Discussion with Orangeduck

[Orangeduck]

Hello. I am a recent convert from Islam to Christianity (2 years ago, so maybe not that recent)

I will be more than happy to answer any questions about Easter.

I will start with a few misconceptions:

1) Easter is based on a Jewish belief. It comes from the Jewish Passover.
2) Easter is NOT named from a Germanic goddess oaster (sometimes spelled ostara, and many other different spellings). The Germanic name didn't originate till the 7th century. Also the names only sound similar in English, which makes sense since English is a Germanic language. In any other language, the holiday is not called easter.
3) I will any any questions you might have :)

[marwen]

Hi Orangeduck. Welcome to the forum, and thank you for your contribution.

I am a recent convert from Islam to Christianity

I will any any questions you might have

Can we learn more about your experience with Islam. How you lived as a muslim, and what parts or aspects of Islam you didn't agree with, that made you convert to christianity ?

[Orangeduck]

Hi Orangeduck. Welcome to the forum, and thank you for your contribution.



Can we learn more about your experience with Islam. How you lived as a muslim, and what parts or aspects of Islam you didn't agree with, that made you convert to christianity ?

Hello. I was born and raised a muslim in America. I believed everything I was told by my parents, such as:

1) Mohammad is the last and final prophet
2) Mohammad was foretold in the Bible
3) the quran is perfect and has never been changed
4) I must pray 5 times a day
5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Basically, I was told to beleive everything islam taught. When I was in my 20's, I left islam after after studying Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Sikhism...all from a secular point of view.

2 years ago, I converted to Christianity. My parents, while they don't disapprove, are not too excited about it either. Over the past 2 years, my parents have grown significantly less religious and my brother has give up on religion altogether.

[Orangeduck]

However, I realized that didn't fully answer your question.

What is disagree with about islam, is that lost things I was told to believe were wrong. Mohammad was not foretold in the Bible. The quran, the Bible, and all books written before the printing press have been changed.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

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

[TrueStranger]

Orangeduck welcome to the forum.

Did you leave Islam because you had unanswered questions? What made you leave Islam for Christianity?

[Perseveranze]

However, I realized that didn't fully answer your question.

What is disagree with about islam, is that lost things I was told to believe were wrong. Mohammad was not foretold in the Bible. The quran, the Bible, and all books written before the printing press have been changed.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

Prove the Qur'ans been changed. This should be very interesting.

[Orangeduck]

Prove the Qur'ans been changed. This should be very interesting.

Are familiar with the sana quran (sometimes called the sana manuscripts)? Unless you get invited to see them, your only option is look at photo copies online.

It's the oldest quran inexistance. Not only is it considerably different from the ciaro version of the quran, but it also ends at sura 95. There are suras in the Ciaro version that are not in the sana version (such as sura 19, 20, 21 and 22).

I could go on all.

If you want proof from islam itself, all you have to do is read Bukhari (spelling might not be correct). He makes it very clear that parts of the quran were forgotten and that the quran had been re-written.

However, if you want historical proof, just look at any book written before the printing press. All of them have seems editions. There is no way to refute this

[TrueStranger]

Are familiar with the sana quran (sometimes called the sana manuscripts)? Unless you get invited to see them, your only option is look at photo copies online.

It's the oldest quran inexistance. Not only is it considerably different from the ciaro version of the quran, but it also ends at sura 95. There are suras in the Ciaro version that are not in the sana version (such as sura 19, 20, 21 and 22).

You're assuming that the Sanaa manuscripts were perfect? While the Uthmanic codex is not? You questioned the authenticity of the Qur'an and Islam on a Quranic manuscripts that was found in Yemen, while ignoring the one that the Companion of the Prophet (PBUH), and the third Rightly Guided Caliph of Islam compiled. Do you even know who wrote or complied the Sanaa Qu'ranic manuscripts?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Hello. I am a recent convert from Islam to Christianity (2 years ago, so maybe not that recent)

I will be more than happy to answer any questions about Easter.

I will start with a few misconceptions:

1) Easter is based on a Jewish belief. It comes from the Jewish Passov2) Easter is NOT named from a Germanic goddess oaster (sometimes spelled ostara, and many other different spellings). The Germanic name didn't originate till the 7th century. Also the names only sound similar in English, which makes sense since English is a German In any other language, t
3) I will any any questions you might have :)

Greetings of peace Orangeduck,

Great name btw!

I have a question, what it was that caused/inspired you to accept christianity?

[Orangeduck]

You're assuming that the Sanaa manuscripts were perfect? While the Uthmanic codex is not? You questioned the authenticity of the Qur'an and Islam on a Quranic manuscripts that was found in Yemen, while ignoring the one that the Companion of the Prophet (PBUH), and the third Rightly Guided Caliph of Islam compiled. Do you even know who wrote or complied the Sanaa Qu'ranic manuscripts?

Here is something I learned very early on in my studies. I do not say this to offend. I say this because this is what historians and secular scholars say. The idea of a perfect quran is purely apologetical and not historical. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was memorized, but historians reject that idea. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was written down early in the life of Islam, and while scholars agree with this, the quran that was written down is not the quran of today.

The oldest quran (the older the more authentic and closer to the original) is just 1 of 4 major metropolitan codex copies, none of which were identical.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is what secular scholars say. I will always trust a scholar over an apologestist (and so should everyone else)

Here is something else to keep in mind. The quran, according to the hadiths, was spoken in several different dialects. The Hadith said to write the quran in the dialect of mohammd (I have no idea how to spell it). Here is the problem. Arabic, at that time didnt have vowels. It is linguistically impossible to tell 1 dialect apart from another in a written form without vowels.

[Orangeduck]

Greetings of peace Orangeduck,

Great name btw!

I have a question, what it was that caused/inspired you to accept christianity?

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

There is more than just the historical aspect, but that was probably the biggest influence. I never saw Christ in a dream where He spoke to me. None of the Saints ever appeared to me. I don't really have any grand conversion story. It's quite boring actually :)

[جوري]

Here is something I learned very early on in my studies. I do not say this to offend. I say this because this is what historians and secular scholars say. The idea of a perfect quran is purely apologetical and not historical. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was memorized, but historians reject that idea. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was written down early in the life of Islam, and while scholars agree with this, the quran that was written down is not the quran of today.

That's not what historians says however it is what orientalists says, and that has certainly been nipped in the bud by scholars!

Orientalists plot against the Qur'an under the guise of academic study and archive preservation

By Aisha Geissinger

In 1972, a 'paper grave' was found by labourers doing restoration work in the Great Mosque in Sana'a, Yemen. Between the mosque's inner and outer roofs was a collection of old parchment and paper documents, damaged books and individual pages. Centuries of rain and damp, and damage by insects and rats had made much of it unreadable. Qadhi Isma'il al-Akwa', then president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority, thought that the find could be important, and tried to obtain the funds and expertise necessary to examine and preserve the documents. In 1979 he managed to interest a visiting German scholar in the documents, who in turn persuaded the German government to fund and organise their restoration.


The German government sent Gerd-R. Puin, a specialist in Arabic calligraphy and Qur'anic paleology, from Saarland University to supervise the project in 1981. Now, more than 15,000 documents have been cleaned and sorted, and lie in Yemen's House of Manuscripts. The documents include tens of thousands of fragments from almost one thousand different copies of the Qur'an. Some pieces may date back to the first and second centuries after the hijra, making them among the oldest surviving Qur'anic manuscripts. The Yemeni authorities do not want the fact that Orientalists are working on these documents to be widely known, fearing protest from concerned Muslims. So far, they have only allowed Puin and H.-C. Grant von Bothner, an Islamic art historian from the same university, to examine the documents closely.

To the excitement of Puin and von Bothner, some showed minor differences in wording and verse-order from Qur'ans in use today. Knowing that access to the documents could be prevented in future if Muslims realized the implications of their research, von Bothner took more than 35,000 pictures on microfilm of the texts. Now that the microfilm is safely in Germany, Orientalists are free to study the documents and publish their conclusions, and journalists, self-proclaimed reformers and other interested parties can also discuss the implications of the find without having to worry about jeopardizing Puin and von Bonther's research.


An article entitled What is the Koran? was published in the Atlantic Monthly in January 1999 about this restoration project. It clarifies its objectives: Puin wants to challenge the Muslim belief that the Qur'an is the unchanged word of God. Muslims, he says, have agreed with the textual critics of the Bible that the Bible has a history and "did not fall straight out of the sky", but have refused to accept that the Qur'an also has a history. He believes that the fragments found in Sana'a will prove that the Qur'an is "a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad" (p. 46). Andrew Rippin, professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary, Canada, claims that they show that the Qur'anic text "is less stable, and therefore has less authority, than has always been claimed" (p. 45).


The fact is that the existence of minor differences in wording and in the ordering of the surahs in the earliest masahif (manuscripts) is no surprise to Muslims familiar with classical Islamic scholarship of the Qur'an. Such variations occurred for several reasons. One factor is the dialectical differences then existing in different regions of Arabia. Another is that some of the Sahaba kiram (Companions) recorded such masahif for their own personal use. As these persons had either memorised the Qur'an in its entirety or large portions of it, such masahif were written merely as an aid to memory. Therefore, notes in the margins such as the wording of du'as (supplications) occurred, and the order of surahs varied. Books written by classical Muslim scholars, such as al-Suyuti's Itqan, go into great detail about such issues.


When the Khalifa 'Uthman ibn 'Affan ordered that one standard text be used and others destroyed, the Sahaba who possessed masahif containing variants did not object to this ruling, which shows that they agreed with his verdict. Moreover, in the subsequent civil war between the supporters of the Khalifa Ali ibn Abi-Talib and Mu'awiya, calls for arbitration according to the Qur'an never involved claims that the other side had an incomplete or changed Qur'an. This would have been a convenient and devastating weapon if it could have been at all convincing. Knowledge about these variations has been preserved by classical Muslim scholarship, and has been useful to scholars of tafsir (Qur'anic interpretation). It was never seen as evidence against the integrity of the Qur'anic text, however, and for this reason Orientalists have not succeeded in building a compelling argument upon it. Having their own documents to build speculations upon gives them much more room to manoeuvre, as they can define the terms and conditions of their research.


Studies of the texts are likely to achieve two main objectives. For Orientalists, the Sana'a fragments provide more material upon which to build conjectures about the 'evolution' of the Qur'anic text and events in early Islamic history. Would-be reformers will use the documents, or, more likely, Orientalists' conclusions about them, to undercut the authority of the classical scholars and contemporary ulama. The Atlantic Monthly indicates that some Orientalists and 'reformers' will work together on the project of reinterpreting the Qur'an: An Encyclopedia of the Qur'an, similar to Biblical encyclopedias written by textual critics, is being published to present the latest Orientalist approaches to Qur'anic interpretation. Nasr Abu-Zaid, who claims that the Qur'an can only be understood as a literary text, and was legally declared an apostate in Egypt in 1995, is on the advisory board.


Western study of the Qur'an and of Islam originated in missionary and military concerns. Modern 'specialists' in Islam have tried to distance themselves from this heritage and project their conclusions as secular, scientific and unbiased. However, the article reveals a persistent Biblical as well as secular bias These specialists seem blissfully unaware that Biblical criticism and their version of Qur'anic studies did not "fall out of the sky" either. These approaches to scripture are products of a particular historical, political and economic climate.


The Bible is the implicit model against which the Qur'an is measured. It is considered a "cocktail" because it does not present material in the chronological or thematic order typical of Biblical narratives. Secular biases in both Biblical and Qur'anic studies are revealed in hostility to divine revelation in any form: any text dealing with miraculous occurrences is deemed inauthentic. Also, the Biblical form of any narrative is considered to be the most authentic, because it is older, while the idea that the Qur'an, as the latest revelation, could be correct in its different accounts of events is dismissed. The limitations of the purveyors of this 'unbiased' and 'scientific' study of the Qur'an are arrogantly imposed on the sacred text itself. Puin claims that one-fifth of the Qur'an is incomprehensible, apparently because he himself cannot understand it. Fourteen hundred years of Muslim scholarship, devotion and art issuing forth from the Qur'an are seen as carrying less weight than the opinions of a handful of non-Muslims who cannot even claim native fluency in classical Arabic.


The fact that the preservation of Qur'anic documents is left in the hands of such people is a tragedy that reflects the impotence and lack of faith of the Muslim Ummah. It brings to mind the ahadith which describe the disappearance of the Qur'an from the masahif and the memories of people which will occur in the Last Days. The openly political agenda of these Orientalists is evident; once the Muslims' confidence in the authenticity of the Qur'an is undermined, Islam will have no social or political authority. Muslims will no longer be able to claim to know what the divine will is on issues ranging from the implementation of Islamic laws to the liberation of al-Quds (Jerusalem).

Convenient solutions, based on the realities of the political and economic domination of the west, will be imposed upon them with utter impunity.

Muslimedia: May 16-31, 1999

http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...nt-korans.html

The oldest quran (the older the more authentic and closer to the original) is just 1 of 4 major metropolitan codex copies, none of which were identical.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is what secular scholars say. I will always trust a scholar over an apologestist (and so should everyone else)

You only offend yourself and also come across with a poor performance for if you apply a sliver of that so called study toward Christianity then you wouldn't be christian at all would you?

Here is something else to keep in mind. The quran, according to the hadiths, was spoken in several different dialects. The Hadith said to write the quran in the dialect of mohammd (I have no idea how to spell it). Here is the problem. Arabic, at that time didnt have vowels. It is linguistically impossible to tell 1 dialect apart from another in a written form without vowels.

This is utter nonsense. If you have something of substance to impart or evince then why not bring us a before and after? I can do that with the bible(s) can you produce variations within the Quran?

Here's the deal, Islam is the fastest growing religion and I understand that has to be a terrible slap in the face to a medieval religion that's pretty much still struggling to rid itself of its illogical tenets. I guess the best bet for a dissimulator such as your person is to search through orientalist rubbish for a strawman with which you plainly can only convince like minded impostors. I guarantee that no Muslim no matter how weak in faith would choose christianity over Islam. I can see them becoming atheists or even agnostics but no one would choose a reasoned religion for an incongruous and absurd ideology and then come and speak of vowels.
The noble Quran to begin with is an oral tradition. Much as the OT with the difference is as the Quran is being used 17 times memorized and written down since its inception the OT was written a thousand years after the matter and only after it was lost, I am not going to even touch upon the bible(s) so how about you cut the crap?

I had taken a leave of absence from the forum, but I can't pass a chance to expose a hypocrite!

best,

[CosmicPathos]

I've been given one lec by Aisha geissinger. Interesting lady, my friend wanted to record her, went upto the podium to put the recorder and she said "please do not record me" to which my friend said in a weird funny way "ooh yea?" To this day we make fun of him. I digress.

Orangeduck: you cannot even spell Muhammad or any other Islamic names properly, and you claim to be a history buff? lol.

[جوري]

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

You're indeed a huge something I'll give you that..
Which verifiable account is that?
Let's watch together shall we?

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

:lol: oh ok!

There is more than just the historical aspect, but that was probably the biggest influence. I never saw Christ in a dream where He spoke to me. None of the Saints ever appeared to me. I don't really have any grand conversion story. It's quite boring actually :)

innit? all that was needed is that Jesus would appear to Saul a disciple who was never actually chosen by Jesus, for let's face it the actual disciples Jesus apparently chose like for instance 'peter the rock' had forsaken him three times.. that's of course before Jesus took to Gethsemane in a last ditch effort to pray to himself to not immolate, yet he forsook himself anyway, died somewhere in Bethlehem leaving the universe behind while he tries to resurrect himself.. and then he decided after his death that he didn't do a good job so he appears to his nemesis to abrogate his own commandments. A god who can't even makeup his mind whether he's ruthless or loving and apparently couldn't do it while alive so he appears after death to a self-appointed apostle..
but hey you're a history buff and a former Muslim :p

[جوري]

as is said by the predecessors -- Show me your degree in Uloom Al-Qur'an. (oh history buff)

Rather the Qur'an was memorized by every Muslim at the time of the Prophet saws, and preserved in mutawaatir chains.
Memorization
‘In the ancient times, when writing was scarcely used, memory and oral transmission was exercised and strengthened to a degree now almost unknown’ relates Michael Zwettler.(1)
Prophet Muhammad (S): The First Memorizer
It was in this ‘oral’ society that Prophet Muhammad (S) was born in Mecca in the year 570 C.E. At the age of 40, he started receiving divine Revelations from the One God, Allah, through Archangel Gabriel. This process of divine revelations continued for about 22.5 years just before he passed away.
Prophet Muhammad (S) miraculously memorized each revelation and used to proclaim it to his Companions. Angel Gabriel used to refresh the Quranic memory of the Prophet each year.
‘The Prophet (S) was the most generous person, and he used to become more so (generous) particularly in the month of Ramadan because Gabriel used to meet him every night of the month of Ramadan till it elapsed. Allah’s Messenger (S) use to recite the Qur’an for him. When Gabriel met him, he use to become more generous than the fast wind in doing good’. (2)

‘Gabriel used to repeat the recitation of the Qur’an with the Prophet (S) once a year, but he repeated it twice with him in the year he (Prophet) died’. (3)

The Prophet himself use to stay up a greater part of the night in prayers and use to recite Quran from memory.
Companions of the Prophet: The First Generation Memorizers
Prophet Muhammad (S) encouraged his companions to learn and teach the Quran:
‘The most superior among you (Muslims) are those who learn the Qur’an and teach it’. (4)

‘Some of the companions who memorized the Quran were: ‘Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Ali, Ibn Masud, Abu Huraira, Abdullah bin Abbas, Abdullah bin Amr bin al-As, Aisha, Hafsa, and Umm Salama’. (5)

‘Abu Bakr, the first male Muslim to convert to Islam used to recite the Quran publicly in front of his house in Makka’. (6)

The Prophet also listened to the recitation of the Qur’an by the Companions: ‘Allah Apostle said to me (Abdullah bin Mas’ud): "Recite (of the Quran) to me". I said: "Shall I recite it to you although it had been revealed to you?!" He Said: "I like to hear (the Quran) from others". So I recited Sura-an-Nisa’ till I reached: "How (will it be) then when We bring from each nation a witness and We bring you (O Muhammad) as a witness against these people?"’ (4:41) ‘Then he said: "Stop!" Behold, his eyes were shedding tears then’. (7)

Many Quranic memorizers (Qurra) were present during the lifetime of the Prophet and afterwards through out the then Muslim world.
‘At the battle of Yamama, many memorizers of the Quran were martyred. ‘Narrated Zaid bin Thabit al Ansari, who was one of those who use to write the Divine Revelations: Abu Bakr sent me after the (heavy) casualties among the warriors (of the battle) of Yamama (where a great number of Qurra were killed). Umar was present with Abu Bakr who said: "Umar has come to me and said, the people have suffered heavy casualties on the day of (the battle of) Yamama, and I am afraid that there will be some casualties among the Qurra (those who memorized the entire Quran) at other place…"’ (8)

‘Over the centuries of the Islamic Era, there have arisen throughout the various regions of the Islamic world literally thousands of schools devoted specially to the teaching of the Quran to children for the purpose of memorization. These are called, in Arabic, katatib (singular: Kuttab). It is said that the Caliph ‘Umar (634-44) first ordered the construction of these schools in the age of the great expansion’. (9)

Second Generation Memorizers
"…Quranic schools were set up everywhere. As an example to illustrate this I may refer to a great Muslim scholar, of the second Muslim generation, Ibn ‘Amir, who was the judge of Damascus under the Caliph Umar Ibn ‘Abd Al-Aziz. It is reported that in his school for teaching the Quran there were 400 disciples to teach in his absence". (10)

Memorizers in Subsequent Generations
The Number of Katatib and similar schools in Cairo (Egypt) alone at one time exceeded two thousand. (11)
Currently both in the Muslim and non-Muslim countries thousands of schools with each instructing tens of hundreds of students the art of memorizing the entire Quran. In the city of Chicago itself, there are close to 40+ Mosques, with many of them holding class for children instructing them the art of Quranic memorization.
Further Points of Consideration
- Muslims recite Quran from their memory in all of their five daily prayers.
- Once a year, during the month of Fasting (Ramadan), Muslims listen to the complete recitation of the Quran by a Hafiz (memorizer of the entire Quran)
- It’s a tradition among Muslims that before any speech or presentation, marriages, sermons, Quran is recited.
Conclusion
Quran is the only book, religious or secular, on the face of this planet that has been completely memorized by millions. These memorizers range from ages 6 and up, both Arabic and non-Arabic speakers, blacks, whites, Orientals, poor and wealthy.
Thus the process of memorization was continuous, from Prophet Muhammad’s (S) time to ours with an unbroken chain.
"The method of transmitting the Quran from one generation to the next by having he young memorize the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solely on written records…" relates John Burton (12)

"This phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifz (Quranic Memorization) has made the Qur’an a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone" reflects Kenneth Cragg (13)
http://www.islamicboard.com/clarific...nt-korans.html

[CosmicPathos]

Your brother is smarter than you, dude.

