On the Preservation of the Bible

[nimrod]

Abu Omar, I am assuming you have not understood the implications of what I posted.

You use as a reason for the differences cited, that "well men corrupted the Bible".

What logical argument can you defend as to the reason why the verses, concerning punishment for having relations with animals, would have been changed by men?

What would be their motivation for changing those verses?

Where does the teaching of cutting off a hand and foot on opposite sides come from? The Bible says to make the thief repay 7 times the value of what was stolen. If the thief has nothing worth 7 times the value to pay for his crime, he is to work off the debt as a slave.
Is cutting off hands and feet not a teaching of Islam? Isn’t that using maiming as punishment?

Isn’t that punishment used for punishing stealing?

What logical argument can be defended as to why men would have went back into Old Testament Law and changed those verses away from what Islam says is God’s word?
What motivation would men have for changing those verses from what Islam says?

Why is the punishment for adultery different in the Bible from the Quran?
What motivation would men have for changing the Old Testament Law and change what those verses said?

To you the points I have raised might seem minor, but I had a reason for using the examples I did.

If the reason for the men having changed the verses can’t be logically defended in Islam’s favor, then you are left with nothing defendable.

Then the statement that, “well all of that is just because men messed up the Bible” should be strongly questioned any time it is used.

Since we both agree that the Bible contains God’s words (although we disagree about just how many of the words are from God) and since the Bible came first. Then Islam is left in the position off needing to reconcile what Islam teaches with what the Bible teaches or reasonably explain what Islam disagrees with in the Bible.

Islam’s answer to almost all disagreement with the Bible has mostly been a blanket “well the Bible has been corrupted”. As they say down south “that dog won’t hunt all the time”.

Men are men and they have been mostly the same since the beginning of time. Men do what they do for predictable/explainable reasons almost all the time. What reason would the men have for changing those verses concerning what I cited? What gain would they get from it? If there is not logical reason for a group of men for having done it then, to a certainty, men didn’t do it.

A lone man might do something on a whim, with no thought or reason behind it, but never a group of men undertaking a serous task.

If you can’t come up with a logical defendable reason for a group of men going back into Old Testament Law and changing those verses concerning what I cited on this thread, then you are left with the moral certainty that they didn’t do what you accuse them off.

That leaves Islam with this, the scripture concerning what I cited is be beyond a reasonable doubt (to a moral certainty), from God.

Any “scripture” disagreeing with that Biblical scripture must be from something/someone less than God.

Now do you understand the implications of what I posted?

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

I will tell you why, for me, (to a moral certainty) the Quran is not God’s word.

It disagrees with God’s earlier words and laws with out any explainable reason.

Four examples:

#1Adulters under the Biblical Law were to be stoned. Islam teaches that one of the reasons it was revealed was to lead people back to the Biblical Law.
#2 Folks having relations with animals were to be killed along with the animal. It is repeated several times in the Bible. Islam disagrees with God’s earlier word on that with no logical reason why.
#3 Maiming as a punishment is not seen in God’s word (other than in the narrow context of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) before Islam.
The old saw about “well your Bible is just corrupted and the original didn’t say that falls flat on its face on those.
#4 Islam records Jesus performing miracles as a child, if they were true why aren’t they recorded in the Bible? What logical argument can be offered as the ones cited by Islam would have been removed by corrupt men, all the while these same men left all the rest in, both smaller miracles and larger miracles.

It makes no sense.

On a more gray scale, I don’t understand how if Jesus was just a prophet, and Islam had a better prophet, why don’t we see Muhammad’s apostles doing as Jesus’ apostles doing?

Where are all the blind and lame that were healed? Where their signs and wonders? Where are the multitudes that were miraculously fed?

Any argument offered in favor of Islam being true can almost to the letter is offered as an argument by the Mormons. I highly doubt you would find their arguments very convincing.

Thanks
Nimrod

Abu Omar, I am assuming you have not understood the implications of what I posted.

You use as the reason for the differences cited, "well men corrupted the Bible".

What logical argument can you defend as to the reason why the verses, concerning punishment for having relations with animals, would have been changed by men?

