that God can make mistakes, God is infallible, period....  So the only other possibility is that man has corrupted the original texts.
 
I have also posted this before, a perfect example of how man corrupted the texts of the Bible:
 
1Jo 5:7,8 - an example of textual corruption. Even up to the fifth and final edition of Erasmus' Greek text in 1535, Erasmus occasionally fell prey to pressure from Roman Catholic church authorities to add to subsequent editions phrases and entire verses that he strongly (and rightly) suspected were not part of the original text. Metzger (Ibid., pages 100-101) and others document how Erasmus was manipulated to include what later was translated into the KJV in 1Jo 5:7-8, the following text: "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth." Conservative biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (History of the English Bible, Third Edition, New York: Oxford University Press, 1978, pages 141-142) explains the sad history of how those words were errantly added to Erasmus' Greek text of 1Jo 5:7-8:

The words ["in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth."] omitted in the R.V. [Revised Version, 1881] were no part of the original Greek text, nor yet of the Latin Vulgate in its earliest form. They first appear in the writings of a Spanish Christian leader named Priscillian, who was executed for heresy in A.D. 385. Later they made their way into copies of the Latin text of the Bible. When Erasmus prepared his printed edition of the Greek New Testament, he rightly left those words out, but was attacked for this by people who felt that the passage was a valuable proof-text for the doctrine of the Trinity. He replied (rather incautiously) that if he could be shown any Greek manuscript which contained the words, he would include them in his next edition. Unfortunately, a Greek manuscript not more than some twenty years old was produced in which the words appeared: they had been translated into Greek from Latin. Of course, the fact that the only Greek manuscript exhibiting the words belonged to the sixteenth century was in itself an argument against their authenticity, but Erasmus had given his promise, and so in his 1522 edition he included the passage. (To-day one or two other very late Greek manuscripts are known to contain this passages; all others omit it.)

[For more details on Erasmus' addition of the 1Jo 5:7,8 text, see Metzger's The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition, pages 101-102 and also http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm - http://www.bibletexts.com/versecom/1jo05v07.htm .]
 
 
 
 


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:27pm

So all the verses in the Quran about the Torah and Gospel are a lie?!?
 
 


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 2:52pm
"You can read the various translations of the Bible and see that the main theme exists and has not been erased or burned.  LOL!!"
 
"The criteria for being included in the NT as Scripture was � Apostleship by Jesus, writings that had already been accepted and were being read aloud in services by the believers, consistency with other Scripture and contradiction-free, writings created during the Apostolic age, and orthodoxy with Church beliefs."
 
I think you are forgetting the Apocryphal and Gnostic Gospels, some of which are used to this day by various churches, yet not deemed orthodox enough to be included in the NT. This is just another example of corruption, men picking and choosing which scriptures to include based upon what went along with Church beliefs.
 
Apostleship by Jesus? Which Apostles actually wrote the Gospels? No one knows, that is why they are titled "According to". The real authors are not known.

 



-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 3:53pm
"If a massive corruption of the Bible has taken place, when did it occur? If it happened after Mohammed arrived with the Quran, that would solve one of the problems I listed above. But there were already thousands of manuscripts of the Bible we use today � all around the world by that time."
 
It doesn't have to be a "massive corruption of the Bible". Changing a few words here and there can change the entire meaning of the text. 
 
The Bible, especially the NT, has had numerous changes, some in recent history. I will give a few examples.
 
You have only to look at the King James Version:
John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time. The only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.
 
The Revised Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.
 
The English Standard Version:
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.
 
Takes on a WHOLE different meaning. But not as much as the following verses:
 
King James Version 1 John 5:7-8
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
 
And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
 
New Living Translation:
So we have these three witnesses
 
the Spirit, the water, and the blood--and all three agree.
 
Revised Standard Version:
And the Spirit is the witness, because the Spirit is the truth.
 
There are three witnesses, the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three agree.
 
HUGE difference......
 
All of these versions, and many more, of the Bible are currently in print and in use around the world today. Which is the actual Word of God?
 


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 8:57pm
Originally posted by Chrysalis Chrysalis wrote:

 
5. Anybody in christian history could simply stand up and claim communication with God, and be titled a Saint, and be allowed to mix thier opinions with Christianity. After Prophet Muhammad's death, anybody claiming prophethood or sainthood is sent to the loony-bin - rather than be revered.
 
 
Chrysalis, a very good post.
 
I like those words that I highlighted in red.
 
In other words, Christians should send St Paul to the same treatment.
 
 


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 02 March 2009 at 10:11pm
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 03 March 2009 at 4:11pm

 To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption in Bible?

 

The Gospel of Mark:

Note:   This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. 
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not. And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?


A new captured image of this book's corruption:

mark16_corruption.jpg%20%2854552%20bytes%29

 

( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31; - http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016:9-20;&version=31; )


The above text reads: "The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

Now my concern to this corruption and 'answer-the-problem-away' statement is that what are those so-called "reliable early manuscript(s)" and who are the "ancient witnesses"?

If the "gospel of Mark" was indeed Divine and from GOD Almighty, then we wouldn't have this corruption, that they're admitting above, in it.

 

Further regarding this Gospel, we read the following commentary about Mark 16:9-20:

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark.  They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark.  His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost(From the NIV Bible Foot Notes, page 1528)"

This quote raises a very serious issue here.  First of all, as we've seen above in the first quote, we have no evidence that proves that John Mark was the sole author of this so called "Gospel".  Second of all, we see that this Gospel has some serious problems/suspicions in it.

If John Mark wasn't the one who wrote Mark 16:9-20, then who did? And how can you prove the ownership of the other person?

 


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 03 March 2009 at 7:40pm

To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption in Bible?

 

The Gospel of Mark:

Note:   This gospel is the oldest and supposedly the most original one in the New Testament!


"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. 
(From the NIV Bible Commentary, page 1488)"

So, in reality, we don't really know whether Mark was the sole author of this Gospel or not.

It is more likely that Matthew or one of Paul's letters is the earliest but I don't think that point is worth arguing about now. The testimony of the early church that is referred to above includes testimony from John�s disciples. I think that is very good evidence and testimony. Additionally, you are quoting a commentator�s opinion about there not being �direct internal evidence�. In other words, the text itself does not come out and say that Mark wrote this as the secretary for Peter. The contemporaries said that it was, the language style is consistent with Peter and there are several details in the account that only Peter would have known.

And since The New Testament wasn't even documented on paper until 150-300 years (depending on what Christian you talk to) after Jesus, then how are we to know for sure that the current "Gospel of Mark" wasn't written by some pro of Mark?

There is no need to talk to people with different opinions on the matter when we have manuscripts and quotations of the NT books much earlier than this time. True they weren�t compiled into a collection called the NT until around this time frame but the writings themselves can be traced back much earlier. E.g. � we have a fragment of John�s gospel that is within 10-15 years of the original.


The above text reads:
"The most reliable early manuscript and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20."

There are some who believe that these verses aren�t original. But remember the amazing word patterns I mentioned? They are evident in these verses and some patterns are destroyed by removing them. I take that as an indication that they are authentic. But let�s say they aren�t and lets say at a minimum that one of the versions of Mark is corrupted. This means we have identified the area of concern and there is no reason to say �hey � everything must be corrupted!�. When we find an electrical short in a house we don�t say that. We use tools to identify the problem, fix it and in doing so confirm that the overall system is intact. If this minor �potential corruption� was all Muslims were claiming, I would say: �OK, lets talk about it�. But the type of corruption that is being asserted is massive.

Apollos



Posted By: Hayfa
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 10:10am
And i don't think that the Bible is an issue for most Muslims or Islam. Frankly the majority are too busy working and living to notice.

-------------
When you do things from your soul, you feel a river moving in you, a joy. Rumi


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 2:08pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

There are some who believe that these verses aren�t original. But remember the amazing word patterns I mentioned? They are evident in these verses and some patterns are destroyed by removing them. I take that as an indication that they are authentic. But let�s say they aren�t and lets say at a minimum that one of the versions of Mark is corrupted. This means we have identified the area of concern and there is no reason to say �hey � everything must be corrupted!�. When we find an electrical short in a house we don�t say that. We use tools to identify the problem, fix it and in doing so confirm that the overall system is intact. If this minor �potential corruption� was all Muslims were claiming, I would say: �OK, lets talk about it�. But the type of corruption that is being asserted is massive.

 
It is funny comparing holly book with electricity. We called it "holly",  it should be no doubt, no corruption, no intervention. If there is doubt, corruption and  intervention even just a little,  that's mean it's not holly, it must be replaced with the new one, that 's why God revealed the Quran to remove the doubt of His  'holly book". In the Quran itself, God promised to maintain the Quran  by himself, because He knew he would not reveal another book. That's why  since the beginning of Islam till now, due to the easiness of the Quran to be memorized, in any given moment many-many peoples memorize the Quran. God never mention this kind of guaranty in any of Bible.
 
Just to compare when we can take the "doubt" or we have to get away from it, I used to work in aerospace factory, there was a rule in my department that if any product was dropped from 3 feet or more in high, must be rejected, even if we didn't find anything wrong on it. Because the risk of using products that might had "undetectable problem" can  be very serious. If this is happen in a car factory, it will be OK, because if something happen with the car we can easily correct it, because it is in the ground.
 
So, because this is a "holly book" should be no doubt at all, because if you find one, maybe there is some other problem but we can't detect it or prove it. That's why in the hadith collection, Mr. Bukhory and Mr. Muslim took very careful measure, if one person in the chain of the story, somebody mentioned that this person ever lie, the hadith would be rejected.


-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 2:37pm

 To Apollos

 Topic:Corruption of Bible

 Gospel of Mark 16:9-20

 
There was some dispute among textual critics in the 19th century as to whether 16:9-20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, were actually part of the original Gospel, or if they were added later. The oldest extant manuscripts do not contain these verses and the style differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting that they were a later addition. A few manuscripts even include a different ending after verse 8. By the 5th century, at least 4 different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

Mark 16 is the final chapter of the Gospel of Mark. There is much debate about the ending of Mark, and many textual problems�there are nine different endings known�but most of the debate focuses around the so-called �longer� ending (16:9-20).

Possible Scenarios

    * The original ending of Mark was lost, and somebody else at a very early date completed the gospel. C. H. Turner has suggested that the original version of the gospel may have been a codex and the last pages may have been lost. However, it seems unlikely that Christian use of the codex form stretched as far back as the proposed date for the writing of Mark, though there is evidence for its adoption in the second century;

    * The author(s) of Mark intentionally ended the gospel at 16:8, and someone else at an early date completed the gospel;

 

    * More than one edition of Mark�s Gospel was made, so some Christian communities would have possessed the longer ending edition, and others would have possessed the edition that stopped at 16:8. ( SAM- MEANING PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT BIBLES)

    * The original ending was inconvenient to the church, and it was replaced.

Verses 16:8-9 read as follows in the New Revised Standard Version:

(16:8) So they went out and fled from the tomb, for terror and amazement had seized them; and they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid. (16:9) Now after he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from who he had cast out seven demons.

Note the way the narrative flow abruptly changes from "they were afraid" to "now after he rose". Also, Mary Magdalene, introduced at the beginning of the chapter (16:1), is re-introduced almost as though she had not already been mentioned.

The final sentence in v.8 is also regarded as strange by many scholars, because in the Greek text it finishes with the conjunction ?a? (gar, 'for'). It is contended by those who see 16:9-20 as originally Markan that ?a? literally means �because�, and this ending to v.8 is therefore not grammatically coherent (literally, it would read �they were afraid because�). However, this objection misunderstands the nature of the Greek language. Since Greek is an inflexive language as opposed to a syntactic language such as English, word order is not as important. (Compare Grammar in Greek language and Grammar in English language.) ?a? is never the first word of a sentence: there is no such rule that states it can never be the last word, though it is very rare for a book to end with ?a?.

Still, ?a? aside, the grammar of v.8 is still odd, as the verb f?�e?�a? (phobeomai, 'I fear') has no object. Gundry also mentions that only 10% of Mark�s ?a? clauses�6 out of 66�conclude pericopes (Mark: A Commentary on His Apology for the Cross, Chapters 9-16). As such, this statistic favours the view that, rather than concluding 16:1-8, v.8 begins a new pericope, the rest of which is now lost to us. Gundry therefore does not see v.8 as the intended ending; a resurrection narrative was either written, then lost, or planned but never actually written. Either way, the originality of vv.9-20 is denied by Gundry�and, indeed, the overwhelming majority of textual critics.

Mark 16:9-20 is in most of the undamaged Greek copies of the Gospel of Mark. A copy of a manuscript, however, is only as good as the text being copied, so all of the texts with 16:9-20 may simply be copies of the same non-Markan addition. The verses are absent in the oldest manuscripts of Mark, including the vitally important Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, which both conclude the gospel at 16:8.

However, Mark 16:9-20 is absent in other early church fathers (e.g. Clement of Alexandria, Origen). At any rate, all that can be concluded from this use of the longer ending is that, rightly or wrongly, Mark 16:9-20 had become part of Church tradition and scripture much like other apocryphal writings such as The Shepherd of Hermas and the Didache, neither of which are now considered canonical.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm - http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674b.htm

 Some textual problems, however, still remain, e.g. whether Gerasenon or Gergesenon is to be read in v, 1, eporei or epoiei in vi, 20, and whether the difficult autou, attested by B, Aleph, A, L, or autes is to be read in vi, 20

the great textual problem of the Gospel concerns the genuineness of the last twelve verses. Three conclusions of the Gospel are known: the long conclusion, as in our Bibles, containing verses 9-20, the short one ending with verse 8 (ephoboumto gar), and an intermediate form which (with some slight variations) runs as follows: "And they immediately made known all that had been commanded to those about Peter. And after this, Jesus Himself appeared to them, and through them sent forth from East to West the holy and incorruptible proclamation of the eternal salvation." Now this third form may be dismissed at once. Four unical manuscripts, dating from the seventh to the ninth century, give it, indeed, after xvi, 9, but each of them also makes reference to the longer ending as an alternative (for particulars cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. cv-cvii). It stands also in the margin of the cursive Manuscript 274, in the margin of the Harclean Syriac and of two manuscripts of the Memphitic version; and in a few manuscripts of the Ethiopic it stands between verse 8 and the ordinary conclusion. Only one authority, the Old Latin k, gives it alone (in a very corrupt rendering), without any reference to the longer form. Such evidence, especially when compared with that for the other two endings, can have no weight, and in fact, no scholar regards this intermediate conclusion as having any titles to acceptance.

We may pass on, then, to consider how the case stands between the long conclusion and the short, i.e. between accepting xvi, 9-20, as a genuine portion of the original Gospel, or making the original end with xvi, 8. In favour of the short ending Eusebius ("Quaest. ad Marin.") is appealed to as saying that an apologist might get rid of any difficulty arising from a comparison of Matt. xxviii, 1, with Mark, xvi, 9, in regard to the hour of Christ's Resurrection, by pointing out that the passage in Mark beginning with verse 9 is not contained in all the manuscripts of the Gospel. The historian then goes on himself to say that in nearly all the manuscripts of Mark, at least, in the accurate ones (schedon en apasi tois antigraphois . . . ta goun akribe, the Gospel ends with xvi, 8. It is true, Eusebius gives a second reply which the apologist might make, and which supposes the genuineness of the disputed passage, and he says that this latter reply might be made by one "who did not dare to set aside anything whatever that was found in any way in the Gospel writing". But the whole passage shows clearly enough that Eusebius was inclined to reject everything after xvi, 8. It is commonly held, too, that he did not apply his canons to the disputed verses, thereby showing clearly that he did not regard them as a portion of the original text (see, however, Scriv., "Introd.", II, 1894, 339). St. Jerome also says in one place ("Ad. Hedib.") that the passage was wanting in nearly all Greek manuscripts (omnibus Gr�ci� libris poene hoc capitulum in fine non habentibus), but he quotes it elsewhere ("Comment. on Matt."; "Ad Hedib."), and, as we know, he incorporated it in the Vulgate. It is quite clear that the whole passage, where Jerome makes the statement about the disputed verses being absent from Greek manuscripts, is borrowed almost verbatim from Eusebius, and it may be doubted whether his statement really adds any independent weight to the statement of Eusebius. It seems most likely also that Victor of Antioch, the first commentator of the Second Gospel, regarded xvi, 8, as the conclusion. If we add to this that the Gospel ends with xvi, 8, in the two oldest Greek manuscripts, B and Aleph, in the Sin. Syriac and in a few Ethiopic manuscripts, and that the cursive Manuscript 22 and some Armenian manuscripts indicate doubt as to whether the true ending is at verse 8 or verse 20,

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html - http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/mark.html

The author of the Gospel of Mark does indeed seem to lack first-hand knowledge of the geography of Palestine. Randel Helms writes concerning Mark 11:1 (Who Wrote the Gospels?, p. 6): "Anyone approaching Jerusalem from Jericho would come first to Bethany and then Bethphage, not the reverse. This is one of several passages showing that Mark knew little about Palestine; we must assume, Dennis Nineham argues, that 'Mark did not know the relative positions of these two villages on the Jericho road' (1963, 294-295). Indeed, Mark knew so little about the area that he described Jesus going from Tyrian territory 'by way of Sidon to the Sea of Galilee through the territory of the Ten Towns' (Mark 7:31); this is similar to saying that one goes from London to Paris by way of Edinburgh and Rome. The simplist solution, says Nineham, is that 'the evangelist was not directly acquainted with Palestine' (40)."

http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm - http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/bible/mark/intro.htm

Other hands have attached additional endings after Mark 16:8; see the note on Mark 16:9-20.