[جوري]

Are familiar with the sana quran (sometimes called the sana manuscripts)? Unless you get invited to see them, your only option is look at photo copies online.

Question is are you? You'd be better off doing some research before you write with gusto on an Islamic board. You need more training at the indoctrination camp oh history buff!

Due to the benefit it contains, I’ve been wanting to post Professor Muhammad Mustafâ al-A’zamî’s introduction to his book titled The History of The Qur’ānic Text from Revelation to Compilation: A Comparative Study with the Old and New Testaments for some time now, but never really had the time to sit down and transcribe it until now. Allah willing the visitors to my blog will benefit greatly from what the Professor mentions in it. He touches on some very pertinent issues concerning revisionist thought in Islam, as well as some things concerning the famous Yemeni parchments so often mentioned on various websites about Islam (both hostile and friendly). Enjoy … . Prof. al-A’zamî writes,

يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ للهِ شُهَدَآءَ بِالْقِسْطِ وَلاَ يَجْرِمَنَّكُم شَنَئَانُ قَومٍ عَلَى أَلاَّ تَعْدِلُواْ اعْدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقْرَبُ لِلتَّقْوَى وَاتَّقُواْ اللهَ إنَّ اللهَ خَبِيرٌ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ

“O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allāh, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to make you swerve towards inequity and depart from justice. Be just: that is closer to Piety: and fear Allāh, for Allāh is well-aquinted with all that you do.”[1]

Guidance, comfort and beauty. For the believing Muslim the Holy Qur’ān is all this and much more: the heartbeat of faith, a remembrance in times of joy and anguish, a fountain of precise scientific reality and the most exquisite lyricism, a treasury of wisdom and supplications. Its verses hang from the walls of shops and living rooms, lie etched in the minds of young and old, and reverberate through the night from minarets across the globe. Even so, Sir William Muir (1819-1905) adamantly declared it one of the “most stubborn enemies of Civilisation, Liberty, and the Truth which the World has yet known”.[2] Others have been no more charitable, seeing fit to heap abuse or cast suspicion upon it throughout the centuries and up to our present day, among them scholars, missionaries, and now even the occasional politician. Such a dichotomy is aggravating to Muslims and certainly perplexing to the non-Muslim, who would be well justified in supposing that each group was alluding to a different book altogether. What are the facts and what is the evidence? Faced with such an immense and sensitive topic brimming with ideas to consider, I could have begun my exploration anywhere; the starting point, as it finally turned out, was to be an article by someone I had never heard of before.

“What is the Koran?”, the lead article of the January 1999 issue of The Atlantic Monthly, raised many issues concerning the origins and integrity of the Qur’ān.[3] The author’s credentials, a certain Toby Lester, are given in the magazine and suggest that he does not have any knowledge of Islam aside from having lived in Yemen and Palestine for a few years, though this hardly seems to hinder him for he delves headlong into controversy. He mentions that:

Western Koranic scholarship has traditionally taken place in the context of an openly declared hostility between Christianity and Islam…. The Koran has seemed, for Christian and Jewish scholars particularly, to possess an aura of heresy….[4]

After citing William Muir’s denunciation of the Qur’ān he states that even early Soviet scholars subjected Islam to their ideological biases: N.A. Morozov for instance flamboyantly argued that “until the Crusades Islam was indistinguishable from Judaism and … only then did it receive its independent character, while Muhammad and the first Caliphs are mythical figures”.[5]
Such passages may suggest to some that Lester’s approach is purely academic: a curious reporter filing an objective report. In an interview with the ash-Sharq al-Awsat Daily[6] he denies any bad intentions, hard feelings, or wrongdoing towards Muslims, insisting that he sought only the truth. But there is no doubt that he has taken pains to collect his information strictly from the anti-traditionalist camp, heralding the arrival of secular reinterpretations of the Muslim Holy Book. He extensively quotes Dr. Gerd R. Joseph Puin, associated with the restoration of old Qur’ānic fragments in San’ā’, Yemen (which I have seen recently, and for which he and his team deserve great gratitude). Now a bookbinder who completes a magnificent binding of a complex mathematical text will not automatically ascend to the rank of mathematician, but because of his restoration of the pages of old manuscripts, Puin is fashioned into a world-authority on the Qur’ān’s entire history.

“So many Muslims have this belief that everything between the two covers of the Koran is God’s unaltered word,” [Dr. Puin] says. “They like to quote the textual work that shows that the Bible has a history and did not fall straight out of the sky, but until now the Koran has been out of this discussion. The only way to break through this wall is to prove that the Koran has a history too. The San’ā’ fragments will help us to do this.”[7]

Lester’s next point of reference is Andrew Rippin, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Calgary, who states that:

“Variant readings and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed.”[8]

Personally I find Prof. Rippin’s comments baffling; on the one hand variant readings (or rather, multiple readings) have been recognised and commented on by Muslim scholars since the time of the Prophet. By no means are they a new discovery. On the other hand not even Puin (as far as I am aware) claims to have uncovered differences in the order of the verses in his manuscripts, though his views on the Qur’ān are in line with modern revisionism.

“My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad,” [Puin] says. “Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants.” Patricia Crone defends the goals of this sort of thinking. “The Koran is a scripture with a history like any other – except that we don’t know this history and tend to provoke howls of protest when we study it.”[9]

Arabic speakers have long held the Qur’ān as a Book of unique beauty; even the idol-worshippers of Makkah were spellbound by its lyricism and failed to produce anything resembling it.[10] Such qualities do not deter Puin from speaking disdainfully about it.

“The Koran claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen’, or ‘clear’“ he says, “But if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims – and Orientalists – will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Koranic text is just incomprehensible.”[11]

G.R. Puin strings many words together but provides no examples, which is unfortunate because I have absolutely no idea where this incomprehensible fifth of the Qur’ān happens to be. Lester then states that the unwillingness to accept the conventional understanding of the Qur’ān only began in earnest in the 20th century;[12] he references Patricia Crone, quotes R.S. Humphreys,[13] and ends up at Wansbrough. The main thrust of Wansbrough’s work is to establish two major points: firstly, that the Qur’ān and hadīth were generated by various communities over the course of two centuries; and second, that Islamic doctrine was modelled on Rabbinical Jewish prototypes. Puin is apparently re-reading his works now, for his theories have been germinating slowly in certain circles even though “many Muslims understandably find them deeply offensive.”[14] Readers have known Cook, Crone and Wansbrough for a quarter of a century, but the new face to emerge from this piece is Dr. Puin, whose findings form the backbone of Lester’s lengthy article. Some of the Yemeni parchments, dating back to the first two centuries of Islam,

[reveal] small but intruiging aberrations from the standard Koranic text. Such aberrations, though not surprising to textual historians, are troublingly at odds with the orthodox Muslim belief that the Koran as it has reached us today is quite simply the perfect, timeless, and unchanging Word of God. The mainly secular effort to reinterpret the Koran – in part based on textual evidence such as that provided by the Yemeni fragments[15] – is disturbing and offensive to many Muslims, just as attempts to reinterpret the Bible and the life of Jesus are disturbing and offensive to many conservative Christians…. [Such secular reinterpretation] can be nonetheless very powerful and – as the histories of the Renaissance and the Reformation demonstrate – can lead to major social change. The Koran, after all, is currently the world’s most ideologically influential text.[16]

So the entire matter lies before us:

• The Qur’ān is currently the world’s most ideologically influential text.
• Many Muslims look to the Qur’ān as the Christians once did to the Bible, as God’s unaltered Word.
• The Yemeni fragments will help secular efforts to reinterpret the Qur’ān.
• Though offensive to countless Muslims, this reinterpretation can provide the impetus for major social changes that mirror what Christianity experienced centuries ago.
• These changes may be brought about by ‘showing’ that the Qur’ān was initially a text, one which the Muslim community contributed to and freely rearranged over several centuries, implying that the Qur’ān was not as sacred then as it has now misguidedly become.

The majority of Lester’s references, those quoted or mentioned in his piece, are non-Muslim: Gerd-R. Joseph Puin, Bothmer, Rippin, R. Stephen Humphreys, Gunter Luling, Yehuda D. Nevo, Patricia Crone, Michael Cook, James Bellamy, William Muir, Lambton, Tolstov, Morozov and Wansbrough. He also spreads the glad tiding that, within the Islamic world, revisionism is on the move. In this category he names Nasr Abū Zaid, Tāha Husain, ‘Alī Dushtī, Muhammad Abdu, Ahmad Amīn, Fazlur-Rahmān, and finally Muhammad Arkoun and his fervent advice to battle othodoxy from within.[17] Scholars from the traditional school of Islamic thought are largely cast aside and ignored, with only Muhammad Abdu’s contraversial name being included.
But what is the revisionist school? Lester fails to define it clearly, so I will allow Yehuda Nevo, one of the authorities he quotes, to supply the definition:

The ‘revisionist’ approach is by no means monolithic… [but they] are united in denying historical validity to accounts based purely on ‘facts’ derived from the Muslim literary sources… The information they provide must be corroborated by the ‘hard facts’ of material remains… [The written sources] should always be checked against external evidence, and where the two conflict, the latter should be preferred.[18]

Because external evidence must necessarily be found to verify every Muslim account, absence of such corroboration helps to negate the account and implies that the event never took place.

That there is no evidence for it outside of the ‘traditional account’ thus becomes positive evidence in support of the hypothesis that it did not happen. A striking example is the lack of evidence, outside the Muslim literature, for the view that the Arabs were Muslim at the time of the Conquest.[19]

The outcome of this revisionist approach is a complete erasure of Islamic history, and the fabrication of another in which such events as the pre-Islamic presence of paganism in Makkah, the Jewish settlements near Madinah, and the Muslim victory over the Byzantine Empire in Syria are absolutely denied. In fact, revisionism agrues that the paganism which afflicted Makkah prior to Islam is simply a fictitious back-projection of a pagan culture that thrived in southern Palestine.[20]
The central point, which must be made clear, is that there is a definite motive behind all these ‘discoveries’. Such findings do not exist in a vacuum or fall unexpectedly into the scholar’s lap; they are the brainchild of a particular ideological and political arena, served up in the guise of breakthrough academic research.[21]
Attempts to distort Islam and its sacred texts are in fact as old as the religion itself, though the strategy behind these efforts has fluctuated according to the intended goal. Beginning with the rise of Islam and up until the 13th century A.H. (7th-18th century C.E.), the first objective was to establish a protective fence around Christians to counteract the rapid advance of the new faith in Iraq, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Libya etc. Among the notables of this period were John of Damascus (35-133 A.H./675-750 C.E.), Peter the Venerable (1084-1156 C.E.), Robert of Ketton, Raymond Lull (1235-1316 C.E.), Martin Luther (1483-1546 C.E.) and Ludovico Marraci (1612-1700 C.E.), their pens dipped in unsophisticated yet wilful ignorance and falsehood. Spurred by the change in political fortunes and the start of colonialism from the 18th century onwards, the second phase of attack witnessed a shift in posture from defensive to offensive, aspiring to the mass conversion of Muslims or, at the least, of shattering any pride and resistance that emanated from their belief in Allāh.
Abraham Geiger (1810-1874) belongs squarely to this second period; his 1833 dissertation, Was hat Mohammed aus den Judentum aufgenommen? (“What did Mohammed take from Judaism?”), inaugurated the search for ulterior influences on the Qur’ān and lead to innumerable books and articles aimed at branding it a poor biblical counterfeit, replete with mistakes.
Future chapters will bring to light other names which have spearheaded this second phase, including Nöldeke (1836-1930), Goldziher (1850-1921), Hurgronje (1857-1936), Bergsträsser (1886-1933), Tisdall (1859-1928), Jeffery (d. 1952) and Schacht (1902-1969). A third phase, beginning in the mid 20th century on the heels of the founding of Israel, has actively sought to purge all verses that cast an unfavourable light on Jews. Among the followers of this school are Rippin, Crone, Power, Calder and not least of all Wansbrough, whose theory, that the Qur’ān and hadīth are a community product spanning two centuries which were then fictitiously attributed to an Arabian prophet based on Jewish prototypes, is doubtlessly the most radical approach to ousting the Qur’ān from its hallowed status.
The previous decades have witnessed a quickened maturation of these last two phases, swelling in multi-faceted ways; a fairly recent scheme for assailing the Qur’ān has been its reduction to a cultural text, one which is a by-product of a particular era and is therefore obsolete, rather than a Book that is meant for all nations at all times.

Traditional Islam had not been resistant to the notion that the revelation reflected the milieu in which it was revealed… But traditional Islam could never have made the leap from the idea of a scripture which engages the society in which it was revealed to the notion of one which is a product of it. For most Muslims in the modern world any significant move in this direction is still hardly an option, and it is unlikely to become one in the near foreseeable future.[22]

This was the inspiration for Nasr Abū Zaid (declared an apostate by Egypt’s highest court and according to Cook, a ‘Muslim secularist’[23]), whose central belief about the Qur’ān was that,

If the text was a message sent to the Arabs of the seventh century, then of necessity it was formulated in a manner which took for granted historically specific aspects of their language and culture. The Koran thus took shape in a human setting. It was a ‘cultural product’ – a phrase Abu Zayd used seveal times, and which was highlighted by the Court of Cassation when it determined him to be an unbeliever.[24]

Approaching the Qur’ān from a textual view point appears benign enough to the uninitiated; how insiduous could concepts such as ‘semantics’ and ‘textual linguistics’ be? But the focus is not a study of the text itself so much as it is a study of the evolution of the text, of how forms and structures within the Qur’ān can be derived from 7th/8th century Arabic literature.[25] This essentially leads to a thorough secularisation and desanctification of the text. Speaking of the Biblical scholar Van Buren, Professor E.L. Mascall states that “[he] finds the guiding principle of the secularization of Christianity in the philosophical school which is commonly known as linguistic analysis.”[26] If such is the aim of linguistic analysis in Biblical studies, what other motive can there be in applying it to the Qur’ān?
This being outside the realm of what is tolerable to Muslims, an alternate strategy is to substitute the holy text with vernacular translations, then inflate their status such that they are held on par with the original Arabic. In this way Muslim societies, three-quarters of which are non-Arab, can be severed from the actual revelations of Allāh.

There is necessarily a mismatch between the Arabic of the Koran and the local language of primary education… The tension is exacerbated by the fact that modernity brings an enhanced concern for the intelligibility of scriptures among the believers at large. As the Turkish nationalist Ziya Gökalp (d. 1924) put it: “A country in whose schools the Koran is read in Turkish is one in which everyone, child and adult, knows God’s commands”.[27]

After describing the futile Turkish efforts to displace the actual Qur’ān with a Turkish translation, Michael Cook concludes,

To date, the non-Arab Muslim world shows little sign of adopting the idea of a vernacular scripture in the manner of sixteenth-century Protestantism or twentieth-century Catholicism.[28]

If all other strategems are left in tatters, one last resort remains. As described by Cook:

In a modern Western society it is more or less axiomatic that other people’s religious beliefs (though not, of course, all forms of religiously motivated behaviour) are to be tolerated, or perhaps even respected. Indeed it would be considered ill mannered and parochial to refer to the religious views of others as false and one’s own as true… the very notion of absolute truth in matters of religion sounds hopelessly out of date. It is, however, a notion that was central to traditional Islam, as it was to traditional Christianity; and in recent centuries it has survived better in Islam.[29]

Cook writes this under the heading “Tolerating the beliefs of others”, but what he expounds instead is universalism. Imbued with tolerance, Islam maintains clear and firm injunctions governing the rights of non-Muslims; this is well known. Cook’s thrust here is instead about doubt and relativism: the notion that all religions are equally valid because to think otherwise is to betray oneself as provincial and ignorant. This, sadly, is an easier pitfall for many contemporary, ill-educated Muslims. And as a corollary to this idea, “There [is] a nearly unanimous rejection of any attempt to distinguish between non-Muslim and a Muslim scholarship in present-day Qur’ānic studies.”[30]
A rising chorus of Western scholars now come forward to assail the traditional tafsīr literature,[31] demanding something altogether new. Arguing for the exclusive right to interpret the holy text, many Orientalists dismiss earlier Muslim writings on this topic “on the grounds that Muslims – being dupes, as it were, of the notion that [the Qur’ān] was Scripture – of course could not understand the text so well as could a Western scholar free from that limitation”.[32] Basetti-Sani and Youakim Moubarac both insist that tafsīr be made compatible with ‘Christian truth’, a sentiment endorsed by W.C. Smith and Kenneth Cragg.[33] This last, an Anglican bishop, urges Muslims to scrap the verses revealed in Madinah (with their emphasis on the political and legal aspects of Islam) in favour of their Makkan counterparts, which are generally more involved with basic issues of monotheism, leaving precious little of the religion intact aside from the verbal pronouncement that there is no god except Allāh.[34]
All these concepts are meant to shake the already-slender faith of wary Muslims, arming them with Orientalist barbs and setting them out to queistion and dismiss the very Book which they have inherited, in the process becoming more susceptable to Western ideology. Toby Lester’s article is just another card in this deck, and the tales behind the Yemeni fragments simply another bait. Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all of the findings Lester ascribes to him, with the exception of occasionall differences in the spelling of some words. Here is a part of Puin’s original letter – which he wrote to al-Qādī Ismā’īl al-Akwa’ shortly after Lester’s article – with its translation.[35]
[Rasheed: Here al-A’zamî included a photocopy of the hand-written letter from Puin to al-Akwa’. I will just be presenting the Arabic text of that letter, rather than the image of the photocopy.]

