Exactly what kind of Bible did the Christians in Muhammad's (pbuh) time have?

[Tyrion]

I have a quick question I'd like answered...

I'm fairly certain that the Arab Christians and Jews who were with Muhammad (pbuh) did not have the exact same Bible that we have today... (Or did they?) My question is, what exactly did they have, and what would have been available to them, or even to Muhammad (pbuh) at that time?

[Darth Ultor]

They must have had the same one. The Dead Sea scrolls say the exact same words. And these are 2500 years old.

[Muslim Woman]

Salaam


they read the Bible where they found this prediction :

Those who follow the Apostle, the unlettered Prophet, Whom they find mentioned in their own Scriptures, in the Torah and the Gospel... (Holy Qu'ran: VII - 157; Translation: Yusif Ali)

In the Name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful

MUHAMMAD IN THE BIBLE

By Dr. Jamal Badawi

http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/muhammad_bible.htm

[Woodrow]

I am assuming you are making reference as to what bible the Christians in the Area would have been using. since it would still be 800 years before there was a printed compilation of all the books, it would be logical that any Christian church would have had hand printed scrolls of one possibly 2 books. based on the location the most logical Christians in the region would have been Copts. In which case the Bible found would have been Aramaic Scrolls of the Gospel of Mark. Which most likely no longer exist. There should have been contact with the Donatists who had only the Greek epistles of Paul. So most likely the Bible used in the region were the early Gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul. It is also likely some of the churches may have had the Gospels of Thomas, Jude, Peter and Barnabas.

You would not have found anything that looks like what is known today as the Bible.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Hiroshi]

I have a quick question I'd like answered...

I'm fairly certain that the Arab Christians and Jews who were with Muhammad (pbuh) did not have the exact same Bible that we have today... (Or did they?) My question is, what exactly did they have, and what would have been available to them, or even to Muhammad (pbuh) at that time?

Today we still have in existence the scriptures of the Jews and Christians dating back to before the rise of Islam. So we can safely say that these make up the same Bible as existed in the 7th century.

But Muslim argue, I believe, that these writings were already corrupted even at that early time and/or there were other writings, such as apocryphal gospel accounts, that have completely disappeared and that these made up the true Injil, etc.

[Hiroshi]

I am assuming you are making reference as to what bible the Christians in the Area would have been using. since it would still be 800 years before there was a printed compilation of all the books, it would be logical that any Christian church would have had hand printed scrolls of one possibly 2 books. based on the location the most logical Christians in the region would have been Copts. In which case the Bible found would have been Aramaic Scrolls of the Gospel of Mark. Which most likely no longer exist. There should have been contact with the Donatists who had only the Greek epistles of Paul. So most likely the Bible used in the region were the early Gospel of Mark and the epistles of Paul. It is also likely some of the churches may have had the Gospels of Thomas, Jude, Peter and Barnabas.

You would not have found anything that looks like what is known today as the Bible.

But the Torah would surely have been the same as we have today. Right?

[selsebil]

Assalaam Alaikum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh,

1.The words of the Torah, the Bible, and the Psalms do not have the miraculousness of those of the Qur’an. They have also been translated again and again, and a great many alien words have become intermingled with them. Also, the words of commentators and their false interpretations have been confused with their verses. In addition, the distortions of the ignorant and the hostile have been incorporated into them. In these ways, the corruptions and alterations have multiplied in those Books. In fact, Shaykh Rahmat Allah al-Hindi, the well-known scholar, proved to Jewish and Christian scholars and priests thousands of corruptions in them, and silenced them. Nevertheless, despite these corruptions, in our times the celebrated Husayn Jisri RA extracted one hundred and ten indications to the prophethood of Muhammad (PBUH), and included them in his Risalat al-Hamidiya.
2.Also, many Jewish and Christian scholars acknowledged and admitted that the attributes of Muhammad the Arabian (Upon whom be blessings and peace) were written in their Books. The famous Roman Emperor Heraclius, who was a non-Muslim himself, said: “Jesus foretold Muhammad’s coming.”
Also, another Roman ruler called Muqawqis, the Governor of Egypt, and celebrated Jewish scholars and leaders such as Ibn Suriya, Zubayr b. Batiya, Ibn Akhtab and his brother Ka‘b b. Asad, although remaining non-Muslim, admitted: “He is described in our Books.”

Also, some of the well-known Jewish scholars and Christian priests gave up their obduracy on seeing Muhammad’s (PBUH) attributes as described in the above-mentioned books, and believed in him. They then pointed out these references to other Jewish and Christian scholars, and convinced them. Among them were the famous ‘Abd Allah b. Salam, Wahb b. Munabbih, Abu Yasir, the two sons of Sa‘ya, Asid and Tha‘laba, and Shamul.296 The latter lived at the time of Tubba‘, the ruler of Yemen. Shamul became a believer before Muhammad’s prophetic mission and without ever seeing him, just as Tubba‘ did. While the guest of the Bani Nadir before the prophetic mission, a gnostic called Ibn al-Hayyaban declared: “A prophet will soon appear, and this is the place to which he will emigrate.” He died there. Later, when that tribe was at war with God’s Messenger (Upon whom be blessings and peace), Asid and Tha‘laba came forward and cried out to the tribe: “By God, he is the one Ibn al-Hayyaban promised would come.” But they did not heed him, and paid the penalty.
Also, many of the Jewish scholars like, Ibn Yasin, Mikhayriq, and Ka‘b al-Ahbar, became believers on seeing the prophetic attributes in their Books, and silenced those who did not accept faith.
Therefore,it's possible that there have been more alterations after the age of Muhammed SAW.

http://www.lightofquran.info/q5.htm

[Ramadhan]

Today we still have in existence the scriptures of the Jews and Christians dating back to before the rise of Islam. So we can safely say that these make up the same Bible as existed in the 7th century.

Are you suggesting that christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century used the same scriptures as what you have now?
Meaning the christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century spoke, read and wrote greek?
Or are you suggesting that Jesus (as) spoke to his disciples in koine greek?
produce your proof if you are truth ful.

But Muslim argue, I believe, that these writings were already corrupted even at that early time and/or there were other writings, such as apocryphal gospel accounts, that have completely disappeared and that these made up the true Injil, etc.

You are mistaken. You shouldnt confuse bible with injeel and torah.
The bible contained (and might still) some of injeel and torah. Nevertheless, some of them have been changed/corrupted, and we do not know exactly which parts of injeel and torah that were changed/corrupted.
Even when it's corrupted, they still contained the prophesies of the coming of prophet Muhammad SAW (hence the QS. 7:157 that you kept bringing up), which were then changed by the jews in madina/makkah because they did not like that the prophesied prophet turned out to be not from the jews.

[Hiroshi]

Are you suggesting that christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century used the same scriptures as what you have now?
Meaning the christians in makkah and madinah in the 7th century spoke, read and wrote greek?

If they had a trustworthy translation in their own language, how would that have differed from the scriptures that we have now?

[Hiroshi]

You are mistaken. You shouldnt confuse bible with injeel and torah.
The bible contained (and might still) some of injeel and torah. Nevertheless, some of them have been changed/corrupted, and we do not know exactly which parts of injeel and torah that were changed/corrupted.

Isn't that exactly what I said as to Muslim beliefs? Where is my mistake?

[Ramadhan]

If they had a trustworthy translation in their own language, how would that have differed from the scriptures that we have now?

that's a big if.
anyway, there is no evidence that arabic injeel or arabic torah in written form existed in makkah/madinah during the 7th century

[Woodrow]

But the Torah would surely have been the same as we have today. Right?

Possibly but it most likely would have only been found on scrolls in the Jewish synagogues. The question asked as to what Bible would have been available, it must be kept in mind there was yet to be any compiled bibles for the average person. Books back then were extremely expensive plus very large and bulky scrolls. Books as we now know them did not exist. Only the largest churches would have been wealthy enough to have more than one or 2 scrolls and those would have been the Bible available to the Christians of that time and region.

The first compilation outside Greece would have been the Latin Codex Vaticanus written in about 351, Followed by the First Latin Vulgate compiled in 384 and at that time only contained the gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. The majority of the books that came to be known as the Bible would have been the koine Greek Scrolls kept in Greece, and possibly a copy in the library at Alexandria. The General populace would have never seen a Bible and the Monks would only have had one or 2 books. Usually just one of the 4 Gospels.

[Woodrow]

An error many Christians make is the assumption the bible was always the primary tool for the teaching of Christianity. the Bible had very little exposure to the early Christians and the reading of the Bible as such did not begin until Christianity spread into England in the 7th Century. Bible studies and teachings for the laity did not begin until after the invention of the printing press in 1440. Bible study was not a major part of Christianity until the 1800s. The modern emphasis on the Bible did not begin until at least the 1860s.

As far as what Bible would have been in use in the 7th Century on the Arabian peninsula, the answer is none except for some individual books carried by Monks. The most common would have been the Gospel of Mark as he was the Apostle who introduced Christianity in Alexandria.

Later the Crusades out of England would have tried to bring the Bible into the Mideast. Most probably a forerunner of the Wycliffe Bible, first written in 1384

[Hiroshi]

that's a big if.
anyway, there is no evidence that arabic injeel or arabic torah in written form existed in makkah/madinah during the 7th century

Okay, so you are saying that the Jews and Christians that were with Muhammad (as Tyrion specified) had nothing whatsoever of the Bible that they could read?

