Where is the Injil?

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

 islamispeace wrote:

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful...

 Experiential wrote:

The new user name? �Experiential� reminds me my position is based on relationship with The Most High God. That the OT and NT principles I defend are more than just a cerebral or intellectual thing but rather something experienced first hand and daily. 
From looking at some of your other posts I notice you still use sarcasm and subtle abuse as a strategy. I expect your posts to conform to the cordial tone the moderators expect.

 And I notice that you, like many of your brethren, are extremely thin-skinned!  Let's see if you practice what you preach (not using sarcasm and "subtle abuse").  

 Experiential wrote:

In regards to Dr Puin and the Sanaa manuscripts. You are confusing inspired with infallible and / or inerrant. The Bible is inspired by God but written by man. Of course it is not inerrant.

Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not inerrant.  

However, you contradict yourself by stating that even though the Bible "is inspired by God but written by man" it is still not "inerrant".  What would be the purpose of "inspiration" if the "inspired" text is still full of errors?  

Also, what does "inspiration" have to do with whether the text has been preserved or not?  Isn't that the central issue here?  The evidence suggests that the Bible, the so-called "inspired" word, has been altered.  So far, not one Christian on this forum has offered any evidence to the contrary.

 Experiential wrote:

Correct me if I�m wrong but Muslims believe the Quran to be the literal,  inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word. If this is the case then the issue of mans influence on the Quran compared to the Bible is more a problem for you than me. The problematic facts remain. Mans influence is obvious and this divine position just doesn�t hold to modern skeptical criticism from people such as Dr Puin or Christoph Luxemberg (a pseudonym of course due to his fear of being murdered by some Islamofascist Jihadist.) The Quran, like the sun, sinks into a muddy pond.

Do I detect a little "sarcasm and subtle abuse"?  

Did you even read my response to you?  Puin found no evidence of alteration.  Yet you still continue to gnaw at that old bone.  Please do share the examples of "mans [sic] influence" on the Quran.  I have been asking you to provide these examples, yet so far you have ignored my requests.  I wonder why...

For a Christian who admits that his own Bible is not the "literal, inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word" (how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment, I wonder!) while criticizing the Muslim belief in the Quran's infallibility is certainly ironic.  For sure, we believe the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God.  If you disagree, then please (for God's sake!) provide the evidence I have been asking you for, instead of making vague claims!

 Experiential wrote:

Regarding Ehrman. The point still stands. The Muslim lack of scholarly ability is obvious. Why is Muslim scholarship so weak you have to rely on Western traditions? 
It displays the Muslim lack of freedom of thought and speech. Free thinkers in Islam don�t tend to avoid a fatwa for long.

What on earth does this have to do with the topic?   

Either try to refute what Ehrman has said or admit that you cannot.  Pontificating on unrelated topics such as the experiences of "free thinkers" is a desperate red herring.

 Experiential wrote:

Ehrman when asked if he has considered undertaking a critical assessment of the Quran is quoted as saying something to the effect that he values his life too much to do that. What does that tell you?

What does this have to do with Ehrman's views on the New Testament?  Why are you so afraid to deal with his views?  Why do you so desperately want to change the topic?  

By the way, Ehrman has admitted that he does not know Arabic, so any attempt by him to comment on the Quran or Islam would be futile.  He even admits that when he needed to translate a 13th century Arabic copy of a work of the 3rd-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, he asked a colleague to translate for him!

"I doubt if any of the New Testament scholars who refer to this statement of Porphyry's has actually read it, since it is, after all, in Arabic, and most New Testament scholars don't read Arabic.  I don't either.  But I have a colleague who does, Carl Ernst, an expert in medieval Islam." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 130)

 Experiential wrote:

This thread is titled �Where is the Injil?� Ehrman believes in the crucifixion of Jesus (unlike the Muslim view) and in the appendix to �Misquoting Jesus� Ehrman states �Essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament�. Obviously Ehrman would agree that the Injil Mohammad had is essentially the same as the New Testament.

Either you are deliberately altering what Ehrman actually said or you are just repeating what you heard from someone else.  He was answering a question referring to Bruce Metzger's assertion that the textual variants do not challenge "any essential Christian beliefs...".  Here is what he actually said:

"What he [Metzger] means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief.  For the most part, I think that's true.

But I was looking at the question from a different angle.  My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages from the Bible.  And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means.  Most textual variants...have no bearing at all on what a passage means.  But there are other textual variants...that are crucial to the meaning of a passage.  And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, pp. 252-253)

Nice to know that you can be counted on to give the full facts (sarcasm fully intented!).

It needs to be pointed again out that you have yet to offer a reasonable response Ehrman's claims about the New Testament.  What are you afraid of?

 Experiential wrote:

Your reply about the validity of the New Testament and the number of manuscript copies is the usual Muslim polemic. The NT reliability is radial not linear. Its not a simplistic linear, telephone tag type of transmission but radial, like spokes of a wheel. And not just one wheel but many, all of which validate one another. The wide geographical spread of the texts combined with the sheer number validate the reconstructed text. Currently we have more than 120 manuscripts from the first 300 years. While this may sound small it is significant, and the number is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.