المهم والحمد لله لا تختلف المصاحف الصنعانية عن غيرها في متاحف العالم ودور كتبه إلا في تفاصيل لا تمسّ القرآن كنصّ مقروء وإنما الاختلاف في الكتابة فقط. هذه الظاهرة معروفة حتى من القرآن المطبوع في القاهرة حيث ورد كتابة
ابرهيم على جانب ابرهم
قران [على جانب] قرن
سيماهم [على جانب] بسيمهم على جانب بسيمهما
لخ
اما في اقدم المصاحف الصنعانية فتكثر ظاهرة حذف الالفات مثلا.

The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments do not differ from those found in the museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur’ān itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled. This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur’ān published in Cairo in which is written:

Ibrhīm (ابرهيم) next to Ibrhm (ابرهم)
Qurān (قران) next to Qrn (قرن)
Sīmāhum (سيماهم) next to Sīmhum (سيمهم) etc.
In the oldest Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common.

This deflates the entire controversy, dusting away the webs of intrigue that were spun around Puin’s discoveries and making them a topic unworthy of further speculation.[36] But let us suppose for the sake of argument that the findings are indeed true; what then is our response? Here we face three questions:

1. What is the Qur’ān?
2. If any complete or partial manuscripts are uncovered at present or in the future, claiming to be Qur’ān but differing from what we now have in our hands, what impact would this have on the Qur’ānic text?
3. Finally, who is entitled to be an authority on the Qur’ān? Or in general terms, to write about Islam and all its religious and historical facets?

These will be pondered over the course of this work, to reveal not only the following answers but also the logic which stipulates them:

1. The Qur’ān is the very Word of Allāh, His final message to all humanity, revealed to His final messenger Muhammad and transcending all limitations of time and space. it is preserved in its original tongue without any amendments, additions or deletions.
2. There will never be a discovery of a Qur’ān, fragmental or whole, which differs from the consensus text circulating throughout the world. If it does differ then it cannot be regarded as Qur’ān, because one of the foremost conditions for accepting anything as such is that it conforms to the text used in ‘Uthmān’s Mushaf.[37]
3. Certainly anyone can write on Islam, but only a devout Muslim has the legitimate prerogative to write on Islamic and its related subjects. Some may consider this biased, but then who is not? Non-followers cannot claim neutrality, for writings swerve depending on whether Islam’s tenets agree or disagree with their personal beliefs, and so any attempts at interpretation from Christians, Jews, atheists, or non-practicing Muslims must be unequivocally discarded. I may add that if any proffered viewpoint clashes with the Prophet’s own guidelines, either explicitly or otherwise, it becomes objectionable; in this light even the writings of devout Muslims may be rejected if they lack merit. This selectivity lies at the very heart of Ibn Sīrīn’s golden rule (d. 110 A.H./728 C.E.):

إن هذا العلم دين فانظروا عمّن تأخذون دينكم

This knowledge constitutes your deen (religion), so be wary of whom you take your religion from.[38]

Some may argue that Muslims do not have any sound arguments with which to counteract non-Muslim scholarship, that for them the case is based entirely on faith and not on reason. I will therefore bring forward my arguments against their findings in future chapters, though I will first begin by recountering some passages from early Islamic history as a prelude to an in-depth look at the Qur’ān.
————————————————� �—————————-
Endnotes:
[1] Qur’ān, 5:8.
[2] Quoted in M. Broomhall, Islam in China, New Impression, London, 19878, p. 2.
[3] Cited thereafter as Lester. Also, though this article spells the Qur’ān as ‘Koran’, this is technically incorrect and I will utilise the proper spelling wherever I am not directly quoting.
[4] Lester, p. 46.
[5] ibid, pp. 46-7.
[6] London, 18 February 1999.
[7] Lester, p. 44. Italics added.
[8] ibid, p. 45. Italics added. It must be noted that all these damaging judgements have been passed even before anyone has thoroughly studied these manuscripts. Such is often the nature of Orientalist scholarship.
[9] ibid, p. 46.
[10] See this work pp. 48-50.
[11] Lester, p. 54.
[12] ibid, p. 54.
[13] ibid, p. 55.
[14] ibid, p. 55.
[15] Just for the record: in my assessment Türk ve Islam Eserleri Müzesi (Museum of Islamic Art) in Istanbul may house an even greater collection than that in Yemen. Unfortunately I was denied access to this collection, so this notion must remain speculative, though according to F. Déroche it houses about 210,000 folios [“The Qur’ān of Amāgūr”, Mansuscripts of the Middle East, Leiden, 1990-91, vol. 5, p. 59].
[16] Lester, p. 44. Italics added.
[17] ibid, p. 56.
[18] J. Koren and Y.D. Nevo, “Methodological Approaches to islamic Studies”, Des Islam, Band 68, Heft 1, 1991, pp. 89-90.
[19] ibid, pp. 92.
[20] ibid, pp. 100-102. See also this work pp. 337-8.
[21] For more on this essential topic, refer to Chapter 19.
[22] Michael Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford Univ. Press, 2000, p. 44.
[23] ibid, p. 46.
[24] ibid, p. 46. Italics added.
[25] For details, refer to Stefan Wild’s (ed.) Preface to The Qur’an as Text, E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1996, p. vii-xi.
[26] E.L. Mascall, The Secularization of Christianity, Darton, Longman & Todd Ltd., London, 1965, p. 41.Dr. Paul M. Van Buren is the author of “The Secular Meaning of the Gospel”, which is based on the analysis of Biblical language [ibid, p.41.]
[27] M. Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, p. 26. Interestingly Ziya Gökalp was a Donma Jew who converted to islam [M. Qutb, al-Mustashriqūn wa al-Islam, p. 198].
[28] M. Cook, The Koran: A Very Short Introduction, p. 27.
[29] ibid, p. 33, emphasis added. Cook’s words ‘that was central to traditional Islam’, seem to imply that it is no longer appropriate for modern Islam.
[30] Stefan Wild (ed.), The Qur’an as Text, p. x. The original contains ‘was’ instead of ‘is’, but changing the tense seems valid given that nothing else has changed. In fact, Muslim scholarship concerning the Qur’ān is generally relegated to second-class status in Western circles, since the former espouses tranditionalism while the latter seeks revisionism.
[31] Exegesis of the Qur’ān.
[32] W.C. Smith, “The True Meaning of Scripture”, IJMES, vol. 11 (1980), p. 498.
[33] Peter Ford, “The Qur’ān as Sacred Scripture”, Muslim World, vol. lxxxiii, no. 2, April 1993, pp. 151-53.
[34] A. Saeed, “Rethinking ‘Revelation’ as a Precondition for Reinterpreting the Qur’an: A Qur’anic Perspective”, JQS, i:93-114.
[35] For the Arabic text of his complete letter, see the Yemeni newspaper, ath-Thawra, issue 24.11.1419 A.H./11.3.1999.
[36] I will cover Puin’s discoveries and claims in pp. 314-8.
[37] i.e., the skeleton of the text which may show some variations in vowel writing, see further Chapters 9, 10 and 11. We must nevertheless take into consideration that there are over 250,000 manuscripts of the Qur’ān scattered all over the globe [see p. 316 note 38]. When comparing them it is always possible to find copying mistakes here and there; this is an example of the human fallibility, and has been recognised as such by authors who have written extensively on the subject of “unintentional errors.” Such occurrences cannot be used to prove any corruption (تحريف) within the Qur’ān.
[38] In fact Ibn Hibbān has credited this saying to other scholars as well, e.g. Abū Huraira (d. 58 A.H.), Ibrāhīm an-Nakha’ī (d. 96 A.H.), ad-Dahhāk b. al-Muzāhim (d. circa 100 A.H.), al-Hasan al-Basrī (d. 110 A.H.) and Zaid b. Aslam (d. 136 A.H.). [Ibn Hibbān, al-Majrūhūn, i.21-23].

http://rasheedgonzales.wordpress.com...-quranic-text/


best,

[TrueStranger]

Here is something I learned very early on in my studies. I do not say this to offend. I say this because this is what historians and secular scholars say. The idea of a perfect quran is purely apologetical and not historical. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was memorized, but historians reject that idea. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was written down early in the life of Islam, and while scholars agree with this, the quran that was written down is not the quran of today.

The oldest quran (the older the more authentic and closer to the original) is just 1 of 4 major metropolitan codex copies, none of which were identical.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is what secular scholars say. I will always trust a scholar over an apologestist (and so should everyone else)

Here is something else to keep in mind. The quran, according to the hadiths, was spoken in several different dialects. The Hadith said to write the quran in the dialect of mohammd (I have no idea how to spell it). Here is the problem. Arabic, at that time didnt have vowels. It is linguistically impossible to tell 1 dialect apart from another in a written form without vowels.

A former Muslim, who supposedly does not know how to spell the Prophet's (PBUH) name? ^o)

I suggest you do a little bit more reading, one that is holistic in nature, and not just listen to some "His"-torians.

The evangelists got to you easily.

[جوري]

The evangelists got to you easily.

I very much doubt he is who he professes.

5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Apparently can't name those either..

One can't seem to take a hiatus from the devil within and without..

:w:

[TrueStranger]

I very much doubt he is who he professes.

Apparently can't name those either..

One can't seem to take a hiatus from the devil within and without..

:w:

I doubt him as well. But it's better when the truth rolls down like a domino effect. ;D

[جوري]

I doubt him as well. But it's better when the truth rolls down like a domino effect. ;D

21:18 Nay, We hurl the Truth against falsehood, and it knocks out its brain, and behold, falsehood doth perish! Ah! woe be to you for the (false) things ye ascribe (to Us).

[Orangeduck]

1) English is not my first language, so I do apologize for spelling and grammer errors (spelling is not my cup of tea anyway). I can spell mohammads name in my mother tounge (just like I can spell almost anything in my native language).

I will respond to the user who's name is not in english. His reply will be in BOLD

To the excitement of Puin and von Bothner, some showed minor differences in wording and verse-order from Qur'ans in use today.

Puin never said he was "excited" like you quoted. In fact, he said what he discovered was "quite disturbing". He did notice minor differences in the wording, but he also noticed that entire suras from the modern day quran were missing (I gave examples above). He also noted that it ended at sura 95.

"It is considered a "cocktail" because it does not present material in the chronological or thematic order typical of Biblical narratives"

According to Puin and other scholars, it is a "cocktail" because most of the stories have been found in earlier writtings that pre-date islam. I can give examples if you want (let me know because the examples can be rather dull to read, but that is what historians do). It is NOT called a "cocktail" due to the chronological order of the text. Obviously, who ever said that either lied, or misquoted Puin to a very large degree.

You only offend yourself and also come across with a poor performance for if you apply a sliver of that so called study toward Christianity then you wouldn't be christian at all would you?

You are going to have to clarify what you mean. I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

can you produce variations within the Quran?

I can, and as above, if you want me to, let me know as the examples can be boring to read.


Here's the deal, Islam is the fastest growing religion and I understand that has to be a terrible slap....

For every report you show me that Islam is the fastest growing religion, I can show you one that says it isn't. However, that matters very little as the size or growth of a relgion has no bearing on it validity. Nor do I care what religion is growing fast. I have my beliefs, and that is all that matters to me.

Quran is being used 17 times memorized and written down since its inception the OT was written a thousand years after the matter and only after it was lost

Used 17 times? We used it 5 times a day. Not sure what you mean by 17. Muslims today say the quran was memorized, but historians dont agree. Here is a simple challenge. The ottoman caliph was abolished less than 100 years ago. Show me a quote from the last caliph that says muslim memorized the quran. Remember, that is less than 100 years ago. If you can't find a quote from him, then that is strong evidence that the idea that it was memorized is a very, very new concept to islam.

You also said the OT was written a 1000 years after the matter. Well, by that standard, the quran was written even later after the matter.

For example, Genesis speaks of Abraham, and wasn't written by an eye witness (meaning it was written after the fact). Lets say it was written 400 years after Abraham died. Well, the quran was written 2400 years after the fact. We can talk about this if you want.

I'm off to bed. So far, I would have to say my first day on the forum was positive. Most people were welcoming and I think there are some good discussions here :)

[جوري]

I actually have the letters of puin & they can be download it here (zip file containing 5 jpg files); the fax is a handwritten Arabic document and more on the matter here for anyone who’s interested.

So how about you show us those disturbing pieces a before and after so you'd put your money where your mouth is? Further, if you don't know how the Quran is used 17 times a day then perhaps it is prudent to do a bit more research on being a Muslim before pretending to be one?
(do read all that I have posted) I am not here to re-answer questions already clearly addressed in the links and posts quoted on this very page the account you're trying to save face and carpet bomb two unstudied and thoroughly refuted statements which you can't stand by ergo your indoctrination cesspool!
You can show me nothing, you can't back any statements you spew.. Making an assertion of being learned doesn't make one learned as we have refuted you thoroughly including on the alleged account of Jesus, life, cruci(fiction) and resurrection-- you'd be better off working on that first before making the leap as to what Islam is. I despise nothing more than كافر صرصور ذو رائحة كريهة ونتنة

I'd want to hide in bed to if I were a hypocrite exposed!

best,

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

There is more than just the historical aspect, but that was probably the biggest influence. I never saw Christ in a dream where He spoke to me. None of the Saints ever appeared to me. I don't really have any grand conversion story. It's quite boring actually :)

Greetings,

Thank you for your reply.

May I ask did you study either religions from their sources also? as well as historically?

Do you believe Jesus (PBUH) is divine?

I see that you've stated the Qur'aan is changed, how would you then consider the bible? Is the bible the exact word of God?

Please acknowledge that the author of the Qur'aan does inform us that the word of God will not be destroyed, it is protected.

But if one were to test which word is the truth, one way is to getting rid of all scriptures in the world and then realising which has still remained with us, now there are numerous versions of the bible, am I correct? and 1 version of the Qur'aan.

Which book would still remain on earth? Has the bible been protected as it has been mentioned in the bible or the Qur'aan?

The memorised Qur'aan or the bible? Christianity or Islaam? Now I would like a direct answer, if this were ever to happen, which would remain? in other words has God protected his message? or not?

This is NOT the only way to prove the Qur'aan is authentic, there are many other ways of doing so.

From the Qur'aanic point of view, the Qur'aan has spoken about the previous books such as the torah, psalms and injeel, it does not reject them, rather it rejects the one's that have been distorted, the Qur'aan confirms that which has been distorted. I apologise for going on, but what I was wondering, do you know this? Did your parents teach you this? If not, do you believe it was left upon you to study? Do you know it is the duty of all muslims to seek knowledge?

And I believe sister Lamees has posted enough information on the previous page for you to look into.

peace

[Orangeduck]

May I ask did you study either religions from their sources also? as well as historically?

I have read the Bible and Quran from cover to cover more than once. I still read the Quran today even though I am not a muslim anymore. I absolutly do not want to forget what I learned, and the best way to do that is to keep on reaing it :)

I have read most of the Hadiths compiled by Bukhari (i have not read them all yet). I have 2 islamic study guides (I find them rather dull, but they are a great recource).

Do you believe Jesus (PBUH) is divine?

Yes. I authors of the New Testament made it pretty clear that He is God. The authors record many stories of people worshiping Jesus and He fully accepted their worship. I'm not here to convince you that you need to believe what I believe, but now that I am a Christian, I accept the Bible and Church Tradition.

I see that you've stated the Qur'aan is changed, how would you then consider the bible? Is the bible the exact word of God?

The Bible and Quran have both been changed to a degree. That really shouldn't matter. Every book, as I have said before, that was written before the printing press, has been edited. People place too much emphasis on an idea that a book has or has never been edited. For example, I am reading a book called "Stalingrad". Every single copy of that book is identicle. Does that mean it is inspired by God and that God is protecting the book from alteration? Another example is reading Ceaser's reports on the Gallic Wars. Those reports have been edited. However, the reports are still valuable and contain a very large degree of truth. Does that mean it can never be trusted since it has been edited?

Please acknowledge that the author of the Qur'aan does inform us that the word of God will not be destroyed, it is protected.

Both the quran and the bible both claim their words are protected, and if you are a typical muslim (nothing wrong with being a typical muslim) then you also believe the diety of Islam is the same diety of Christianity...which means your diety either failed to keep his promise, or couldn't. My priest would probably kill me if he reads what I am about to say next. I reject the concept of Divine Authorship of either book. Humans wrote and edited both books. Niether book appeared miraculously in their origianal form. I much prefer history, and I look at each book from a historical...not an inspired, point of view. You are welcome to disagree with my belief on both books.

But if one were to test which word is the truth, one way is to getting rid of all scriptures in the world and then realising which has still remained with us, now there are numerous versions of the bible, am I correct? and 1 version of the Qur'aan.

In Koine Greek, I only know of 1 New Testament. There are many english translations of the Koine Greek text (such as KJV, NIV, NASB, ect...)

When it comes to the arabic text of the quran, here is something that maybe you (or anyone) can help me with. There is the Hafs, Warsh and Qalun versions that I am aware of. Those 3 qurans are not identical. I found a chart online that showed versus that had completely different meanings. I have never been able to get an answer from something reguarding these differences. Which is the correct version (or another way to ask, which version would be the closest to what muhammad would have recited)? How did these differences happen? What caused the differences? I ask this because I want to learn, so if you have any good information, or know a non-apologetical webpage that explains it, I would be interested.