But if they had anything at all, untranslated, what is available today in comparison would, if anything, be older and more authoritative.

[Perseveranze]

Okay, so you are saying that the Jews and Christians that were with Muhammad (as Tyrion specified) had nothing whatsoever of the Bible that they could read?

But if they had anything at all, untranslated, what is available today in comparison would, if anything, be older and more authoritative.

Peace,

I recommend you read this - http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...s/BBbible.html

I'll quote some -

Now we turn to the fact whether an Arabic Bible was present in the hands of the people during the time of the Prophet(P). Malik Ben Nabi narrates an interesting story:

Moreover, if Judeo-Christian thought had really made inroads into Jahiliyyan society and culture, the absence of an Arabic translation of the Bible could not be explained. As for the New Testament, it is certain that no Arabic translation of it existed in the fourth century of Hijrah. This is evident from the reference by Ghazzali, who had to resort to a Coptic manuscript to write his Rad, a respectable refutation of the divinity of Jesus according to the Gospel. In translating the work of the Arab philosopher, Rev. Fr. Chidiac searched everywhere for Gospel sources which could have served at the time of the composition of Rad. He finally found a manuscript in the library of Leningrad written about 1060 by a certain Ibn al-Assal as the first edition of a Christian text in Arabic. Thus, there did not exist an Arabic edition of the Gospels at the time of Ghazzali, and, a fortiori, it did not exist during the Pre-Islamic period.[9]


Constance E Padwick in his article "al-Ghazali & The Arabic Versions Of The Gospels: An Unsolved Problem" mentions this perplexity even though he shows evidence of the earliest Gospel in Arabic dated around 897 CE, a few years before al-Ghazali wrote his Rad.[10]
It is to be noted that the above statement of Malik Ben Nabi concerning the lack of existence of an Arabic Gospel before the fourth century after Hijrah. does not prove that there were no Arabic Gospels at all before this period. Rather, it shows the scarcity of the Gospels in Arabic which made al-Ghazali go for a Coptic Gospel. It is interesting to know that the Gospels were first translated in Arabic during the first Abbasid century. This was mainly due to the debates between Muslims and Christians concerning the status of Gospels, as well as the concept of God, and the defense of icons in the Church.
Sidney H Griffith has done extensive research on the appearance of Arabic Gospel. Regarding the manuscript evidence, he says:

The oldest known, dated manuscripts containing Arabic translations of the New Testament are in the collections of St. Catherine's monastery at Mt. Sinai. Sinai Arabic MS 151 contains an Arabic version of the Epistles of Paul, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles. It is the oldest dated New Testament manuscripts. The colophon of this MS informs us that one Bisr Ibn as-Sirri made the translation from Syriac in Damascus during Ramadan of the Higrah year 253, i.e., 867 AD.[11]

The author went on to say:

The oldest, dated manuscript containing the Gospels in Arabic is Sinai Arabic MS 72. Here the text of the four canonical Gospels is marked off according to the lessons of the temporal cycle of the Greek liturgical calendar of the Jerusalem Church. A colophon informs us that the MS was written by Stephen of Ramleh in the year 284 of the Arabs, i.e., 897 AD.[12]

Concerning the presence of Arabic Gospels in the pre-Islamic period, Sidney Griffith, after extensive study, concludes that:

All one can say about the possibility of a pre-Islamic, Christian version of the Gospel in Arabic is that no sure sign of it's actual existence has yet emerged. Furthermore, even if some unambiguous evidence of it should turn up as a result of more recent investigations, it is clear that after the Islamic conquest of the territories of the oriental patriarchates, and once Arabic has become the official and de facto public language of the caliphate, the church faced a much different pastoral problem than was the case with the earlier missions among the pre-Islamic Arabs.[14]

Further, what about the Old Testament in Arabic? Ernst Würthwein informs us in his book The Text Of The Old Testament that:

With the victory of Islam the use of Arabic spread widely, and for Jews and Christians in the conquered lands it became the language of daily life. This gave rise to the need of Arabic versions of the Bible, which need was met by a number of versions mainly independent and concerned primarily for interpretation.[15]

Think otherwise? Produce your proof.

[Hiroshi]

Possibly but it most likely would have only been found on scrolls in the Jewish synagogues. The question asked as to what Bible would have been available, it must be kept in mind there was yet to be any compiled bibles for the average person. Books back then were extremely expensive plus very large and bulky scrolls. Books as we now know them did not exist. Only the largest churches would have been wealthy enough to have more than one or 2 scrolls and those would have been the Bible available to the Christians of that time and region.

The first compilation outside Greece would have been the Latin Codex Vaticanus written in about 351, Followed by the First Latin Vulgate compiled in 384 and at that time only contained the gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. The majority of the books that came to be known as the Bible would have been the koine Greek Scrolls kept in Greece, and possibly a copy in the library at Alexandria. The General populace would have never seen a Bible and the Monks would only have had one or 2 books. Usually just one of the 4 Gospels.

What about books of lesser value such as the apocryphal gospels? I believe that they would have been generally more available and their contents better known.

[Woodrow]

What about books of lesser value such as the apocryphal gospels? I believe that they would have been generally more available and their contents better known.

While that is a possibility, it would all depend on what denomination was present. Historically it seems the Copts would have been the most prevalent and for the most part they only used Mark.

[gmcbroom]

You are clearly illustrating the point the Catholics and Orthodox have been talking about for centuries. The Bible only Christians and those that follow that way, are have half truth and thus can fall into error due to their own intrepretation of the Bible. That is why Sacred Tradition plays such a big part int Christianity. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through both Sacred Tradition (Bisops,Priests,Deacons, by Apostolic Succession) and Sacred Scripture.

Now, I know that muslims don't share this view. That's ok, you follow a different path. Your not really meant to understand as your view of Christianity is different than ours. To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

[Woodrow]

You are clearly illustrating the point the Catholics and Orthodox have been talking about for centuries. The Bible only Christians and those that follow that way, are have half truth and thus can fall into error due to their own intrepretation of the Bible. That is why Sacred Tradition plays such a big part int Christianity. The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit through both Sacred Tradition (Bisops,Priests,Deacons, by Apostolic Succession) and Sacred Scripture.

Now, I know that muslims don't share this view. That's ok, you follow a different path. Your not really meant to understand as your view of Christianity is different than ours. To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.
Peace be with you
gmcbroom

while we do differ we are to some degree in agreement regarding the Bible

[Ramadhan]

To you were probably heretics. You'll understand why we disagree.

Any group of people that worship man as god has always been heretics.

so yeah, obviously we disagree.

[3rddec]

I believe there is a copy of the bible in the Brittish Museum dating from 350ad and independant scholars agree that there are no significant alteration ( as in important to any docrinal or faith issues ) between it and present day bibles. So if there was it would be so easy to prove with all the evidence including thousands of other scrolls. So pointless.

The idea of any meaningfull differences is just a good story with no real basis .

[3rddec]

As far as worshiping a man ; we dont . But this person you call a man has lived for over 2000 years and was born of a Virgin and was prophesied for thousands of years before.
So even by your own beliefs he was a bit more than a man. Who in Islam can be called Holy or Blessed ?

Love and respect

[جوري]

The idea of any meaningfull differences is just a good story with no real basis .

so are empty words of assertions that can't be backed up with facts!..

As far as worshiping a man ; we dont . But this person you call a man has lived for over 2000 years and was born of a Virgin and was prophesied for thousands of years before. So even by your own beliefs he was a bit more than a man. Who in Islam can be called Holy or Blessed ? Love and respect

who do you worship if not a man? as to who is ''holy or blessed'' Lots of holy men out there.. the church takes a vote often on who to turn into holy saints.. it has lost all its bewitching charm.. not that Christianity ever had it ..

all the best

[3rddec]

ok how many do your Quran call Holy or Blessed?

and have never died?

Love and Respect

[جوري]

ok how many do your Quran call Holy or Blessed? and have never died? Love and Respect

I don't understand drivel!

all the best

[3rddec]

I apologise if i have said something to offend you but i believe that most muslims believe that Christ did not die on the cross and is presently in Heaven having been lifted there by God so as such is still alive so has been alive for nearly 2000 years. Also this is what the Quran says about Christ

surah 19:19
He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son."

and as I'm not as well versed as you , again I ask you how many more people does the Quran state as being Holy.

Love and respect

[جوري]

I apologise if i have said something to offend you but i believe that most muslims believe that Christ did not die on the cross and is presently in Heaven having been lifted there by God so as such is still alive so has been alive for nearly 2000 years. Also this is what the Quran says about Christ surah 19:19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son." and as I'm not as well versed as you , again I ask you how many more people does the Quran state as being Holy. Love and respect

The word holy appears 19 times in the Quran not just pertaining to people.. for instance when Allah swt addressed Moses in what is know as 'alwadi almoqadis twua' the holy vale in Sinai!

all the best

[3rddec]

thank you for your help; I put the word Holy into a search on an online Quran I read and it came up 48 times ; maybe im wrong but it is mostly attached to Allah, and Isa some direct ( if not him directly then to say how he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit) the rest is places or books. I was also interested in what exactly is the Holy Spirit spoken about in many of the verses that supported him. But clearly it is a very special title Holy in the Quran and it was applied to Christ. I'm sure you would agree.