 All this information is enough to cast doubt upon the entire book of Mark. We don�t know for sure on who wrote Mark, we don�t where it was exactly written, we don�t know exactly when it was written. Finally the fact that there is such a controversy on the ending of Mark throws the whole book into   question just on this fact alone. The fact that additions have been made in the last chapter leaves us wondering what else has been added in Mark. 
 

 


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 4:25pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 
 
Apollo,
first, a advice, please don't quote me for what you think I think or not rather what I state.
I have been very clear that generally there are three most important elements in anyone's belief (whether be from any belief). And I will repeat again:
1-God (what is )
2-God (what is not)
3-how to achieve salvation
I do not, and let me repeat do not apply my understanding or personal belief when I try to understand any one of them. My only standards are, logic, reasoning and truth, and to abide by them, not knowingly reject them or to decieve myself or anyone.
 
As I have said, the Bible contradicts on all three of them. If you are not understanding what I mean let me be more specific.
Define for me God as a Christian, and I will show you where the Bible contradicts it.
I have shown you the facts before about salvation already, as well as Jesus having a God, according to the Bible.
 
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 8:49pm
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,

I think Nur has put it right, the corrupt bible is a problem for its followers and not Islam. And by the way Islam is only submission to the will of God. And by the way God means One, the Creator of All there is other than God, One of One.

I and you were not present when Bible or the Quran were written and compiled. All we have beside that is stories and explainations of other humans like I and you. So the best way to figure out things in my opinion would be to use all capabilites we seem to use in other important matters. and not to reject logic, reasoning and truth when we discover it in order to examine each one.
 
In my study so far. There are three most important elements to a person's belief:
What is God,
What is not God,
and fulfiling the purpose of life and achieving salvation for the next life. 
 
In my study of the Bible ( as we have it today) I find conflicting information regarding all those three basic elements as a proof of facts.  And this is without any pre-judgement or bias against it. I have said this before that I had more respect for the book before I read and known it because I always believed it was from God, and thus never questioned Christian claims. Now that I have read and known it I do believe that the word of God has been mixed up with falshood by men. And discovering that truth does not take one away rather near to God, who loves the truth.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,
 
Please clarify if I understand you correctly:
 
You believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your personal beliefs about what God is and isn't, correct? If not, the next paragraph doesn't apply. If this is correct, please read on.
 
Besides being a totally subjective approach, think about the implications of this. If you already know the truth about these three points, what good is a revelation from God? To confirm what you thought was true already? You have the audacity to tell God what He can and can't reveal. The only way this makes sense is if you are omniscient.
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos
 
 
Apollo,
first, a advice, please don't quote me for what you think I think or not rather what I state.
I have been very clear that generally there are three most important elements in anyone's belief (whether be from any belief). And I will repeat again:
1-God (what is )
2-God (what is not)
3-how to achieve salvation
I do not, and let me repeat do not apply my understanding or personal belief when I try to understand any one of them. My only standards are, logic, reasoning and truth, and to abide by them, not knowingly reject them or to decieve myself or anyone.
 
As I have said, the Bible contradicts on all three of them. If you are not understanding what I mean let me be more specific.
Define for me God as a Christian, and I will show you where the Bible contradicts it.
I have shown you the facts before about salvation already, as well as Jesus having a God, according to the Bible.
 
Hasan
Hasan,
 
Pardon me for equating your personal beliefs and understanding with your reasoning and logic skills. I don't see any difference but apparently you do.
 
So I rephrase my question and ask again: Do you believe that you can evaluate if the Bible is true or not by applying your reasoning and logic about what God is and isn't?
 
What do you offer for my third point/problem?
 
Apollos


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 04 March 2009 at 10:16pm

Several here have posted comments about questionable verses in the Gospel of Mark. I think it may be more practical to address these objections in one combined post here. If you think I have missed something important in doing this please let me know and I will respond accordingly.

 

When followers of Jesus say we believe in Biblical inerrancy we refer to the inerrancy of the original writings that God has inspired to be written. We do not mean that every translation or copy of that original is inerrant. The related subject of Bible reliability and trustworthiness relates to the copies of the originals that we have and the confidence we have that they communicate what the original Scriptures did. Based on the consistency and agreement of thousands of manuscripts, and quotations from other sources, the accuracy of these copies is 99.7% accurate. This means that there are a handful of verses or words that do not have complete agreement and consistency and these variations cast doubt on .3% of the total content. While it may be technically correct to label these variations �corruptions�, it is misleading to use this label in a wholesale way. Here are some of the reasons why this is so:

 

  1. No other ancient writing including the Quran has a greater consistency and agreement in the existing written copies. If one wants to contend that 100% accuracy and consistency is the only acceptable standard for copies of a non-corrupted writing, then all Scriptures are invalidated as no such writing exists on the face of the earth. 
  2. The variations in some of the versions do not effect any essential doctrines. This is because the Bible is designed in such a way that no one section or book contains all of the information on a given topic and almost everything is repeated from slightly different perspectives. For example, there is no one book on Salvation, or Heaven or God�s nature. (Isaiah 28:13  - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.) It appears that God foresaw the possibility of intentional corrupting and ensured this could not happen by using different authors, different eras, different languages, etc. � all saying the same thing.
  3. To say that variations like these are the same as wholesale Bible corruption is na�ve and misleading. For example, the Quran has variations in some of its copies. (If you don�t agree with this statement, let me know and I will substantiate). Even if it didn�t have variant versions already, someone could create a variant version today. They could re-create everything except one letter or one word or a hundred words and call this a version of the Quran. Would the mere existence of this corrupted version invalidate the correct copies? Of course not. Because there are so many copies of the correct Quran that you would know when the corrupted version popped up. The only way that such a corrupted copy would matter is if it was accepted as the correct copy and lead people astray from what the correct copies taught. The same goes for the Bible and this is not happening. The fact that Bible commentators publish caveats next to these passages demonstrates that there is no deception or confusion going on.
  4. The reason we notice variations in certain versions of the Bible is because we have all the variations in hand. This means that one of them is undoubtedly the correct version. Even if humans couldn�t ascertain which version is the correct one, we have to admit that nothing has evaporated. We just have less confidence in a very few areas of the overall collection.
  5. By way of the intricate and supernatural word and letter patterns, we are able to detect if a passage has been changed.
  6. The small amount of variations we can find do not represent the tip of an iceberg that is lurking below the surface. They are the full extent of the problems. Far from supporting the theory that a massive corruption of the Bible has occurred, these minor variations argue for an incredibly reliable and consistent evidence of manuscripts and the original they derive from.
  7. The type of Bible corruption Muslims claim has to be a massive one that has deceived people from what the original Bible taught. These minor variations do nothing of the sort.

Apollos



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 05 March 2009 at 3:42pm
Apollo,
Minor mistakes or human errors are understandable, but opposites on very important issues like the one I have mentioned above are unforgiveable.
I am sorry if I am not yet understood by you Apollo. In all simplicity what I am saying is that if I read my car loan application saying interest rate is fixed at 10%,  while signing I see the last paragrah saying it will be 13%. what I have just discoverd is a discripency. I would not, neither you will sign such a document until its corrected, until then it has discripency.
 
Similarly if the book says Jesus is God, and later on shows that Jesus in fact has a God, and refer to someone else as God and Lord for me that's a discripency. God does not has a God.
 
Similarly if the book says that with Jesus' blood sacrifice everyone's sins have been paid for!  Yet in the same book not too far I read that each one will be judged acording to their deeds, furhter I read that each one will give account on the day of Judgement. To me that is in contrast to "paying for sins of the whole world with a blood sacrifice."
Its as simple as it reads.
 
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 05 March 2009 at 4:08pm
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,
Minor mistakes or human errors are understandable, but opposites on very important issues like the one I have mentioned above are unforgiveable.
I am sorry if I am not yet understood by you Apollo. In all simplicity what I am saying is that if I read my car loan application saying interest rate is fixed at 10%,  while signing I see the last paragrah saying it will be 13%. what I have just discoverd is a discripency. I would not, neither you will sign such a document until its corrected, until then it has discripency.
 
Similarly if the book says Jesus is God, and later on shows that Jesus in fact has a God, and refer to someone else as God and Lord for me that's a discripency. God does not has a God.
 
Similarly if the book says that with Jesus' blood sacrifice everyone's sins have been paid for!  Yet in the same book not too far I read that each one will be judged acording to their deeds, furhter I read that each one will give account on the day of Judgement. To me that is in contrast to "paying for sins of the whole world with a blood sacrifice."
Its as simple as it reads.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,

I agree with you that a writing � especially God�s Word � should not have contradictions in it. Where we disagree is � you look at an apparent contradiction and conclude it is an actual one. I think if you gave the Bible the same benefit of the doubt that you give the Quran, you would consider how there might be a reconciliation between things that look like opposites but are in fact, not.

 

I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don�t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don�t think the example you present is a real contradiction � is it?

 

Apollos



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 06 March 2009 at 11:35am

"I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don�t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don�t think the example you present is a real contradiction � is it?"

 
I suppose if you can make one God into three then it is an easy to accept that actual contradictions and inconsistencies within the Bible are really not contradictions or inconsistencies at all. Why not. If one can be three and three can be one then three different versions of a Biblical event can all actually be the same version. Just close your eyes really tight and make it so.


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 08 March 2009 at 7:15am
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

 

I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don�t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don�t think the example you present is a real contradiction � is it?

 

Apollos

 
We do have a Three in One in ourselves.
 
The Pure Spirit/Soul, The Ego and Satan.
 
The Pure Spirit belongs to God Almighty. The Ego and Satan will try their best to lead us astray from the True Path. Only our 'Aql or intellect (knowledge) will assist us to manage the Ego or suppress it. Once the Ego is able to be tamed, Insha Allah, God Willing, the Pure Spirit will find its way to God while Satan will just stand by frustrated.


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 08 March 2009 at 8:17am
I like that Nur.
 
It is GOD that manifests in to 3 persons.  Man has no control over it.
 
There is also body, mind and soul.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 09 March 2009 at 3:09pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Several here have posted comments about questionable verses in the Gospel of Mark. I think it may be more practical to address these objections in one combined post here. If you think I have missed something important in doing this please let me know and I will respond accordingly.

 

When followers of Jesus say we believe in Biblical inerrancy we refer to the inerrancy of the original writings that God has inspired to be written. We do not mean that every translation or copy of that original is inerrant. The related subject of Bible reliability and trustworthiness relates to the copies of the originals that we have and the confidence we have that they communicate what the original Scriptures did. Based on the consistency and agreement of thousands of manuscripts, and quotations from other sources, the accuracy of these copies is 99.7% accurate. This means that there are a handful of verses or words that do not have complete agreement and consistency and these variations cast doubt on .3% of the total content. While it may be technically correct to label these variations �corruptions�, it is misleading to use this label in a wholesale way. Here are some of the reasons why this is so:

 

  1. No other ancient writing including the Quran has a greater consistency and agreement in the existing written copies. If one wants to contend that 100% accuracy and consistency is the only acceptable standard for copies of a non-corrupted writing, then all Scriptures are invalidated as no such writing exists on the face of the earth. 
  2. The variations in some of the versions do not effect any essential doctrines. This is because the Bible is designed in such a way that no one section or book contains all of the information on a given topic and almost everything is repeated from slightly different perspectives. For example, there is no one book on Salvation, or Heaven or God�s nature. (Isaiah 28:13  - But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.) It appears that God foresaw the possibility of intentional corrupting and ensured this could not happen by using different authors, different eras, different languages, etc. � all saying the same thing.
  3. To say that variations like these are the same as wholesale Bible corruption is na�ve and misleading. For example, the Quran has variations in some of its copies. (If you don�t agree with this statement, let me know and I will substantiate). Even if it didn�t have variant versions already, someone could create a variant version today. They could re-create everything except one letter or one word or a hundred words and call this a version of the Quran. Would the mere existence of this corrupted version invalidate the correct copies? Of course not. Because there are so many copies of the correct Quran that you would know when the corrupted version popped up. The only way that such a corrupted copy would matter is if it was accepted as the correct copy and lead people astray from what the correct copies taught. The same goes for the Bible and this is not happening. The fact that Bible commentators publish caveats next to these passages demonstrates that there is no deception or confusion going on.
  4. The reason we notice variations in certain versions of the Bible is because we have all the variations in hand. This means that one of them is undoubtedly the correct version. Even if humans couldn�t ascertain which version is the correct one, we have to admit that nothing has evaporated. We just have less confidence in a very few areas of the overall collection.
  5. By way of the intricate and supernatural word and letter patterns, we are able to detect if a passage has been changed.
  6. The small amount of variations we can find do not represent the tip of an iceberg that is lurking below the surface. They are the full extent of the problems. Far from supporting the theory that a massive corruption of the Bible has occurred, these minor variations argue for an incredibly reliable and consistent evidence of manuscripts and the original they derive from.
  7. The type of Bible corruption Muslims claim has to be a massive one that has deceived people from what the original Bible taught. These minor variations do nothing of the sort.

Apollos



 To Apollos

 Topic: The Anonymous Four Gospels  Anonymous, Modified, Changed, Altered and Edited

Many avid Christians both professional and lay would have it that the books of the Bible and the four Canonical Gospels namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are totally infallible and inerrant containing no errors or mistakes of any kind. This is naturally quite a fundamental position to take should one intend to believe in Christianity as the truth which offers the only way to salvation since questioning the validity of the texts that make up the primary sources of the religion may undermine the credibility of the message therein. Nevertheless, there are honest and candid Christians out there who have meticulously studied the 5000 or so manuscripts that make up the New Testament ready and willing to concede that it is beyond the realm of foolhardiness to claim that the books of the New Testament have never been changed. Indeed, to make such a claim is to commit intellectual suicide in the world of academia. In this article we shall explore the degree of reliability of the four Canonical Gospels.

  When it comes to the New Testament no one will question the primacy of the words attributed to Jesus above all else. That is to say the �words of Jesus� are of greatest import. We read in Matthew 7:24,

�Every one therefore which heareth these words of mine, and doeth them, shall be likened unto a wise man, which built his house upon the rock:�

  For example, in the Red-Lettered version of the KJV we have the �words� of Jesus highlighted in red. Unfortunately, however, these words are not as reliable as some might want to make them out to be. They are filled with ambiguity, mystery, contradictions, discrepencies and numerous other problems. For starters we have no contemporary record about Jesus or by Jesus. We find the following admission most telling,

�However desirable it might be to have available records of Jesus� words and deeds that were made during his lifeimte, we must acknowledge that we have none.� [1] (emphasis added)

No doubt the main source of information about Jesus are extracted from the four Gospels. Objective and unbiased scholars have deemed the texts to be subjective and are not honest to detail. We read the following testimony,

�The primary sources of our knowledge of Jesus, therefore, are the gospels: the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. But as the title �gospel� (good news), implies, and as the opening word of Mark makes explicit, they are not objective reports but propaganda.� [2] (emphasis added)

�Since Mark is the shortest of the three synoptic gospels, it has sometimes been assumed that it is an abbreviation of Matthew. Careful comparison among the synoptic Gospels(Matthew, Mark, and Luke) shows, however, that both Matthew and Luke presuppose the contents and the order of Mark, though each of the other writers modifies Mark in order to fulfill hiw own special aims� Passages in Mark that the church later found difficult are either omitted or basically modified.� [3] (emphasis added)

  An example for the above assertion is given from Mark 6:5 whereby we find that Jesus was not able to do many miracles due to people�s unbelief. Luke totally changes and edits the story and moved it to Luke 4:16-30 and deleted the piece about Jesus� inability along with Matthew in Matthew 13:58.