[جوري]

The Bible and Quran have both been changed to a degree. That really shouldn't matter.

Actually it does matter very much, it is the very crux of the matter and to elaborate would indeed showcase just how well read and studied you're. Do you not want to backup the drivel with some solidity?
Indeed the bible has changed grossly. I don't know many people who wish to gamble on a book or a mangod of whom their very salvation depends is there's the slightest bit of suspicion or error.
How about you show us the changes in the Quran without meandering the thread for another few pages on repetition of your alleged accolades?

best,

[Orangeduck]

/\/\

I wish you would reply with something of actual substance. I gave examples of editions in the quran, and you weren't able to refute them.

You conveniently ignored many of the points I made, which is no big deal as if your current replies are any indication, I won't waste my time reading them

Either way, even if could do the impossible and show the quran or the Bible have never been changed, you still couldn't prove the theology in either book. You can't prove Muhammad got his revelation from an Angel. You still can't prove what he said to his companions is actually what an Angel said to him (if the event even happened)

I could literally go on like this for weeks.

You mentioned historical time frames when speaking of the events in some old testament books, but you refused to comment when I used your same standard against the quran...why is that?

[جوري]

/\/\

I wish you would reply with something of actual substance. I gave examples of editions in the quran, and you weren't able to refute them.

I haven't seen any examples I have seen you tooting your own horn & I am still waiting-- go ahead please wow me with real life examples using the Quran and its variance!

You conveniently ignored many of the points I made, which is no big deal as if your current replies are any indication, I won't waste my time reading them

What points are those outside of assertion of how well you're read? Again still waiting on those variant readings!
Those before and after are sure to be earth shattering. I certainly want to be present for the moment you make that revelation!

Either way, even if could do the impossible and show the quran or the Bible have never been changed, you still couldn't prove the theology in either book. You can't prove Muhammad got his revelation from an Angel. You still can't prove what he said to his companions is actually what an Angel said to him (if the event even happened)

It doesn't really make for an argument to pose your own Q's and answer them in the same breath.. Is that a level refutation from a 'learned' man and a 'history buff'? how about you fulfill that first part of your testimony and show me the impossible?

I could literally go on like this for weeks.

Good, we'll be waiting!

You mentioned historical time frames when speaking of the events in some old testament books, but you refused to comment when I used your same standard against the quran...why is that?

You haven't shown any time frames that are consistent with recorded historical facts!
Again we'll be waiting. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is oh read one?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Yes. I authors of the New Testament made it pretty clear that He is God. The authors record many stories of people worshiping Jesus and He fully accepted their worship. I'm not here to convince you that you need to believe what I believe, but now that I am a Christian, I accept the Bible and Church Tradition

So you have no problem with God dying on the cross?

The Bible and Quran have both been changed to a degree. That really shouldn't matter. Every book, as I have said before, that was written before the printing press, has been edited. People place too much emphasis on an idea that a book has or has never been edited. For example, I am reading a book called "Stalingrad". Every single copy of that book is identicle. Does that mean it is inspired by God and that God is protecting the book from alteration? Another example is reading Ceaser's reports on the Gallic Wars. Those reports have been edited. However, the reports are still valuable and contain a very large degree of truth. Does that mean it can never be trusted since it has been edited?

I do not believe the Qur'aan has been changed, it should matter because God does not make mistakes.

Printing press? The Qur'aan has not been changed from the time it was revealed till this very day. you may feel free to disagree.

I have not read the book Stalingrad, has it told us it is from God? However, if your analogy were to be applied to everything, then muslim's would have claimed that Bukhaari, Muslim etc were from God also, which is not the case here. Also, the authors of Stalingrad or any other book are humans, not God. They never claimed they were from God, nor do they have anything to do with this.

Do you know what editing it? Many things go through a person's mind when editing, someone may change or add, or remove, in other words it does not remain the same/original once this process is completed.

Both the quran and the bible both claim their words are protected, and if you are a typical muslim (nothing wrong with being a typical muslim) then you also believe the diety of Islam is the same diety of Christianity...which means your diety either failed to keep his promise, or couldn't. My priest would probably kill me if he reads what I am about to say next. I reject the concept of Divine Authorship of either book. Humans wrote and edited both books. Niether book appeared miraculously in their origianal form. I much prefer history, and I look at each book from a historical...not an inspired, point of view. You are welcome to disagree with my belief on both books.

The book form of the Qur'aan has been preserved so far and so is the message brought by all prophets of God.

I believe in the God of Jesus, yes, but not Jesus as God (PBUH). What promise?

If you reject divine authorship, then how can you conclude what you are reading is the word of God? You might as well read all books?

What is the proof the Qur'aan was edited?

In Koine Greek, I only know of 1 New Testament. There are many english translations of the Koine Greek text (such as KJV, NIV, NASB, ect...)

So if one were to rid all books, this book would remain against the Qur'aan? If all Qur'aan's were destroyed in book form, they would still remain in the hearts of many and able to be recollected . If all the Koine Greek books, sources and so on were destroyed completely, how you would you collect it once again?

When it comes to the arabic text of the quran, here is something that maybe you (or anyone) can help me with. There is the Hafs, Warsh and Qalun versions that I am aware of. Those 3 qurans are not identical. I found a chart online that showed versus that had completely different meanings. I have never been able to get an answer from something reguarding these differences. Which is the correct version (or another way to ask, which version would be the closest to what muhammad would have recited)? How did these differences happen? What caused the differences? I ask this because I want to learn, so if you have any good information, or know a non-apologetical webpage that explains it, I would be interested.

I'm curious to know, whilst you were a muslim, did you ever listen to the recitation of the Qur'aan?

Hafs, Warsh and Qalun are not different versions of the Qur'aan, rather different styles of recitating the same Qur'aan.


Perhaps this video will shed some light, if not feel free to ask questons.

I believe the book -Introduction to the science of the Qur'aan, book he has used in his video is something you should have a read up on to understand more, inshaa'Allaah, i have the link to the PDF if you are interested.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Either way, even if could do the impossible and show the quran or the Bible have never been changed, you still couldn't prove the theology in either book. You can't prove Muhammad got his revelation from an Angel. You still can't prove what he said to his companions is actually what an Angel said to him (if the event even happened)

You never asked Questions about the Angel coming to the Prophet (Pbuh), so how would one give an answer? If so, can you link me to the thread? So far on this thread the discussion has been on the authenticity of the Qur'aan.

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\/\

You said "the OT was written a thousand years after the matter and only after it was lost" (both your statements were wrong).

You didn't give any examples, but YOU brought up time frames, then I said that same standard could be used for the quran also. When you found out that your own arguement hurts your claim, you changed the subject :p

However, as I said above, you didn't reply with anything worth while. I'm all for people being able to say whatever they want (reguardless of weather or not its worth reading), so by all means, keep replying...I just wont read it. There are actually people here who are interested in having an adult conversation :D

My question to anyone who knows the answer is, I wanted to start a thread about people's opinion on a subject (under the world affair section). It said that I have to wait for a mod to approve it. How long does that take?

[Orangeduck]

Gareebah (I cant copy and paste your name for some reason)

I have arrows pointing up, but they were not meant for you :)

You replied before I could send my own reply. Just want you to know my post was not meant for you.

[Sunnie Ameena]

I still read the Quran today even though I am not a muslim anymore. I absolutly do not want to forget what I learned,

I am not here to argue, I am just curious. Why would you want to remember something you apparently no longer believe? Again, that is not meant in an ugly way, I am truly just curious. Sunnie Ameena

[جوري]

/\/\/\/\

You said "the OT was written a thousand years after the matter and only after it was lost" (both your statements were wrong).

The thread is supposed to be about easter, you in fact meandered it to suit your whimsey. But fine let's address the point from your own scholar's points of view

You didn't give any examples, but YOU brought up time frames, then I said that same standard could be used for the quran also. When you found out that your own arguement hurts your claim, you changed the subject :p

See above, and no the same standards can't be given for the Quran and I have already cited and referenced sources on the previous page. Again assertions doesn't a refutation make!

However, as I said above, you didn't reply with anything worth while. I'm all for people being able to say whatever they want (reguardless of weather or not its worth reading), so by all means, keep replying...I just wont read it. There are actually people here who are interested in having an adult conversation :D

Who is determining worth here? an ignoramus who is trying to pass himself as a scholar yet can't evince one of his statements with something other than hot air? or the person who cites and references everything? I guess we'll just leave that to the discerning reader.. What you read or don't read is inconsequential. You should question why you're here? If it is for trolling which is the only obvious conclusion then I am not sure what sort of 'adult' conversation can be attained. You'd be better suited for like minded trolls?

My question to anyone who knows the answer is, I wanted to start a thread about people's opinion on a subject (under the world affair section). It said that I have to wait for a mod to approve it. How long does that take?

What does this have to do with this thread, authenticity of the bible or the Quran? Is it scholarly to keep jumping from one subject to the next when at a loss for a seasoned argument?

[Orangeduck]

I am not here to argue, I am just curious. Why would you want to remember something you apparently no longer believe? Again, that is not meant in an ugly way, I am truly just curious. Sunnie Ameena

Any knowledge you gain (unless you learn something that is factually incorrect) is always a good thing. I dont accept Sikhism, but I did learn a little about it. I visited a Sikh temple and bought a copy of their holy book Guru Granth Sahib. While there is a chance that I will never use the knowledge I learned about the religion, learning about it was a good thing imo :sunny:

[GodIsAll]

Welcome to IB, Orangeduck! :)

[Orangeduck]

Welcome to IB, Orangeduck! :)

Hello. I got your private message and I can't reply to it till I have 50 posts. I just wanted to tell you that so you didn't think i was ignoring you :)

[GodIsAll]

No issue. Have a great day!

[Al-manar]

I will be more than happy to answer any questions about Easter.

Question one :What makes you so sure that Jesus was resurrected?

Question Two : Do you believe in the bible as the inerrant(error free) word of God?

If the answer is yes , do you think the contradictions in the narratives of the resurrection (the stories that the Easter based on) could be reconciled?

one example ;

According to the writer of Matthew Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen , she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb ...


Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

On the contrary the writer of John had Mary Magdalene gone to tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen !!!...

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Regards

[Orangeduck]

Question one :What makes you so sure that Jesus was resurrected?

Question Two : Do you believe in the bible as the inerrant(error free) word of God?

If the answer is yes , do you think the contradictions in the narratives of the resurrection (the stories that the Easter based on) could be reconciled?

one example ;

According to the writer of Matthew Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen , she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb ...


Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

On the contrary the writer of John had Mary Magdalene gone to tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen !!!...

John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2 So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?

Regards

I do believe Christ rose from the dead, but no one can be sure of it. In fact, when it comes to theology from any religion, no one can be sure. No muslim can be sure of the theology of Islam. No Jew can be sure of theology from Judiasm.

As for the Bible, I don't believe any book is the inerrant word of any God. When I was a Muslim, I knew that me wrote the Quran. As a Christian, I know that men wrote the Bible (about 40 different men).

As for alleged discrepancies in the resurrection story, there are hundred of websites that explain it better than I could. I tend to look at the big picture. The Bible is clear that Christ rose from the dead, and while I can't prove it (nor do I intend to try to prove it), I do choose to believe it.

[Al-manar]

In fact, when it comes to theology from any religion, no one can be sure. No muslim can be sure of the theology of Islam. No Jew can be sure of theology from Judiasm..

I understand what you mean ..... you want to say that you left Islam and adapted chritianity because you FEEL that christianity is better ...

.................................................

on one hand you don't believe that there are discrepancies in the resurrection story

As for alleged discrepancies in the resurrection story

on the other hand you don't believe the bible as the inerrant word of God.

As for the Bible, I don't believe any book is the inerrant word of any God.

would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

[Orangeduck]

I understand what you mean ..... you want to say that you left Islam and adapted chritianity because you FEEL that christianity is better ...

.................................................

on one hand you don't believe that there are discrepancies in the resurrection story




on the other hand you don't believe the bible as the inerrant word of God.




would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

Christianity does "feel" better and more authentic to me, but also the historical aspect appealed to me.

As for why don't find the Bible to be the inerrant word of God is due to the fact that every single book in the history of the universe was written by men. God did not written the Bible, the Quran or any book.

[Al-manar]

As for why don't find the Bible to be the inerrant word of God is due to the fact that every single book in the history of the universe was written by men. God did not written the Bible.

That, not only goes flatly against what the bible clearly teaches about itself (as the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God) but also leads to a dangerous,misleading premise ...... that is not my opinion alone,but the opinion of the vast majority of christians .....

take a look

while an error-free book won't alone prove it as divine, errancy from any kind should get the book under suspicion ..
both the bible and The Quran claims inerrancy:

Holy Quran 41:42 No falsehood can approach it(the Quran) from before or behind it: It is sent down by One Full of Wisdom, Worthy of all Praise.

in the clearest of terms the bible also claims to be the verbal ,plenary inspired word of God
2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

not only inerrancy is specifically affirmed in the bible and the Quran but an inference as well:
the belief of a divine, error-free book is the one that is held by the church for seventeen centuries.
Due to the produced indisputable evidence of inaccuracies in the bible, a tiny minority of modern Christian scholars , began to be more realistic denying the concept that the bible is an error-free book…. Such concept, though realistic, has a tremendous obstacle to gain popularity among Christians ,as it Ignores the serious consequences for declaring that the bible is errant,the consequences would be the answer to the question:

Does Biblical Errancy matter?

quotes by some of the scholars of mainstream Christianity :

“the very nature of inspiration renders the bible infallible, inspiration involved infallibility from start to finish, if inspiration allows for possibility of errors ;then inspiration ceases to be inspiration.
Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible

“Even if the errors are supposedly in ‘minor’ matters, any error opens the Bible to suspicion on other points which may not be so ‘minor.’ If inerrancy falls, other doctrines will fall too.” If we can’t trust Scripture in things like geography, chronology, and history, then how can we be sure we can trust it in its message of salvation and sanctification?
Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology, Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media.


Again. a belief in limited inerrancy demands the impossible__that a fallible exegete become an infallible discerner and interpreter of (the word of God)within the scripture .This opens the door for confusion and uncertainty ,undergirded by either subjectivism or personal bias.
Indeed can the holy spirit inspire error; can the spirit of truth inspire untruth.?
Handbook of Biblical Evidences By John Ankerberg, John Weldon


“By this word ( inerrancy) we mean that the Scriptures possess the quality of freedom from error. They are exempt from the liability to mistake, incapable of error. In all their teachings they are in perfect accord with the truth.
E. J. Young, Thy Word Is Truth, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, 1957, p. 113

‘Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God’s acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God’s saving grace in individual lives’ (James Montgomery Boice, Does Inerrancy Matter?, Oakland: International Council on Biblical Inerrancy, 1979, p. 13.)


If the biblical record can be proved fallible in areas of fact that can be verified, then it is hardly to be trusted in areas where it cannot be tested. As a witness for God, the Bible would be discredited as untrustworthy. What solid truth it may contain would be left as a matter of mere conjecture, subject to the intuition or canons of likelihood of each individual. An attitude of sentimental attachment to traditional religion may incline one person to accept nearly all the substantive teachings of Scripture as probably true. But someone else with equal justification may pick and chose whatever teachings in the Bible happen to appeal to him and lay equal claim to legitimacy. One opinion is as good as another. All things are possible, but nothing is certain if indeed the Bible contains mistakes or errors of any kind (Gleason Archer ,Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties pp. 23-24).


Some say that the Bible is inspired in the same sense that great literature is inspired, as the plays of Shakespeare or the poems of Tennyson and Browning. Such people sometimes say, "I know the Bible is inspired because it inspires me." Really they mean that the Bible is not the infallible Word of God but that it is a good inspiring book even though it has mistakes. Some say that God gave the general thought and left it to men to write it down so that of necessity there would be some slight errors. Some say that the New Testament is authoritative and true, but the Old Testament is imperfect and is simply a survival of primitive religious thinking. Some so-called scholars, who are not scholars enough to know what the Bible claims for itself nor the evidence that it is true, teach a so-called "progressive revelation" and say that none of the Bible is reliable except the very words of Jesus, and they doubt many of the statements of the gospels. Many good men are deceived by these theorists and quote them. Some people say that the Bible contains the Word of God but that not all of it is the Word of God. If one must find for himself or depend upon some modernistic scholar to say just how much of the Bible is really the Word of God and authoritative, of course no two living men, on that plan, would perfectly agree as to what was true and what was not. Some good men very foolishly say that the Bible is inspired and reliable for religious knowledge but is not necessarily true in scientific matters, or in history (John R. Rice, Verbal Inspiration of the Bible, Sword of the Lord Publishers, p. 1).


"The Bible is the inerrant... Word of God. It is absolutely infallible, without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc." (Jerry Falwell,Finding Inner Peace and Strength,Doubleday, 1982, p. 26, ).


It(The Bible) does not err in its revelation, its assertions relative to doctrine, ethics, history, et al. The autographs were absolutely and totally free from error. The Bible gives a faultless record of everything with which it deals (including lies and faults, at times); it chronicles the record of those errors but does not sanction them. It does claim infallibility in all that it does teach, however. Further, when accurately transmitted/translated, the translation is also inspired, the Word of God" (Biblical Inerrancy: The First Annual Gulf Coast Lectures, Church of Christ, Portland, Texas, 1993, pp. 33-34).


I believe that God moved the men who wrote the Holy Bible so that the very words they wrote and the very thoughts they expressed were given to them by God and miraculously preserved from every possibility of error. I further believe that Holy Scriptures "since they are the Word of God, contain no errors or contradictions, but are in all their parts and words infallible truth, also in those parts that treat of historical, geographical, and other secular matters" . I will go even further since Jesus went further. I believe that the Bible is not only verbally inspired, but is also totally accurate in its tense, mood, voice, and case (in the original autographs) because Jesus says so
William Bischoff, a pastor in Bridgeton, Missouri.


"... But how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)

[Orangeduck]

After all that copy and paste, are you really going to tell me that God wrote the Bible and / or the Quran?

Seriously? I don't say that to be mean, but how can you honestly tell me that humans didn't write either book?

It's an absolute know fact that 40 people wrote the Bible and your own hadiths record the fact that humans re-wrote the Quran. If you choose to believe allah composed the Quran, that's fine with me, but:

1) There is no evidence for that
2) The Ciaro text of the Quran (the standard version) was absolutly written and copied by humans. It did not fall out I the sky in its current form.