Love and respect.

[جوري]

thank you for your help; I put the word Holy into a search on an online Quran I read and it came up 48 times ; maybe im wrong but it is mostly attached to Allah, and Isa some direct ( if not him directly then to say how he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit) the rest is places or books. I was also interested in what exactly is the Holy Spirit spoken about in many of the verses that supported him. But clearly it is a very special title Holy in the Quran and it was applied to Christ. I'm sure you would agree. Love and respect.

Holy spirit is the archangel Gabriel..
sometimes when [] are used it isn't literally used but to render what the translator considers as close a meaning as possible to the original words, the Quran should be recited in Arabic and learned in Arabic..

all the best

[MartyrX]

thank you for your help; I put the word Holy into a search on an online Quran I read and it came up 48 times ; maybe im wrong but it is mostly attached to Allah, and Isa some direct ( if not him directly then to say how he was strengthened by the Holy Spirit) the rest is places or books. I was also interested in what exactly is the Holy Spirit spoken about in many of the verses that supported him. But clearly it is a very special title Holy in the Quran and it was applied to Christ. I'm sure you would agree.

Love and respect.

As I was speaking with my imam last night about the difficulties of a translated Quran. It's meant to be read in Arabic and sometimes well most of the time the translation is off. He was telling me sometime ago about reading the Quran and something didn't make sense and he showed it to a brother who has spoken english is whole life, and he didn't understand it either. Obviously all of us can't learn arabic but we can try. But I'm going off into a different subject.

[Aprender]

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-06/w...nt?_s=PM:WORLD

The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.


Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.


The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

[Ramadhan]

I believe there is a copy of the bible in the Brittish Museum dating from 350ad and independant scholars agree that there are no significant alteration ( as in important to any docrinal or faith issues ) between it and present day bibles.

I did not realize that Jesus (p) lived during 350 AD.......

What's next?
Jesus is God..?

Oh waiit...

never mind...

[JPR]

Ainmazg! Enyoreve can raed waht I am wirtnig and konw waht I maen eevn tghuogh I mix up all the lttres ecxpet the frsit and lsat one!

Now imagine if a scribe forgot only one letter because he was careless... Such an error would be easily corrected.

So far the first English translation based on about 14 Greek texts still stands as very accurate.

[Ramadhan]

So far the first English translation based on about 14 Greek texts still stands as very accurate.

I didn't realize that Jesus (p) was actually Greek, and so were his disciples, and that they conversed to each other in Greek ....

What's next?

Jesus was born on December 25?

oh waiit.....
never mind ....

[جوري]

Ainmazg! Enyoreve can raed waht I am wirtnig and konw waht I maen eevn tghuogh I mix up all the lttres ecxpet the frsit and lsat one!

Now imagine if a scribe forgot only one letter because he was careless... Such an error would be easily corrected.

So far the first English translation based on about 14 Greek texts still stands as very accurate.

yeah I got that cheesy email too.. glad to see you found some usage to it .. but it doesn't apply here..the problems with the bibles have nothing to do with missing text or funnily written text..

it was worth a try though, as I am sure that is how the evangies do it in Africa and other places..

all the best

[Aprender]

Ainmazg! Enyoreve can raed waht I am wirtnig and konw waht I maen eevn tghuogh I mix up all the lttres ecxpet the frsit and lsat one!

Now imagine if a scribe forgot only one letter because he was careless... Such an error would be easily corrected.

So far the first English translation based on about 14 Greek texts still stands as very accurate.

You're embarrassing me as a Christian with that non-thought provoking "evidence" that came out to be literal babble...come on dude. imsad If you're going to argue about something do it the right way and make us think. No point in coming onto this message board without an open mind. Fact is that the Bible has been changed. Sentences added, books added then taken away, new concepts introduced into the faith, etc. What you said added nothing to the discussion and I wonder if you even took the time to read most of the posts and the information in the links posted with them? :hmm:

[JPR]

My point is that most errors people talk about are scribal errors that won't change the global meaning of the message. Added sentences in the Bible are put in parenthesis to indicate what a scribe copying the text added basing himself on other scriptures. Now, if you all know about Plato, Socrates, Ceasar and other great thinkers and men that came before Jesus and that we all learn about in school, that inspire a lot of things and that we quote extansively, you should know that the most recent copies of their texts are dated between 800 and 1000 years after they died in another language. Yet no one argues about the validity of the famous sentence "veni, vidi, vici" from Julius Ceasar. By comparison, the first influencial members of the Church (before denominations, like orthodox and catholic) were quoting extensively from the NT so much so that we can re-write it just using their quotations. That's about 20 to 40 thousand different documents written less than 150 years after Jesus' death.

Now consider this, if you want to know if a person tells the whole truth, find out if they tell even the less glorious parts of the story. In this case, imagine one of the writers of the Gospels sitting and listening to Peter tell his story about how he betrayed Jesus by saying he didn't know him before he died. Who would say such a thing if he believed he denied the Savior of all Mankind ? Think about John at the end of his Gospel saying that he ran to the tomb of Jesus and got there faster than Peter. The NT is filled with counter-productive information that validates the truthness of the people who wrote it. Thibk about Paul who says he used to persecute Christians but was changed by Jesus and then went on to plant Churches all over the place.

Think about the fact that pretty much all the NT was written while people who actually saw Jesus and knew what he did were alive! How easy would it be to go and find out if what is being told is the truth?

I apologize if anyone thought that my first post was dumb but I believe this whole argumentation about if the Bible is corrupt is like trying to strike at the wind... If you're a muslim, you should try to prove me how your book is true instead of how mine is broken! Because wasn't it the snake in the Garden of Eden who asked Eve: "Did God really say...?"

[جوري]

I apologize if anyone thought that my first post was dumb but I believe this whole argumentation about if the Bible is corrupt is like trying to strike at the wind... If you're a muslim, you should try to prove me how your book is true instead of how mine is broken! Because wasn't it the snake in the Garden of Eden who asked Eve: "Did God really say...?"

It is unfortunate that you'd rather this cognitive conservatism than plain defects smacking you in the face. Be that as it may, No Muslim here wants to convince you of anything, this is an Islamic forum, seems the onus is on you to refute scholars including staunch biblical scholars like Bruce Mitzger of the gross alterations/subtractions/addendums, not to mention complete deviance of what preceded and proceeded.

Abraham wasn't a believer in self-immolating men god, nor did he follow a god who couldn't make up his mind of his commandments, a god with ineffectual apostles and charlatans.. so what exactly would you like us to prove to you when to us you're no better than a Hindu. At least they don't claim Ganesh is a three headed God!

all the best!

[Woodrow]

So far the first English translation based on about 14 Greek texts still stands as very accurate.

And that means what???????

There seems to be something lost with no preservation of the actual Aramaic Jesus(as) would have taught in, Does it not seem odd that the Early christians did not preserve the exact words as spoken by Jesus? Unless perhaps the Koin Greek texts were not written by the true followers of what Jesus(as) taught.

[Ramadhan]

Yet no one argues about the validity of the famous sentence "veni, vidi, vici" from Julius Ceasar.

Are you sure you want to use this comparison?
Let's see,
Julius caesar's words do not affect one bit our current life, let alone determine our eternal fate after life, hence we do not really care about authenticity and veracity of caesar's words. the same goes for plato's, socrates, etc.

Unless, you do not believe that what jesus really said or his real message affect the fate of your eternal life?

In any case, you also chose terrible, terrible comparisons that only destroy you argument:
Contrary to the claims of your lies, Caesar, aristotle and plato WROTE their literary works themselves, in bronze tablets and scrolls, and many of which still survive until now, kept by many museums and institutions in europe and minor asia.
Meanwhile, Jesus never wrote his own sayings, and nor did his disciples. So who wrote them? With the exception of saul of tarsus, not even your bible scholars know.
Hence, the sayings of caesar, plato and aristotle that we have today are more authentic than the bible.

Think about the fact that pretty much all the NT was written while people who actually saw Jesus and knew what he did were alive! How easy would it be to go and find out if what is being told is the truth?

Evidence, please.
Even all your bible scholars agree that the first NT were written in Greek and after every single disciples and persons who actually saw Jesus died.
let me ask you, do you really believe that Jesus was his actual name, along with john, matthew, mark, etc and that they were all greeks and spoke to each other in greek?
Did you know that paul/saul never even met Jesus (pbuh)? And he wrote books in the bible based on his own opinions about what Jesus said?

Please, do not spread your ignorance in an Islamic forum, wherever that may be. That would only embarrass yourself. In general, muslims know about the message of Jesus (pbuh) and the origin of christianity better than christians themselves.
Aprender was right. I am a muslim, and even I am actually quite embarrassed for your own lack of knowledge about bible.

[JPR]

Please, do not spread your ignorance in an Islamic forum, wherever that may be. That would only embarrass yourself. In general, muslims know about the message of Jesus (pbuh) and the origin of christianity better than christians themselves. Aprender was right. I am a muslim, and even I am actually quite embarrassed for your own lack of knowledge about bible.