  In the previous article http://unveilingchristianity.wordpress.com/2009/01/17/the-oldest-text-of-the-new-testament/ - The Oldest Text of the New Testament  we saw that Christian missionaries/apologists may claim that the primary sources for Islam are untrustworthy due to the fact that they were compiled over 200 years after the fact i.e. the hadith. Of course this claim is baseless. We know very well that Imam Bukhari was not the first compiler of hadith. For example, we have the famous Muwatta� of Imam Malik, the hadith compilations of Imam Al-Shafi�e, Imam ibn Hanbal and Imam Abu Hanifah etc. all of which predate Sahih Bukhari. Nonetheless, I find it amazing that Christian apologists have the gaul to debase Islam on that basis when it is the exact problem which their religion suffers from. Today, we know for a fact that there are no manuscript evidence for any of the Synoptic Gospels from the 1st or second century that may be deemed reliable. The scholar Helmut Koester readily admits this,

�Since there is no second-century manuscript evidence; the quest for the text of the Synoptic Gospels in the second century is identical with the question of the earliest usage of their text in other writings.�[4](emphasis added)

  When studying the Gospels and writings concerning them it is difficult to miss dates that are attributed to the Gospels by certain Christian writers. For example, one may commonly come across claims that the Gospel of Mark was written in 70 A.D. You will be able to notice that usually when such claims are made not a shred of evidence is offered as substantiation. In reality, there is just no proof for such dates and they are really made on the basis of nothing short of guess work and conjecture as Dr. Neil S. Fujita testifies,

�Scholars usually assume it to have been written shortly after A.D. 70 when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans.�

The Christian predicament is compounded further by the fact that these four gospels are absolutely anonymous! Can you imagine your sibling bringing to court an anonymous document which states that he is to inherit more than half the family estate which posthumously came into existence after the death of your parent and the court takes the anonymous will and gives him the said inheritance? No, any reasonable man will eschew such a notion since no court of law in the world will consider such a faulty document that is untraceable to the alleged source as legitimate. This is precisely what we stumble upon when dealing with the Gospels.

 Diocesan Priest and professor of Biblical Theology and chairman of the department of theology at Barry University, Miami, John F. O�Grady says about Mark,

�The Gospel itself never states anything about its author, its origin, or the time of composition.� [5]

He continues later under the heading �Anonymous Evangelists�,

�Who wrote Mark? First, recall that nowhere does the author identify himself. The same is true for all the Gospels. Matthew does not identify himself, nor does Luke, and in the Gospel of John the author seems to identify himself with the beloved disciple, but this cannot be equated with the apostle John(Jn. 21:24).

In the past we have assumed that the authors were male - with emphasis on the word �assumed�.[6] (emphasis added)

The Gospels have been traditionally attributed to the respective names. For instance, Ignatius and Origen thought that the author of Matthew was indeed Matthew, one of the chosen 12 disciples of Jesus. Papias and Iranaeus thought that the author of John was John Mark etc. It would appear today that these early major Church fathers were mistaken in their belief. I wonder where the Holy Spirit was then? Does it not mention that �He will guide you into ALL truth�? Let us now carefully consider the words of Dr. Neil S. Fujita concerning the Gospels,

�Traditionally the writer of the Second Gospel has been identified with John Mark� This identification, however, is uncertain; there exists no evidence in the New Testament which bears out this assertion. For the sake of convenience, we call the author of this Gospel Mark.� [7] (emphasis added)

It is merely out of CONVENIENCE that the Gospel is called Mark instead of saying for example the second book of the New Testament, Chapter 5, verse 3. Out of convenicne one may say Mark 5:3. It is not based on grounded knowledge, but, only to facilitate easiness!

Concerning Matthew he writes,

�Traditionally this Gospel has been considered to have been written by Matthew, one of the twelve disciples of Jesus� there is nothing to suggest the personal identity of the writer. The very fact that the writer used Mark�s Gospel and the Q source well indicates that he was probably not a direct companion of Jesus.

�The use of Mark also points to the date of the composition of the Gospel after A.D. 70. It is a matter of conjecture how much later than 70;� [8] (emphasis added)

Concerning Luke he writes,

�In the opening statement (1:1-4), the author explains the aim and reason for writing the Gospels�for the sake of the �most excellent Theophilus�.�

�Since at least the second century A.D., the author has been identified as Luke, �a beloved physician�, and a companion of Paul(Col. 4:14). This identification, however, is by no means conclusive; there is no definitive evidence to support it.� [9]

So, Luke wrote the Gospel not for the sake of God or Jesus or anything like that. Rather, the �gospel� was written for some unknown guy �Theophilus�.

Concerning John he writes,

�At least since the latter part of the second century A.D., this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to John, the son of Zebedee, but it must have been written after the apostle�s time, as it betrays rather clearly a later stage of the theological and historical development of the early Church.� [10] (emphasis added)

As we have seen early tradition ascribe Matthew Levi the tax collector, john Mark, Luke the physician and John of Zebedee to the four canonical Gospels, but, we know now that this is nothing more than mere conjecture devoid of proof. The total anonymity of these writings is further confirmed by the scholar Keith F. Nickle,

�It now appears unlikely that any of these identifications is accurate. At any rate the date to verify these ancient traditions sinply are not available.� [11]

�We must candidly acknowledge that all three of the Synoptic Gospels are anonymous documents.

All the Gospels in the New Nestament are anonymous works.� [12] (emphasis added)

The Toronto theologian F.W. Beare joins the ranks,

�second century guesses that gave the four canonical gospels the names by which we now know them; for they were originally anonymous documents of whose authors nothing is known.� [13] (emphasis added)

In fact, the names Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were really added later:

�The Gospels that came to be included in the New Testament were all written anonymously; only at a later time were they called by the names of their reputed authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.� [14]

The above statement is supported by R.T. France,

�the headings �According to Matthew� ; �According to Mark� etc., are not part of the text of the Gospels� are generally believed to have been added early in the second century.� [15]

Although his astute observation regarding the anonymity and later naming of the gospels is right on the mark, the latter is not so. His mentioning that it is believed that they were added �early in the second century� is yet another example of how the Christian world is awfully filled with GUESS WORK! The scholar G. A. Wells refutes R.T. France�s conjecture in claiming that saying,

�And so we find Iranaeus (bishop of Lyons about A.D. 180) naming all four as they are now named, and as the first to do so.� [16] (emphasis added)

Thus, we now know that it was only close to the end of the second century that the four Gospels were given the names that they today bear.

As if the matter is not bad enough as it is the problem is even further compounded by the fact that many changes, deletions, additions, editing, modification etc. have taken place in the Gospels. Strange as it may seem some of these changes that have been scholarly established as true to facts  are still counted as authentic by millions of Christians the world over. Some of these interpolations include the longer ending of Mark 16, the famous story of the adulteress in John 8, Luke 24:12 etc.(Refer to 265-266 of Misquoting Jesus for the top 10 list).

Further more, we now know that numerous other Gospels existed alongside the four chosen ones e.g. the Gospel of Peter. Many of you might be wondering as to what were the reasons behind choosing the four and discarding a whole lot of others. Fear not. Iraneus who was one of the early Church fathers tells us why,

�it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is scattered throughout the world, and the pillar and ground of the Church is the Gospel� it is fitting that she should have four pillars��(Against Heresies 3.11.7) [17]

In other words, the Gospels are chosen because there are four winds and four zones. It is not because God decreed it so! In fact, none of the Gospels ever claimed inspiration and to have composed books meant for the entire world until judgment day. Keith F. Nickle says,

�The widespread popularity that each of he Gospels eeventually enjoyed far surpassed the modest goals for which the evangelists originally composed them� Much less could they have conceived in their most extreme fantasies, twenty centuries of continuous use of their documents by generations of Christians. They were simply writing their Gospels for their community.

  When Christians later did make a wider use of the Gospels, they were employing them for purposes and situations beyond the uses for which they were originally designed.� [18]

After considering all of the above information regarding the Gospels can one still honestly claim that they are absolutely reliable beyond any shadow of doubt? I believe it is safe to declare a resounding NO!

 

References:

[1] Howard Clark Kee, Eric M. Meyers, John Rogerson, Anthony J. Saldarini. The Cambridge Companion to the Bible(1997). Cambridge, U.K. : Cambridge University Press. p. 447

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Helmut Koester. the Text of the Synoptic Gospels in the Second Century, Gospel Traditions in the Second Century(1989). Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press. p. 19

[5] John F. O�Grady. The Four Gospels and the Jesus Tradition(1989). New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 67

[6] Ibid. p. 68

[7] Neil S. Fujita. Introducing the Bible(1981). New Jersey: Paulist Press. p. 123

[8] Ibid. p. 129

[9] Ibid. p.134

[10] Ibid. p. 140

[11] Keith F. Nickle. The Synoptic Gospels(2001). Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 43

[12] Ibid. 84

[13] F.W. Beare. The Earliest Records of Jesus(1964). Oxford: Blackwell. p.13

[14] Bart D. Ehrman. Lost Christianities(2005). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 3

[15] R.T. France. The Evidence for Jesus(1986). London: Hodder and Stoughton. p. 122

[16] G.A. Wells. Who Was Jesus? A Critique of the New Testament Record(1989). Illinois, La Salle: Open Court. p. 1

[17] Bart D. Ehrman. Misquoting Jesus(2007). New York: HarperSanFrancisco. p. 35

[18] Keith F. Nickle. Op. Cit. p. 169



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 09 March 2009 at 6:58pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,
Minor mistakes or human errors are understandable, but opposites on very important issues like the one I have mentioned above are unforgiveable.
I am sorry if I am not yet understood by you Apollo. In all simplicity what I am saying is that if I read my car loan application saying interest rate is fixed at 10%,  while signing I see the last paragrah saying it will be 13%. what I have just discoverd is a discripency. I would not, neither you will sign such a document until its corrected, until then it has discripency.
 
Similarly if the book says Jesus is God, and later on shows that Jesus in fact has a God, and refer to someone else as God and Lord for me that's a discripency. God does not has a God.
 
Similarly if the book says that with Jesus' blood sacrifice everyone's sins have been paid for!  Yet in the same book not too far I read that each one will be judged acording to their deeds, furhter I read that each one will give account on the day of Judgement. To me that is in contrast to "paying for sins of the whole world with a blood sacrifice."
Its as simple as it reads.
 
Hasan
 
Hasan,

I agree with you that a writing � especially God�s Word � should not have contradictions in it. Where we disagree is � you look at an apparent contradiction and conclude it is an actual one. I think if you gave the Bible the same benefit of the doubt that you give the Quran, you would consider how there might be a reconciliation between things that look like opposites but are in fact, not.

 

I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don�t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don�t think the example you present is a real contradiction � is it?

 

Apollos

 
Apollo,
would you not accept a Hindu's claim which is similar to yours that God can come incarnate as an elephant, or as a monkey? Why a Hindu's claim is invalid and yours is for you . Please explain?
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 09 March 2009 at 8:11pm

Mansoor Ali,

 

I mentioned earlier that I am not intimidated by Liberal �scholars� who claim such nonsense about the Bible. Did you notice that in the article you copied from, there is not one fact � only theories. When they say that Luke differs from Mark so that obviously means one of them was editing the other's work, that is their theory. When they say that John included more developed theology than could have existed in the first century, that is their theory. And these theories imenate from the premise that supernatural things don�t happen. According to them, Jesus couldn�t have made a prophecy that cam true because such things don�t happen. John couldn�t have wrote what is ascribed to him because it would require a supernatural revelation from God, etc.

 

The problem is with all this nonsense is � it is not supported by the facts. In fact most of these theories keep changing because the cold facts prove them wrong. These Liberals used to say it took 300 years to develop the New Testament because it was so developed, sophisticated, etc. Then manuscripts were found long before this. They s*****p for a little while and then said it took 200 years � like the article you found. Unfortunately we keep finding manuscripts and other ancient finds that push this back closer and closer to the first century. For example we have portions of John�s gospel dated within 10 years of John�s death. Oh Oh, that invalidates one of those theories doesn�t it?

 
These guys aren�t starting with history and evidence � they are starting with their Liberal bias against Jesus being from God. Will you accept their opinion on that? If not, please don�t be appeal to people who claim to be �Christians� and �scholars� but are neither. (Its like me quoting Bahai�s to criticize the Quran).

 

Apollos



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 09 March 2009 at 8:24pm

Hasan,

I agree with you that a writing � especially God�s Word � should not have contradictions in it. Where we disagree is � you look at an apparent contradiction and conclude it is an actual one. I think if you gave the Bible the same benefit of the doubt that you give the Quran, you would consider how there might be a reconciliation between things that look like opposites but are in fact, not.

I illustrate: Would you not agree that if God consists of three persons and if one of these persons became incarnate, it would be correct for that incarnated being to be both man and God? Would it not be correct for that being to pray to another person of the Godhead and call Him, my God?  I understand you don�t accept the plural personhood of God or the possibility that God could become incarnated but if you grant that notion as the backdrop for the Bible, I don�t think the example you present is a real contradiction � is it?

Apollos

 

 

Apollo,

would you not accept a Hindu's claim which is similar to yours that God can come incarnate as an elephant, or as a monkey? Why a Hindu's claim is invalid and yours is for you . Please explain?

Hasan

 

 

Hasan,

 

Hindu�s neither claim nor offer objective evidence that God has revealed anything to us. The Bible does. Yet, if I was reading Hindu writings I would not read into them Christian concepts but try to understand what they meant according to their own beliefs and definitions. I might think Brahman is illogical but if the word and concept are used coherently within Hindu writings, I would not claim Hindu writings were internally contradictory.

 

So, given the context I described, do you see that what you call contradictions in the Bible are not necessarily so?

 

Apollos



Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 10 March 2009 at 2:37am

So, given the context I described, do you see that what you call contradictions in the Bible are not necessarily so?

 

Apollos

 
It is such a pity that Christians have to struggle with their religion and their so called holy scripture. If the God that the Christians worship is most powerful most perfect, they would not have much to do in order to defend their faith. And the original Bible would still be around.
 


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 10 March 2009 at 7:31am
Nur there is no struggle when your heart is open to the truth. 
 
LOL!    Remember your Quran agrees that the Torah and Gospel was sent by GOD. 
 
The Bible we have today is the Bible that was available to Mohammad.
 
One thing though it had not yet been translated into Arabic.


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 10 March 2009 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Mansoor Ali,

 

I mentioned earlier that I am not intimidated by Liberal �scholars� who claim such nonsense about the Bible. Did you notice that in the article you copied from, there is not one fact � only theories. When they say that Luke differs from Mark so that obviously means one of them was editing the other's work, that is their theory. When they say that John included more developed theology than could have existed in the first century, that is their theory. And these theories imenate from the premise that supernatural things don�t happen. According to them, Jesus couldn�t have made a prophecy that cam true because such things don�t happen. John couldn�t have wrote what is ascribed to him because it would require a supernatural revelation from God, etc.

 

The problem is with all this nonsense is � it is not supported by the facts. In fact most of these theories keep changing because the cold facts prove them wrong. These Liberals used to say it took 300 years to develop the New Testament because it was so developed, sophisticated, etc. Then manuscripts were found long before this. They s*****p for a little while and then said it took 200 years � like the article you found. Unfortunately we keep finding manuscripts and other ancient finds that push this back closer and closer to the first century. For example we have portions of John�s gospel dated within 10 years of John�s death. Oh Oh, that invalidates one of those theories doesn�t it?

 
These guys aren�t starting with history and evidence � they are starting with their Liberal bias against Jesus being from God. Will you accept their opinion on that? If not, please don�t be appeal to people who claim to be �Christians� and �scholars� but are neither. (Its like me quoting Bahai�s to criticize the Quran).

 

Apollos



 To Apollos

 Topic: 15 Clear Chronological Contradiction In The Bible?

1:  In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then the pinnacle.

2:  In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later cleansed the temple.

3:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

4:  In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).

5:  In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

6:  In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).

7:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later caused the devils to enter the swine (Mark 5:1-13).

8:  In Luke 3:19-20 John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

9:  In Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Mark 4:35-40 the storm was calmed and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

10:  In Luke 5:27-32 Levi (Matthew) was called and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Matt. 8:18-27 the storm was calmed and later Levi was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

11:  In Matt. 8:14-15 Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Matt. 14:3-5), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39).

12: In Matthew 21:1-11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and later purified the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16), while in John 2:13-25 and 3:1-12 he purified the Temple and later entered Jerusalem (John 12:12-16).

13:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later paid tribute to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11-14), while in Luke 7:24-28 Jesus paid tribute to John the Baptist and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

14:  In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said after supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark l4:18 Jesus made this statement during supper.

15:  And lastly, in Matt. 8:23-27 Jesus calmed the storm and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41).

 The common defense that these events occurred more than once is without merit since many of them are unique. Therefor the bible is not gods word, since gods word has to be perfect and cannot contain many chronological contradictions, since only one chronological order can be right, the other has to be wrong.



 


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 10 March 2009 at 4:32pm
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali Mansoor_ali wrote:

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Mansoor Ali,

 

I mentioned earlier that I am not intimidated by Liberal �scholars� who claim such nonsense about the Bible. Did you notice that in the article you copied from, there is not one fact � only theories. When they say that Luke differs from Mark so that obviously means one of them was editing the other's work, that is their theory. When they say that John included more developed theology than could have existed in the first century, that is their theory. And these theories imenate from the premise that supernatural things don�t happen. According to them, Jesus couldn�t have made a prophecy that cam true because such things don�t happen. John couldn�t have wrote what is ascribed to him because it would require a supernatural revelation from God, etc.

 

The problem is with all this nonsense is � it is not supported by the facts. In fact most of these theories keep changing because the cold facts prove them wrong. These Liberals used to say it took 300 years to develop the New Testament because it was so developed, sophisticated, etc. Then manuscripts were found long before this. They s*****p for a little while and then said it took 200 years � like the article you found. Unfortunately we keep finding manuscripts and other ancient finds that push this back closer and closer to the first century. For example we have portions of John�s gospel dated within 10 years of John�s death. Oh Oh, that invalidates one of those theories doesn�t it?