As for insperation, other than extreme fundamential Christian denominations, "insperation" in Christianty and Islam are different concepts. In Islam, insperation refers to the fact that Allah literally spoke the Quran with no room for any other input. In Christianity, insperation refers to the fact that God inspired men to write what they saw, heard, read and learned. Most Christians do not believe that God literally spoke the Bible into existence.

[Pygoscelis]

I do believe Christ rose from the dead

The belief that somebody rose from the dead has never really bothered me so much. That is a belief that lots of people have had, inside and outside of religions.

What I get more alarmed by is the whole "He died for our sins" bit. As if an innocent volunteer should be allowed to pay for my wrongdoing, and that the payment should be based on pain and suffering instead of good works. :hiding:

[Pygoscelis]

would you tell us what makes you not to believe the bible as the inerrant word of God?

Why would God need to write a book? Could he not just make you know what he wants you to know? What is with the need to write it down on paper or send a messenger (angel or prophet)? That sounds like a human limitation to me, and one the devine should transcend.

I believe that the holy texts' existence is evidence against their claims. That God wrote holy texts and sent prophets etc instead of just putting the knowledge he wasnts us to have in our heads (we would then be truly free on how to act on that information and make informed choices) seems to indicate that either God can't or does not want to do the latter. So he either isn't as powerful as he is made out to be or he doesn't truly want his message to be understood by all and intends all the confusion and conflict caused by competing religious claims.

[Orangeduck]

The belief that somebody rose from the dead has never really bothered me so much. That is a belief that lots of people have had, inside and outside of religions.

What I get more alarmed by is the whole "He died for our sins" bit. As if an innocent volunteer should be allowed to pay for my wrongdoing, and that the payment should be based on pain and suffering instead of good works. :hiding:

In Koine Greek, the word for "faith" is a verb, which means its an action. In English we say "have faith". In Koine Greek (a language Christ, the Apostles, and the entire Eastern Roman Empire spoke and the language of the New Testament) we say "do faith". Faith is not something you "have", it's something you "do".

Why do I say this? I say it because good deeds ARE important and required. The 2 deeds Christ said that are required are love your neighbor and your enemies, and help those that need help (charity).

As for Christ dieing for our sins...that is a highly involved concept that I will be more than happy to talk to you about it in detail, but only if you want to. If you have any questions, let me know :)

[Person1001]

One thing I never got. How was Jesus the messiah distinguished from Jesus Barrabas (literal translation 'son of the father') as the miracle worker. Barrabas seems infinitely more likely (by name) to be the miracle worker since the word 'messiah' could be used to indicate any leader such as a jew leading a rebellion etc. in fact many people are called the messiah by name. It seems highly likely that the authors got it wrong :S

[Person1001]

Barabbas*

[Muhammad]

Greetings Orangeduck,


If you don't mind I'd like to go back and comment on some of the statements you have made in this thread.

As I said before, I don't mean to offend, but this is what secular scholars say. I will always trust a scholar over an apologestist (and so should everyone else)

Firstly, let us be clear on our sources. Muslim ‘apologists’ are also scholars who have researched and studied just as much if not more than their non-Muslim counterparts. The fact that a scholar speaking about Islam happens to be non-Muslim does not automatically mean his view will be more correct. To the contrary, such Orientalists, as they are called, have been exposed to be most unscrupulous when it comes to using information to discredit and cast doubts on Islam.

The idea of a perfect quran is purely apologetical and not historical. Muslim apologestists say that the quran was memorized, but historians reject that idea.

To reject such a clear fact demonstrates sheer ignorance. In fact, orientalists acknowledge very clearly that the Qur’an was memorised:

A.T. Welch, a non-Muslim orientalist, writes:

“For Muslims the Quran is much more than scripture or sacred literature in the usual Western sense. Its primary significance for the vast majority through the centuries has been in its oral form, the form in which it first appeared, as the “recitation” chanted by Muhammad to his followers over a period of about twenty years…The revelations were memorized by some of Muhammad’s followers during his lifetime, and the oral tradition that was thus established has had a continuous history ever since, in some ways independent of, and superior to, the written Quran… Through the centuries the oral tradition of the entire Quran has been maintained by the professional reciters (qurraa). Until recently, the significance of the recited Quran has seldom been fully appreciated in the West.”
The Encyclopedia of Islam, ‘The Quran in Muslim Life and Thought.’


The Quran is perhaps the only book, religious or secular, that has been memorized completely by millions of people. Leading orientalist Kenneth Cragg reflects that:

“…this phenomenon of Quranic recital means that the text has traversed the centuries in an unbroken living sequence of devotion. It cannot, therefore, be handled as an antiquarian thing, nor as a historical document out of a distant past. The fact of hifdh (Quranic memorization) has made the Quran a present possession through all the lapse of Muslim time and given it a human currency in every generation, never allowing its relegation to a bare authority for reference alone.”
Kenneth Cragg, The Mind of the Quran, London: George Allen & Unwin, 1973, p.26


Please refer back to post #15 in this thread for further details on this point: http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...ml#post1512610

Muslim apologestists say that the quran was written down early in the life of Islam, and while scholars agree with this, the quran that was written down is not the quran of today.

The vast majority of non-muslim orientalists, many of whom were quite hostile and quite vehement in their attacks on Islam, have yet agreed that the Qur'anic text is unaltered (note: obviously since they are non-muslim they will refer to the Qur'an as the words of Muhammad peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him).

'This Text of the Qur'an is the purest of all works of alike antiquity' (Wherry, Commentary on the Koran, I. p. 349).

'Othman's recension has remained the authorised text from the time it was made until the present day' (Palmer, The Qur'an, p. lix).

'The text of this recension substantially corresponds to the actual utterances of Muhammad himself' (Arnold, Islamic Faith, p. 9).

'All sects and parties have the same text of the Qur'an' (Hurgronje, Mohammedanism, p. 18).

'It is an immense merit in the Kuran that there is no doubt as to its genuineness That very word we can now read with full confidence that it has remained unchanged through nearly thirteen hundred years' (LSK., p.3)

'The recension of 'Othman has been handed down unaltered. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text' (Muir, Life of Mohammed, pp. XXII-XXIII).

'In the Kuran we have, beyond all reasonable doubt, the exact words of Mohammed without subtraction and without addition' (Bosworth Smith, Mohammamed and Mohammedanism, p. 22)

'The Koran was his own creation; and it lies before us practically unchanged from the form which he himself gave it' (Torrey, Jewish Foundations of Islam, p.2).

'Modern critics agree that that the copies current today are almost exact replicas of the original mother-text as compiled by Zayd, and that, on the whole, the text of the Koran today is as Muhammad prodcued it. As some Semitic scholar remarked, there are probably more variations in the reading of one chapter of Genesis in Hebrew than there are in the entire Koran' (Hitti, History of the Arabs, p. 123).

The oldest quran (the older the more authentic and closer to the original) is just 1 of 4 major metropolitan codex copies, none of which were identical.

There could be any number of reasons why they are not identical, such as the fact that they may be personal copies owned by certain individuals, and never something they declared to be a complete and authoritative copy of the Qur’an. Moreover, in the early days, Mushafs (copies of the Qur’an) were scribed on parchment much heavier than paper and there are many examples (such as the Yemeni collection) where the Qur’an is written in such large calligraphy that an entire Mushaf’s thickness would easily exceed one metre. Library shelves throughout the world are filled with partially written Qur’ans. And we can conclude that anyone desiring to scribe a partial Mushaf would have felt at liberty to place the surahs in whichever order he saw fit. This is because anyone desiring to copy the Qur’an in its entirety has to follow that sequence, but for those who seek to copy only particular surahs, following the arrangement outlined in Uthman’s Mushaf is no longer necessary.

On the topic of variances, here is an interesting narrative which M M Al-Azami quotes in his book:

In the 20th century the University of Munich set up an Institute of Qur’anic Research. Its halls lay host to over 40,000 copies of the Qur’an, spanning different centuries and countries, mostly as photos of originals, while its staff busied themselves with the collation of every word from every copy in a relentless excavation for variants. Shortly before the Second World War, a preliminary and tentative report was published that there are of course copying mistakes in the manuscripts of the Qur’an, but no variants. During the war, American bombs fell on this Institute, and all was destroyed, director, personnel, library and all... But this much is proved – that there are no variants in the Qur’an in copies dating from the first to the present century.
M. Hamidullah, ‘The Practicability of Islam in this World’, Islamic Cultural Forum, Tokyo, Japan, April 1977, p. 15; See also A. Jeffrey, Materials, Preface, p. 1.

Are familiar with the sana quran (sometimes called the sana manuscripts)? Unless you get invited to see them, your only option is look at photo copies online.

It's the oldest quran inexistance.

Several dozen first-century manuscripts of the Qur’an exist in various libraries around the world. M Al-Azami believes there are at least 250,000 partial or complete Mushafs covering all eras. So while the Mushafs in San’a are a great treasure, they do not add anything new or substantial to the body of proof which already demonstrates the Qur’an’s completion within the first decades of Islam.

Here is something else to keep in mind. The quran, according to the hadiths, was spoken in several different dialects. The Hadith said to write the quran in the dialect of mohammd (I have no idea how to spell it). Here is the problem. Arabic, at that time didnt have vowels. It is linguistically impossible to tell 1 dialect apart from another in a written form without vowels.

This is incorrect – dialects are also distinguished based upon spellings of the words where extra letters or different letters are used. It is even possible that Uthman’s Mushaf was purposely written without dots and vowel points so that it would encompass different readings. By the way, writing without vowels was the traditional manner of writing at that time – the Arabs were accustomed to such a script and would substitute the appropriate letter and vowel depending on the context.

If you want proof from islam itself, all you have to do is read Bukhari (spelling might not be correct). He makes it very clear that parts of the quran were forgotten and that the quran had been re-written.

Before commenting on this, please show us these 'very clear' hadeeth.


It should be clear from the above that what you think you know about Islam is very far from being historically correct, and you should re-consider your claimed reasons for leaving it.

Regards.

['Abd-al Latif]

Why would God need to write a book? Could he not just make you know what he wants you to know? What is with the need to write it down on paper or send a messenger (angel or prophet)? That sounds like a human limitation to me, and one the devine should transcend.

I believe that the holy texts' existence is evidence against their claims. That God wrote holy texts and sent prophets etc instead of just putting the knowledge he wasnts us to have in our heads (we would then be truly free on how to act on that information and make informed choices) seems to indicate that either God can't or does not want to do the latter. So he either isn't as powerful as he is made out to be or he doesn't truly want his message to be understood by all and intends all the confusion and conflict caused by competing religious claims.

God didn't 'write' a book, He spoke the message in the literal sense and it was recorded on Earth by those whom it was revealed to. The Qur'an was not revealed in a written form but an oral one. It remained largely as an oral message until those whom had memorised Qur'an were dying in battles, long after the Messenger had passed away. It was only then, to preserve the message revealed, when the was Qur'an written in manuscript form to be preserved through the ages.

['Abd-al Latif]

I want to add to my post above that I have meant exactly what I have said. When I say largely, I meant that it was written down by some of the companions. Exactly how many I don't know. And when the Qur'an was put together, it was not according to the whims of the majority but it was compiled exactly the way the Messenger had dictated it during his lifetime: the order that he was commanded to order it by, by Allah Himself.

I also want to clarify that in this and my previous post, I have left out a great deal of detail and history for the sake of brevity. So do not assume that the history of Qur'an is an obscure and vague one.

[dqsunday]

One reason we have prophets/messengers chosen among humanity by Allah, and not just have the message 'beamed' into all our heads by Allah himself, is it takes its toll. When Mohammad received his first revelation, it affected him quite intensely physically, not to mention rather frightened him too. So much so he ran home and hid under his cloak.

[YusufNoor]

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

There is more than just the historical aspect, but that was probably the biggest influence. I never saw Christ in a dream where He spoke to me. None of the Saints ever appeared to me. I don't really have any grand conversion story. It's quite boring actually :)

please provide us with 1, JUST 1, contemporaneous, historical record that proves Jesus, pbuh, died on the cross.

:wa:

[Orangeduck]

please provide us with 1, JUST 1, contemporaneous, historical record that proves Jesus, pbuh, died on the cross.

:wa:

All 4 Gosspels record the Crucifixtion and scholars have concluded they are historically reliable. If you want other exames or Romans or Persians that record the Crucifixtion, read any accredited encyclopedia on the subject. You will get several examples. Other than the 4 Biblical accounts, I know of 5 other sources.

[YusufNoor]

All 4 Gosspels record the Crucifixtion and scholars have concluded they are historically reliable. If you want other exames or Romans or Persians that record the Crucifixtion, read any accredited encyclopedia on the subject. You will get several examples. Other than the 4 Biblical accounts, I know of 5 other sources.

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

[Orangeduck]

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

You are opening a huge can I worms. If you want to say that a document written 35 years after the fact is not "contemporary", then you ABSOLUTLY can not trust the quran (written 600 years after the fact). 35 years years after the event written by someone alive durring the event is considered contemporary. Like I said, read an accredited encyclopedia on the subject for many more examples. There are several non-Biblical documents.

Historians are not divided on the subject. They all agree Christ died in the cross, which means they all agree the Quran makes a massive historical error.

[YusufNoor]

You are opening a huge can I worms.

no, i'm just asking a single question.

If you want to say that a document written 35 years after the fact is not "contemporary",

well, it isn't CONTEMPORANEOUS, now is it?

then you ABSOLUTLY can not trust the quran (written 600 years after the fact).

i didn't ask you anything about that. i'm asking you to back up a statement that you wrote.


35 years years after the event written by someone alive durring the event is considered contemporary.

i'm looking specifically for a CONTEMPORANEOUS historical document to support the "crucufiction", one made by an EYEWITNESS!

Like I said, read an accredited encyclopedia on the subject for many more examples.

i'm sorry, i'm just laughing here. i don't mean to be rude...sorry, can't stop laughing...i'm trying to stop. really...

There are several non-Biblical documents.

nothing CONTEMPORANEOUS though, eh?

Historians are not divided on the subject.

hurray, group error!

They all agree Christ died in the cross,

see above comment...

which means they all agree the Quran makes a massive historical error.

that, and $3.95 will get you an espresso at starbucks!

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

so, based upon hearsay, written a generation later [and more!] by anonymous writers, it actually DOES appear to you and others that the crucifiction is true.

exactly how does that make the Qur'an wrong? ;D

that is actually a rhetorical question, cuz A) i wouldn't want you to strain yourself with any more encyclopedias and B) you're about as full of poop as a jam packed chicken coop!

but, thanks for the laugh!

cheers,
Sam

[GodIsOne]

i asked for 1 CONTEMPORANEOUS source, just 1. the Gospels were written some 35 + years after for Mark, 50+ years for Matthew and Luke and 65+ years for John. that is NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS! what else you got???

Your assumptions are quite amusing and foolish. There are a number of Muslims including myself who believe in the historical crucifixion of يَسُوعَ ... The Qu'ran itself never explicitly says that يَسُوعَ was not physically crucified.

The entire purpose of crucifixion was to humiliate the crucified and terrify their followers or those who thought of following them. The Qu'ran refers to the Jew's failed plot to eradicate the spirit and word of Allah.

[2:155] And say not of those who are killed in the cause of Allah that they are dead; nay, they are living; only you perceive not.

[GodIsOne]

Your assumptions are quite amusing and foolish. There are a number of Muslims including myself who believe in the historical crucifixion of يَسُوعَ ... The Qu'ran itself never explicitly says that يَسُوعَ was not physically crucified.

The entire purpose of crucifixion was to humiliate the crucified and terrify their followers or those who thought of following them. The Qu'ran refers to the Jew's failed plot to eradicate the spirit and word of Allah.

[2:155] And say not of those who are killed in the cause of Allah that they are dead; nay, they are living; only you perceive not.

I Misquoted that was meant for Orangeduck.

[Orangeduck]

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can. I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary. You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it :)

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

[aadil77]

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can. I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary. You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it :)

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

Are you a christian or an atheist?

I can provide you with countless biblical stories that you will be unable to provide 'historical' evidence for

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

[GodIsOne]

/\/\/\


That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or is that just more made up Christian nonsense so you can try and justify your idolatry?

"The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." - Francis Edwards Peters

Find me one quote from that can say the same thing about the Torah or gospels.

[aadil77]

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?

[Al-Mufarridun]

wait a minute, did he say;

"History lead me to Christianity"

did i get that right? for I am clearly confused!

[Muhammad]

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

Where did you get this nonsense from?

[Orangeduck]

Are you willing to bet your life on that? Or is that just more made up Christian nonsense so you can try and justify your idolatry?

"The search for variants in the partial versions extant before the Caliph Uthman’s alleged recension in the 640s (what can be called the 'sources' behind our text) has not yielded any differences of great significance." - Francis Edwards Peters

Find me one quote from that can say the same thing about the Torah or gospels.

I will give you 2 quotes. The first quote deals with what you asked about the Gospels.

Bart Ehrman said on page 260 "The vast majority of these changes are insignificant, immaterial and of no importance for the meaning of the passages in which they are found".

The next quotes will be from my favorite arabic and quranic scholar...Puin.

He claims the quran is an "evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh". He also noticed that the oldest text of the quran ended at sura 95 (scholars and historians generally accept the older the text, the more authentic it is).

We dont really need to debate this as it will probably only lead 1 or both of developing a negitive opinion of each other (and that is not my intent).

[Orangeduck]

Where did you get this nonsense from?

Do you doubt the quran was written 600 years after Christ died?

[Scimitar]

Salaam to you OrangeDuck,

I think you should take a look at this series, it WILL prove that Muhammad pbuh was mentioned in the bible,

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6B36E4E4DFD6E52F&feature=plcp

Here is the intro for it:



Scimi

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\

Hello and peace be with you.

I would like to say something about the youtube clip. 1) I have seen that movie and I loved it. Mel Gibson did a fantastic job imo. Not every is going to agree with me however :)

2) Tell me. Can a hollywood movie from 2004 really be used as evidence that a man in the first century prophesied about a man in the 7th century? The answer is "no". Please do not take offense as I am not trying to offend anyone.

If you do think that the Bible prophesied about muhammad, please give the verse and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it :)

[Muhammad]

Greetings,

Do you doubt the quran was written 600 years after Christ died?

You didn't make it clear you were referring to the period of Christ. Instead, the context of your post indicated you were talking about the period of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) since you were talking about contemporary evidences and comparing the Bible and the Qur'an. But I'm glad that is cleared up.

The next quotes will be from my favorite arabic and quranic scholar...Puin.