My area of expertise is Linguistics, phonology and language change and I've done some research on translation as well. I agree 100% that the NT isn't the verbatim of Jesus, that means that no one actually sat down and wrote everything Jesus said everytime he spoke and that they were written by people listening to his apostles teaching. I'm not going to argue as to the why, but it's what everyone seems to agree on: it was written in the koine Greek. Let me ask you this question: what is the most important thing in a translation? Meaning or word for word? If you were raised in a bilingual family and could read and write the two languages perfectly, do you think you could listen to the teachings of someone and then write those teachings in your other language effectively? I will say yes for reasons that all of my studies say it is possible to do so.

If to believe something to be the truth you need the actual words of the person who said it, that's your prerogative and I can't change that and that's fine with me.

Did you know that paul/saul never even met Jesus (pbuh)? And he wrote books in the bible based on his own opinions about what Jesus said?

If you read the NT, you should know that he met him, but that's subject to your own beliefs, but let's assume that since we're talking about what is written in the NT, it is true. Or at least assume that what I wrote about Saul/Paul was based on my beliefs. Acts 9: 5-6

We could go on and on and on.... But I'm not going to argue about the validity of the Bible because that's based on faith, as I'm not going to slander the Qu'ran because that would not be very respectful. I made my own honest inquiry into Islam and the Qu'ran before I became Christian because I believed it would be hypocrite of me not to do so. I'm saying it is possible to have a Bible carrying the message of God, you're saying it's impossible and only the Qu'ran can fit the bill.

In the end, it wasn't about which book was right but my own relation with God and His relationship with me. Christians and Jews are called people of the Book but it seems to me that if they're not careful, muslims will inherit that title.

Respectfully yours

[Ramadhan]

My area of expertise is Linguistics, phonology and language change and I've done some research on translation as well.

Wow I am surprised.
I am not a linguist expert, but I speak 4 languages, and anyone who speak 2 languages or more would certainly understand that there is no such thing as a perfect translations, meaning that no translation would ever able capture the whole meaning of the original language, especially if the orginal language is very dense with a lot of nuances and contexts such as the semitic languages.
Also, for someone who claimed to be an expert of linguistics blah blah, I am surprised you did not know that the orginal works written by caesar, aristotle, and plato survived.

I agree 100% that the NT isn't the verbatim of Jesus, that means that no one actually sat down and wrote everything Jesus said everytime he spoke and that they were written by people listening to his apostles teaching. I'm not going to argue as to the why, but it's what everyone seems to agree on: it was written in the koine Greek.

No one here disputed the fact that the first bible were likely to be written in koine greek, but unless you are extremely ignorant about Jesus (pbuh), you and I know that is not the language that Jesus (pbuh) spoke to his disciples.
So if you don;t have the source language, the original sayings of Jesus, how do you know that the koine greek bible is authentic?
(that is rethorical question by the way, and the answer is "no" if you are still not getting it).
That means, there is no way for you nor for every bible scholars that ever lived (and they have admitted it, if they are honest that is) to ascertain that the what is written in the bible about jesus sayings were actually his true and real sayings and messages and the way they were intended to be within particular contexts.

If to believe something to be the truth you need the actual words of the person who said it, that's your prerogative and I can't change that and that's fine with me.

Of course in order to arrive to the truth you have to make sure that the words are actually real and the texts are actually atuthentic, and not just faked or made-up by some early unknown writers (eg. bible).
But it seems you have very low standards and criteria of the truth.

If you read the NT, you should know that he met him, but that's subject to your own beliefs, but let's assume that since we're talking about what is written in the NT, it is true. Or at least assume that what I wrote about Saul/Paul was based on my beliefs. Acts 9: 5-6

Really, as I've said before, do not even attempt to tell lies about your own religion in Islamic forum, because we will quickly expose you.
Saul met Jesus?
Here's a little info for you:
Saul was among the biggest enemies of Jesus before his ascension, but he never actually met Jesus. And then after Jesus' ascension, Saul claimed that he met jesus in his dream and the wrote fictions based on his claim. and the fiction that saul wrote became the foundation of nicene creed christianity.
That would be like George BUsh claiming he met Osama bin laden in his dream and start preaching the gospel of osama bin laden according to George bush.

I understand it is everyone's rights to choose their belief, I am merely pointing out att the lack of evidence and proof, the absurdities, the illogicals, the contradictions, and the fictitious nature of your belief.

We could go on and on and on.... But I'm not going to argue about the validity of the Bible because that's based on faith,

Exactly.
Your belief in bible is totally based on belief only, and not supporting by the evidence (that they were the real teachings of Jesus)

as I'm not going to slander the Qu'ran because that would not be very respectful. I made my own honest inquiry into Islam and the Qu'ran

Oh I'm not worried at all if you make discussions about the Qur'an. Please start a new thread if you wish, you may have a look in the past threads discussions about the Qur'an in this forum as well.
Al Qur;an has withstood every single and every kind of scrutinizations, probes, etc, and yet nothing has had any impact, it still still 100% preserved, millions of people from every corner in the world fully memorize it down to a dot and a t. This is very much unlike bible, whose first version (which did not survive) was not even in the language of the main actor, and which comes in god knows how many versions with different number of books and different interpretations, with each sect of christianity differing on which version is the most correct one.

In the end, it wasn't about which book was right but my own relation with God and His relationship with me. Christians and Jews are called people of the Book but it seems to me that if they're not careful, muslims will inherit that title.

Again, You claim you have researched the Qur'an but your statement above clearly shows your lack of understanding of the meaning of the people of the book. Anyway, Qur'an literally means "recitation" not "book".
Your claims of this and that are getting more shaky by each claim you made.

[Ramadhan]

JPR, you have not responded to my question and queries to you in the above posts (and hence I am starting to wonder if you actually believe it so):

Do you really believe that the god you worship was actually a man named Jesus who spoke koine greek in 350 ad?

[JPR]

Really, as I've said before, do not even attempt to tell lies about your own religion in Islamic forum, because we will quickly expose you. Saul met Jesus? are you that ignorant or are you so delusional or are you that desperate in your own shaky belief that you even deceive yourself? Here's a little info for you: Saul was among the biggest enemies of Jesus before his ascension, but he never actually met Jesus. And then after Jesus' ascension, Saul claimed that he met jesus in his dream and the wrote fictions based on his claim. and the fiction that saul wrote became the foundation of nicene creed christianity.

I'm not lying, just exposing my beliefs. Since you said that Saul/Paul never met Jesus, I thought I would at the very least provide the explanation on why I would say such a thing, and if you read the actual passage, you wouldn't say it was in a dream. If I am to quote from the Qu'ran, I will do it faithfully as it is written and not try to deform it so I would appreciate the same in return. I am not trying to call you a liar, I am exposing my beliefs for you to understand why I say what I say.

And you are right, Saul was the biggest ennemy of Jesus and Christians. He persecuted them and wanted them to die and he even approved the execution of an apostle of Jesus! That's why I believe his story to be so great. Imagine this story if it was written in the Qu'ran about someone persecuting muslims and after having an apparition from Muhammad, he was to change completely and become one of Islam's greatest protector and contributor!

Back to the subject: yes, I believe the Bible was inspired by God and yes, I all have for it is my faith. As no one can scientifically prove His existence, no one can prove that the Bible is from Him either because that would go against free-will, and it wouldn't be called faith but knowledge. Faith is all I have, just as Abraham had only faith when God asked him to kill his son.

Respectfully yours

[JPR]

Do you really believe that the god you worship was actually a man named Jesus who spoke koine greek in 350 ad?

No, God speaks every language on the planet, extinct, existing and to come. Jesus wasn't God but a part of Him, His son, and no, Jesus didn't speak koine greek 350 ad because he was dead by that time, and no, I don't think he spoke koine Greek while he was alive. I'm not sure where you want to go with this question as I already plainly said that I did not believe the Gospels were written by someone who was recording the exact words coming out of Jesus' mouth. The only one who wrote a Gospel that was an actual Apostle is John and he wrote it many years after Jesus died.

And no, the God I worship is not Jesus but God. I'm not going to start talking about the trinity in here, as I believe this is why you are referring to Jesus as my god.

Hope this clears up my position for you and if you want to know what the trinity represents for me, I can send you a PM or you can direct me to a thread on the trinity and I will be glad to explain myself.

Respectfully yours

[Woodrow]

As has been stated many times. Keep all debates related to the topic and not an opinion of the person posting. I an unapproving the last view posts until I can figure out how to fix the mess without loosing any valid replies. Some interesting points have been brought out and deserve to be answered, so I am not going to delete the posts, but I am going to remove any words directed to a person and not the topic.

[JPR]

Contrary to the claims of your lies, Caesar, aristotle and plato WROTE their literary works themselves, in bronze tablets and scrolls, and many of which still survive until now, kept by many museums and institutions in europe and minor asia

Generally speaking, the older the manuscript copies, the better. The oldest
manuscript for Gallic Wars is roughly 900 years after Caesar’s day. The two
manuscripts of Tacitus are 800 and 1,000 years later, respectively, than the
original. The earliest copies of Homer’s Iliad date from about 1,000 years after
the original was authored around 800 B.C. But with the New Testament, we have
complete manuscripts from only 300 hundred years later. Most of the New
Testament is preserved in manuscripts less than 200 years from the original, with
some books dating from a little more than 100 years after their composition and
one fragment surviving within a generation of its authorship. No other book from
the ancient world has as small a time gap between composition and earliest
manuscript copies as the New Testament

“In the original Greek alone, over 5,000 manuscripts and manuscript fragments or
portions of the NT have been preserved from the early centuries of Christianity.
The oldest of these is a scrap of papyrus containing John 18:31-33, 37-38, dating
from A.D. 125-130, no more than forty years after John’s Gospel was most
probably written” (Craig L. Blomberg, “The Historical Reliability of the New
Testament,” Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, pp. 193-94).