 
These guys aren�t starting with history and evidence � they are starting with their Liberal bias against Jesus being from God. Will you accept their opinion on that? If not, please don�t be appeal to people who claim to be �Christians� and �scholars� but are neither. (Its like me quoting Bahai�s to criticize the Quran).

 

Apollos



 To Apollos

 Topic: 15 Clear Chronological Contradiction In The Bible?

1:  In Matthew 4:5-8 the Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle and then to the mountain, while in Luke 4:5-9 he took him to the mountain and then the pinnacle.

2:  In Matt. 21:12-19 Jesus cleansed the temple and later cursed the fig tree, while in Mark 11:13-15 he cursed the fig tree and later cleansed the temple.

3:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later called Levi (Matt. 9:9), while in Luke 5:27-28 Jesus called Levi and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

4:  In Mark 1:12-13 Jesus was tempted in the wilderness and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus was tempted in the wilderness (Luke 4:1-13).

5:  In Mark 2:13-17 Matthew was called by Jesus and later the tempest was calmed (Mark 4:35-40), while in Matt. 8:18, 23-27 the tempest was calmed and later Matthew was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

6:  In Matt. 8:1-4 Jesus cleansed the leper and later healed Peter's mother-in-law (Matt. 8:14-15), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later cleansed the leper (Mark 1:40-44).

7:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later caused the devils to enter the swine (Mark 5:1-13).

8:  In Luke 3:19-20 John the Baptist was arrested and later Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39), while in Mark 1:29-31 Jesus healed Peter's mother-in-law and later John was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

9:  In Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Mark 4:35-40 the storm was calmed and later John the Baptist was arrested (Mark 6:17-18).

10:  In Luke 5:27-32 Levi (Matthew) was called and later the storm was calmed (Luke 8:22-25), while in Matt. 8:18-27 the storm was calmed and later Levi was called (Matt. 9:9-17).

11:  In Matt. 8:14-15 Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law and later John the Baptist was arrested (Matt. 14:3-5), while in Luke 3:19-20 John was arrested and later Jesus cured Simon's mother-in-law (Luke 4:38-39).

12: In Matthew 21:1-11 Jesus entered Jerusalem and later purified the Temple (Matthew 21:12-16), while in John 2:13-25 and 3:1-12 he purified the Temple and later entered Jerusalem (John 12:12-16).

13:  In Matt. 8:28-32 Jesus caused devils to enter swine and later paid tribute to John the Baptist (Matt. 11:11-14), while in Luke 7:24-28 Jesus paid tribute to John the Baptist and later caused devils to enter swine (Luke 8:26-33).

14:  In Luke 22:14-21 Jesus said after supper that the hand of his betrayer was with him on the table, while in Matt. 26:21 and Mark l4:18 Jesus made this statement during supper.

15:  And lastly, in Matt. 8:23-27 Jesus calmed the storm and later appointed the 12 apostles (Matt. 10:1-4), while in Mark 3:13-19 Jesus appointed the 12 apostles and later calmed the storm (Mark 4:35-41).

 The common defense that these events occurred more than once is without merit since many of them are unique. Therefor the bible is not gods word, since gods word has to be perfect and cannot contain many chronological contradictions, since only one chronological order can be right, the other has to be wrong.

 

Mansoor Ali,

 

No the common explanation is not that these things happened more than once - though some other passages like parables Jesus gave should be seen in this way. The problems in the above is that someone is not paying attention to how each writer does or doesn't attempt to be chronological in their account. They didn't have parentheses in ancient Greek but it is apparent that many statements should be seen as parenthetic statements. I will identify one for simplicity.

 

In Matthew we see how the writer addresses specific events in topical form not strictly chronological. First he addresses events at the temple.

 

Mat 21:10  And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Mat 21:11  And the crowd said, This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.

Mat 21:12  And Jesus went into the temple of God

 

The below is a condensed version of the two days and times Jesus entered the Temple

 

and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold doves.

Mat 21:13  And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.

Mat 21:14  And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

Mat 21:15  And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things which He did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were angry.

Mat 21:16  And they said to Him, Do you hear what these say? And Jesus said to them, Yes, have you never read, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have perfected praise?"

Mat 21:17  And leaving them, He went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.

Mat 21:18  And returning early to the city, He hungered.

 

The section below is a parenthetic statement that condenses Jesus� actions with the fig tree.

 

Mat 21:19  And seeing a fig tree in the way, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only. And He said to it, let no fruit grow on you forever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.

Mat 21:20  And when the disciples saw, they marveled, saying, How quickly the fig tree has withered away!

Mat 21:21  Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.

Mat 21:22  And all things, whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive.

 

Back to the events at the temple

Mat 21:23  And when He had come into the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came to Him as He was teaching, and said, By what authority do you do these things? And who gave you this authority?

Mat 21:24  And Jesus answered and said to them, I will also ask you one thing; which if you tell Me, I likewise will tell you by what authority I do these things.

 

 

Mark writes more chronological in his account of the parallel events Matthew addresses.

 

Mar 11:11  And Jesus entered into Jerusalem and into the temple. And when He had looked around on all things, the hour already being late, He went out to Bethany with the Twelve.

Mar 11:12  And on the next day, they going out of Bethany, He was hungry.

Mar 11:13  And seeing a fig-tree with leaves afar off, He went to it, if perhaps He might find anything on it. And when He came to it, He found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season of figs.

Mar 11:14  And Jesus answered and said to it, No one shall eat fruit of you forever. And His disciples heard.

Mar 11:15  And they came to Jerusalem. And entering into the temple, Jesus began to cast out those who bought and sold in the temple. And He overthrew the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold doves.

Mar 11:16  And He would not allow any to carry a vessel through the temple.

Mar 11:17  And He taught, saying to them, Is it not written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations?" But you have made it a den of thieves.

Mar 11:18  And the scribes and the chief priests heard. And they sought how they might destroy Him. For they feared Him, because all the people were astonished at His doctrine.

Mar 11:19  And when evening came, He went out of the city.

Mar 11:20  And passing on early, they saw the fig-tree dried up from the roots.

Mar 11:21  And Peter, remembering, said to Him, Rabbi, behold, the fig tree which You cursed has withered away.

Mar 11:22  And answering Jesus said to them, Have faith of God.

Mar 11:23  For truly I say to you that whoever shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be cast into the sea, and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he said shall occur, he shall have whatever he said.

Mar 11:24  Therefore I say to you, All things, whatever you ask, praying, believe that you shall receive them, and it will be to you.

 

If one gives the benefit of the doubt to the writers you will see that this harmony is not only possible, it is quite likely. It avoids the unreasonable claim that �when the writers agree , it must be collusion. When the writers differ it must mean contradictions.�

 

Apollos

 


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 8:17am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi Nur_Ilahi wrote:

 

It is such a pity that Christians have to struggle with their religion and their so called holy scripture. If the God that the Christians worship is most powerful most perfect, they would not have much to do in order to defend their faith. And the original Bible would still be around.
 
No one asks for Muslims to defend their claims?! Please!
 
Apollos


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 10:56am
 

The below is a condensed version of the two days and times Jesus entered the Temple

 

and cast out all those who sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the money-changers, and the seats of those who sold doves.

Mat 21:13  And He said to them, It is written, "My house shall be called the house of prayer"; but you have made it a den of thieves.

Mat 21:14  And the blind and the lame came to Him in the temple, and He healed them.

Mat 21:15  And when the chief priests and scribes saw the wonderful things which He did, and the children crying in the temple, and saying, Hosanna to the Son of David, they were angry.

Mat 21:16  And they said to Him, Do you hear what these say? And Jesus said to them, Yes, have you never read, "Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings You have perfected praise?"

Mat 21:17  And leaving them, He went out of the city to Bethany, and spent the night there.

Mat 21:18  And returning early to the city, He hungered.

 

The section below is a parenthetic statement that condenses Jesus� actions with the fig tree.

 

Mat 21:19  And seeing a fig tree in the way, He came to it and found nothing on it except leaves only. And He said to it, let no fruit grow on you forever. And immediately the fig tree withered away.

Mat 21:20  And when the disciples saw, they marveled, saying, How quickly the fig tree has withered away!

Mat 21:21  Jesus answered and said to them, Truly I say to you, If you have faith and do not doubt, you shall not only do this miracle of the fig tree, but also; if you shall say to this mountain, Be moved and be thrown into the sea; it shall be done.

Mat 21:22  And all things, whatever you shall ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive.

 

How do YOU know it is a condensed version? Is that stated within the text itself, or is that the only way to reconcile the two differing versions?
 
You shouldn't have to jump through hoops and come up with explanations as to why the Bible can be the uncorrupted Word of God. It should be fairly starightforward and ummmmmmmm uncorrupted.
 
"These Liberals used to say it took 300 years to develop the New Testament because it was so developed, sophisticated, etc."
 
Apparently it is not so developed and sophisticated because you are using it's very unsophistication as an excuse for the contradictions:  "The problems in the above is that someone is not paying attention to how each writer does or doesn't attempt to be chronological in their account. They didn't have parentheses in ancient Greek but it is apparent that many statements should be seen as parenthetic statements."
 
Once again, apparent to whom?
 

"If one gives the benefit of the doubt to the writers you will see that this harmony is not only possible, it is quite likely. It avoids the unreasonable claim that �when the writers agree , it must be collusion. When the writers differ it must mean contradictions.�

 

If the Bible is the Word of God, is He the writer to whom we should give the benefit of the doubt?
 
 
 


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 11:06am
"The Bible we have today is the Bible that was available to Mohammad."
 
I have already posted earlier how this is not necessarily the truth as many versions of the Bible exist. Which version is the "true" version?


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 11:51am

It is quite telling that the only responses from Muslims to this topic has been to reaffirm their claim that Bible is corrupted or to say my first two points aren�t really true. No one has responded with an explanation that accounts for the various attributes I describe in point 3. No one has refuted that these attributes exist and no one has any explanation for how and when these things could have been manufactured. I therefore conclude that my summation is true:

 

The type of Bible corruption Muslims describe requires a reversal of the attributes of God and the attributes of men. With all of its supernatural attributes, the Bible is supposed to be something men created while a book with no supernatural attributes is supposed to be God�s Word.

 

Apollos



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 11:56am
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi Nur_Ilahi wrote:

 

It is such a pity that Christians have to struggle with their religion and their so called holy scripture. If the God that the Christians worship is most powerful most perfect, they would not have much to do in order to defend their faith. And the original Bible would still be around.
 
No one asks for Muslims to defend their claims?! Please!
 
Apollos
 
That there is only one true God and we should all submit to His Will? No, not too much.


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 11 March 2009 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

It is quite telling that the only responses from Muslims to this topic has been to reaffirm their claim that Bible is corrupted or to say my first two points aren�t really true. No one has responded with an explanation that accounts for the various attributes I describe in point 3. No one has refuted that these attributes exist and no one has any explanation for how and when these things could have been manufactured. I therefore conclude that my summation is true:

 

The type of Bible corruption Muslims describe requires a reversal of the attributes of God and the attributes of men. With all of its supernatural attributes, the Bible is supposed to be something men created while a book with no supernatural attributes is supposed to be God�s Word.

 

Apollos

 
Because this is a false statement.  Christians are in fact the ones who have reversed the attributes of God and man, making the man Jesus into a God, and making the One and Only God into part of a triune equal with a man.
 
 
 
 
 


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Chrysalis
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 7:29am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

 
Because this is a false statement.  Christians are in fact the ones who have reversed the attributes of God and man, making the man Jesus into a God, and making the One and Only God into part of a triune equal with a man.
  
 
Interesting! I never thought of it that way. . . . so true.
 
God can nauzubillah have a son, die on the cross in Jesus's form etc (Human attributes)
 
While a man, can nauzubillah be God, and worthy of worship (Divine attributes)
 
 


-------------
"O Lord, forgive me, my parents and Muslims in the Hereafter. O Lord, show mercy on them as they showed mercy to me when I was young."


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 10:27am
Apollo,
you have written some quotes in response to Mansoor's reply to you. Those quotes needs some attention from you to be understood. Upon reading and comprehending them one can simply seperate the status of Jesus and that of God. One a man and a prophet worshipping and serving His maker, God.
And that is the correction Islam brings to you after mankind making a msitake. Let me write those quotes, and let us pay them attention because they are clearly oppose to those which portray Jesus as God vs these that show Jesus as one who has a God and himself a prophet, a man.

Mat 21:10  And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Mat 21:11  And the crowd said, This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.

Mat 21:12  And Jesus went into the temple of God

 
Hasan


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: believer
Date Posted: 12 March 2009 at 3:41pm

Why are Muslims so intent on saying the Quran is lying about the Gospel?  LOL!!  Mohammad is turning over in his grave.

Do you understand eyewitness accounts?  Are these intended to be listed in chronological order?  Are they mentioned by topic.
 
I am proud that the desciples had the gumption to keep the various accounts and not destroy, burn  the ones that didn't quite jive exactly- why have the 4 if they did?  LOL!!


-------------
John 3
16"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.


Posted By: Nur_Ilahi
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 7:38am
Originally posted by believer believer wrote:

Do you understand eyewitness accounts?  Are these intended to be listed in chronological order?  Are they mentioned by topic.

 
You quoted the Bible in English.
 
I heard Jesus spoke English.Wink


-------------
Ilahi Anta Maksudi, Wa Redhaka Mathlubi - Oh Allah, You are my destination, Your Pleasure is my Intention.


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 13 March 2009 at 6:47pm
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi 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 - 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.

If you got something to say about corruption and pornography then you must do beter research then reading some accusation made about blaspheme of the holy God that you also helping and assisting the satan by degrading the Holy God how can you make such state ments that God died on the cross It was his son that died on that cross for you that blasphemies against him and the day when you die then you will see the facts and then you want to apoligize to him.You must get your facts together before you want judge the one and only Holy GOD.
 
Tell me show me any simularities between the bible and the quran why is there so much deviation o o dont forgot about the so called "prophecies" about muhammad in the bible they are also "corrupt".
 
It was We who revealed the law ( Who is the "we" and what law did he revealed to Moses.)


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 8:03am
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,
you have written some quotes in response to Mansoor's reply to you. Those quotes needs some attention from you to be understood. Upon reading and comprehending them one can simply seperate the status of Jesus and that of God. One a man and a prophet worshipping and serving His maker, God.
And that is the correction Islam brings to you after mankind making a msitake. Let me write those quotes, and let us pay them attention because they are clearly oppose to those which portray Jesus as God vs these that show Jesus as one who has a God and himself a prophet, a man.

Mat 21:10  And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, Who is this?

Mat 21:11  And the crowd said, This is Jesus the prophet, from Nazareth of Galilee.

Mat 21:12  And Jesus went into the temple of God

 
Hasan
Hasan,
 
I do not understand what you want clarified. The best I can do is guess that you are still trying to read the events as if everyone is a chronological event that happens immediately after the preceding statement. There is no reason to assume this - especially in the context of this writer's style. If you are inquiring about something else, please clarify.
 
What about the original topic here? Do you have an explanation for point 3 or are you going to just keep saying the Bible is corrupt?
 
Apollos


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 14 March 2009 at 11:15am
Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi 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 - 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.

 
What choice will you make  a authentic false religion or corrupted true religion then satanism must have been also corrupted through the ages then the satanists must also produce there authentic scriptures why dont you attack them also.
 
So then according to your statements all history books must have also been corrupted true or false then the history that was recorded is not authentic.
   


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 12:40am
Originally posted by JOUBERAR JOUBERAR wrote:

Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi 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 - 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.

 
What choice will you make  a authentic false religion or corrupted true religion then satanism must have been also corrupted through the ages then the satanists must also produce there authentic scriptures why dont you attack them also.
 
So then according to your statements all history books must have also been corrupted true or false then the history that was recorded is not authentic.
   
The choice should be authentic true religion.


-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 10:37am
Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

Originally posted by JOUBERAR JOUBERAR wrote:

Originally posted by Nur_Ilahi 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 - 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.

 
What choice will you make  a authentic false religion or corrupted true religion then satanism must have been also corrupted through the ages then the satanists must also produce there authentic scriptures why dont you attack them also.
 
So then according to your statements all history books must have also been corrupted true or false then the history that was recorded is not authentic.
   
The choice should be authentic true religion.
 
Wich one is true I Know the jewis and christian religion is true which one is true for you.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 12:49pm
I find it amusing when people of different faiths question the authenticity of each others' scripture, while blindly accepting the authenticity of their own.  The fact is that none of you has any evidence whatsoever to show that your own scripture came from God. Tongue

-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 3:37pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I find it amusing when people of different faiths question the authenticity of each others' scripture, while blindly accepting the authenticity of their own.  The fact is that none of you has any evidence whatsoever to show that your own scripture came from God. Tongue
 
Islam is only religion in the world since it existed that openly questioned the Jewish and Christian religion authenticity and it going on and on like a childish argument the Muslims were a religion to late in the arena but have biggest horn to blow on say look look the Jewish and Christian scriptures is corrupted ours is flawless it is so strange why don't they first judge themselves before judging others how can you accuse someone simply on basis of its scriptures.  