And your response is the usual Christian polemic, replete with special pleading.  There are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best.  The rest, as I said, are from medieval times, and they are simply copies of copies.  So, if the earliest copy was defective and it was this copy that the subsequent manuscripts were based on, then all of the manuscripts are defective by default.  The only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals.  Christianity has neither.

 Experiential wrote:

Dating manuscript P52 ? I�ll see your paleography expert and raise you one ! The point remains. For most other ancient works, a far longer period of time elapses between the originals and the oldest existing copies.

Huh?  

The point, which you failed to respond to, is that P52 (which is a very small fragment) is not dated to the year 125, as Blomberg deceptively claimed.  the usual date range is 125-150, but as Nongbri has stated, even a later date can be considered.  Your response to this was...nothing except the same tired appeal to "other ancient works".  

 Experiential wrote:

You said �Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1^st Century manuscripts)�. The first Century NT testimony exists. It�s the validity that you are questioning. Daniel Wallace has estimated that there is only 2 percent minor changes (2 percent quantity of syntax, 5-6 percent meaning, but with no doctrinally significant changes) from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.

What?  "First Century NT testimony exists"?  That's a new one to me!  Can you name such "testimony" from the 1st century?  

 Experiential wrote:

Anyway you are missing the point. Compare this with the typical situation for other ancient histories and biographies. The detailed life of Alexander the Great, for instance which most historians believe can be reconstructed with a fair amount of accuracy, depends on Arrian and Plutarch's late first and early second-century biographies of a man who died in 323 B.C. So the history of Alexander the Great is a leap of faith too? As are Greco / Roman concepts of democracy, medical ethics and mathematics?

This argument is fallacious since scholars do not accept all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" or sources on the life of Alexander the Great.  For examples, scholar may agree on the central topic of the "Iliad", the Trojan War.  They may agree that this war actually happened.  But, they would not accept the claims of divine intervention in the war, would they?  If you have ever read the Iliad, you would know that it speaks of various gods being involved in the war, such as Apollo and Aphrodite.  These stories are not considered to be historically accurate.  You would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who actually believes that the Iliad is historically accurate.  The same can be said about Alexander the Great.  Scholars would agree that he defeated Darius at the Battle of Gaugamela, but they would not accept some of the other "details" of his life, such as Plutarch's claim that he was descended from Hercules:

"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side." [1]

 Experiential wrote:

Regarding Bloomburgs comment on the oral traditions and the so-called "hard sayings" of Jesus, you say he is blowing hot air due to having no First Century manuscripts. In the light of hermeneutical criticism Bloomburg is far more qualified than you. Besides this is special pleading. There are no original copies of your Quran.

Talk about "special pleading".  

Regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts.  In addition, the Quran was memorized by thousands of people.  Your Bible has neither advantage!  Sorry to disappoint you.

 Experiential wrote:

You wanted names of these "non-Christian writers and texts" which confirm many Christian beliefs. Cornelius Tacticus 115 AD, the 1st century Jewish historian Josephus, Thallus 52 AD, the Jewish Talmud, Pliny the Younger, Mara Bar Sepion, Celsus, Gaius Seutonis Tranquillis, Lucian.
In terms of the Second Century Church leaders quoting from earlier Gospel manuscripts you avoided the point. Their testimony validates the earlier texts. Polycarp, Clement and Ignatius are examples. From the 27 NT books they quote from 25.
 The Ijil Mohamd had was the same.

I had a feeling you would refer to these non-Christian writers by copying the claims of Josh McDowell.  Most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research.

I will not waste time refuting your claims about each author, so I will refer you to a good refutation of this silly Christian polemic.  Read Louay Fatoohi's "The Mystery of the Crucifixion", specifically pages 69-86.  Fatoohi refutes the appeal to each author.   

Hello Islamispeace

You said I contradicted myself by stating that the Bible is inspired by God but not "inerrant". There is no contradiction here. Inspired and inerrant are not mutually exclusive. It is the words that are inspired, not the ink. The written text is a vestige of the oral word. From the standpoint of traditional Christian theology you will be hard pressed to find any theologian expounded the doctrine of scripture such that it is necessary for any human to know 100% of the text of the NT for the doctrine of scripture to function.
You asked how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment? I presume they would take the orthodox position based on 2 Timothy 3.16 �All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God�. 