It is unfortunate that you'd rather this cognitive conservatism than plain defects smacking you in the face. Be that as it may, No Muslim here wants to convince you of anything, this is an Islamic forum, seems the onus is on you to refute scholars including staunch biblical scholars like Bruce Mitzger of the gross alterations/subtractions/addendums, not to mention complete deviance of what preceded and proceeded.

The New Testament is the most accurately copied book from the ancient world.
Textual scholars Westcott and Hort estimate that only one-sixtieth of its variants
rise above “trivialities,” which leaves the text 98.33 percent pure. Noted historian
Philip Schaff calculates that of the 150,000 variants known in his day, only 400
affected the meaning of a passage; only 50 were of any significance; and not even
one affected an article of faith (Companion to the Greek Testament and English
Version, p. 177).

Many of the apparent discrepancies in the gospels, Acts and the writings of Paul –
minor as they are – disappear once we judge ancient historians by the standards of
their day rather than ours. As Craig L. Blomberg writes, “In a world which did not
even have a symbol for a quotation mark, no one expected a historian to
reproduce a speaker’s words verbatim”

The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses and contemporaries of Jesus.
For example, Luke probably wrote his gospel around 60 A.D., before he wrote
Acts. Since Jesus died around 33 A.D., this would place Luke only 27 years after
the events, while most eyewitnesses – and potentially hostile witnesses – were
still alive and could have refuted Luke’s record.

Now, this is is what seals the deal for me:
The 40 men who penned the scriptures over a period of 1,500 years insisted that
their message came from God. Many were persecuted and even killed for their
faith. Of the 11 faithful apostles plus Paul, only John escaped a martyr’s death,
although he was boiled in oil and banished to Patmos; even at that, he continued
to boldly proclaim divine truth...

Ainmazg! Enyoreve can raed waht I am wirtnig and konw waht I maen eevn tghuogh I mix up all the lttres ecxpet the frsit and lsat one!

Now imagine if a scribe forgot only one letter because he was careless... Such an error would be easily corrected.

Was trying to show this:


The text of an uncial contains all capital letters, with no spaces between the words, and with no punctuation. In this type of manuscript, if the end of a line was reached in the middle of a word, the copyist simply went to the next line, continuing with the rest of the word. For comparison, consider the passage below in uncial-like script.

Uncial Manuscript Example - Codex Sinaiticus, Romans 6:23–8:5

NOTEVERYONEWHOSAYSTOMELORDLORDWILLENTERTHEKINGDOMO FHEAVENBUTONLYHEWHODOESTHEWILLOFMYFATHERWHOISINHEA VEN
With this type of script, it is easy to imagine even the most careful copyist making a minor mistake such as dropping off a letter, interposing two letters, repeating a line, or skipping a line. The vast majority of the supposed two hundred thousand mistakes in the Greek manuscripts are just such scribal slips of the pen. These errors are very easily detected and corrected by the scholars who study the Greek text of the New Testament. They have absolutely no effect on the integrity of the Greek New Testament.

I can keep going:
Papias, born in 60 A.D., records what the old apostle John told him about the writing of the gospels: "Mark, having become Peter's interpreter, wrote accurately all that he remembered; though he did not record in order that which was done or said by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed Him; but subsequently, as I said, [attached himself to] Peter who used to frame his teaching to meet the [immediate] wants of his hearers; and not as making a connective narrative of the Lord's discourses.' So Mark committed no error, as he wrote down some particulars just as he recalled them to mind. For he took heed to one thing, to omit none of the facts that he heard, and to state nothing falsely in his narrative of them."

Tacitus, the leading historian of Imperial Rome writes: "The author of that name (Christian) was Christ who in the reign of Tiberius suffered punishment under his Procurator Pontius Pilate," while the Jewish historian Josephus writes, "There was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of wonderful works -- a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, for he appeared to them alive again the third day ..."

Although, to answer the question of the post, Christians in Muhammad's time could have had a Catholic-influenced Bible. Although I don't think it really matters because I doubt everyone could read like today, so people would depend upon teachers to read them the Bible and depending on your geographic location, different doctrines could emerge.


Hope this answers all the questions everyone has and clears it all up

[Tyrion]

Uhh, can we go back to talking about the bible being used in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago? Old and new testaments...

[Ramadhan]

Jesus wasn't God. but a part of Him

Interesting.
What sect of christian are you?
a trinitarian would say that jesus was God, while a unitarian would say Jesus was not God.

and no, Jesus didn't speak koine greek 350 ad because he was dead by that time, and no, I don't think he spoke koine Greek while he was alive. I'm not sure where you want to go with this question as I already plainly said that I did not believe the Gospels were written by someone who was recording the exact words coming out of Jesus' mouth.

The reason I asked is because you keep saying the the current bible (anyway, which bible version are you referring because there are like tens of thousands of versions) is a faithful translation of the koine greek bible from 350 ad.
So, how do we know that the gospels in the 350 ad bible is really the gospel of jesus and can you provide evidence and proof for that?

The only one who wrote a Gospel that was an actual Apostle is John and he wrote it many years after Jesus died.

Can you provide evidence please.
Because all bible scholars agree that the gospel of john was actually not written by John.
From bible scholars themselves we know that with the exception of books written by saul of tarsus, all other books in the NT were written by anomyous authors.
Either you have new information that is not available to every bible scholars in the past 2,000 years, or you have very little knowledge about your bible.

So since the books of the NT were written many years after the departure of the main actor and the death of the witnesses, and by anonymous authors, and in different language to boot, how do you make sure that the words (ok, I will give you leniency, the meaning of the words) in the bible are actually the same meanings as uttered by the main actor of the books?

Back to the subject: yes, I believe the Bible was inspired by God and yes, I all have for it is my faith.

I am glad that you finally admit that there is no evidence of the authenticity of the bible and you only rely on your faith. If you had said earlier, that would have saved us a lot of time, instead of you kept claiming that current bible (whichever version that maybe) is authentic translation of the original.

Faith is all I have, just as Abraham had only faith when God asked him to kill his son.

Allah sent angels to Ibrahim (pbuh).
Are you claiming you are a prophet and were visited by an angel?

It is also very ironic that you used prophet Ibrahim (pbuh) as comparison. Ibrahim (p) actually used logic, reason, and evidence to arrive at conclusion that God must be one and all powerful. He rejected God cannot be human, and God cannot be statue, and God cannot have a son, and he didn't worship son of god nor spirit (no matter how holy a spirit can be). That's why people now call that Ibrahim was the father of strict monotheism.

[JPR]

Uhh, can we go back to talking about the bible being used in the Arabian desert 1400 years ago? Old and new testaments...

Probably the same that we have now, otherwise I wouldn't call it a Bible ;) Pretty much the same as saying "what kind of Qu'ran was there 700 years ago?". But that's a Christian point of view and hotly debated as I can see.

Here's what I found:

According to early Christian records there were actual Arabic translations of the New Testament that had been translated during the time of Muhammad:

"The Gospels were translated into Arabic from the original Greek as well as Coptic and Syrian versions. Barhebreus writes of an Arabic translation made by a monophysite named Johannes, by the order of an Arab prince in A.D. 640. Oldest extant fragments of Arabic translations from the Greek date from the early ninth century. The oldest extant translation in the Syriac also dates back to the same time. It is likely, however, that portions of the Gospels were rendered into Arabic at a much earlier date that that mentioned above. George, a bishop of the Arabs of Mesopotamia, wrote a Scholia on the Scripture around the sixth century. But it appears that Christian teaching and preaching in the sixth century (A.D.) Arabia was done mainly by quoting from the Syriac or Ethiopic scripture and then giving a free rendering of it in Arabic ..." (Abdiyah Akbar Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim [Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis MN, 1980], p. 29)

"A Coptic version of the New Testament was current toward the end of the third century... The Gospels were translated into Arabic from the Greek, Syriac, and Coptic versions. Barhebraeus speaks of such a translation made between A.D. 631-640. George, bishop of Arab tribes of Mesopotamia, a friend of James of Edessa (d. A.D. 578) wrote a Scholia on the Scriptures. According to Al-Baidhawi and other Muslim commentators, their prophet received instruction from learned Christians like Warqa b. Naufal, Jubra and Yasara (Baidhawi on Sura 16:105). Also, traditions relate how the prophet used to stop and listen to these two men as they read aloud the Books of Moses (Torah) and the Gospels (Injil). Apparently there was a translation of portions of the New Testament that was extant in Mecca during the rise of Islam. Such a translation must have existed along with the full versions of the New Testament in Syriac and Syriac Lectionaries." (Ibid., p. 56)

From muslim sources:

Islamic sources affirm that certain portions of the Bible had been translated into Arabic during the time of Muhammad:

Narrated 'Aisha:

The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 55, Number 605)

"…Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight..." (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 478)

"…Ka'b read the Torah and said: The Apostle of Allah has spoken the truth. Abu Hurayrah said: I met Abdullah ibn Salam and told him of my meeting with Ka'b." (Sunan Abu Dawud, Book 3, Number 1041: Narrated Abu Hurayrah)

"…(Muhammad's father) passed by a woman of the Kath'am (tribe) whose name was Fatimah Bint Murr and who was the prettiest of all women, in the full bloom of her youth and the most pious and had studied the scriptures; ..." (Ibn Sa'd's Kitab al-Tabaqat al-Kabir, p.104)

According to the Mishkat al-Masabih, Book XXVI, ch. XXXIX, pp. 1371, 1372:

Khaithama b. Abu Sabra said: I came to Medina and asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and He granted me Abu Huraira. I sat with him and told him I had asked God to grant me a good companion to sit with and that he suited me. He asked where I came from and I replied that I belonged to al-Kufa and had come desiring and seeking good. He then said, "Do you not have among you Sa'd b. Malik whose prayers are answered, Ibn Mas'ud who looked after God's messenger's water for ablution and his sandals, Hudhaifa who was God's messenger's confident, 'Ammar to whom God gave protection from the devil at the tongue of His Prophet, and Salman who was a believer in the two Books? meaning THE INJIL and the Qur'an."