He claims the quran is an "evolving text rather than simply the Word of God as revealed in its entirety to the Prophet Muhammad in the seventh". He also noticed that the oldest text of the quran ended at sura 95 (scholars and historians generally accept the older the text, the more authentic it is).

We dont really need to debate this as it will probably only lead 1 or both of developing a negitive opinion of each other (and that is not my intent).

I have already provided several quotes to show the contrary, in addition to explanations for this point. At the moment we do not seem to be debating anything because you seem to have ignored that post and are simply reiterating false information. If this is your idea of having a discussion then we won't be wasting any more time in responding to your posts.

[GodIsOne]

Bart Ehrman is a Christian scholar. Furthermore, I meant all gospels not just canonical ones. I know you won't find the actual proper quote because it's mainstream scholarly accepted fact that the canonical gospels are a tiny minority of the actual gospels created after يَسُوعَ and that the difference between the actual gospels and the canonical ones is staggering.

No historian accepts the idea of the Qu'ran as an evolving text... perhaps a text from multiple sources but it definitely is not evolving.... and no that is ridiculous and arbitrary way of trying to authenticate your own idea of history. The older text is not more authentic, and unless carbon dating was used you can't claim any historical document has an actual age either. Sana's manuscript has been carbon dated to just 15 years after Muhammed's death. The idea that any of the text came before Muhammed is still a theory and cannot be proven using carbon dating.

[Orangeduck]

Bart Ehrman is a Christian scholar. Furthermore, I meant all gospels not just canonical ones. I know you won't find the actual proper quote because it's mainstream scholarly accepted fact that the canonical gospels are a tiny minority of the actual gospels created after يَسُوعَ and that the difference between the actual gospels and the canonical ones is staggering.

No historian accepts the idea of the Qu'ran as an evolving text... perhaps a text from multiple sources but it definitely is not evolving.... and no that is ridiculous and arbitrary way of trying to authenticate your own idea of history. The older text is not more authentic, and unless carbon dating was used you can't claim any historical document has an actual age either. Sana's manuscript has been carbon dated to just 15 years after Muhammed's death. The idea that any of the text came before Muhammed is still a theory and cannot be proven using carbon dating.

I just gave you a historian with a PHD that DOES accept the fact that the quran evolved. How can you say no historian accepts that fact when I just gave you one.

The Yemin governemnt paid to bring Puin to Yemin to examine the text. The wanted him to examine the text since he is the probably the best in the world at ancient arabic and quranic manuscipts.

No one on this board has been able to bring any evidence to refute this claim. The quran evolved after muhammad died. That is not debatable and historians have proved that. Muslim apologetics argue against that claim, but they are not historians. I would never trust their word against the word of a PHD historian.

Please tell me why historians are wrong and you are right when you say the oldest text is not the most authentic. I cant wait to hear your explination. The older the text, the closer it is to the original, and the less time has passed for editions to be added to the text. That is simple logic, and it's the basis for textual criticism. The sana text is the oldest, thus making it the closest to the original. There are suras in the Ciaro text that do no appear in the sana text. There are different words, and different order of suras. This is nothing to loose faith over as every book prior to the printing press has the same problem.

This is the concensus of historians. Apologetics may disagree, but as stated, they are defending their faith...they do not speak for the historical community.

You did say one thing that was correct. There were hundreds of gospels written after Christ died. Only 4 were written by people who were alive durring His lifetime. The hundreds others were written by people who were not alive to witness His life. Some examples are, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Barnabas.

[Muhammad]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Most of your claims were already responded to in my previous post (#50). If you will ignore answers to your claims then your presence here will be discontinued because we will not entertain such insincerity.

[Orangeduck]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Most of your claims were already responded to in my previous post (#50). If you will ignore answers to your claims then your presence here will be discontinued because we will not entertain such insincerity.

Im not ignoring anything. Some of those people are not historians. Some of those quotes are from the person you listed, but that person is quoting someone else (often times a non-historian).

You have to be very careful of which authors you quote from, and you have to be EXTREMELY careful of what you are quoting. I am not accusing you of lieing or being dishonest, as all you were doing is copying-and-pasting (nothing wrong with that).

I actually got into a debate with a Christian some months back. He quoted me something from a book. I tracted that quote down and discovered it was from another book from the same author. The author was quoting his other books. That is circular reasoning, and it can happen very easy in the accedemic arean without even knowing, or even intending for it to happen.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Have you read Sr. Lamees's posts 12, 17 and 23? if not, please do.

You did say one thing that was correct. There were hundreds of gospels written after Christ died. Only 4 were written by people who were alive durring His lifetime. The hundreds others were written by people who were not alive to witness His life. Some examples are, the Gospel of Mary and the Gospel of Barnabas.

Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

And Barnabas is considered the oldest of Gospels. And why is it that you'll find Barnabas conversing with Jesus, while you'll never find, matthew, mark, luke or John? if i'm wrong, post your evidence.

Yes. I authors of the New Testament made it pretty clear that He is God. The authors record many stories of people worshiping Jesus and He fully accepted their worship. I'm not here to convince you that you need to believe what I believe, but now that I am a Christian, I accept the Bible and Church Tradition.

Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

[M.I.A.]

However, I realized that didn't fully answer your question.

What is disagree with about islam, is that lost things I was told to believe were wrong. Mohammad was not foretold in the Bible. The quran, the Bible, and all books written before the printing press have been changed.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

epic troll thread is epic.

seriously the chances of anything real and original being discovered thousands of years later are very very small.
lets face it,
i guess things have been found that call religions into dispute.

but that would call into question the basis of your belief.. not the people that actually lived thousands of years ago.

maybe the old saying only god can save you still rings true.

twenty years old and has compared and contrasted several major religions...

so what have you learned about god? surely that is the question rather than how you can win an argument.

..thats what you have to pass on to your children.

..or just put them into debate class after school.

[Orangeduck]

Greetings Orangeduck,

Have you read Sr. Lamees's posts 12, 17 and 23? if not, please do.



Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

And Barnabas is considered the oldest of Gospels. And why is it that you'll find Jesus conversing with Jesus, while you'll never find, matthew, mark, luke or John? if i'm wrong, post your evidence.



Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

Hello. I will be typing this in haste, so forgive me if I dont answer all your questions.

Post your evidence that the 4 authors of the gospels, lived, breathed with Jesus (P).

I will start with people alive to during the time of Christ. I will refer you to the last paragraph of Saint John's Gospel

"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written."

As you can see, the author was there to witness Christ's ministry.

Post your evidence that Jesus is God from the bible, i'm interested.

I can give you many examples, but I will give you a few to start with.

John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one." I have heard muslims try to argue that "One" refers to purpose. However, if you read John 10:33, it reads, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

The people who were there when Jesus said His words knew exactly what Christ was saying. He was saying that He is God.

Col. 2:9 - "For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form."

Phil. 2:5-8 - "Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped". This veruse is a bit complicated, but I will explain. John 14:28 says, "You heard that I said to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I." The word "greater" in Koine Greek is "MEZION". The word refers to authority. Let me give you an example. My boss is greater than I am. He is my boss, and he has more authority than I do. The word does NOT refer to someone that is a greater order of being. For example, an Angel is a greater being than I (a human). The word only works when speaking of authority to a being that is equal. This means that a human can not use the word "MEZION" when speaking of God or an Angel. God is a greater being than us humans (I think you will agree with that). Since Jesus used that word, He said that He is equal with Father, but the Father has more authority.

Matt. 28:9 - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

I could give you many more examples, but that should get your started :)

As for Barnabas, you should read as to when the Gospel of Barnabas was written. It might surprise you :)

[aadil77]

I'll post this again just incase you forgot to read it

/\/\/\

There are many stories in the Bible that can't be proven. That was one of the very first things I said when I joined this forum. There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity :statisfie

The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?

[GuestFellow]

Hi,

Welcome to the forum. :statisfie

Your interesting. I like learning about history too. Not many people that I know enjoy reading about history. It is a complex area of study and very important. As they say, to understand the present, you must learn about the past. Primary sources are quite difficult to interpret, especially if it is a different language. I personally do not trust historians completely. They may hold bias views too, even those who are quite talented.

This may be off-topic, but what are your views about world war 2? Specifically, are you aware about the financing of world war 2?

I'm more interested in modern history.

[Orangeduck]

I'll post this again just incase you forgot to read it



The history part of the bible is not of God's revelation, its of no use or benefit to its followers. This is man made literature that has been added to the bible. We have plenty of recorded history as well, sticking into the Qur'an would not make it 'provable history'. So don't bring up 'historical evidence' ever again, it will only make you seem like a hypocrite.

Now enough of the evidence and lets talk logic and common sense, use the scriptures we have available to us.

What is it about worshipping a mangod that attracts you? With all the talk about warning against idolatry in the bible - does it then make sense that you go and turn God's prophet into an idol god and start to worship him?

Your polemic aside, you are assuming that your point of view is 100% correct and can't possibly be wrong. Obviously you are mistaken about your premise.

If you read my reply above, you will find several references to people who lived during the life of Christ that said He was God and that He was worshiped. Therefore, you premise of a "turning a prophet into an idol" is nothing more than a failed polemic.

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

If I gave you 2 options. Option 1 is to believe the reports of 6 contemporary people about an event. Option 2 is believe 1 person, writting many hundreds of years later, while have no way to verify what he said as correct.

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you will have to make a choise. Lets forget about relgion for a moment and assume both options have nothing to do with religion. Out of those 2 options, which would you pick? I would pick option 1. You might disagree, but if you do, please tell me why.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Hello. I will be typing this in haste, so forgive me if I dont answer all your questions.

Greetings, no problem.

I will start with people alive to during the time of Christ. I will refer you to the last paragraph of Saint John's Gospel
"This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and wrote these things, and we know that his testimony is true. And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that would be written."
As you can see, the author was there to witness Christ's ministry.

Since you've classified yourself as a 'history buff', where is the historial evidence for this?

On a serious note, how many years after Jesus (P) did John write his gospel?

I can give you many examples, but I will give you a few to start with.

John 10:30 states "I and the Father are one." I have heard muslims try to argue that "One" refers to purpose. However, if you read John 10:33, it reads, "We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
The people who were there when Jesus said His words knew exactly what Christ was saying. He was saying that He is God.

Regardless of what muslims say, 'If I and the Father are One', this means there are 2 Gods, right? If I were to say they are 'One' in purpose, to me it would sound more correct, than saying One as saying Jesus is God and God his father in heaven, then I wouldn't agree, coz you mentioned in Post 63#, i quote you below:

At this point in my life, I dont think I could ever be an athiest. My spiritually is too strong. I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity

Matt. 28:9 - "And behold, Jesus met them and greeted them. And they came up and took hold of His feet and worshiped Him."

According to some events of the prophets in Islaam, the prophet Adam, and prophet Yusuf (as) and perhaps others, were bowed down to, but this was because in their time this was a sign of respect, just like shaking of hands, greeting one another. However, this was something changed in the time of the prophet Muhammad (pbuh), as Only God allmighty alone deserves worship. Could it be that they loved Jesus dearly they showed their respect to him?

And also, if Jesus 'died' and was then resurrected, who controlled the world? And if you'd say the father, then that would equate to 2 Gods.

And if you look at the book of Luke, regarding the crufiction, I think i'll let sh.Deedat explain best and save my time in typing away. There are 11 parts to it.

---> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUj0KgoTbLY <---

Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

Does 'firstborn' mean begotten according to you or your scholars or bible?

As for Barnabas, you should read as to when the Gospel of Barnabas was written. It might surprise you

Sure do share, i'd love to see more information.

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

Do you know that many people wrote about Muhammad (Sallaahu 'Alaayhi wa salam), you read the ahadeeth right?

And again, the Qur'aan was NOT written 600 years after Muhammad (P). You've failed to provide authentic evidence, except for perhaps an ignorant who refers to the Qur'aan as 'filth' Naudubillaah. I honestly doubt your sincerety in research. How about look at the sources of Islaam?

If I were to mock away at the bible, would you trust me as a reliable source?

Now, you wouldn't go to a historian if you were sick, or would you? nope, i'm sure you'd get in contact with the doctor.

[aadil77]

Your polemic aside, you are assuming that your point of view is 100% correct and can't possibly be wrong. Obviously you are mistaken about your premise.

If you read my reply above, you will find several references to people who lived during the life of Christ that said He was God and that He was worshiped. Therefore, you premise of a "turning a prophet into an idol" is nothing more than a failed polemic.

Call it polemic but its pretty straight forward logic to me. On the other hand you will find people who lived during the life of Christ and said that he was not divine and the bright idea to turn him into a god was only decided many years later at the Council of Nicea, agree? That's blatant proof that not every christian believed prophet Isa was divine. Hence why you currently have the Unitarian church.

What attracted me (at least one of the things that attracted me) was I had to make a choise. I could choose to believe many people who wrote about Christ during His lifetime, or I choose to believe 1 man writting 600 years later. Once I was in my late 20's, the choise was easy.

God Al-Mighty you definitely made a 'choise', you can't even spell the word.

If I gave you 2 options. Option 1 is to believe the reports of 6 contemporary people about an event. Option 2 is believe 1 person, writting many hundreds of years later, while have no way to verify what he said as correct.

You can choose to believe whatever you want, but you will have to make a choise. Lets forget about relgion for a moment and assume both options have nothing to do with religion. Out of those 2 options, which would you pick? I would pick option 1. You might disagree, but if you do, please tell me why.

I don't care about much about reports, they only form part of the basis of my faith, spirituality and the miracles of God form the rest - I can truly and honestly say I feel a direct connection with my Lord - can you say the same?

This is why you are not a true christian you have no real faith or spirituality in you all you care about is hard evidence.

Your next step is to become an atheist or agnostic like the majority of christians have become - 3 in 1 god fantasy tales drive them completely away from religion all together. You can still do the sensible thing and accept islam - the proof is all around you.

You came here and said you're a convert to Christianity from Islam, yet you are probably unaware that a good portion of the members here are converts from Christianity.

You've shown your true colours and didn't come here with sincere intentions, I would have rather preferred to have guided you than resort to exposing your own beliefs.

[Futuwwa]

Let's hear some of that historical evidence for Jesus's crucifixion. And more precisely, tell us how it refutes the Islamic position, which is: Jesus was not crucified, but God made it appear like he was.

If an omnipotent deitydeliberately made it appear like X happened, it's perfectly plausible that some people who witnesses it might actually have thought that X happened. And if those people told it onwards and wrote it down, it only proves that they believed that X was true. It doesn't prove that X actually, factually is true.

As far as I see, the Islamic position on the crucifixion is essentially unfalsifiable and cannot be proven either way. Which makes it impossible to use it to prove that Islam is in error.

[Orangeduck]

/\/\/\ I dont think I ever said the quran was written 600 years after muhammad. I was talking about Christ. The quran was written 600 years after Christ. If I did say muhammad, then that was a slip up on my part and I apologize.

That was the choise I was talking about. I can choose to believe 6+ people who lived during Christ's life, or I can choose to believe 1 person (muhammad) who lived 600 years later.

[Orangeduck]

On the other hand you will find people who lived during the life of Christ and said that he was not divine and the bright idea to turn him into a god was only decided many years later at the Council of Nicea, agree? That's blatant proof that not every christian believed prophet Isa was divine. Hence why you currently have the Unitarian church.

You think Christ's divinity was decided on at Nicea? LOL HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA :lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol: :lol:

You have been watching too much Divinci Code (which is a FICTIONAL MOVIE).

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable. :lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol: :lol:

I challenge anyone and everyone. Read the records from Nicea (I have). I will send anyone a check for 1 million dollars if they can find me ANY mention of deciding weather or not Christ was divine at Nicea.

I will give you all a hint. There was NO talk of the canon at Nicea and NO talk of a vote on Christ's divinity.

The canon was basically set (yet the Church kept an open canon since there was no challenge to it and no need to close it) and Christ's divinity was agree upon by +99% of Christianity. Some brain dead idiot is going to mention Arius. Arianism didn't exist until about 300 AD, which means the idea that Christ was simply a man didnt exist among Christians till the 4th century.

[Scimitar]

/\/\/\

Hello and peace be with you.

I would like to say something about the youtube clip. 1) I have seen that movie and I loved it. Mel Gibson did a fantastic job imo. Not every is going to agree with me however :)

2) Tell me. Can a hollywood movie from 2004 really be used as evidence that a man in the first century prophesied about a man in the 7th century? The answer is "no". Please do not take offense as I am not trying to offend anyone.

If you do think that the Bible prophesied about muhammad, please give the verse and I will be more than happy to talk to you about it :)

Brother, have you seen the entire series? It makes for a compelling case for the Prophet Muhammad being mentioned in the bible. As for the clip in the passion of the christ, that is only one small clip. yeah, I agree that Mel Gibson did an ace job with that movie - from an orthodox Christian perspective. but i wasn't trying to discuss Mel Gibson lol. I was trying to stay ontopic.

Tell you what bro, humour me. Watch the entire series. Keep an open mind, don't let your pre-conceived notions get in the way of real knowledge, ok?

It is good to ask questions, but even better to get real answers :)

Scimi

EDIT:

I will send anyone a check for 1 million dollars if they can find me ANY mention of deciding weather or not Christ was divine at Nicea.

Prove you have a bank balance that can paty me that amount, and I will prove it to you on the spot (see what I did there?)

If you can't prove it, then I think you should do that homework yourself, and pay yourself that 1 million in small incremental deposits. meh. Debating with people like you is just futility in itself - constantly going round and round in circles...

...If you can humour my request, I will give you my time. If you cannot, then you only do yourself an injustice and negate the opportunity to learn something new.

salaam.

Scimi

EDIT 2:

I will give you all a hint. There was NO talk of the canon at Nicea and NO talk of a vote on Christ's divinity.

The canon was basically set (yet the Church kept an open canon since there was no challenge to it and no need to close it) and Christ's divinity was agree upon by +99% of Christianity. Some brain dead idiot is going to mention Arius. Arianism didn't exist until about 300 AD, which means the idea that Christ was simply a man didnt exist among Christians till the 4th century.

Seems you've studied history from a very one dimensional perspective - you need to study comparatively - otherwise you are out of your depth here.

Scimi

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable.

No need to be over dramatic esp with the emo's :\

Since you believe in the divinity of Jesus (P), whether you believe in Jesus (P) as God, and believing in the father as God alongside, equates to 2 Gods, correct or incorrect?

[aadil77]

You think Christ's divinity was decided on at Nicea?

I now see the extent of your knowledge and it's laughable.
.