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 15 March 2009 at 9:29pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR JOUBERAR wrote:


Wich one is true I Know the jewis and christian religion is true which one is true for you.

Islam

-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 5:24am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I find it amusing when people of different faiths question the authenticity of each others' scripture, while blindly accepting the authenticity of their own.� The fact is that none of you has any evidence whatsoever to show that your own scripture came from God. [IMG]http://www.islamicity.com/forum/smileys/smiley17.gif" height="17" width="17" align="absmiddle" alt="Tongue" />
As Salamu Alaikum,Ron Webb.If someone follows any Religious Text, they should be able to fully understand it,hence thats the reason for the questioning.Maybe people should'nt be concerned about what others think about there preference of Allah's Books.No Doubt they are all Allah Ta'ala Books,The fact is that the Torah,The Gospel has been modified,misprinted ect by man hence corrupted.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 7:26am
Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I find it amusing when people of different faiths question the authenticity of each others' scripture, while blindly accepting the authenticity of their own.  The fact is that none of you has any evidence whatsoever to show that your own scripture came from God. Tongue
 
I listed Prophecy, Advanced knowledge and super natural word patterns as examples of the Bible being divine. There is also the resurrection of Jesus which gives Him divine credentials and He said the Bible is from God. How does this equate to blind acceptance?
 
Apollos


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:19pm
"Originally posted by JOUBERAR


Wich one is true I Know the jewis and christian religion is true which one is true for you."
 
Both cannot be correct since one is founded upon the belief that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but God, and the other does not even believe Jesus to be the Messiah.


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 1:36pm
"Originally posted by Ron Webb

I find it amusing when people of different faiths question the authenticity of each others' scripture, while blindly accepting the authenticity of their own.  The fact is that none of you has any evidence whatsoever to show that your own scripture came from God. Tongue"
 
Of course one has to believe in the existence of God to begin with. 
 
 


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 5:19pm

Originally posted by Akhe Abdullah Akhe Abdullah wrote:

The fact is that the Torah,The Gospel has been modified,misprinted ect by man hence corrupted.

Corrupted, or perfected?  Maybe the various books of the Bible as originally transcribed by imperfect men contained imperfections, which God in his wisdom has caused to be removed in subsequent revisions.  Maybe the fact that the Quran has been perfectly preserved means merely that its flaws have not yet been corrected.  How can we know?


Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

I listed Prophecy, Advanced knowledge and super natural word patterns as examples of the Bible being divine. There is also the resurrection of Jesus which gives Him divine credentials and He said the Bible is from God. How does this equate to blind acceptance?

The prophecies in the Bible are generally worded so vaguely that their fulfilment at some point over the span of two millennia is evidence of nothing.  Same goes for "advanced knowledge".  The discovery of random patterns in a book containing more than 750,000 words is not just unsurprising but statistically inevitable.  And by the way, the same kinds of claims are made about the Quran, and many other holy books.

How do you know that Jesus was resurrected?  Because it says so in the very book whose authenticity you are trying to establish?



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 16 March 2009 at 8:08pm

Posted by Ron Webb:

The prophecies in the Bible are generally worded so vaguely that their fulfilment at some point over the span of two millennia is evidence of nothing.  Same goes for "advanced knowledge".  The discovery of random patterns in a book containing more than 750,000 words is not just unsurprising but statistically inevitable.  And by the way, the same kinds of claims are made about the Quran, and many other holy books.

How do you know that Jesus was resurrected?  Because it says so in the very book whose authenticity you are trying to establish?

Ron,

 

I will list just one prophecy that I think avoids the vagueness you refer to. Please comment as you see fit.

 

Daniel 9 gives the timing for the arrival of the Messiah.

 

Dan 9:24  Seventy weeks are decreed as to your people and as to your holy city, to finish the transgression and to make an end of sins, and to make atonement for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness, and to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the Most Holy.

Dan 9:25  Know therefore and understand, that from the going out of the command to restore and to build Jerusalem, to Messiah the Prince, shall be seven weeks, and sixty-two weeks. The street shall be built again, and the wall, even in times of affliction.

Dan 9:26  And after sixty-two weeks Messiah shall be cut off, but not for Himself. And the people of the ruler who shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. And the end of it shall be with the flood, and ruins are determined, until the end shall be war.

 

As you may know, the math from March 14th 445 BC when Artaxerxes issued the decree concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the Sunday when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly 483 years � to the day. (173,880 days).

 

On that day Jesus wept over the city for the consequences of them not knowing this time:

 

Luk 19:41  And as He drew near, He beheld the city and wept over it,

Luk 19:42  saying, If you had known, even you, even at least in this day of yours, the things for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.

Luk 19:43  For the days will come on you that your enemies will raise up a rampart to you, and will surround you, and will keep you in on every side.

Luk 19:44  And they will tear you down, and your children within you, and will not leave a stone on a stone because you did not know the time of your visitation.

 

I also list just one of many examples of advanced knowledge from the oldest book of the Bible. Job 36:27-28: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man.� This process was not known or even speculated about by other humans for a thousand years or so. People thought the air turned into water and water into air but not what the Bible says.

 

The word patterns I describe are not statistically expected random patterns but non-random patterns that defy statistical frequencies. That is why they are incredible and why they can not be found in a man made writing. I encourage you to write even one page in normal prose � with a computer - that contains these type of features.

 

As for the resurrection claim, you probably know what the New Testament says but other history from Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Thallus and Anti-Christian Jewish writings confirm the eyewitnesses were making these claims immediately after Jesus� crucifixion. Is it possible that numerous eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying? Possible maybe but not likely and there is no evidence that they were. There are at least 12 core facts accepted by even atheistic historians and these support the claim of the eyewitnesses who say He rose from the dead.

 

1) Jesus died by crucifixion, 2) Jesus was buried in a tomb, 3) His Death caused despair among the Disciples, 4) The tomb was empty a few days later, 5) The Disciples believed they saw literal appearances of Jesus after His death, 6) The Disciples were transformed from fearful and sad men to bold evangel­ists, 7) The Church was founded on the risen Lord message, 8) The message was proclaimed in Jerusalem where the crucifixion took place, 9) The Church grew, 10) Sunday worship was from the onset of the Church, 11) James, Jesus' brother was converted, 12) Paul, a persecutor of Christians was converted.

 

These types of things aren�t even claimed by other religions. Feel free to refute any of them but how can you equate them with Islam?

 

Apollos



Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 4:06pm
"Corrupted, or perfected?  Maybe the various books of the Bible as originally transcribed by imperfect men contained imperfections, which God in his wisdom has caused to be removed in subsequent revisions." 
 
Then it is still a work in progress as contradictions and inconsistencies still abound.


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 4:21pm

A prophecy relating to the time of the Messiah which many evangelical Christians find extremely convincing is found in the book of Daniel. It is probably no exaggeration to say that this prophecy, more than any other, convinces Christians that Jesus was the Messiah. http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209:24-27;&version=49; - Daniel 9:24-27 says:

Seventy weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

So you are to know and discern that from the issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah the Prince there will be seven weeks and sixty-two weeks; it will be built again, with plaza and moat, even in times of distress.

Then after the sixty-two weeks the Messiah will be cut off and have nothing, and the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. And its end will come with a flood; even to the end there will be war; desolations are determined.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

The word translated in these verses as "weeks" is a form of the Hebrew word for "sevens," and is interpreted by Christians to mean seven years rather than seven days. Thus "seventy weeks" in verse 24 is interpreted to mean seventy periods of seven years, or 490 years, "seven weeks" in verse 25 is interpreted to mean 49 years, "sixty-two weeks" in verses 25 and 26 is interpreted to mean 434 years, and "one week" in verse 27 is interpreted to mean seven years.

The starting point of the prophecy is the "issuing of a decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem." A decree described in the Bible to rebuild the temple in Jerusalem is found in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chronicles%2036:22-23;&version=49; - 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%201:1-4;&version=49; - Ezra 1:1-4 . These verses describe the decree issued by Cyrus, king of Persia and contemporary of Daniel, in 538 B.C.E. "Seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," or 483 years, after this decree would be 55 B.C.E., many years too soon for Jesus.

So Christians must reject the equation of the decree in verse 25 with that of Cyrus, and they do. What other decrees are available? Josh McDowell (1972, p. 180) offers three alternatives: a decree of Darius described in the book of Ezra, a decree of Artaxerxes described in Ezra, and a decree of Artaxerxes described in Nehemiah. The decree of Darius, described in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%206:1-9;&version=49; - Ezra 6:1-9 , was to conduct a search of the archives to find the text of the decree of Cyrus, and then to resume the construction of the temple at Jerusalem using tax money. This occurred around 522 B.C.E. (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%204:24;&version=49; - Ezra 4:24 ), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 39 B.C.E.--still too early for Jesus.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Ezra described in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%207:11-28;&version=49; - Ezra 7:11-28 allows for the people of Israel to return to Jerusalem, taking with them various support from the royal treasury. This decree was issued in 458 B.C.E. (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%207:7;&version=49; - Ezra 7:7 ), which would put the coming of the Messiah at 26 C.E. This works fairly well if you take the end of the "sixty-two weeks" to be the beginning of Jesus' ministry, though most Christians take the end point to be the crucifixion due to the reference in verse 26 of the Daniel prophecy to the Messiah being "cut off." Most Christians reject this decree, as well as those of Cyrus and Darius, as being the appropriate starting point for the prophecy. One exception is Gleason Archer. Archer (1982, pp. 290-291) argues that http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%209:9;&version=49; - Ezra 9:9 implies that Ezra was given permission by Artaxerxes to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, despite the fact that they were not rebuilt until the time of Nehemiah (see http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%201:3;&version=49; - Nehemiah 1:3 . http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezra%209:9;&version=49; - Ezra 9:9 states that God has not forsaken the Jews but has given them a chance "to raise up the house of our God, to restore its ruins, and to give us a wall in Judah and Jerusalem." In defense of the end point of the "sixty-two weeks" being the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than his crucifixion, Archer points out that verse 26 of the prophecy says only that the Messiah's being "cut off" occurs after that time period, not necessarily immediately after it.

The decree of Artaxerxes to Nehemiah described in http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Nehemiah%202:1-6;&version=49; - Nehemiah 2:1-6 is really no decree at all. Rather, Artaxerxes gives Nehemiah letters of safe conduct for travel to Judah and to obtain timber to rebuild the gates of the temple and the walls of Jerusalem. This occurred in 445 B.C.E., putting the time of the Messiah at 39 C.E., too late for Jesus, who is believed to have been crucified some time between 29 and 33 C.E. Despite these flaws, most evangelical Christians adopt this as the appropriate decree because Nehemiah rebuilt the walls of Jerusalem. In order to make the 445 B.C.E. starting point result in an ending point 483 years later that is either at the beginning of Jesus' ministry or at the time of the crucifixion, something other than a 365-day year must be used. The most popular such calculation, due to Sir Robert Anderson and promoted by Josh McDowell, is to adopt a "360-day prophetic year"--an invention of Anderson based on his reading of http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:2-3;&version=49; - Revelation 11:2-3 , where he equates 42 months with 1260 days, giving 30 days per month. Using "prophetic years" puts the end of the 483-year period at 32 C.E., believed by many to be the year of the crucifixion. Robert Newman (1990, pp. 112-114) points out several flaws in this calculation scheme which together are fatal to it: (1) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation%2011:23;&version=49; - Revelation 11:23 does not justify the invention of the "prophetic year," because there is no indication that 1260 days is said to be exactly 42 months (it could be 41.5 rounded up), (2) a 360-day year would get out of synch with the seasons, and the Jews added an extra lunar month every two or three years to their 354-day lunar year, giving them an average year length of about 365 days, and (3) the present consensus on the date of the crucifixion is 30 C.E. rather than 32 C.E.

Newman offers his own alternative: the use of sabbatical years, which do have biblical justification ( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2023:10-11;&version=49; - Exodus 23:10-11 and http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2025:3-7,18-22;&version=49; - Leviticus 25:3-7,18-22 ). Every seventh year is a sabbatical year. Newman uses information from the first book of Maccabees, which has reference to an observance of a sabbatical year, to calculate that 163-162 B.C.E. was a sabbatical year and therefore 445 B.C.E., the starting point of the Daniel prophecy, falls in the seven-year sabbatical cycle 449-442 B.C.E. If this is the first sabbatical cycle in the count, the sixty-ninth is 28-35 C.E., a time period that the crucifixion falls in. In response to the criticism that the prophecy says that the Messiah will be "cut off" after sixty-two weeks, Newman says that in conventional Jewish idiom "after" means "after the beginning of."

There are further problems for all of the above interpretations, which Gerald Sigal (1981, pp. 109-122) points out. Foremost among Sigal's criticisms is that the Masoretic punctuation of the Hebrew Bible places a division between the "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks," meaning that rather than stating that the Messiah will come after the combined time periods, he will come after the "seven weeks" alone. Another criticism Sigal makes is that the Hebrew text does not put a definite article in front of the word "Messiah" (or "anointed one"). The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is translated with these facts in mind, and it gives the http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Daniel%209:24-27;&version=49; - Daniel 9:24-27 as follows:

Seventy weeks of years are decreed concerning your people and your holy city, to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place. Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one, a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war; desolations are decreed. And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week; and for half of the week he shall cause sacrifice and offering to cease; and upon the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator.

Using the Masoretic punctuation, the "sixty-two weeks" goes with the rebuilding of the city rather than with the coming of the Messiah. This interpretation explains why "seven weeks and sixty-two weeks" are given separately, rather than simply stating "sixty-nine weeks." Most apologists are either unaware of or ignore the Masoretic punctuation, but Robert Newman (1990, p. 116) rejects it on the grounds that "such punctuation may not date back before the ninth or tenth century AD" and that the structure of the verses as a whole favor his interpretation.

The result of all this? The Daniel prophecy is not nearly so convincing as it might initially appear to someone presented only with one of the interpretations that "works." It is not surprising that with four choices for beginning points (the decrees of Cyrus, Darius, and Artaxerxes, plus the letters of Artaxerxes for Nehemiah), several possible choices for end points (the birth, ministry, and crucifixion of Jesus), and at least three ways of counting (ordinary years, "prophetic years," and sabbatical cycles) calculations have been found for which Jesus fits the prophecy. There are good reasons to reject each of these interpretations. The first two choices for beginning points don't work for any offered interpretations. The Artaxerxes decree works for ordinary years with the ministry of Jesus as the end point, but says nothing about rebuilding Jerusalem. The Artaxerxes letters work for sabbatical cycles with the crucifixion as an end point, but they are not a decree to rebuild the city of Jerusalem. Rather, they gave Nehemiah safe conduct to Judah and permission to use lumber from the royal forests. Finally, none of them take into consideration the Masoretic punctuation, which, if not itself in error, eliminates all of them as possible interpretations of the text.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html - http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_lippard/fabulous-prophecies.html


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 17 March 2009 at 6:42pm

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

As you may know, the math from March 14th 445 BC when Artaxerxes issued the decree concerning the rebuilding of Jerusalem to the Sunday when Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey was exactly 483 years � to the day. (173,880 days).

I could be coy and point out that 483 years is not mentioned anywhere in Daniel 9.  Then you would declare that the word "weeks" should be translated as "seven", and by "seven" we are to assume "seven years", and not seven days or seven months or seven cubits.  Thus  (7 "weeks"  + 62 "weeks") x 7 years/"week" = 483 years.

Then I would say that 445 BC + 483 years would be 39 AD, six years after the crucifiction.  And you would respond that by "year" Daniel actually means a "prophetic year", which is 360 days.  Or at least that's what Daniel would have meant, if he actually had used the word "year", which he didn't.  And (after I stopped laughing) I would suggest that even if the prophets didn't know how long a year was, surely God would know.

But even if the numbers actually added up, there are so many assumptions in this prophecy that it can be twisted to mean just about anything you want.  There are at least four possible starting points for the seventy "week" period (see http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm - http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/weeks.htm ), several candidates for who or what the end point might be, and numerous disputes over exactly what the verses mean (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_Seventy_Weeks ).  Then there's the whole problem of how to reconcile the timescale of the ancient Judaic calendar with our contemporary Gregorian calendar (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Years - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Years ).  And the awkward question of what was supposed to culminate the seventy week period.  (What happened to the "everlasting righteousness"?)

So if that's your idea of a clear, non-vague prophecy, I'm not impressed.

Quote I also list just one of many examples of advanced knowledge from the oldest book of the Bible. Job 36:27-28: "For He draws up drops of water, which distill as rain from the mist, which the clouds drop down and pour abundantly on man.� This process was not known or even speculated about by other humans for a thousand years or so. People thought the air turned into water and water into air but not what the Bible says.