All these traditions presume the existence of Arabic translations of certain portions of the Holy Bible, if not all of it.

Interestingly, the hadith reports that Waraqa even knew how to read Hebrew

Hope this answers the topic

[JPR]

The reason I asked is because you keep saying the the current bible (anyway, which bible version are you referring because there are like tens of thousands of versions) is a faithful translation of the koine greek bible from 350 ad.
So, how do we know that the gospels in the 350 ad bible is really the gospel of jesus and can you provide evidence and proof for that?

See post above for my answer. Although you can't prove it isn't true either so we're in a stalemate.

Can you provide evidence please.
Because all bible scholars agree that the gospel of john was actually not written by John.
From bible scholars themselves we know that with the exception of books written by saul of tarsus, all other books in the NT were written by anomyous authors.
Either you have new information that is not available to every bible scholars in the past 2,000 years, or you have very little knowledge about your bible.

So since the books of the NT were written many years after the departure of the main actor and the death of the witnesses, and by anonymous authors, and in different language to boot, how do you make sure that the words (ok, I will give you leniency, the meaning of the words) in the bible are actually the same meanings as uttered by the main actor of the books?

Which scholars are you talking about? Again, I will refer you to a post above with many different sources from Bible scholars naming the authors and giving dates. I would love to investigate more if you gave me sources and places.


Although this is enjoyable, I believe we are getting out of the context of the thread and I gave what I believe is a good answer from muslim and christian sources. If you want to keep this discussion, another thread would be appropriate.

Respectfully yours

[Fivesolas]

I have a quick question I'd like answered...

I'm fairly certain that the Arab Christians and Jews who were with Muhammad (pbuh) did not have the exact same Bible that we have today... (Or did they?) My question is, what exactly did they have, and what would have been available to them, or even to Muhammad (pbuh) at that time?

The simple answer would be that very little would have been available. What they would have had in that part of the world likely was gnostical, but this is conjectural. It is know that the Christians in that area were spurious sects. This is known history. These sects very likely interacted with Muhammed and his associates.

[Tyrion]

The simple answer would be that very little would have been available. What they would have had in that part of the world likely was gnostical, but this is conjectural. It is know that the Christians in that area were spurious sects. This is known history. These sects very likely interacted with Muhammed and his associates.

So it seems like we're getting conflicting responses from our Christian members... Does anyone know of any evidence from the area that would give us a more concrete answer?

[Fivesolas]

So it seems like we're getting conflicting responses from our Christian members... Does anyone know of any evidence from the area that would give us a more concrete answer?

A simple introduction to the Bible. You could refer to Geisler and Nix "A General Introduction to the Bible" AT Robinson's work on Textual Criticism or Scrivener's work.

What you would do with this information is gain an understanding of what manuscripts would have been in circulation during the lifetime of Mohammed. Most people with a basic understanding of this history would know that for the Old Testament it was (and still is) the Masoretic Text or the Septuagint (Greek translation of the OT). The Septuagint is quoted in the NT and pre-dates the Masoretic text. Some put the Masoretic text around 700AD some to 500AD. So its possible that a copy could have been in Arabia. It is likely that if there was a synagoge in the area, the Jews had a copy of their Scriptures. For the New Testament, my research hasn't found an earlier translation into Arabic before 867AD. It is not clear to me that Mohammed would have in his possession a copy of the NT in his language.

Given that Mohammed could not read, no translation would be useful to him. It is possible that there was an earlier translation that what we have, but I can't find any evidence for one. If there was a copy of the New Testament in that area, it was likely in a different language, perhaps Syriac.

Using the Qur'an's information regarding its presentation of Christianity, such as the story of Jesus making a clay bird and making it come to life, shows that Mohammed encounted gnosticism rather than biblical Christianity. I am still trying to ascertain where Mohammed heard that the Trinity was God, Jesus and Mary....in other words, how did Mohammed learn about Christianity?

My suggestion is that you seek to base your understanding from some of the resources I mentioned.

[جوري]

My suggestion is that you seek to base your understanding from some of the resources I mentioned.

but when the understanding is 'base' what hope can there be for any sort of useful dialogue. For instance your base understanding that the Islamic belief of the trinity includes Mary? Do you want to do some minor research before writing?.
There is so much to account for in the Quran that isn't even common knowledge or present at all in your bibles. Ahel Al'kahf for instance, have you a record of them? Zhu El qyrnyen? Jesus' speaking as an infant?

Common knowledge that you speak of should also enable you the understanding that Judaism didn't exist in books but was an oral tradition and the printing press wasn't invented until the 1500's so the messenger's acquisition of books whether or not he was literate would have been next to impossible. Also there were two meager tribes of christians in all of Arabia and after five centuries of evangelizing should really let you in on how popular christianity was, especially so in the regions where Byzantium existed like Egypt/Syria who almost in totality gave up christianity for Islam. If the religion had any substance that didn't loan itself to some inexplicable mathematics and bizarre Greek Mythology perhaps it would have had some longevity in the regions of Christianity's inception..

Good look with your beliefs..

all the best

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:


Some say that the Injeel revealed to Prophet Jesus was spoken, and not necessarily compiled in a Book form. There may have been some writings by his disciples which were probably burnt, along with the disciples themselves! (by some of the oppressive kings of the Byzantine!)

[Fivesolas]

:salamext:


Some say that the Injeel revealed to Prophet Jesus was spoken, and not necessarily compiled in a Book form. There may have been some writings by his disciples which were probably burnt, along with the disciples themselves! (by some of the oppressive kings of the Byzantine!)

It is a fact of history that many copies of the Christians in the apostolic period had their writings confiscated and destroyed, as well as severe persecutions against them. It is amazing that over 5,000 manuscripts have survived to this day in whole and fragmentary form.

The problem I have with your suggestion is from the Qur'an itself. The Qur'an indicates that the Christians and Jews had the Gospel...which means at the time of Mohammed. It is quite reasonable then to conclude that what they had then was uncorrupted, written, and in their possession. That is...if we accept the Qur'an's testimony. No Muslim would reject the Qur'an.

[Fivesolas]

but when the understanding is 'base' what hope can there be for any sort of useful dialogue. For instance your base understanding that the Islamic belief of the trinity includes Mary? Do you want to do some minor research before writing?.
There is so much to account for in the Quran that isn't even common knowledge or present at all in your bibles. Ahel Al'kahf for instance, have you a record of them? Zhu El qyrnyen? Jesus' speaking as an infant?

Common knowledge that you speak of should also enable you the understanding that Judaism didn't exist in books but was an oral tradition and the printing press wasn't invented until the 1500's so the messenger's acquisition of books whether or not he was literate would have been next to impossible. Also there were two meager tribes of christians in all of Arabia and after five centuries of evangelizing should really let you in on how popular christianity was, especially so in the regions where Byzantium existed like Egypt/Syria who almost in totality gave up christianity for Islam. If the religion had any substance that didn't loan itself to some inexplicable mathematics and bizarre Greek Mythology perhaps it would have had some longevity in the regions of Christianity's inception..

Good look with your beliefs..

all the best

My research is based out the Qur'an. Look at Surah 5:116-117. It seems to my reading, whether Pickthal, Yusufali, or Shakir, that the writer of those verse believed that the doctrine of the Trinity included Mary. Further, the Qur'an isn't even refuting the historic doctrine of the Trinity....it is refuting tri-theism, not trinitarianism. But back to the Mary point, what sect that called itself Christian holds Mary as part of the Godhead? Even the idolatry of the papacy doesn't include Mary within the Godhead.

And I wasn't aware that popularity was the test for truth. I guess Isaiah should have lamented not that he was the last faithful one (he was not) but rather that he must be in error since the whole world was going in a different direction.

Broad is the way that leads to destruction. But narrow and difficult is the way that leads to life. -Jesus

[جوري]

My research is based out the Qur'an. Look at Surah 5:116-117. It seems to my reading, whether Pickthal, Yusufali, or Shakir, that the writer of those verse believed that the doctrine of the Trinity included Mary. Further, the Qur'an isn't even refuting the historic doctrine of the Trinity....it is refuting tri-theism, not trinitarianism. But back to the Mary point, what sect that called itself Christian holds Mary as part of the Godhead? Even the idolatry of the papacy doesn't include Mary within the Godhead.