Divinity, Trinity all as equally absurd

Again you're getting all excited over history and different claims, point I was trying to make is not everyone agreed/agrees with assigning divinity to a prophet.

As muslims we have a life we don't need to dig up thousands of history books to reaffirm our beliefs. I honestly couldn't care less if I got my facts wrong I can bring a tonne of other arguments that will leave you embarrassed.

Christianity has had its foundations rocked and only few claims here and there in history books can uphold the beliefs of christians.

[Sunnie Ameena]

I can not claim to know alot about the Quran or the Bible. I have been learning from the posts here on this forum. It is definitely an eye opener. I would like to just share something, being raised a Christian (I am now Muslim), I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins. I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else. So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them). And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin. So then why did he die? And how can Jesus and God be one and the same, because Jesus says to pray to our Father in Heaven, he does not say to pray to God and myself. You keep saying that a certain scholar said this and that, well, were these scholars alive then, or are they just reading and quoting history books like yourself?

[Orangeduck]

I can not claim to know alot about the Quran or the Bible. I have been learning from the posts here on this forum. It is definitely an eye opener. I would like to just share something, being raised a Christian (I am now Muslim), I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins. I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else. So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them). And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin. So then why did he die? And how can Jesus and God be one and the same, because Jesus says to pray to our Father in Heaven, he does not say to pray to God and myself. You keep saying that a certain scholar said this and that, well, were these scholars alive then, or are they just reading and quoting history books like yourself?

If you would like to know about sin, Christ's death on the cross and Judgement Day, I will be more than happy to explain it to you. However, I am at a party right now and it will take some hours before I get home (I'm replying from my IPhone).

It's a very involved explanation and I'm sure it will take a few replies (I'm sure you will have questions and things you need me to clarify)

[GuestFellow]

^ Don't rush your responses and take your time.

[Perseveranze]

Btw, I don't really have time to read 7 pages.

Has anyone refuted his claim about the historicity of the Qur'an and the blaitant lie (well, possibly misconception) that "western academia are skeptical/doubtful about it"?

[Scimitar]

We've refuted many like him in the past... they just go away with their tails between their legs. I suppose we could always dig out the old posts just to save time eh?

Scimi

[Muhammad]

Im not ignoring anything. Some of those people are not historians. Some of those quotes are from the person you listed, but that person is quoting someone else (often times a non-historian).

What about Arberry, Brockett or Taylor? Surely there must be a qualified historian amongst them?

You have to be very careful of which authors you quote from, and you have to be EXTREMELY careful of what you are quoting.

Of course. The conclusions drawn by your favoured scholar Dr Puin have no grounds whatsoever to claim the Qur'an is an evolving text - a quote which you did not actually provide a reference for anyway.

You have completely ignored the rest of the points in earlier posts, explaining for example why there are minor differences in wording or ordering of surahs. You say "No one on this board has been able to bring any evidence to refute this claim"... rather you are conveniently overlooking the responses and picking and choosing what suits you.

[Sunnie Ameena]

If you would like to know about sin, Christ's death on the cross and Judgement Day, I will be more than happy to explain it to you. However, I am at a party right now and it will take some hours before I get home (I'm replying from my IPhone).

I will pass on the explanation, because, so far on this entire thread, I have seen you say the same thing...."I will be more than happy to explain", and there is never really any clear response, just more of what someone has written in history books.

It's a very involved explanation and I'm sure it will take a few replies (I'm sure you will have questions and things you need me to clarify)

No, I will have no more questions, why should I, I already asked them. And your clarification will be to tell me what some scholar has said, or what you learned.

[Orangeduck]

Brace yourself, as this is going to be my largest wall of text ever :nervous:

There is no rush to respond.

I believed that Jesus was cruxified to cleanse us of our sins.

This is the very heart of the matter. First, we must understand what "sin" is. "Sin" in Koine Greek means to "miss the mark". In fact, the word isnt exclusive to religion. An archer who misses the target just "sinned". If I try to save up a million dollars by the end of the year and I fail to do so, I just "sinned". As you can see, "sin" can be applied to thousands of things outside of religion. So, in the context of Christianity, what does it mean to "sin"? This is where you will get 1 of 2 answers (either the Orthodox answer or the Catholic / Protestant answer...however, both are very similar in the end). Since I belong to the Orthodox Church, I will give you their answer.

When you, I, or anyone commits a sin, we either miss the mark that God has set for us. It could be we either fail to do what we are supposed to do, or we do something we are not supposed to do. The word has nothing to do with legeality. As stated, if you fail to get a 100% on a test, you sinned, yet you are not in any legeal trouble. You might be asking "what is the mark that God has set for us". We, to be honest, the mark is complete perfection. You may read that and say "perfection is impossible", and you would be correct.

Before I go further, I need to explain another term. "Theosis" is a term used all the time in the Orthodox Church. It means "God like". That phrase can be confusing since the Church teaches we can never be "like God". You can think of the term as "friendship". Our level of theosis refers to our level of friendship with God.

So when we sin, we loose our relationship with God because God demands perfection and will not accept anything less. Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship (if we ask God for it...God will not force us to have a relationship). That is what Christ's death did. It heals our relationship and wipes away our imperfection.

Back to theosis. After we are forgiven, we can increase our friendship with God. Christ said the 2 greatest commandments are to love God and love your neighbor. Christ also said to help those who are in need (give to charity). Those are simple things we can do to increase our theosis.

WHy is theosis important? The afterlife is not equal for everyone. There are various degrees of happiness in the afterlife depending on your level of theosis. I will talk about the after life in great detail in a bit.

I think I should be held accountable for my own sins not someone else

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?


So Orangeduck, could you please explain to me how it is, that if he died to cleanse me of my sins, that on the Day of Judgement, that I have to answer for my sins ( which I should, since I am the one who committed them).

Im afraid Im not exactly sure what you are asking. Can you please, if you want, rephrase your question?

And how it is that after he died for our sins, that the Christian faith says that even babies are born with sin.

Again, there are 2 answers to this question (Catholic vs Orthodox). There is some common ground between both answers however. First, we are cleansed of our sins if we ask. Since a baby cant ask for forgiveness, it is sinful (however, the answer gets much deeper than this). There is a verse in the Old Testament where Saint David talks about how his child died, and that David would see his child again in the after life. This means that God does take age into consideration.

Here is where Catholics and Orthodox differ. You can choose to accept 1 answer over the other, or you can reject them both...it doesn't matter to me.

Catholic believe people are born *WITH* sin. Orthodox believe people are born *INTO* sin. The Orthodox Church teaches that we are not born with sin, but we are born into a world that is sinful, and thus, we will be sinful by nature (just look at human history...humans from all time frames and across the entire world have been very sinful). This is why Orthodox reject the Catholic idea of "original sin"

So what I'm trying to say is, babies are not born with sin, but babies also can't ask for forgivness.

So then why did he die?

He died to cleans us of our imperfection (assuming we choose to accept it). God demands perfection, and only a perfect sacrifice is acceptable. Christ lead a perfectly sinless life and was able to be that sacrifice.

And how can Jesus and God be one and the same,

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that Christianity teaches that there is a being called "God" and another being called "Christ / Jesus". If this is actually what you think (and forgive me if I did misunderstand you), then I need to clarify something. We do not believe that Jesus and God are seperate beings. Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

he does not say to pray to God and myself

You are 100% correct. Christ did not say pray to God and Me. That would be against what He taught and a contradiction. There is no God and Jesus. There is only God and if you pray to God, you are praying to Jesus. And if you pray to Jesus, you are praying to God. If you worship Jesus, you are worshiping God. The New Testament records stories of people worshiping Jesus, and Jesus fully accepted their worship. Why did He accept it? Because He is God...The One True God in human form.

As I promised, I will talk about the after life. Stay tooned for my next reply :statisfie

[Orangeduck]

The afterlife is semi complicated. Keep in mind what I said about theosis and sin. Both those terms are important to understand what the Orthodox Church teaches about the after life (Catholics and Protestants have a different veiw, but there is a ton of overlap in what they believe)

Remember what I said about sin not beiThe afteng a legeal concept? Well, what does that mean when you die? It means there is no "punishment" for your sins when you die. That does not mean the after life is all flowers and smiles either, but it does mean that since you are legeally guilty, God has no reason to sentance you to a punishment. This is vastly different from "sin" in islam.

You might be saying "Then why does the traditional concept of hell in Christianity a place of fire and torment?" Well sadly, that has a lot to do with American fundamentialism Protestants. Fundamentalism began to grow in the USA in the 1800's, and it's still at the heart of many denominations. Over 50% of Americas are some denomination of Protestantism, so it makes sense that it's fundamential aspects would permeate our culture.

If you read the Koine Greek text of the New Testament, you will not find the word "hell" anywhere. Hell is an anglo-saxon / germanic word that doesn't exist in ancient Greek. The word in the NT is "hades". I must also tell you that "hades" in ancient Greek means "underworld", and nothing more. There is no negitive connotation to the word "hades" in Kione Greek. It's not a bad place. In fact, Hades is where EVERYONE goes when they die.

Christianity teaches that the next life is a continuation of this life. If you theosis, or friendship with God is very high in this life, your friendship with God will be very high in the after life. If you theosis is very low in this life (or if you have no theosis) then your friendship with God will be very low in the next life. Lets use a scale from 0 to 100. 0 = no friendship with God at all (this is probably not possible) and 100 = perfect friendship with God (this is also impossible since none of will have done everything possible to earn 100% theosis).

Lets say I die and my theosis is 80. That means I will have a great relationship with God in the after life. If Hitler has a theosis of 3, then he will have virtually no relationship with God in the afterlife. There isn't going to be any punishment for Hitler other than the fact that he must live forever in the presence of a being that he has no relationship with.

Here is another way to look at it. Lets use me as an example. I am not married, but lets pretend that I am. My wife and I live in a house together. The house represents the afterlife. I can love my wife, spend time with her, do activities together and have a great time being with her. This would be an example of high theosis. Or I could not want to spend time with her, hate living with her and not even want to look at her. This is an example of low theosis. Either way, I have to live in the house (afterlife) with her. There is no punishment for haveing low theosis other than the fact that I will be living with her forever and I hate her.

You might be asking "what about when the NT describes a place like a with fire?" Matthew 25:41 for example says "‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the Eternal Fire".

This is something I get asked a lot. I will give you other examples, but first we must understand the cultural context of where Christ was living and preaching. There were many religions in the eastern half of the roman empire. All faiths were familiar with the theology of each other. It was very common to use a description that was familiar with someone of a different faith when trying to describe your own faith. Let me give you some example. Many roman pagan religions believed in a firey afterlife for wicked people. The fire Christ spoke of would have been familiar with pagans. Christ also spoke of "outer darkness". That phrase would have been familiar with adherents to the religion of zoroastrianism. Christ also used the phrase "a place where the worms never die". This is a play off an ancient Israelite superstition. The ancient Israelites believed that if you died and you weren't properly burried, then what ever happened to your body would be felt in the afterlife. When people die, worms and other creatures can and will eat our bodies. Jesus used this phrase to scare some sense into the Jews.

As you can see, if taken literally, "hell" would be impossible. Fire creates light which means darkness is impossibe. Fire would kill worms so obviously they wouldn't be able to eat you in the afterlife if it's filled with fire.

I also invite you to read the parable of the Rich man from the Gospel of Luke. That story contains some truth, some metaphore and a parabale all wrapped up into a single story. I will give you some of the highlights of the story that pertain to this discussion.

lazarus and a rich man died. Lazarus was "comforted" and the rich man suffered. The rich man was able to see and speak to Saint Abraham, but they were seperated by a gulf. This means that the rich man didn't go "down to hell" and Lazarus didn't go "up to heaven". Geographically, they were on the same plane of existance. They both went to hades upon death. However, the rich man was certinally in agony. He had to spend the afterlife with virtually no relationship to God or the Saints (that would cause me to be in agony also)

I must warn you...there are very few good english translations of the story. it's very difficult to translate and keep the original message. This would be easier if you knew Kione Greek. Im not suggesting you learn it though...it's a terrible language (almost as bad as Hebrew)

There will be 1 more part ;D

[Orangeduck]

Since Christians believe that the after life is a continuation of this life, that means Christians don't believe you are "dead" per se. We are alive in the next life. Our bodies are dead on earth, but we live in the next life. That means what we do in this life can help others in the next life. I can pray for people who have "fallen asleep" (as Saint Paul describes it). Our prayers can increase the theosis of those in the afterlife, so the Orthodox Church prays for everyone in hades 3 times a years. And when I say "everyone", I mean it. They pray for muslims, christians, hindus, sikhs, athiests and anyone else and every other faith.

So whatever your theosis is upon death, it will increase slowly. But once Judgement Day arrives (whenever that is), everything is final.

However, since people are alive in the next life, that also means you can ask them to pray for you. That is why Catholics, Orthodox and many Protestants pick a Patron Saint. They pick someone who has very high theosis to be their saint. They ask that Saint to pray for them. I ask my Patron Saiint almost every day to pray for me.

Your theosis can't decrease in the afterlife, which means the Saints will have a better friendship with God than we will. Their theosis can only go up, so I know for a fact that my Saint has a better relationship with God than I do. His prayers are more powerful than mine.

I think I am finally done :)

I didn't want to rush the responce, but I am positive that as people respond, I will realise that I forgot to mention something, or that I said something in an unclear way.

Peace be with you all

[Hulk]

Thanks for taking the time to type down all that. I think there are many questions that should be asked but here are a few that I have.

Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship

Why does an innocent man have to be sacrificed so that you will be forgiven? Isn't God capable of forgiving our sins without having us kill an innocent man? Does this mean that if you were there during the time of Jesus, you as a christian wouldn't have done anything to help him?

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?

Do you think that God doesn't know His own creations? He created us, He knows our weaknesses and our strength, all we can do is try our best even if it isn't perfect. Yes, in the end we can only be saved by His Mercy but that doesn't mean there is no effort to be put into on our part.

Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

Does that mean that the burning bush should be part of the Trinity as well? If God and Jesus is one in the same that who was Jesus praying to and who was he crying out to on the cross?

There is only God and if you pray to God, you are praying to Jesus. And if you pray to Jesus, you are praying to God. If you worship Jesus, you are worshiping God.

So are you saying Jesus told people to worship him? Can you provide evidence? If he is God then why does he himself pray and cry out to God?

if taken literally, "hell" would be impossible.

For God to be both an All-Powerful being and a limited being (a man) at the same time is also impossible. Am I wrong to say this?

This would be easier if you knew Kione Greek. Im not suggesting you learn it though...it's a terrible language

Are you implying that you know Koine Greek? You said you converted to Christianity about two years ago, does that mean you learnt Koine Greek within two years? Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

[Muhammad]

Orangeduck,

I gathered from your posts that the main reason you claim to have converted to Christianity is because of its historical basis and admit that it cannot be proven from a theological standpoint:

Hello my friend. Being a HUGE history buff, Christianity held a certain allure to me. The quran says that Christ didn't die in the cross, but historical records say He did. Being a history nut, I saw Christianity as a religion that had a historically sound and mostly verifiable foundation. This was very appealing to me.

If I didn't appreciate history as much as I do, I might not have every studied religion from a secular and historical point of view...and I might still be a muslim.

What caused me to convert to Christianity was the message and the historical basis for the belief. Christianity and Judiasm, whe neither can be proven form a theological stand point, both are historical sound and verifiable.

There is no provable theology. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to prove theology. That is why I don't like getting into theological debtes. We can debate theology till Judgement Day and neither of us would be able to prove anything.

That was a major reason for my converstion. There is un-provable theology in the Bible, but there is a lot more provable history in the Bible than the Quran.

What is confusing me is that you have shown your historical knowledge of the Qur'an to be appalling, and you are unable to respond to posts made to clarify this. Christianity's historical record and very foundation comes nowhere near to that of Islam, so one wonders how you could claim to have converted on this basis. You even go against your own Christian scholars when you admit the Bible contains errors, yet nothing of the sort can be said of the Qur'an. A simple observation of how many different Bibles are in existence and how there is only ONE Qur'an in every corner of the globe is testimony to this fact.

Please explain.

[Alpha Dude]

Fundies do the darndest things.. sounds to me like the OP is using his alleged conversion from Islam to Christianity as a 'conversion tactic' and, in reality, he never was Muslim.

[Insaanah]

Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

Does make you wonder.

For example the following:

I believed everything I was told by my parents, such as:

5) always fast durring islamic holidays

Fasting is forbidden on the Islamic festivals (the two Eids). Only satan fasts on those days, no Muslim does.

For those like many who might not want to read swathes of text, the crux of Orangeduck's belief, as per post 99, and seen from my perspective, is this:

God has set us a standard, perfection, which we can never achieve. Because we can't achieve that unreachable (and thus seems to imply unfair) standard that God has set, our relationship with him is severed, as He won't accept less than perfection. To rectify this, God had to get into a human body, cry as a helpless baby, etc and then allow himself be killed by humans to prove his love to the world, and to cleanse us of our sin. (this seems to imply that He either didn't want to, or was uncapable of, simply freely forgiving us).

[YusufNoor]

Well, I see that you will spin information any way you can.

i'm not spinning anything at all, simply asking that you verify that "historical event".


I gave you examples of documents that historians consider to be contemporary.

but i am looking for something contemporaneous, as in AT THE SAME TIME. one would imagine that if a man came and claimed to be god, died and was raised from he dead, that this would be a pretty spectacular event! wouldn't you think? so i'm looking for an eyewitness account to this alleged miracle that was written within a month or so of the event. do you have such a document? i would like to see it.


You can choose to reject the concensus of historians, but the burden of proof is on you to give me a reason why you reject them.

no, you came here and said you changed your belief system on account of an "historical event." i'm trying to determine what evidence you have for said event.

I noticed you used the the Quran as your only price of evidence. Unfortunatly, a statement written 600 years after the fact isn't going to convince many rational people.

i was merely pointing out what the Qur'an said and asking how it was wrong. i'm looking for you to prove your claim.

I know you said its a retorical question, but I will answer it :)

If something historically happened, but a document claims it never happened, then that document is wrong. For example, if I write a document that states the holocaust never happened, then my document would be wrong. The same logic applies to the Bible, quran, and any other book (assuming the book is not meant to be fiction).

i see you are mixing "hot-button issues here, that helps to determine motive...

i see later that you mention Bart Ehrman, i'm familiar with him. i realize that he accepts the crucifiction as historical, but i'm more interested in what he has to say about the documents that report that fiction. i see no evidence that would be admitted in a court of law. hearsay by unknown authors is NOT proof to a rational mind.

i notice that you claim that Jesus, pbuh, spoke Greek. that is not a universally held opinion at all. Jesus, pbuh, would have spoken Aramaic and one would assume had a working knowledge of "Ezran" Hebrew script. one could make a case for it, but not much of a case that he ever preached in it. Saul of Tarsus would be the one who fit the bill on that. so not only are we looking at hearsay by unknown authors, but we are looking at documents produced in another tongue. the case for any authenticity or even accurate translation worsens dramatically.

so, still waiting for your reply on something contemporaneous.