It's not what lots of ancient scholars said either.  Yes, Plato got it wrong, but here's what Aristotle had to say ( http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/0013/007010013.pdf - http://www.iwaponline.com/ws/00701/0013/007010013.pdf ):
" � the sun causes the moisture to rise; this is similar to what happens when water is heated by fire" (Meteorologica, II.2, 355a 15).
" � the vapour that is cooled, because of lack of heat in the area where it lies, condenses and turns from air into water; and after the water has formed in this way it falls down again to the earth" (ibid., I.9, 346b 30).

Quote The word patterns I describe are not statistically expected random patterns but non-random patterns that defy statistical frequencies.

Sorry, I am not fluent in Hebrew or Greek so I can't comment on your "amazing" word patterns, except to say that I'm obviously not as easily amazed as you.  You can find such apparent patterns in any large body of text if you look long enough -- and theologians certainly spend long enough looking at their scripture.  Perhaps you'd like to read about the "Mathematical Miracle of the Quran": http://submission.org/miracle/ - http://submission.org/miracle/

Quote As for the resurrection claim, you probably know what the New Testament says but other history from Pliny the Younger, Tacitus, Thallus and Anti-Christian Jewish writings confirm the eyewitnesses were making these claims immediately after Jesus� crucifixion. Is it possible that numerous eyewitnesses were mistaken or lying? Possible maybe but not likely and there is no evidence that they were.

There is also no evidence that Christ actually died on the cross (did a doctor examine him?), and plenty of evidence (as you said) that he was seen walking around three days later.  Normally that would be regarded as pretty strong evidence that he wasn't dead.



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 2:18pm

Ron,

 

You are making a lot of wrong calculations and conjectures concerning Daniel�s prophecy and we could go back and forth on this I�m sure. Let me approach your statement that �Bible prophecy is vague� another way. Let�s grant that your and my opinion about what an ancient statement meant is inferior to those who wrote and read the original statement in situ. (Hopefully you concur on this). With this in mind I list just a couple events that we know about outside of the Bible - that confirm how people understood Bible prophecies before they were fulfilled and how these prophecies were fulfilled:

 

1. Based on the below prophecy Jews believed that the Messiah (Shiloh) would come before ruling authority passed from Israel.

 

The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the gathering of the people be.
Genesis 49:10

When the Romans � in 6-7 AD - took away the right of the Jews to govern themselves and impose capital punishment, the ruling body of Jews � the Sanhedrin � covered their heads with ashes and their bodies with sackcloth, and bemoaned, "Woe unto us for the scepter has departed from Judah and the Messiah has not come!" (Babylonian Talmud, Chapter 4, folio 37; also, Augustin Lemann, Jesus before the Sanhedrin, 1886, translated by Julius Magath, NL#0239683, Library of Congress #15-24973).

They actually thought that the Torah, the Word of God, had failed!  They should have known better but the fact that they made a public display and declaration substantiates that the Jews understood this prophecy to have a clear meaning. Had they known that the Messiah had been born in Bethlehem by this time, they would not have acted as they did.

 

2. Jesus warned His followers that - because of the Jews� rejection of Him � Jerusalem would be attacked, people would be killed and the temple would be destroyed. He told them that when they saw the city surrounded, flea immediately.

And when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed with armies, then know that the desolation thereof is nigh. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. Luke 21:20-21

From 66-70 a.d. Vespasian and his son, Titus, were sent by Nero to make war with the Jews. However, the death of Nero delayed the siege, and subsequently Vespasian acceded to the throne of the empire and left his son Titus to complete the siege. (Josephus Flavius, The Wars of the Jews, Book 2, XXII 2ff, Ibid. Book 4, X 7ff.). During this brief delay, the city was surrounded and the Christians heeded Jesus� warning and left. Over 1,100,000 perished in the siege but few if any Christians were among them as they had escaped to Egypt.

 

On the topic of advanced knowledge it seems your response and quote from Plato confirms just what I said � that even a thousand years after Job was written, people still did not understand what was at work here. Plato did believe that air turned into water and back again.

 

On the amazing word patterns, OK, you are not impressed. I am very involved with math and languages and I have studied this for many years � even trying to recreate features on my own. It is amazing to me and anyone who studies this field. I will check out the link you provided about the Quran and see what is there.

 

Apollos



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 6:12pm

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Let�s grant that your and my opinion about what an ancient statement meant is inferior to those who wrote and read the original statement in situ. (Hopefully you concur on this).

I'm not so sure about that -- I have access to much more information than they did -- but if so, it only weakens your case because according to them the prophecy failed!  Which side of this argument are you on, anyway? Tongue

Quote 1. Based on the below prophecy Jews believed that the Messiah (Shiloh) would come before ruling authority passed from Israel. ...

LOL But Apollos, in your previous prophecy you chose Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem on a donkey, not his birth, as the appropriate marker (endpoint) for the arrival of the Messiah!  So even if I accept your tortured calculations in that example, they can't both be right!

Quote On the topic of advanced knowledge it seems your response and quote from Plato confirms just what I said � that even a thousand years after Job was written, people still did not understand what was at work here. Plato did believe that air turned into water and back again.

Umm, water vapour is a constituent of air.  You do know that, don't you?

Quote On the amazing word patterns, OK, you are not impressed. I am very involved with math and languages and I have studied this for many years � even trying to recreate features on my own. It is amazing to me and anyone who studies this field. I will check out the link you provided about the Quran and see what is there.

I'm not sure which "field" you refer to, but if you're talking about mathematics, maybe you should read this statement by fifty-five professional mathematicians about the so-called Bible Codes: http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html - http://math.caltech.edu/code/petition.html .  Here's a brief quote: "There is a common belief in the general community to the effect that many mathematicians, statisticians, and other scientists consider the claims to be credible. This belief is incorrect. On the contrary, the almost unanimous opinion of those in the scientific world who have studied the question is that the theory is without foundation. The signatories to this letter have themselves examined the evidence and found it entirely unconvincing."

Why not check out this link too?  http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html - http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/torah.html   Be sure to scroll to the bottom and learn how Moby Dick "predicts" the assassination of numerous public figures.  Spooky!



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 18 March 2009 at 9:09pm

Blue text posted by Apollos

Black text posted by Ron Webb

Let�s grant that your and my opinion about what an ancient statement meant is inferior to those who wrote and read the original statement in situ. (Hopefully you concur on this).

 I'm not so sure about that -- I have access to much more information than they did

 Please explain. They understood the culture, expressions, language and setting more than any scholar of today.

 

-- but if so, it only weakens your case because according to them the prophecy failed! Which side of this argument are you on, anyway?

 

I am using a hostile witness to prove what Jews prior to Jesus arrival believed. They believed "Shiloh" referred to the Messiah and they believed their rule of law would not pass away before the Messiah came. It turns out they were correct - they just didn't realize the Messiah had come and had a temporary needless dissappointment..

 

1. Based on the below prophecy Jews believed that the Messiah (Shiloh) would come before ruling authority passed from Israel. ...

But Apollos, in your previous prophecy you chose Jesus's arrival in Jerusalem on a donkey, not his birth, as the appropriate marker (endpoint) for the arrival of the Messiah! So even if I accept your tortured calculations in that example, they can't both be right!

 

Daniel states that the seventy sevens were decreed to the �people and the holy city�. Therefore the context of the Messiah�s arrival was to the people and the holy city. If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus kept people from initiating this public presentation until He was ready. In this way, He controlled events to coincide with this day Daniel had foretold. This does not mean He hadn�t come/arrived at His birth in Bethlehem.

 

On the topic of advanced knowledge it seems your response and quote from Plato confirms just what I said � that even a thousand years after Job was written, people still did not understand what was at work here. Plato did believe that air turned into water and back again.

 

Umm, water vapour is a constituent of air. You do know that, don't you?

That is not what Plato wrote or believed.

 

On the amazing word patterns, OK, you are not impressed. I am very involved with math and languages and I have studied this for many years � even trying to recreate features on my own. It is amazing to me and anyone who studies this field. I will check out the link you provided about the Quran and see what is there.

I'm not sure which "field" you refer to, but if you're talking about mathematics, maybe you should read this statement by fifty-five professional mathematicians about the so-called Bible Codes.

 No need � I am not referring to the Bible Codes that are often forced and contrived.

 Apollos



Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 3:48am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"Originally posted by JOUBERAR


Which one is true I Know the Jewish and Christian religion is true which one is true for you."
 
Both cannot be correct since one is founded upon the belief that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but God, and the other does not even believe Jesus to be the Messiah.
 
So no one is correct  in your or Muslims eyes, the origins of Jewish people and the religion was made with the covenant that God have made with Abraham, Isaak, Moses  and Israel.
Christianity originates out of prophecies of off old testament prophets and the fulfillment of the birth of Jesus.
Islam originates purely out of nothing no covenant no prophecies no fulfillment ever thing thing was out of hear say some INTERNET sources assumes that there was historical evidence of Muhammad only for about 150 after his death when Qurran was puzzled together  


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 1:18pm
Originally posted by JOUBERAR JOUBERAR wrote:

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"Originally posted by JOUBERAR


Which one is true I Know the Jewish and Christian religion is true which one is true for you."
 
Both cannot be correct since one is founded upon the belief that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but God, and the other does not even believe Jesus to be the Messiah.
 
So no one is correct  in your or Muslims eyes, the origins of Jewish people and the religion was made with the covenant that God have made with Abraham, Isaak, Moses  and Israel.
Christianity originates out of prophecies of off old testament prophets and the fulfillment of the birth of Jesus.
Islam originates purely out of nothing no covenant no prophecies no fulfillment ever thing thing was out of hear say some INTERNET sources assumes that there was historical evidence of Muhammad only for about 150 after his death when Qurran was puzzled together  
 
Jouberar,
there is only One true religion since Adam utill we all are back in the court of Almighty God.
You know what that religion is? In truth and practice it is "Submission to the will of God" Adam was from this religion, many prophets of the old including Noah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed were all from this true religion and that's what they taught.
Easy to know if you are on rigth or wrong course. If you submitt and serve none other than God, your maker, then you are on the right path, and you need to further continue your growth of knowlege and understanding about it. If you submitt and serve God, your maker along with others as Lords in godhead, or worship other than your maker, or reject your maker as your God, than know for sure that you have choosen a way far from truth to your own destruction. But you have your chance toward guidance till the day the angel of death squeeze out your soul for good.
You can decieve yourself, for which you will be rightly judged and punished. If you seek guidance based on truth and mend your way, you have earned God's forgiveness and favors for yourself. God is Just and not a tiny bit of good or bad you do will not excape His record.
This, in simple is Islam, submission to the will of God and nothing less.
 
May God guide those who seek His guidance in truth.
 
Hasan 


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 1:27pm

So far, only Ron Webb has objected to the supernatural aspects of the Bible I posted. I will continue to answer Ron�s posts but I also want to point out that others here have just repeated the claim that the Bible is corrupt and thrown out superficial examples to prove this claim. This makes me think that some here don�t understand the implications of what they are doing. We know that Muslims think the Bible is corrupt � because that is how they �resolve� contradictions between the Quran and the Bible. But this �resolution� creates even bigger problems. I repeat my first point in this thread and lest some think the Quran passage I quoted is the only one that confirms the Bible�s integrity I list others below. I also ask for one example where the Quran claims that the Bible is corrupt.

 

o       Sura 29:46 - And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by

what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in

that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and

your God is One, and to Him do we submit.

 

o       Sura 5:68-69 � O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon

unless Ye stand fast by the Law, The Gospel, and all the revelation that has

come to you from Your Lord � Those who believe, those who follow the

Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians and the Christians�any who believe in

Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness�on them shall be no fear.

 

o       Sura 10:37 � This Qur�an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah;

on the contrary, it is a confirmation of revelations that went before it, and a

fuller explanation of the Book

 

Commenting on Sura 10:37, Yusuf Ali says Allah�s revelation through

the ages is one. The Qur�an confirms, fulfils, completes, and further

explains the one true revelation, which has been sent by the One True

God in all ages. In other words, Allah sent down the earlier

revelations�the Torah, the Gospel; the Qur�an is simply a final edition

to the prior revelations.

 

o       Sura 10:94 � But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask

those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you

from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

 

o       Sura 35:31 � That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the truth�

confirming what was revealed before it�

 

o       Sura 3:3 � It is He who sent down to the in truth the Book, confirming what

went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of

Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind�

 

Do Muslims not see that the Qur�an confirms that the prior revelations are to be trusted by Muslims and revered as revelations from Allah, just the same as the Qur�an is a revelation from Allah?

 

This leads to my second point because the Qur�an says Allah is able to preserve

his revelations and keep them from corruption.

 

o       Sura 6:34 � There is none that can alter the words and decrees of Allah.

Already has thou received some account of those messengers.

 

o       Sura 10:64 � No change can there be in the words of Allah.

 

If the Torah and the Gospel are from Allah, and no man can alter Allah�s words, how

is it that Muslims can proclaim the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupt?

 

Apollos



Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 2:44pm
Apollo,
accept the truth that what we now call the Bible is no longer pure word of God, that's just a fact. We don't have to accept it if we don't want, that just is upto the individual to decide.
 
Sticking to subject, "why a corrupt Bible" please don't bring the Quran in the middle, start a new topic if you want to talk something else.
 
Ok sticking to the subject I must say that I and many have given enough evidence that shows the inconsistancies of the Bible beyond argument and the fact that a corrupt Bible is a problem for its followers, and not for Islam or Muslims.
 
And as to answer you question here are the verses from the Quran:
 

Al Maidah (5):12 God did aforetime take a Covenant from the Children of Israel......(13) their hearts grew hard. They changed the words from their places and forgot a good part of the messsage that was sent them...........

14 From those who call themselves Christians we did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them.........soon will God show them what it is they have done.

15. O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) there hath come to you our Messanger, revealing to you that you used to hide in the book, and passing over much (that is now unneccessary."

There hath come to you from God a new light and a perspicuous Book.

16 Wherewith God guides all who seek His good pleasure, to ways of peace and safety, and leadeth them out of darkness by His will, Unto the light-guideth them to a path that is straight.

 
Hasan 


-------------
The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 3:32pm
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Apollo,
accept the truth that what we now call the Bible is no longer pure word of God, that's just a fact. We don't have to accept it if we don't want, that just is upto the individual to decide.
 
Are you saying that Muslims are free to make their own individual decision about the Bible?
 
Sticking to subject, "why a corrupt Bible" please don't bring the Quran in the middle, start a new topic if you want to talk something else.
 
One of my original points in this topic is how the Quran endorses the Bible - so I am not getting off subject here. I listed many examples from the Quran showing this. Will you please explain how the passages you posted (in green) are not contradictions of the ones I posted above - or please explain what the meaning is of the ones I posted?
 
And as to answer you question here are the verses from the Quran:
 

Al Maidah (5):12 God did aforetime take a Covenant from the Children of Israel......(13) their hearts grew hard. They changed the words from their places and forgot a good part of the messsage that was sent them...........

So we can conclude that this corruption took place before the Septuagint was created, correct? (That would be 200 years before Jesus).
 
14 From those who call themselves Christians we did take a covenant, but they forgot a good part of the message that was sent them.........soon will God show them what it is they have done.
 
Did you mis-type something here or is this verse saying that a covenant was "taken from Christians by God"? It seems incoherent to me.

15. O people of the Book (Jews and Christians) there hath come to you our Messanger, revealing to you that you used to hide in the book, and passing over much (that is now unneccessary."

So the indictment is that Jews and Christians passed over much of what is in the Bible, correct? This is quite different than the Book being corrupt. Can you explain what the "hide in the book" and "that is now unneccessary" means?
 
 
There hath come to you from God a new light and a perspicuous Book.
 
I do not mean to be offensive but in the English translation here - these verses are anything but "perspicuous".
 
Apollos


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 3:42pm
"We know that Muslims think the Bible is corrupt � because that is how they �resolve� contradictions between the Quran and the Bible. "
 
I was a Christian and I thought the Bible was corrupted. A second grader reading the Bible would know that it is inconsistent and contradicts itself. Within the first Book of Genesis the story of the creation of earth and man in contradictory, and it goes on from there.
 
I am just curious as to how Christians "resolve" the contradictions. See no contradictions, hear no contradictions, speak no contradictions.....


-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 5:15pm

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

I'm not so sure about that -- I have access to much more information than they did

Please explain. They understood the culture, expressions, language and setting more than any scholar of today.

They understood their own culture, no doubt, but what did they know of the many cultures, languages etc. in which the various books of the Bible were written?  What did they know of the various Bablyonian, Sumerian and Egyptian precursors and sources?  I'm not saying that we do know more about the subject than they do, but let's not dismiss the possibility.  we live in an age of information.  They didn't even have a printing press yet.

There's also something to be said for a historical perspective -- see below.

Quote I am using a hostile witness to prove what Jews prior to Jesus arrival believed.

Yes, exactly -- and what they believed was that the prophecy had failed, because according to their interpretation (presumably based on their better understanding of the culture, language, etc.), the Messiah was supposed to reveal himself before the sceptre departed from Judah, not merely that he would be born by then.

That was also your interpretation in the first prophecy when it was helpful to make your case; but here you want to use a different measure for the same event, merely because you know (and they didn't) that you can make the prophecy work if you redefine the "coming" of the Messiah to mean his birth, not his revealing himself.