And I wasn't aware that popularity was the test for truth. I guess Isaiah should have lamented not that he was the last faithful one (he was not) but rather that he must be in error since the whole world was going in a different direction.

Broad is the way that leads to destruction. But narrow and difficult is the way that leads to life. -Jesus

The Quran isn't left to the renditions of the unlearned. Don't quote me verses whose meaning is very apparently lost to you..
Further many verses in the Quran refute the trinity, not that one needs Quranic verses to refute what can be simply done by common sense and logic !

No popularity isn't a test for truth I have so attested in one of my previous posts, there was indeed a time when Abraham and Lut were all there is of believers. But their beliefs didn't include a self-immolating mangod who couldn't ward off a couple of provincial oafs after a night of prayer apparently to himself, or a god who couldn't choose effectual apostles to shoulder the message after his death so he'd have to abrogate his commandments through his nemesis. Indeed the broad way is the way of christianity where you've a carte blanche to sin as you please so long as your god ate your sins for you, for lent my friend is giving up chocolate, I can see how difficult that will prove between banging her boyfriend and getting drunk..

all the best

[3rddec]

Is it just me or has this been thrashed to death now several times; The Book of the uncorrupted Ingeel seems to be something that cant have existed in Mohammeds time so it becomes confusing as to why anything corrupted should be shown respect.

This is another pointless circular debate that goes nowhere until the scholars of Islam will declare where is the book of Ingeel because if you have no original your claim of major reconstruction can have no proof with nothing to compare it to. If you point to one book and say look this has been changed from this does this mean that the first is correct and second is corrupted or does it mean the first was corrupted but the second was a return to original, or both are corrupted so neither was the Injeel. The whole arguement is pointless. Its time those of the Islamic faith start to find their original Holy books the Torah and the Injeel then show us whats been changed instead of continuing with this silly pointless circle of illogical debate.

And im bored with the quote about the Illiterate prophet that will only speak Gods word must be Mohammed for several reasons ; the most obvious being that Mohammed did not only speak what he said was the revealled Quran he had loads to say on his own and you have all this recorded in all your other books that are inportant to your faith. The only being that speaks Gods words is God so this saying is just as correctly ascribing the prophet to be The Holy Spirit when inspiring the faithfull. Also there is no proof he was Illerate. Most prophets have started from the position that they are not worthy to speak Gods words but it does not mean the were completely uneducated.

Why cant we start a more positive debate about which books we can agree on.

[جوري]

the book should be super-imposed upon its own content and the other bibles to see if the passages agree.. Jesus' last words for instance.. or are you that delusional? You people really are a riot, I mean who are you trying to convince of this?

furthermore what is the point of agreed upon books? do you hold the laws of the OT even if you agree with them?

[3rddec]

I noticed the other great circular arguement creeping in above the Trinity and again can I point out the following ( remember the following is not a proof for or against the Trinity but a bit of honest thinking )

1) an athiest will find believing in a God is Illogical but this does not mean God doesnt exist and even as a believer I can understand how logically they can take this position
2) If God cant be proven logically because of his very nature then how could the Trinity be proven logically ( ps anyone who says God can be proven Logically will become Gods
Apostle to the Rationalist Athiests)
3) ponder this thought and find the flaw-- If i shine an infinately long beam of light through space then using mirrors split this beam into 3 / 4 / 5 whatever beams that then are alowed to travel an infinate length in their new directions do they not have the same length as the original ( infinate ) . Are each beam independant or are they one with the first. Are they each a new light or the original . Were the new beams created from nothing ot begotton from the first.

So If you are a true scholar and honest debater can you not at least accept that belief in one God as a single Godhead or a single God with three seperate individuals within the one Godhead are of equal Logical worth even if you dont accept one or other position. And keep the debate to Scriptural analysis. Otherwise whats the point in the discussion.

Love and Respect

[3rddec]

Having a race without an agreed starting and end point would be a farse ; and having a debate with no agreement about what is to be considered by both parties as suitable agreed on evidence is just as farsical as we can see by the constant restarting of identical threads with different titles always spinning in the same endless spirals going nowhere. It sounds like a punishment that the ancient greeks would make up for some character in hades to continue forever in a pointless task that seems to make sence and goes nowhere. There is so much more things that can be discussed like how should the world help the Japanese; or how should a religious person act in a society which doesnt stop them practicing their religion but clearly discriminates against them when it comes to the equitable division of wealth and opportunity for advancement (should they break the law of the land, are they entitled to kill).

Love and Respect

[جوري]

So If you are a true scholar and honest debater can you not at least accept that belief in one God as a single Godhead or a single God with three seperate individuals within the one Godhead are of equal Logical worth even if you dont accept one or other position. And keep the debate to Scriptural analysis. Otherwise whats the point in the discussion.

I don't know any 'true scholars' who would believe that a father/son/holyspirit all of them a completely different being would = to one god or that they'd classify it as at all under monotheism!
that is if we're to forgo all the other absurdities, but this is the article upon which your salvation rests .. if the most basic tenet is faulty I don't see how anything else no matter how florid and embellished would matter..

all the best

[جوري]

Having a race without an agreed starting and end point would be a farse ; and having a debate with no agreement about what is to be considered by both parties as suitable agreed on evidence is just as farsical as we can see by the constant restarting of identical threads with different titles always spinning in the same endless spirals going nowhere. It sounds like a punishment that the ancient greeks would make up for some character in hades to continue forever in a pointless task that seems to make sence and goes nowhere. There is so much more things that can be discussed like how should the world help the Japanese; or how should a religious person act in a society which doesnt stop them practicing their religion but clearly discriminates against them when it comes to the equitable division of wealth and opportunity for advancement (should they break the law of the land, are they entitled to kill).

Love and Respect

so long as Christians continue on the same absurd assertions they'll hear and read the same arguments. You're in essence asking the non-christian world to shut off their logic and common sense completely to accept your beliefs as valid, and for no good cause that I could think of, for surely if your god died eating your sins, the matter is a done deal.. no sense arguing about a religion whose sole requirement is your belief that god died for you to attain paradise!

all the besr

[3rddec]

Another interesting note to add that A lie told over and over in an Identical manner does not become the truth no matter how often it is faithfully repeated. So the proof of the Quran cannot stand on the fact that it is unaltered but rather than what it contains. So if you believe in your Quran as the word of God then maybe you should stop trying to use the fact that its unchanged as a proof for or against its truth but rather its contents and allow the Torah and the Bible the same curtosy.

Love and Respect

[3rddec]

If only my religion was as simple as you state lol; while I profess to knowing very little about Islam compared to you , if thats the limit of your understanding of Christianity then by comparision I know loads about Islam. I have to admit that you have finally convinced me of one fact. You know no scholars. I would positively encourage people to use there intellect but not to just be closed off to an idea using a logic that is no logic but fooling themself that its logic. I have tried to interject some new ideas of my own into the discussion. If you have found them anywhere else on any web site please post them. I'm sure some people who have actually read them and thought about them should at least find that there is no logical fault in them even if they hold different opinions to me. I have asked for critique of the logic and haven't had it yet.

Love and respect

[جوري]

Another interesting note to add that A lie told over and over in an Identical manner does not become the truth no matter how often it is faithfully repeated.

Love and Respect

I couldn't agree more.. let me know how well that pans out when you finally conclude that whole mangod fiasco is nothing but kindred greek mythology except in that case Zeus and his son Hercules from a mortal woman aren't one in the same.
The truth stands out on its own. I don't need to compare aspirin to snake oil from a street merchant with a tent to know which is the obvious and accurate choice..
by the way have you tried selling the mangod thing on a Jewish forum? to them there is no such thing as 'NT' and if you so admire the 'OT' then how about upholding its law, didn't it allegedly come courtesy of the same god? or does he change his mind? first he's ruthless and then he is self-immolating?

all the best

[3rddec]

If we eliminated everything that had a corresponding identity or symbol or practice in a pagan belief from our faith or yours then we would not believe in an afterlife. But yet we both agree on this. Should we now therefore stop believing in this because some pagan group had a similar story or believe it because we know it to be true. What others believed or didnt believe does not show truth or otherwise just that they thought something similar. Im fairly sure the eskimos believe 1 + 1 = 2 and so do I does this mean I'm wrong because they stumbled on a similar truth to me?

Love and Respect

[جوري]

If we eliminated everything that had a corresponding identity or symbol or practice in a pagan belief from our faith or yours then we would not believe in an afterlife. But yet we both agree on this. Should we now therefore stop believing in this because some pagan group had a similar story or believe it because we know it to be true. What others believed or didnt believe does not show truth or otherwise just that they thought something similar. Im fairly sure the eskimos believe 1 + 1 = 2 and so do I does this mean I'm wrong because they stumbled on a similar truth to me?

Love and Respect

What with the frequent irrelevant drivel? This is your argument Eskimos and arithmetic?

[Fivesolas]

If we eliminated everything that had a corresponding identity or symbol or practice in a pagan belief from our faith or yours then we would not believe in an afterlife. But yet we both agree on this. Should we now therefore stop believing in this because some pagan group had a similar story or believe it because we know it to be true. What others believed or didnt believe does not show truth or otherwise just that they thought something similar. Im fairly sure the eskimos believe 1 + 1 = 2 and so do I does this mean I'm wrong because they stumbled on a similar truth to me?

Love and Respect

Bravo on reasoning from sound logic.