You said that the Quran was memorized by thousands of people, unlike the bible.  You�re wrong actually. Consider that the early church didn�t even have a Bible as we know it today. All they would have had was the Tanakh (OT) and maybe a gospel or two and one or a few letters from Peter or Paul etc. Yet this was the formative time of the Church. It was primarily the oral traditions through recitation, teachings, liturgy and songs and hymns that were directed by the Spirit of God (Joel 2.28 and Acts 2) that carried the inspiration. 
The written text eventually caught up with these oral traditions. Text written by man but inspired by God. Unlike the untenable Muslim idea of the Koran as �The Word of God made Text�. Those who seek mathematical and / or grammatical certainty in matters of the any type of scripture just don�t make sense. Hence part of the reason I don�t believe the Koran as the word of God. Its clumsiness is exacerbated by the fact that most Muslims don�t even read or speak Arabic. All of this is what in part destines Islam to remain a medieval, desert, religion.

You claim that regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts. Which Quaran manuscripts exist that are pre Uthman ? 

You said Puin found no evidence of alteration and you wanted examples of mans influence on the Quran.  
You are missing my point in quoting Puin by saying there is no evidence of alterations. Its not the evidence of alteration I�m talking about (although doubts exist), rather it�s the idea of divine transmission. The Koran as the Word of God made text !  A common claim made of the Qur'an is that it is the uncreated and eternal Word of God inimitable. It has come directly to us from Allah and Tablets in Heaven to Gabriel through Muhammad to humanity with no human intervention or editing. Unaltered, not tampered with in any way, since the time of its revelation.
What the Yemeni Korans seemed to suggest, according to Puin was a man made evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to Muhammad. 
Quoting Puin again he speaks with disdain about the traditional willingness, on the part of Muslim scholars to accept the conventional understanding of the Koran. "The Koran claims for itself that it is 'mubeen,' or 'clear,'" he says. "But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn't make sense. Many Muslims�and Orientalists�will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.�

Consider too that Uthmans recession appeared to have political motives as much as grammatical and that Christoph Luxembergs work on the The Syro - Aramaic Reading of the Koran and of the influence of the infancy gospels on the Koran question the Korans uniqueness and the orthodox Muslim absolute literalist position on scripture. 

Regarding Ehrman and Metzger. Your quote of Ehrman in the context of his discussion with Metzger does not refute my earlier quote of Ehrman. All you supplied was a statement that there are certain NT books that have their theology sometimes affected, which in itself is disputable. This still does not contradict Ehrmans quote � 
�The position I argue for in �Misquoting Jesus� does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger�s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.�

Lets summarize Ehrman. In your repeating of Ehrman you have quoted him to say "Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. That the majority of these manuscripts are fragments, and not complete or even partially complete manuscripts, and there are numerous differences between them. In fact, the number of differences is quite large, as Ehrman notes:
You said �Moreover, the extant manuscripts show unequivocally that the manuscripts have been altered (from 1st Century manuscripts)�, and that "...there are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament." 

In summary you are using the Ehrman argument about textual variants to question the reliability of the current NT text. I already refuted this when I quoted Daniel Wallace in saying there are only 2 percent insignificant and minor changes from the earliest 120 manuscripts to those from the Middle Ages.  The reconstructed text is reliable. 
What I take from having read Erhman is the reinforcement of my conviction that there is nothing new in what he has to say and the �variances � he discusses have been debated in Christian scholarly circles for centuries attesting to the integrity and transparency of Christian scholars.

You said �the only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals and that Christianity has neither.� This is special pleading as you don�t have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman.
Also you have not refuted my point that the NT is a reliable reconstructed text with minimal variance and its validity based on a multiple number of diffuse and separate sources all of which validate each other in a radial manner, not linear. You make the common mistake of assuming the transmission of sources is of a simplistic linear pattern. This radial pool of sources is further supported by a number of texts that is constantly growing. Seventy new manuscripts have been found in the last 10 years by The Centre for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts alone consisting of 1800 pages of text.

Also you haven�t responded to my point that early Church leaders quoted extensively from the scriptures as evidenced in Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

You state there are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best. Again this is special pleading. You do not have your original Koran manuscripts since Uthman. What proof do you have that your oral tradition of the Koran is accurately transmitted to Mohammad ?

You asked what First Century NT testimony exists? The whole NT is First Century eye witness testimony. Your issue is with its transmission. 

Your dismissal of my argument of classical historical figures such as Alexander the Great, due to scholars not accepting all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" and the Trojan War is lacking. NT scholars such as Dr Craig Keener specialize in studying and comparing ancient classical works such as poems, legends, epics, biographies and histories with the NT. They compare genre, literary style, language, sources, and can clearly identify between historical validity. 
Regarding the Book of Acts for an example, Keener states the majority of NT scholars both Christian and non Christian cite this as a history or biography not a poem, legend or epic, and further more it is supported by extra biblical sources. The Gospels and the Book of Acts are ancient historiography and / or biographies based on eye witness testimony.
Transmission and text reconstruction as mentioned for the NT has far more reliability than ancient biographies in terms of time frames and historiography.

You said in regards to ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief that most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research. Perhaps you can refute it then if you�ve done the research. Why don�t you quote Fatoohi if its significant? The argument of ancient non Christian writers verifying Christian belief is a common argument because it�s a significant argument. 
The Ijil Mohamd had access to was the same as the NT. 