See what I mean by vagueness?

Quote If you read the New Testament you will see that Jesus kept people from initiating this public presentation until He was ready. In this way, He controlled events to coincide with this day Daniel had foretold.

That brings up a whole other category of doubt about prophecy.  If Jesus was aware of the prophecy, which he was, and if he controlled events accordingly, which he did, then why should we be amazed that the prophecy was fulfilled?  And in a broader sense, if the Jews were generally aware of the prophecy, would that have influenced them to expect a Messiah, and to anoint any likely candidate who happened to come along at the right moment and applied for the job?  Was Jesus the right man, or did he just have good timing?

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by Ron Webb Ron Webb wrote:

Umm, water vapour is a constituent of air. You do know that, don't you?

That is not what Plato wrote or believed.

It's apparently not what Job believed, either.  Job makes no mention of the gaseous state of water, which is crucial to understanding the hydrological cycle.  All the other bits -- the clouds giving rain, the rain filling the rivers and lakes, rivers flowing to the oceans, the sun drying up the water -- all that stuff is obvious.  What's not obvious is that when water evaporates, it's still present as a gas, and that gas cools in the upper atmosphere to become water droplets again.

Remember, there was no word for "gas" at that time, so all gases were "air".  In a very real sense, then, water does become (part of the) air, and vice versa.  Job leaves out that essential point.  His explanation is seriously deficient.  Aristotle, on the other hand, got it dead on.



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 19 March 2009 at 7:34pm

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

If the Torah and the Gospel are from Allah, and no man can alter Allah�s words, how is it that Muslims can proclaim the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupt?

That's a good question, Apollos.  Actually, our little digression about prophecy etc. makes more sense in the "Burden of Proof" discussion, so maybe we should take it over there.  Sorry I distracted you from your main topic here.



-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 6:31am
Originally posted by honeto honeto wrote:

Originally posted by JOUBERAR JOUBERAR wrote:

Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"Originally posted by JOUBERAR


Which one is true I Know the Jewish and Christian religion is true which one is true for you."
 
Both cannot be correct since one is founded upon the belief that Jesus is not only the Messiah, but God, and the other does not even believe Jesus to be the Messiah.
 
So no one is correct  in your or Muslims eyes, the origins of Jewish people and the religion was made with the covenant that God have made with Abraham, Isaak, Moses  and Israel.
Christianity originates out of prophecies of off old testament prophets and the fulfillment of the birth of Jesus.
Islam originates purely out of nothing no covenant no prophecies no fulfillment ever thing thing was out of hear say some INTERNET sources assumes that there was historical evidence of Muhammad only for about 150 after his death when Qurran was puzzled together  
 
Jouberar,
there is only One true religion since Adam utill we all are back in the court of Almighty God.
You know what that religion is? In truth and practice it is "Submission to the will of God" Adam was from this religion, many prophets of the old including Noah, Lot, Abraham, Moses, David, Jesus and Mohammed were all from this true religion and that's what they taught.
Easy to know if you are on rigth or wrong course. If you submitt and serve none other than God, your maker, then you are on the right path, and you need to further continue your growth of knowlege and understanding about it. If you submitt and serve God, your maker along with others as Lords in godhead, or worship other than your maker, or reject your maker as your God, than know for sure that you have choosen a way far from truth to your own destruction. But you have your chance toward guidance till the day the angel of death squeeze out your soul for good.
You can decieve yourself, for which you will be rightly judged and punished. If you seek guidance based on truth and mend your way, you have earned God's forgiveness and favors for yourself. God is Just and not a tiny bit of good or bad you do will not excape His record.
This, in simple is Islam, submission to the will of God and nothing less.
 
May God guide those who seek His guidance in truth.
 
Hasan 
 
O tell me what was that religion at time of Adam may be I have missed something how old is the earth 1469 years old. I know islam means submission to your god  o no submission to your quran and Muhammad.
Submission does it mean what Muhammad said or what Allah said or what the hadith said?.
 
How much of a God is Allah who made 224,000 failed prophets and then Muhammad with a final message?
 

Prophets were raised and sent to their people in different lands and at different times. One hadith puts the number of

Prophets at 124,000; another mentions 224,000. Both versions, however, should be evaluated critically according to the

science of hadith. The exact number is not important; rather, we should realize that no people has ever been deprived of

its own Prophet: There never was a people without a Warner having lived among them (35:24) and: We never punish

until We have sent a Messenger (17:15).

 


Posted By: JOUBERAR
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 7:45am
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

"We know that Muslims think the Bible is corrupt � because that is how they �resolve� contradictions between the Quran and the Bible. "
 
I was a Christian and I thought the Bible was corrupted. A second grader reading the Bible would know that it is inconsistent and contradicts itself. Within the first Book of Genesis the story of the creation of earth and man in contradictory, and it goes on from there.
 
I am just curious as to how Christians "resolve" the contradictions. See no contradictions, hear no contradictions, speak no contradictions.....
 
I am also curious how do muslims solve thier contradictions the quran like this.
 

The descendence of Ishmael by all Arabs is in doubt within the secular world, since historically the first father of the Arabs was Qahtan or Joktan (see Genesis 10:25-30). Some of his sons names are still found in geographical locations in Arabia today, such as Sheba, Hazarmaveth, Ophir, and Havilah. Abraham's nephew Lot would be another ancestor to the Arabs via the Moabites and Ammonites (Genesis 24); as would Jacob's twin brother Esau, and the six sons of Abraham's third wife Keturah. Yet they are not even mentioned as ancestors to the Arabs in the Qur'an.

 

The Qur'an says that the calf worshipped by the Israelites at mount Horeb was molded by a Samaritan (sura 20:85-87, 95-97). Yet the term 'Samaritan' was not coined until 722 B.C., which is several hundred years after the events recorded in Exodus. Thus, the Samaritan people could not have existed during the life of Moses, and therefore, could not have been responsible for molding the calf.

It is interesting to notice that while Yusuf Ali attempts to change this word to "Samiri" and Pickthall to "As Samirii," Arberry in the English, and Kasimirski in the French both correctly translate it "Samaritan." Yusuf Ali, in his footnotes, "bends over backwards" to explain his choice by suggesting that the name could mean "Shemer," which denotes a stranger, or "Shomer," which means a watchman, the equivalent of "Samara" in Arabic, which he implies is close enough to the Samari he is looking for. Once again we find an awkward example of Ali attempting to twist the translation in order to get out of a difficult scenario, similar to the examples of "Periklytos," or the word "Machmad" which he uses to signify Muhammad in the Bible. The Arabic simply does not give Ali the leeway to concoct other meanings for this word. To be consistent with the Arabic he should keep his translation consistent with the text, as Arberry and Kasimirski have done.

 
In sura 18:86 it states, "Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a people: We said: O Dhu al Qarnayn! Either punish them,or treat them with kindness." It is well known that only the superstitious in the age of Muhammad believed that the sun would set in a muddy spring
 

The name for Jesus in the Qur'an is given as "Issa." Yet this is incorrect. Issa is the Arabic equivalent of Esau, the name for the twin brother of Jacob. The correct Arabic name for Jesus would be Yesuwa, similar to the Hebrew Yeshuwa, yet the supposedly "all-knowing" Qur'an has no mention of it.

 

Other Scientific problems

a.       Sura 16:66 mentions that cow's milk comes from between the excrement and the blood of the cow's abdomen. What does this mean?

b.      In sura 16:69 we are told that honey, which gives healing, comes out of the bees abdomen. Again, what does it mean that honey comes out of a bees abdomen?

c.       sura 6:38 says that all animals and flying beings form communities, like humans. I would like to ask whether this includes spiders, where in some species the female eats the male after mating has taken place. Is that a community like ours?

d.      sura 25:45-46 maintains that it is the sun which moves to create shadows. Yet, I have always been taught that it was the rotation of the earth which caused shadows to move, while the sun remained quite still (i.e. thus the importance of sundials in earlier days).

e.       sura 17:1 says Muhammad went to the "farthest Mosque" during his journey by night (the Mi'raj), which Muslims explain was the Dome of the Rock mosque, in Jerusalem. But there was no mosque in Jerusalem during the life of Muhammad, and the Dome of the Rock was not built until 690 C.E., by the Amir 'Abd al Malik, a full 58 years after Muhammad's death! There was not even a temple in existence at that time. The temple of Jerusalem had been destroyed by Titus 570 years before this vision. So what was this mosque Muhammad supposedly saw?

 



Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 1:58pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

So far, only Ron Webb has objected to the supernatural aspects of the Bible I posted. I will continue to answer Ron�s posts but I also want to point out that others here have just repeated the claim that the Bible is corrupt and thrown out superficial examples to prove this claim. This makes me think that some here don�t understand the implications of what they are doing. We know that Muslims think the Bible is corrupt � because that is how they �resolve� contradictions between the Quran and the Bible. But this �resolution� creates even bigger problems. I repeat my first point in this thread and lest some think the Quran passage I quoted is the only one that confirms the Bible�s integrity I list others below. I also ask for one example where the Quran claims that the Bible is corrupt.

 

o       Sura 29:46 - And do not dispute with the followers of the Book except by

what is best, except those of them who act unjustly, and say: We believe in

that which has been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and

your God is One, and to Him do we submit.

 

o       Sura 5:68-69 � O People of the Book! Ye have no ground to stand upon

unless Ye stand fast by the Law, The Gospel, and all the revelation that has

come to you from Your Lord � Those who believe, those who follow the

Jewish scriptures, and the Sabians and the Christians�any who believe in

Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness�on them shall be no fear.

 

o       Sura 10:37 � This Qur�an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah;

on the contrary, it is a confirmation of revelations that went before it, and a

fuller explanation of the Book

 

Commenting on Sura 10:37, Yusuf Ali says Allah�s revelation through

the ages is one. The Qur�an confirms, fulfils, completes, and further

explains the one true revelation, which has been sent by the One True

God in all ages. In other words, Allah sent down the earlier

revelations�the Torah, the Gospel; the Qur�an is simply a final edition

to the prior revelations.

 

o       Sura 10:94 � But if you are in doubt as to what We have revealed to you, ask

those who read the Book before you; certainly the truth has come to you

from your Lord, therefore you should not be of the disputers.

 

o       Sura 35:31 � That which We have revealed to thee of the Book is the truth�

confirming what was revealed before it�

 

o       Sura 3:3 � It is He who sent down to the in truth the Book, confirming what

went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of

Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind�

 

Do Muslims not see that the Qur�an confirms that the prior revelations are to be trusted by Muslims and revered as revelations from Allah, just the same as the Qur�an is a revelation from Allah?

 

This leads to my second point because the Qur�an says Allah is able to preserve

his revelations and keep them from corruption.

 

o       Sura 6:34 � There is none that can alter the words and decrees of Allah.

Already has thou received some account of those messengers.

 

o       Sura 10:64 � No change can there be in the words of Allah.

 

If the Torah and the Gospel are from Allah, and no man can alter Allah�s words, how

is it that Muslims can proclaim the Jewish and Christian scriptures are corrupt?

 

Apollos



 To Apollos

 Topic:Yes Bible is Corrupt according to Quran.

 Let us show to Apollos where Quran says that Bible is corrupt?

 004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

 
Here is explicit verse speaking of Bible corruption, the Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can't get anymore clear than that.

 Visit: Does Islam Endorse The Bible?

 
http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures -  - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_qur_an_orders_the_prophet_and_doubting_believers_to_refer_to_the_christians_and_jews_for_consultation_ -                         - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad__man_of_faith_or_one_filled_with_doubts__ -

              - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad_the_doubter_still__being_another_reply_to_a_dawagandist_ -  

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_surah_2_verse_121_affirms_that_the_bible_was_not_textually_corrupted - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_prophet_claimed_that_the_corrupted_torah_was_revealed_from_god -


- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/did_ibn_abbas_believe_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures_were_uncorrupted__a_response_to_sam_shamoun1 - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__did_muhammad_confirm_the_torah___addressing_the_smokescreens_of_a_muslim_polemicist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_surah_15__verse_9_says_that_god_preserved_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__allah_s_promise_to_preserve_of_the_bible__a_reminder_to_one_muslim_dawagandist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_quran_affirm_the_teachings_of_paul_ - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_prophet_permitting_us_to_narrate_from_the_jews_mean_that_he_held_their_torah_to_be_authoritative_ - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__ibn_qayyim_al_jawziyyah_and_the_text_of_the_torah__further_exposing_the_shoddy_scholarship_of_a_muslim_apologist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_turretinfan_s_article__mohamed_did_not_believe_that_the_old_testament_was_corrupt_ -

Articles by Other Authors

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_khaled_on_the_noble_quran_s_preservation__by_dr__munir_munshey - - http://muslim-responses.com/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1_ - http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1B/Part_1B_ - http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1C/Part_1C_ - - http://muslim-responses.com/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran_ -

 

 

 





Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 20 March 2009 at 3:37pm
Mansoor Ali posted:
 To Apollos

 Topic:Yes Bible is Corrupt according to Quran.

 Let us show to Apollos where Quran says that Bible is corrupt?

 004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-

 
Here is explicit verse speaking of Bible corruption, the Quran states that if anyone believes that Jesus died and was crucified they then follow nothing but CONJECTURE which is corruption. Which book today tells us that Jesus died and was crucified? The Bible, so hence the Quran here does call the Bible corrupt. So it can't get anymore clear than that.

Mansoor Ali,
 
You have misunderstood my question. I realize that the Quran and the Bible appear to contradict each other in some places. (As I said elsewhere - this is why some Muslims call the Bible a corrupted book). But you have only established the implication of a possible corruption with your example. It could also be that you have misunderstood the passages you refer to. It is possible that you have erred when you ignore the many statements in the Quran about the Bible being reliable and use just one obscure verse to conclude the opposite.
 
It seems that you have confirmed my suspicion: That the Quran endorses the Bible, tells us that Allah's word can not be altered by man and nowhere calls it a corrupt book.
 
Apollos


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 12:32am
 
A prominent religius scholar and aslo a historian, she is non muslim, so she is free from bias about bible:
 
KAREN ARMSTRONG: That is, people often ask me, "Ms. Armstrong, do you or do you not believe in the God of the Bible?" And I always say, "Tell me what it is." I'll be fascinated to hear because the Bible is a highly contradictory. What it shows, I think, is that our experience of the divine is ambiguous, complex.

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.
 
Full script:
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14408&PID=123557#123557 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14408&PID=123557#123557


-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 4:37pm

 To Apollos

 Mansoor Ali,
 
You have misunderstood my question. I realize that the Quran and the Bible appear to contradict each other in some places. (As I said elsewhere - this is why some Muslims call the Bible a corrupted book). But you have only established the implication of a possible corruption with your example. It could also be that you have misunderstood the passages you refer to. It is possible that you have erred when you ignore the many statements in the Quran about the Bible being reliable and use just one obscure verse to conclude the opposite.

 My Response

 So you want 1 more verse which talks about corruption of Bible? Here is 1 more:

 
002.079
YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This verse is referring to the children of
Israel; the whole section starting from verse 25 onwards is about the children of Israel. So hence here we see a clear verse speaking of Bible corruption, some of the children of Israel wrote their own books and said it is from God. So basically this means they made copies and added their own ideas and desires and said this is from God, and when you do this over a long period of time the original book gets lost and is gone and that is what happened. So they wrote books with their own hands and claimed it is from God i.e. the Torah.

 


 Visit :Does Quran Endorse the Bible?

 
- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/evidence_that_islam_teaches_that_there_was_textual_corruption_of_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures -  - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_ordering_the_jews_and_christians_to_judge_by_their_scriptures - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_qur_an_orders_the_prophet_and_doubting_believers_to_refer_to_the_christians_and_jews_for_consultation_ -                         - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad__man_of_faith_or_one_filled_with_doubts__ -

              - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__muhammad_the_doubter_still__being_another_reply_to_a_dawagandist_ -  

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_regarding_the_qur_an_being_a_confirmation_of_the_bible -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_surah_2_verse_121_affirms_that_the_bible_was_not_textually_corrupted - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_the_prophet_claimed_that_the_corrupted_torah_was_revealed_from_god -


- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/did_ibn_abbas_believe_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures_were_uncorrupted__a_response_to_sam_shamoun1 - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/_rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__did_muhammad_confirm_the_torah___addressing_the_smokescreens_of_a_muslim_polemicist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/refuting_the_argument_that_surah_15__verse_9_says_that_god_preserved_the_christian_and_jewish_scriptures - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__allah_s_promise_to_preserve_of_the_bible__a_reminder_to_one_muslim_dawagandist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_quran_affirm_the_teachings_of_paul_ - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/does_the_prophet_permitting_us_to_narrate_from_the_jews_mean_that_he_held_their_torah_to_be_authoritative_ - - http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_sam_shamoun_s_article__ibn_qayyim_al_jawziyyah_and_the_text_of_the_torah__further_exposing_the_shoddy_scholarship_of_a_muslim_apologist_ -

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_turretinfan_s_article__mohamed_did_not_believe_that_the_old_testament_was_corrupt_ -

Articles by Other Authors

- http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/rebuttal_to_khaled_on_the_noble_quran_s_preservation__by_dr__munir_munshey - - http://muslim-responses.com/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1/The_Quran_on_the_Bible1_ - http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1B/Part_1B_ - http://muslim-responses.com/Part_1C/Part_1C_ - - http://muslim-responses.com/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran/The_Bible_Confirms_the_Quran_ -

 

 



Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 6:32pm
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali Mansoor_ali wrote:


 To Apollos
 So you want 1 more verse which talks about corruption of Bible? Here is 1 more:

 
002.079
YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

This verse is referring to the children of
Israel; the whole section starting from verse 25 onwards is about the children of Israel. So hence here we see a clear verse speaking of Bible corruption, some of the children of Israel wrote their own books and said it is from God. So basically this means they made copies and added their own ideas and desires and said this is from God, and when you do this over a long period of time the original book gets lost and is gone and that is what happened. So they wrote books with their own hands and claimed it is from God i.e. the Torah.