[Ramadhan]

If we eliminated everything that had a corresponding identity or symbol or practice in a pagan belief from our faith or yours then we would not believe in an afterlife.

If that's your opinion, why don't you try it.
Maybe starting with a God who impregnated earthly woman to bear god son, then move on to easter and christmas?
Which pagan practice that have the concept of after life as in abrahamic religions?

But yet we both agree on this. Should we now therefore stop believing in this because some pagan group had a similar story or believe it because we know it to be true.

Interestingly, the OT and the jews never knew about god sacrificing himself and about a 3-in-1 god.
Heck, even Jesus (pbuh) didnt even know about a 3-in1 god and his disciples were also worshipping only the one god, and never the 3-in-1 go

[3rddec]

You are right ; the Jews didn,t know about a God that would sacrifice his Son and thats why it clearly says in the bible how Christ had to explain all this to his apostle.

Of course the cresent moon appears important to many ancient religions in the middle east; biblical scholars would point out that when the jews strayed from their beliefs in the True God it was to moon worship. Oops isn't that a symbol for Islam... (off course not its just drivel everything i say is ( a word i've become accustomed lol )

Love and Respect

[جوري]

You are right ; the Jews didn,t know about a God that would sacrifice his Son and thats why it clearly says in the bible how Christ had to explain all this to his apostle.

Of course the cresent moon appears important to many ancient religions in the middle east; biblical scholars would point out that when the jews strayed from their beliefs in the True God it was to moon worship. Oops isn't that a symbol for Islam... (off course not its just drivel everything i say is ( a word i've become accustomed lol )

Love and Respect

actually No, it isn't a symbol of Islam nor was it ever a pagan religion to the ancient arabs..it is unfortunate that you're so under-educated though..
you could take the crescents off any mosque you see and shove it up yours believe me no one will be offended!

all the best

[CosmicPathos]

You are right ; the Jews didn,t know about a God that would sacrifice his Son and thats why it clearly says in the bible how Christ had to explain all this to his apostle.

Of course the cresent moon appears important to many ancient religions in the middle east; biblical scholars would point out that when the jews strayed from their beliefs in the True God it was to moon worship. Oops isn't that a symbol for Islam... (off course not its just drivel everything i say is ( a word i've become accustomed lol )

Love and Respect

crescent a symbol of Islam? :S what non-sense is that!

[Tyrion]

The crescent moon is a symbol of Islam? Not according to the Muslims... Dude, how can you expect us to take you seriously when you keep showing us your ignorance regarding our religion? A person who doesn't know should either ask honest questions to learn, or keep quiet...

[Woodrow]

crescent a symbol of Islam? :S what non-sense is that!

Don't be too harsh, it is a very commom misconception about us and very many Christians believe it. The Crescent moon is not and never has been a symbol of Islam. It seems to have been an error made by the French in the 17th Century and was somewhat antiIslamic. It seems to go back to the kipril a forerunner of the Croissant. They were a favorite of the Day and in time they became associated with the Ottoman empire. and eventually with Muslims in general, to eat a kipfril became symbolic of killing a Muslim and the Cresent came to represent Islam to non Muslims.

I did the above from memory, from a long time ago. I can not find a source to verify it, but this comes very close to doing so:
http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/u...8;t=000950;p=0

I guess you can say the Crescent is symbolic of Islam to non-Muslims although it does not symbolize Islam to us.

[Ramadhan]

You are right ; the Jews didn,t know about a God that would sacrifice his Son and thats why it clearly says in the bible how Christ had to explain all this to his apostle.

So you are claiming that Jesus is God. Let's see what Jesus CLEARLY said about this particular issue:

"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
"I can do nothing of my own authority" (John 5:30)
"I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 RSV)
"The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority." (John 14:10 RSV)
"I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me." (John 8:28 RSV)
"The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 RSV)
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:32)
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)

So it is either that Jesus is not God, as he has clearly stated, or, if current christians are correct, then that means Jesus (or God) lied.

Of course the cresent moon appears important to many ancient religions in the middle east; biblical scholars would point out that when the jews strayed from their beliefs in the True God it was to moon worship. Oops isn't that a symbol for Islam...

Didn't you realize that you just made one the dumbest and most ignorant statements anyone could ever say about Islam?
moon, crescent or otherwise, is not a symbol of Islam, and nor can it be found in the Qur'an or ahadeeth that it has any meaning whatsoever. And no muslim, anywhere anytime, would proclaim that moon crescent is a symbol of Islam or that it has any special meaning.

Sis. Lily was accurate. You can take all crescents from any building in the world and shove them up inside the opening of your body where the sun does not shine, and no muslim would bat an eye. In fact, I would personally donate the biggest (and most beautiful too if you insist) crescent I could find, give it to you and politely ask you to take it and shove it all up.

off course not its just drivel everything i say is ( a word i've become accustomed lol )

It's a pity you didn't realize that sooner.

[3rddec]

Thank you Woodrow for your considered reply I should research it further and may return to the subject; thank you Naidamar for explaining aslo and your indignation does not offend me as I can understand it based on some things I have read about Christianity and some of my indignation ( of course as a Guest in your forum i do have to restrain myself as I read your Forum ), to Tyrion I think you idea is excellent that way we could all see a Trinity discussion coming from a mile of and it would eliminate those posters I see that keep asking the same old ; same old like they don't already know the answer or at least the responses they will accept.

Love and Respect

[3rddec]

It was said that the reason why the Muslims adopted the crescent was that when they conquered some western countries, the churches there had crosses on top of them, the Muslims replaced the crosses with these crescents, and the practice spread in this way.
( from http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/moonstar.asp )


For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the Muslim world. After centuries of battle with Christian Europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of Islam as a whole. Based on this history, many Muslims reject using the crescent moon as a symbol of Islam. The faith of Islam has historically had no symbol, and many refuse to accept what is essentially an ancient pagan icon. It is certainly not in uniform use among Muslims. ( from http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm )

So as Woodrow said earlier it was not unreasonable of me to think as I did.

So maybe we should take down all the Cresent Moons from all the Mosques that carry that Pagan symbol and as Naidamar so eloquently puts it shove them up the rear oriface of any Ottoman we can find and see if and Muslim bats an eyelid lol.

Love and Respect ( and just a little sense of Humour )

[جوري]

It was said that the reason why the Muslims adopted the crescent was that when they conquered some western countries, the churches there had crosses on top of them, the Muslims replaced the crosses with these crescents, and the practice spread in this way.
( from http://www.muslimaccess.com/articles/misc/moonstar.asp )


For hundreds of years, the Ottoman Empire ruled over the Muslim world. After centuries of battle with Christian Europe, it is understandable how the symbols of this empire became linked in people's minds with the faith of Islam as a whole. Based on this history, many Muslims reject using the crescent moon as a symbol of Islam. The faith of Islam has historically had no symbol, and many refuse to accept what is essentially an ancient pagan icon. It is certainly not in uniform use among Muslims. ( from http://islam.about.com/od/history/a/crescent_moon.htm )

So as Woodrow said earlier it was not unreasonable of me to think as I did.

So maybe we should take down all the Cresent Moons from all the Mosques that carry that Pagan symbol and as Naidamar so eloquently puts it shove them up the rear oriface of any Ottoman we can find and see if and Muslim bats an eyelid lol.

Love and Respect ( and just a little sense of Humour )

The suggestion was mine that you shove it up yours, as it might make you 14% smarter by bringing your brain matter to its rightful place.. though glad to see you moving on from moon god to an adapted symbol that is completely meaningless as the so called star of david to Jews..

all the best

[3rddec]

Apologies Vale but i read the comment in his post not yours and it never occured to me that such an Immodest thought would ever go through the mind of a true Sister in Islam, it would appear that the veil can protect others from immodest thoughts about the wearer but cant protect the wearer from having immodest thoughts. Maybe in time you God Allah will be gracious and create such a veil for you.

Love and Respect

[جوري]

Apologies Vale but i read the comment in his post not yours and it never occured to me that such an Immodest thought would ever go through the mind of a true Sister in Islam, it would appear that the veil can protect others from immodest thoughts about the wearer but cant protect the wearer from having immodest thoughts. Maybe in time you God Allah will be gracious and create such a veil for you.

Love and Respect

I was stating a fact as we see it, not passing a thought.. I don't think prayers to pagan gods come true so go ahead with that bazoo of yours kneeling to odin, zeus and the king of Narnia..

all the best

[Ramadhan]

So maybe we should take down all the Cresent Moons from all the Mosques that carry that Pagan symbol and as Naidamar so eloquently puts it shove them up the rear oriface of any Ottoman we can find and see if and Muslim bats an eyelid lol.

Did I even mention about any ottomans?

Or is the habit of lying and see what is not there really that entrenched among christians?

As there is no ottoman (I need to point this out since you seem to be so ill educated to not notice there is no ottomans), but there is YOU who claim that muslim worship crescent moon, I will be gladly accompany you to find the BIGGEST crescent on any masjid, and shove it up your rear orifice. In fact, just in case there is still some space left, which I am sure there is, we can go find the largest cross on your church and shove it all up there too?

Just as you eat the body and drink the blood of your christ, wouldnt you just be too happy that you have the symbol of your lord suffering up inside of you supporting you from the down there?
Is there any other pagan symbols that christians revere that I missed?