Sam

[M.I.A.]

When you, I, or anyone commits a sin, we either miss the mark that God has set for us. It could be we either fail to do what we are supposed to do, or we do something we are not supposed to do. The word has nothing to do with legeality. As stated, if you fail to get a 100% on a test, you sinned, yet you are not in any legeal trouble. You might be asking "what is the mark that God has set for us". We, to be honest, the mark is complete perfection. You may read that and say "perfection is impossible", and you would be correct.

i agree.
i understand what you are saying but it calls into question freedom of choice.
if there is always a compulsion to do something that god has set then that pretty much puts the whole place on rails.. predistination, fate, kismet.

the only choice is to react to the situation.

sin in context is the wronging of our selves or others, the misleading of self or others.
nobody achieves perfection but only an increasing awareness.

i would say that the whole point in life is to struggle against what is naturally occurring..

something brilliant in the quran is when it talks about those that cannot feed themselves.
when they say that if allah swt had willed then he would have fed them.

anybody can understand from that alone how we should approach life.


islam says of the devil that he is a misleader that has vowed to mislead as many as he can.
if there is a concept of original sin.. then you know that guy is involved.

So when we sin, we loose our relationship with God because God demands perfection and will not accept anything less. Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship (if we ask God for it...God will not force us to have a relationship). That is what Christ's death did. It heals our relationship and wipes away our imperfection.

lets look at that specifically, if jesus pbuh was crucified then those that stood by or witnessed obviously missed the mark.. they were not cleansed.

and this is how i uphold my argument, maybe it was gods will that a story should unfold like that. it is more a reflection of jesus's people than himself.
after all by your understanding they should all have had a chance to do what they were suppose to do.. or do something they were not suppose to do.

Jesus dieing on the cross cleanses us of our ruined relationship

no, i think you let go of the only thing he ever sent you to form a relationship with him(well the people of that time did)...back to autopilot.

ignorance is bliss.

everybody can go about professing one god and living out there lives happily. but i guess sometimes you have to step off the path to understand what this place is.

Lets assume Christianity is absolutly correct for the sake of the discussion. Knowing what I just told you, you would *NEVER* want to be held accountable. Since God demands perfection, and no one is perfect, what do you think would happen if you told God you wanted to be held accountable for your own sins? How can you, on your own, restore yourself back to level of no imperfection?

islam is the religion of total submission,
it is also a religion of accountability.

there is a concept in Christianity of atonement. i guess that applies to how accountability works on autopilot.
forgiveness is a concept that needs to be actively enforced or disappears.
..is that gods will or a persons?

well i guess the reward is with allah swt, the choice is with the person.

it is extremely difficult to put any counter argument against you without making myself sound like a fool.. there is a lot of similarity in understanding.. you may not think so.

but if you remove the absolute hate we have in differing opinions, then you remove the excuse for stupid men to do stupid things.

hate the action and not the person..people can change, the whisperer will have no place in your hearts.

everybody has a chance to reinforce atonement, but you want to leave forgiveness to god?

not saying god is powerless, malevolent or non existent.. its just miracles are reserved for special occasions.

it is why i know islam is the correct path, simply because it would oppose oppression and tumult as a matter of faith.
it was sent to upset that autopilot we all live on.

...feel free to continue discrediting each others religion, following those that live simply to do so.

[Orangeduck]

Orangeduck,

I gathered from your posts that the main reason you claim to have converted to Christianity is because of its historical basis and admit that it cannot be proven from a theological standpoint:







What is confusing me is that you have shown your historical knowledge of the Qur'an to be appalling, and you are unable to respond to posts made to clarify this. Christianity's historical record and very foundation comes nowhere near to that of Islam, so one wonders how you could claim to have converted on this basis. You even go against your own Christian scholars when you admit the Bible contains errors, yet nothing of the sort can be said of the Qur'an. A simple observation of how many different Bibles are in existence and how there is only ONE Qur'an in every corner of the globe is testimony to this fact.

Please explain.

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek. I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

However, it doesn't matter. I will reponds *again* with a historian, and you will *again* counter with some apologetical crap. That is what I have come to expect from you. I will respond with a consensus among people with PHD's from non-biased secular universities, you will counter with an apologetical answer.

It's like this. I will say the earth is round, and you will say it's flat. I will tell you scientists agree it's round, and you will predictably say that not a single scientist agrees with me. I will then give you the name of a scientist who does agree with me.

You will then go to google, type in "is the earth flat". You will ignore the 80 pages of materials that disagrees with you, and look at the one page that supports your claim. You will then copy and paste the quotes on the web page and act as is they are fully authoritative, yet you will have never read the actual books / papers the quotes came from (you did earlier in this thread). Since these quotes (which you have no idea of their context) disagree with me, you will then claim "victory" and say that my knowledge is "appaling" and walk away with a smirk on your face.

So, I have a single question for you. If you can answer it, I will no longer ignore you. Why should I bother wasting my time replying to someone like you?

Now, before you get all pissy, and play the victim and pull out the persecution complex, just keep in mind that everything I said is backed up by examples from things you have said. DOnt get mad at me for the way you acted. You Fundamentials will never change. Take Yusufnoor for example. He asked for a contemporary source. Not only does he not know what "contemporary" means, he also doesn't know what historians consider to be contemporary. I gave him 4 sources that historians consider contemporary, and I told where to go for more sources. So what did he do? He closed his eyes, stuck his fingers in his ears and screamed "LALALALALALALALALA I WANT A CONTEMPORARY SOURCE LALALALALALA" If I gave him 50 contemporary sources, he would still shift the goal post and change the requirements. He does this because he can't stand that undisputed fact that Christ did die on the cross and all historians accept it as a historical fact (beacuse there are many sources that speak of it).

You will also notice that he says my knowldge of history is poor, yet he will say, and I quote "i notice that you claim that Jesus, pbuh, spoke Greek. that is not a universally held opinion at all"

What is funny is, dispite his self proclaimed superiority, he didn't know that the Lingua Franca of the eastern roman empire was Koine Greek (look up Lingua Franca since you don't know what it means). He does know that the Jews translated the OT into Koine Greek ~250 years before Christ lived because of the fact that Greek had surpassed Hebrew and Aramaic as the language of the Jews (just look at jewish historical documents and funeral rites...most are done in Greek). No one argues that Christ spoke aramaic, but to say that is not universally accepted is pure apologetical.

As stated, if you can answer my question (and only answer my question), I will read it and respond. Remember, put away your victim complex because no one hates you (and if they did it would be your own fault). I just dont have time to respond to someone who wont take it seriously and only responds with apologetical crap :p

[Orangeduck]

I will get to some of that now, and the rest later. Normally I put others quotes in green, but this will be different. I will put my own replys in red under your question :)

Thanks for taking the time to type down all that. I think there are many questions that should be asked but here are a few that I have.


Why does an innocent man have to be sacrificed so that you will be forgiven? Isn't God capable of forgiving our sins without having us kill an innocent man? Does this mean that if you were there during the time of Jesus, you as a christian wouldn't have done anything to help him?





Do you think that God doesn't know His own creations? He created us, He knows our weaknesses and our strength, all we can do is try our best even if it isn't perfect. Yes, in the end we can only be saved by His Mercy but that doesn't mean there is no effort to be put into on our part.


God does know His creation. He does know we are weak, but that is no excuse. Let me give you an example. Parents know their kids will disobey. However, that is still no excuse. WHen a child disobeys, the parent still punishes the child, even though the parent knew the child would not listen. We are weak, but that is no excuse to God.



Does that mean that the burning bush should be part of the Trinity as well? If God and Jesus is one in the same that who was Jesus praying to and who was he crying out to on the cross?

THe burning bush was just 1 of many visible forms God took. The visible form of God *IS* the trinity. It doesn't really matter what form God took, but the fact is that God has appeared to humans. Christians universally attribute the Son to the trinity since that was the form that mattered, but basically, the Son is nothing more than God in a visible form. The trinity is very easy and people (myself included in the past) put too much thought into it a simple concept :)

So are you saying Jesus told people to worship him? Can you provide evidence? If he is God then why does he himself pray and cry out to God?



For God to be both an All-Powerful being and a limited being (a man) at the same time is also impossible. Am I wrong to say this?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.


Are you implying that you know Koine Greek? You said you converted to Christianity about two years ago, does that mean you learnt Koine Greek within two years? Or were stretching the truth about being an ex muslim so that maybe we feel we can relate?

I started learned Koine Greek (very slowly) about 2.5 years ago. Depending on where you learn it, you might be required to know flawlessly in 2 years. If you go for your PHD in Biblical scholarship, you will have to know the language in 2 years or less (which is very difficult). I don't have a PDH in Biblical scholarship (nor will I ever), so I have been able to take more time.

[M.I.A.]

allah swt being a duck is extremely derogatory, the duck would not agree.

back to idolatary.

even if god was a duck, he is probably not every duck.

today a sign, tomorrow a lunch.. actually its haram but you get the analogy.

nothing is like allah swt, he is unique, alone, without likeness.

if his mercy is ever at hand then it can be infinite and of infinite form.. but nothing is infinite in this world. everything lives and everything dies..in this world.

yet god still is.

i guess it is fitting for an earlier post relating to idolatry and prophets peace and blessings upon them.

[Insaanah]

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

Orangeduck, please do not persist in ignoring posts, and refrain from addressing admins rudely, and stating falsehoods not mentioned in the Qur'an but attributing them to it.

This is what the Qur'an says:

They say: "(Allah) Most Gracious has begotten a son!"
Indeed ye have put forth a thing most monstrous!
At it the skies are ready to burst, the earth to split asunder, and the mountains to fall down in utter ruin,
That they attribute to the Most Merciful a son.
For it is not consonant with the majesty of (Allah) Most Gracious that He should beget a son.
There is no one in the heavens and earth but that he comes to the Most Merciful as a servant. (19:88-93)

...Allah is only One Allah. Far is it removed from His Transcendent Majesty that He should have a son. His is all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. And Allah is sufficient as Disposer of affairs. (4:171, part)

This is at having a son, it does not befit the Majesty of Allah that he should have a son, let alone take the form a duck, astaghfirullah.

He can do whatever He wishes, and whatever He wishes, befits his Exalted and Glorious Majesty.

[Hulk]

God does know His creation. He does know we are weak, but that is no excuse. Let me give you an example. Parents know their kids will disobey. However, that is still no excuse. WHen a child disobeys, the parent still punishes the child, even though the parent knew the child would not listen. We are weak, but that is no excuse to God.

Actually parents punish their kids to teach them a lesson, wouldn't you say that is very different from eternal ****ation? If we are going to use an analogy for what you are saying it would be like if Bill Gates smashing his computer because it froze, or worse, he would smash a perfectly fine computer because he so loved that other computer that he put the perfectly good computer in it's place. But Bill Gates wouldn't do that(well he might, his human) because he knows that freezing up is part of the computer's weakness.

The visible form of God *IS* the trinity.

Christians universally attribute the Son to the trinity since that was the form that mattered, but basically, the Son is nothing more than God in a visible form.

So the burning bush *IS* the trinity? Jesus *IS* the trinity? Is Jesus the trinity or is he *PART* of the trinity? According to you, it's ok to say "The Father, The Burning Bush and The Holy Ghost"? What about "The Father, The Burning Bush(or any other *visible forms*, The Son and The Holy Ghost"?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

The irony is that you are the one who puts limits in what God can do by saying he is a man, and that he has to punish himself because he loves us and doesn't want to punish us. He has to punish himself instead of just forgiving us.
Also, didn't you say a few posts back that Hell is literally impossible?

I started learned Koine Greek (very slowly) about 2.5 years ago. Depending on where you learn it, you might be required to know flawlessly in 2 years. If you go for your PHD in Biblical scholarship, you will have to know the language in 2 years or less (which is very difficult). I don't have a PDH in Biblical scholarship (nor will I ever), so I have been able to take more time.

So you converted from islam to christianity two years ago but you started learning Koine Greek 2.5 years ago? Can you say how you learned it?

[Ğħαrєєвαħ]

Greetings,

Now, before you get all pissy,

You know there's no need for childish words like that. Show some respect, please!

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek. I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

There are no 2 Qur'aan's, nor did you give sound evidence, plus sister Lamees posted her evidence in previous pages, you can't be bothered to check them, this isnt our problem.

He does this because he can't stand that undisputed fact that Christ did die on the cross and all historians accept it as a historical fact (beacuse there are many sources that speak of it).

So, God died on the cross? If he did die who controlled the world? Father? if so, equating to 2 Gods!

You say this:

I will probably always believe in some monotheistic deity

Do you know what 'Monostheism' is?

Are you putting limits on what God can do? To be honest, the NT tells us something that God actually cant do. However, can you deity take the form of a duck? I dont say this to be funny, but according to the Quran, Allah absolutly could.

Yes, God does NOT do that which doesn't suit him. Have you heard of angels? Prophets? Why were they sent? Ever studied their purpose?

If according to the Qur'aan God can take the form of a duck, go ahead and prove it, provide your evidence, please!


Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "He is Allah, (the) One. "Allah-us-Samad (السيد الذي يصمد إليه في الحاجات) [Allah the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks)]. "He begets not, nor was He begotten, And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him."

[Sunnie Ameena]

I might be misunderstanding you, but it seems to me that you are under the impression that Christianity teaches that there is a being called "God" and another being called "Christ / Jesus". If this is actually what you think (and forgive me if I did misunderstand you), then I need to clarify something. We do not believe that Jesus and God are seperate beings. Jesus *IS* God. There are not 2 beings in Heaven. God is invisible, but throughout the Old Testament, God has taken a visible and humanized form. This visible and human form of God *IS* Jesus. So Christ is simply God in the flesh.

Here we go again, answers answers answers, never proof. Ok, let me explain myself so you can understand me. I do not need you to explain anything else to me(as I clearly told you in my earlier post). Clearly you say that God and Jesus are the same, not separate. Well, I was always taught the Trinity (remember, I was born and raised Christian, not you). You know what I mean, after all you are the history buff, God, The Son, and the Holy Spirit. If indeed, there is no difference, then why do Christians acknowledge all three. I will tell you this, irreguardless of what regligion is discussed, there will be debates. But for sure I know that there is indeed one God and that is my God. Whether someone calls him Allah, God, Lord, Father, or Jesus, whether they believe in the Trinity or not, my Father in Heaven will always be utmost in my heart, and soul.

And here is something else for you to ponder, but please, spare me any explanation. You are telling me that God is Jesus and Jesus is God. Here me good, God CAN NOT die. So you are saying that my God died, because Jesus died.

There are not 2 beings in Heaven.

Like I said before, I can not say that I know all there is to know about the Bible, but what I learned, was to memory. We were taught that the Bible says that Jesus died on the cross(Good Friday) and rose on the third day(Easter), and is seated at the right hand of our Father which is in Heaven. So you are basically saying that all that is wrong, because if God and Jesus are the same, then Jesus can not be seated next to God. I think that is part of the reason I originally started reading about Islam. Don't get me wrong, I do believe in Jesus, but I believe in one God and that is Allah.

Ok, I gotta stop, cause, (oh heck, it is just never ending), and I feel I will never get my point across. I love Allah. Thank you Father for all the blessings you have given to me. And most of all, thank you my Heavenly Father for loving me and being in my life.

[Muhammad]

Orangeduck,

So, I have a single question for you. If you can answer it, I will no longer ignore you. Why should I bother wasting my time replying to someone like you?

I’m not obliged to answer any such contemptuous questions before my posts are deemed worthy of your attention. The real question is why you felt the need to ignore them in the first place and one can only conclude you were unable to answer, hence you are resorting to this rather predictable cop-out of using discourteous remarks. If you don’t want to accept some of the quotes I’ve used, that’s fine. But instead of having an emotional outburst over historians who must have a PhD, you could have commented on many other points explaining for example why you might find copies of the Qur’an with Surahs arranged in a different order, or simply partial copies that will not contain all Surahs. There was even a referenced narrative regarding an Institute that studied 40,000 manuscripts of the Qur’an spanning different centuries and countries, and found them to contain no variants whatsoever. There was a response to your original claim regarding the San’a manuscripts... and more. All of this had nothing to do with inappropriate googling or false quotes. Please stop repeating nonsense about consensus of historians and nobody being able to bring evidence when it’s right before your eyes.

I challenged you to find me 2 different NTs in Kione Greek.

I haven’t mentioned the NT anywhere in my posts – you were discussing that with someone else. If you want to pursue this, then one thing at a time. This thread began with a discussion on the Qur’an and that was the topic I have been focusing on.

I also gave examples of 2 different Quran's in arabic, so what you said is obviously a lie.

This is nothing but a missionary claim (echoed in fact by the Christian missionary Jochen Katz), clearly demonstrating (often deception, if not) complete ignorance of the science of the Qira’at and Ahruf, something which is well documented and recognised by your own historians. The Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself taught certain verses in multiple ways. For a detailed discussion, you can read here:

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Qur...raat/hafs.html

There is an article by Adrian Brockett (I’m quite sure he has a PhD – feel free to check), titled "The Value of Hafs And Warsh Transmissions For The Textual History Of The Qur'an", which sheds some light on various aspects of differences between the two recitations. He says that,

The transmission of the Qur'an after the death of Muhammad was essentially static, rather than organic. There was a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.

You accused me of lying when I said that Muslims only have one Qur’an. Every year Muslims throughout the world recite the entire Qur’an from memory during the night prayers in Ramadhan. Millions of Muslims visit the holy Mosques in Makkah and Madinah, many of whom have memorised the Qur’an themselves, hearing the recitation of the Imams, following it letter by letter. Do you really think this would be possible if there were different “versions” of the Qur’an? Surely your alleged days as a Muslim must have taught you this much.


Lastly, I should remind you that your very ability to post in this thread is because people on this board have given you the benefit of the doubt and given you the liberty to discuss freely. If you are not prepared to discuss in a civilised and fair manner then please take your misinformed and ill-mannered posting elsewhere.

Regards.

[aadil77]

I think we've given you enough chances to respond but you've ignored these posts because you've found yourself in a hole - like every other Christian claiming to be a convert from Islam

Better luck next time

:threadclo