 

Mansoor Ali,
 
This is the first verse you have provided, not "another". On that issue, I don't want to read a bunch of links and web sites. Can you just tell me how many "other" passages there are or show them?
 
In the one you example list, I don't see how you can say this applies to all Jews when it clearly refers to "illiterate" ones and ones who "write the Book with their own hands" to make gain. Unless we know that they were all this way, it seems you are reading a lot into this passage.
 
But let's say you are correct. This would mean the corruption took place before Jesus came. Unless you have other passages that refer to a later corruption it seems you are limiting the supposed corruption to the time before Jesus came. correct?
 
Apollos


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 9:25pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Mansoor Ali posted:
 To Apollos

 Topic:Yes Bible is Corrupt according to Quran.

 Let us show to Apollos where Quran says that Bible is corrupt?

 004.157
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-

004.158
YUSUFALI: Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise;-
Mansoor Ali,
 
I have a tangent question relating to this. It sounds like we both agree that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and they intended on crucifying Him. Why did they want to do this?
 
Apollos


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 9:31pm
As Salamu Alaikum,Mansoor Ali.That right there is a perfect example."Mashallah"


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 21 March 2009 at 11:51pm
Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

 
A prominent religius scholar and aslo a historian, she is non muslim, so she is free from bias about bible:
 
KAREN ARMSTRONG: That is, people often ask me, "Ms. Armstrong, do you or do you not believe in the God of the Bible?" And I always say, "Tell me what it is." I'll be fascinated to hear because the Bible is a highly contradictory. What it shows, I think, is that our experience of the divine is ambiguous, complex.

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.
 
Full script:
http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14408&PID=123557#123557 - http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=14408&PID=123557#123557
 
Apollos, any comment on this?
By the way, on the video she also mentioned that many scripts for whatever reason (most probably for "sanitation" process) didn't been included in New Testament. But I couldn't find on the script.


-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 9:19am
Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

 
A prominent religius scholar and aslo a historian, she is non muslim, so she is free from bias about bible:
 
KAREN ARMSTRONG: That is, people often ask me, "Ms. Armstrong, do you or do you not believe in the God of the Bible?" And I always say, "Tell me what it is." I'll be fascinated to hear because the Bible is a highly contradictory. What it shows, I think, is that our experience of the divine is ambiguous, complex.

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.
 
 
Apollos, any comment on this?
By the way, on the video she also mentioned that many scripts for whatever reason (most probably for "sanitation" process) didn't been included in New Testament. But I couldn't find on the script.
 
Semar,
 
Sure. First of all she doesn't - as far as I know - claim that the Bible has been corrupted. In fact she seems to confirm that the ancient texts are reliable. She simply thinks it has not been interpreted correctly by anyone - except her.  She does not write about how the Bible came to be but what the character of the Bible is according to her opinion.
 
When you reference her here does that mean you accept her opinion about Islam as well? She wrote a book titled "The truth about Mohammed". Do you agree with what it says?
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-8877429-4625750?ie=UTF8 - http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-8877429-4625750?ie=UTF8
 
Apollos


Posted By: Mansoor_ali
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 3:14pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:



Mansoor Ali,
 
This is the first verse you have provided, not "another". On that issue, I don't want to read a bunch of links and web sites. Can you just tell me how many "other" passages there are or show them?
 
In the one you example list, I don't see how you can say this applies to all Jews when it clearly refers to "illiterate" ones and ones who "write the Book with their own hands" to make gain. Unless we know that they were all this way, it seems you are reading a lot into this passage.
 
But let's say you are correct. This would mean the corruption took place before Jesus came. Unless you have other passages that refer to a later corruption it seems you are limiting the supposed corruption to the time before Jesus came. correct?
 
Apollos


 The Quran clearly says:

YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

 The Quran doesnot say,"those who will write" or "those who may write".Instead it speaks in the present tense,"those who write" indicating that writing the scripture is an ongoing activity.The Quran further confirms that changes were already applied to the scripture before the Quran was revealed when it says,"Woe unto them for that their hands have written"

 
Let us quote one early Muslim for Apollos and see what this early Muslim had to say concerning the Bible:

Volume 9, Book 92, Number 461:

Narrated Ubaidullah:Ibn 'Abbas said,

 "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"


 Here we see one of the early Muslims and companions of the prophet namely Ibn Abbas calling the Bible corrupt!

 
I have a tangent question relating to this. It sounds like we both agree that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and they intended on crucifying Him. Why did they want to do this?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat023.html#37 - O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

 Because of 
their criminal boldness which had been reached such proportions that they attempted to put an end to the life of the one they themselves knew to be a Prophet.

 


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 4:41pm
Originally posted by Mansoor_ali Mansoor_ali wrote:

Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:



Mansoor Ali,
 
This is the first verse you have provided, not "another". On that issue, I don't want to read a bunch of links and web sites. Can you just tell me how many "other" passages there are or show them?
 
In the one you example list, I don't see how you can say this applies to all Jews when it clearly refers to "illiterate" ones and ones who "write the Book with their own hands" to make gain. Unless we know that they were all this way, it seems you are reading a lot into this passage.
 
But let's say you are correct. This would mean the corruption took place before Jesus came. Unless you have other passages that refer to a later corruption it seems you are limiting the supposed corruption to the time before Jesus came. correct?
 
Apollos


 The Quran clearly says:

YUSUFALI: Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!- Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby.

 The Quran doesnot say,"those who will write" or "those who may write".Instead it speaks in the present tense,"those who write" indicating that writing the scripture is an ongoing activity.The Quran further confirms that changes were already applied to the scripture before the Quran was revealed when it says,"Woe unto them for that their hands have written"
 
OK. Understood. And I gather this is the only passage that says this, correct?
 
 I have a tangent question relating to this. It sounds like we both agree that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus and they intended on crucifying Him. Why did they want to do this?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Mat/Mat023.html#37 - Mat 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, [thou] that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under [her] wings, and ye would not!

 Because of 
their criminal boldness which had been reached such proportions that they attempted to put an end to the life of the one they themselves knew to be a Prophet.

 
 
But the Jews claimed Jesus broke one of their laws, correct? They needed the Romans' help since the Jews did not have the power to put someone to death. What specifically was the charge they accused him of? What was it that He said or did that bothered them so much?
 
Apollos


Posted By: Shasta'sAunt
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 5:30pm

Assalamu Alaikum Mansoor Ali:

If you bring 100 or 1000 Ayats from The Quran it won't matter. Jesus himself said that everything comes from his God and he has a God yet they made him into God. How can you reason with this type of logic?

 



-------------
�No one can make you feel inferior without your consent.�
Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 6:11pm
Originally posted by Shasta'sAunt Shasta'sAunt wrote:

If you bring 100 or 1000 Ayats from The Quran it won't matter. Jesus himself said that everything comes from his God and he has a God yet they made him into God. How can you reason with this type of logic? 
In other words, God said that everything comes from Him, and he has Himself, and so they made him into Him.  Makes sense to me.  (Or at least as much as any of this makes sense.)


-------------
Addeenul �Aql � Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 8:53pm
As Salamu Alaikum. Oct 31,1988,p. 44           In the international news magazine, Newsweek, which carried an article entitled 'O Lord, Who Wrote Thy Prayer?, a group of theologians from the major Protestant sects, along with noted Roman Catholic Biblical scholars in the United States, after a detailed examination of the earliest manuscripts of the "Lord's prayer that can be accurately attributed to Jesus Christ is"father".That is, according to these learned church scholars,all the words that came after the beginning phrase,"Our father", of the most fundamental Christian prayer, were added centuries later by church scribes who copied the early manuscripts of Gospels. U.S News& World Report, further quotes the team of scholars as saying that over 80 percent of the words ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels may be apocryphal.That includes Jesus Eucharistic speech at the Last Supper("take,eat. This is my body...")and every word he is said to have uttered from the cross.   You cant make this stuff up!FYI,Apocryphal=of doubtful authenticity(not likely to be genuine;untrue or invented.(Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary)


Posted By: semar
Date Posted: 22 March 2009 at 10:24pm
Originally posted by Apollos Apollos wrote:

Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

Originally posted by semar semar wrote:

 
A prominent religius scholar and aslo a historian, she is non muslim, so she is free from bias about bible:
 
KAREN ARMSTRONG: That is, people often ask me, "Ms. Armstrong, do you or do you not believe in the God of the Bible?" And I always say, "Tell me what it is." I'll be fascinated to hear because the Bible is a highly contradictory. What it shows, I think, is that our experience of the divine is ambiguous, complex.

We can misunderstand it. We can use it to create mayhem because of our own horrible sort of murderous tendencies. And there are no clear answers, no clear theology in the Bible.
 
 
Apollos, any comment on this?
By the way, on the video she also mentioned that many scripts for whatever reason (most probably for "sanitation" process) didn't been included in New Testament. But I couldn't find on the script.
 
Semar,
 
Sure. First of all she doesn't - as far as I know - claim that the Bible has been corrupted. In fact she seems to confirm that the ancient texts are reliable. She simply thinks it has not been interpreted correctly by anyone - except her.  She does not write about how the Bible came to be but what the character of the Bible is according to her opinion.
 
When you reference her here does that mean you accept her opinion about Islam as well? She wrote a book titled "The truth about Mohammed". Do you agree with what it says?
http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-8877429-4625750?ie=UTF8 - http://www.amazon.com/Truth-About-Muhammad-Intolerant-Religion/dp/1596980281/ref=pd_sxp_f_pt/102-8877429-4625750?ie=UTF8
 
Apollos
 
Its totaly different story. Comparing Karen Amstrong with Robert Spencer, the different like the distance of the earth and the sky. She is not anti Christian, she is not hate monger, she is known as very objective historian, her works recognized by many religius an non religius organization. Including christian and jews organizaion, united nation etc. She got many award for her work. On the other hand Robert Spencer is known as Islmophobic writer, all his book is attacking Islam, so his writing full of bias. He just like Daniel Pipe, Bill Graham etc, no historian or scientific community believe their objectivities. It'll be similar if Rush Limbaugh write about Barak Obama because he hopes Obama fail, sho he write everything that will support his hope.
 
Here some scholar's comments about Robert Spencer (if you want you can ignore the muslim's comments):
 
Benazir Bhutto criticized Robert Spencer in her book Reconciliation: Islam, Democracy, and the West
"Robert Spencer is the author of the well-known Web site Jihad Watch. He uses the Internet to spread misinformation and hatred of Islam, while claiming he is merely putting forward the truth. But as in much extremist advocacy, he presents a skewed, one-sided, and inflammatory story that only helps sow the seeds of civilizational conflict. For example, he takes apparently violent verses of the Quran out of context and then does not provide any peaceful verses as a balance. Unlike many of the more mainstream authors presented, Spencer does not understand the true Muslim faith or differentiate between moderate Muslims and violent Islamists, and so lumps them all in one boat."
 
Dinesh D'Souza concluded that "Spencer is an effective polemicist.". He adds:
"Spencer's argument is dubious. It emphasizes violent passages in the Koran, while downplaying the passages that urge peace and goodwill. It applies a moral standard to Islamic empires (they didn't give minorities full rights! they reduced Jews and Christians to second class citizens!) that certainly could not be met by the Roman empire or the empires established by the Portuguese, the Spanish, the French and the British. In the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, for example, Jews had three choices: convert to Christianity, leave the country, or be killed. No Muslim empire legislated or systematically enforced such a policy toward its religious minorities. Yes, the Koran says "slay the infidels" but no Muslim empire actually did that. For example the Muslims ruled North India for two centuries before they were displaced by the British. The Mughal emperors could have killed the tens of millions of Hindus under their control or at least forced them to become Muslims? They did nothing of the sort."
 
Khaleel Mohammed, Louay M. Safi, and Carl Ernst assert that Spencer's scholarship and interpretations of Islam are fundamentally flawed - that he supports preconceived notions through selection bias - that he lacks genuine understanding and; that 'he has no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever; his M.A. degree was in the field of early Christianity'.For example, critics have objected to what they describe as Spencer's method of taking a position they deem to be radical (on apostasy, women, etc.) and then attribute that position to all of Islam, rather than situating it within ongoing discussions.
 
Karen Armstrong, Cathy Young, Stephen Schwartz (journalist), and many organizations hold negative views about Spencer.
 
Professor Khaleel Mohammed and Spencer have had detailed discussions on FrontPage Magazine. Of his debate with Spencer, Professor Khaleel Mohammed wrote:
"I consider myself a scholar and therefore prefer to engage in discussion where facts, rather than fictions and prejudgments are presented. When therefore I am told that I have to accept interpretations of the Quran that non-Muslims (with no good intentions or knowledge of Islam) seek to force upon me, I see a certain agendum developing: one that is based on hate, and I refuse to be part of such an intellectual crime."
 
Carl Ernst and William Kenan have called him an "Islamophobe". Ernst notes that Spencer's articles have never been published in peer-reviewed academic journals, nor are his publications similarly reviewed or edited by a qualified scholar and published by an academic or university publishers but by conservative presses such as Regnery Publishing. A French academic historian, Ivan Jablonka, from �cole Normale Sup�rieure in Paris, in his own study of similarities between the approaches to Islam of authors like Bat Ye'or, Robert Spencer, David Pryce-Jones and Daniel Pipes, argues that, to Spencer, "Islamist integrists drive European politics" to such a point that "Zapatero's victory in Spain after Madrid blasts is presented by Spencer as an ultimate victory of jihadists." Such declarations, according to Jablonka, underline the similarities between Spencer's work and Bat Ye'or's views on "Eurabia." Jablonka asserts that Spencer or Bat Ye'or's views lack of academic seriousness: their purported historical and interpretative continuity between some data picked up from Middle Age Islamic civilization and modern activism is a political construction poorly substantiated. For Jablonka, writings of authors like Spencer or Bat Ye'or relentlessly intent to designate "new enemies for wars to come".
 
If you don't believe me Google both Karen Amstron and Robert Spencer and compare the result. Then use "elementary school statistic class level", you can draw conclusion easily.


-------------
Salam/Peace,

Semar

"We are people who do not eat until we are hungry and do not eat to our fill." (Prophet Muhammad PBUH)

"1/3 of your stomach for food, 1/3 for water, 1/3 for air"


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 6:52am
As Salamu Alaikum.Authentic Manuscripts. It has been documented by many scholars from various branches and sects of Christianity that much of the material in the Bible is of doubtful authenticity.In the preface of The Myth of God Incarnate,p.ix,the editor wrot the following:"In the nineteeth centurry, Western Christianity made two major new adjustments in response to important enlargements of human knowledge:it accepted that man is a part of nature and has emerged within the evolution of the forms of life on this earth;and it accepted that the books of the Bible were written by a variety of human beings in a variety of circumstances,and cannoot be accorded a verbal divine authority."Wait theres more"


Posted By: Akhe Abdullah
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 10:42am
As Salamu Alaikum.           Apocrypha        More than half of the world's Chistians are Roman Catholics.Their version of the Bible was published in 1582 from Jerome's Latin Vulgate,and reproduced at Douay in 1609.The Old Testament of the RCV(Roman Cathlic Version)contains seven more books than the King James Version recognized by the Protestant world. The extra books are referred to as the apocrypha (ie of doubtful authority)and were removed from the Bible in 1611 by Protestant Bible scholars.


Posted By: Apollos
Date Posted: 23 March 2009 at 11:45am
Semar,
 
Sorry about the wrong link I posted. Karen Armstrong had done a review of Spencer's book and that was what I meant to indicate. I don't know who Spencer is, have not read his book and have no interest in promoting him.
 
Anyway, I gave you my assessment of Armstrong's beliefs. They are her personal opinions about what the Bible means or doesn't. I care not that she used to be a Roman Catholic nor do I care that she is a historian and has an opinion that the Bible is not clear or inspired. She starts with the premise that she is able to pick and choose what is true out of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Budhism, etc. Never mind that Jesus or Mohammed said exclusive things - she knows better.
 
I take her to be very pro-Islam and wanted to know if you agree with her on all things she says about Mohammed and Islam?
 
Apollos



Print Page | Close Window

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Copyright ©2001-2019 Web Wiz Ltd. - https://www.webwiz.net