What would be their motivation for changing those verses?

Where does the teaching of cutting off a hand and foot on opposite sides come from? The Bible says to make the thief repay 7 times the value of what was stolen. If the thief has nothing worth 7 times the value to pay for his crime, he is to work off the debt as a slave.
Is cutting off hands and feet not a teaching of Islam? Isn’t that using maiming as punishment?

Isn’t that punishment used for punishing stealing?

What logical argument can be defended as to why men would have went back into Old Testament Law and changed those verses away from what Islam says is God’s word?
What motivation would men have for changing those verses from what Islam says?

Why is the punishment for adultery different in the Bible from the Quran?
What motivation would men have for changing the Old Testament Law and change what those verses said?

To you the points I have raised might seem minor, but I had a reason for using the examples I did.

If the reason for the men having changed the verses can’t be logically defended in Islam’s favor, then you are left with nothing defendable.

Then the statement that, “well all of that is just because men messed up the Bible” should be strongly questioned any time it is used.

Since, we both agree that, the Bible contains God’s words (although we disagree about just how many of the words are from God) and since the Bible came first, then Islam is left in the position off needing to reconcile what Islam teaches with what the Bible teaches or reasonably explain what Islam disagrees with in the Bible.

Islam’s answer to almost all disagreement with the Bible has mostly been a blanket “well the Bible has been corrupted”. As they say down south “that dog won’t hunt all the time”.

Men are men and they have been mostly the same since the beginning of time. Men do what they do for predictable/explainable reasons almost all the time. What reason would the men have for changing those verses concerning what I cited? What gain would they get from it? If there is not logical reason for a group of men for having done it then, to a certainty, men didn’t do it.

A lone man might do something on a whim, with no thought or reason behind it, but never a group of men undertaking a serous task.

If you can’t come up with a logical defendable reason for a group of men going back into Old Testament Law and changing those verses concerning what I cited on this thread, then you are left with the moral certainty that they didn’t do what you accuse them off.

That leaves Islam with this, the scripture concerning what I cited is be beyond a reasonable doubt (to a moral certainty), from God.

Any “scripture” disagreeing with that Biblical scripture must be from something/someone less than God.

Now do you understand the implications of what I posted?

Thanks
Nimrod

Just restoring the line of reasoning, I was unaware the post had been moved.

Ansar Al-‘Adl was kind enough to break this out into a second thread concerning why folks might have a problem believing the Qur’an is the word of God. He also picked the title of the thread.

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

I might be able to help answer some of these questions: (I know I jumped in again....I really need to stop doing that. :-[ )

#1Adulters under the Biblical Law were to be stoned. Islam teaches that one of the reasons it was revealed was to lead people back to the Biblical Law.
#2 Folks having relations with animals were to be killed along with the animal. It is repeated several times in the Bible. Islam disagrees with God’s earlier word on that with no logical reason why.
#3 Maiming as a punishment is not seen in God’s word (other than in the narrow context of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth) before Islam.
The old saw about “well your Bible is just corrupted and the original didn’t say that falls flat on its face on those.
#4 Islam records Jesus performing miracles as a child, if they were true why aren’t they recorded in the Bible? What logical argument can be offered as the ones cited by Islam would have been removed by corrupt men, all the while these same men left all the rest in, both smaller miracles and larger miracles.

To be honest, I'm not sure what some of them are referring to, so I'm kinda guessing. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

#1, The Qur'an was not revealed to turn people back to the gospel, torah or zubur. All messengers from Muhammed back (pbut), gave the same message, "The Lord Thy God is ONE God", but was preached to a particular nation or people. The Qur'an was revealed to correct omissions, scribal errors, interpolations, etc., from the previous revelations and it was necessary, as this time, the revelation was for ALL mankind. All of these errors, whether intentional or not, were done by man. Unfortunately, none of the original revelations are available and all that remain are books from unknown authors that tell you what they believe the teachings were. For example, John is drastically different from the the synoptics and Pauline doctrine goes completely against what Jesus, pbuh, taught. We are told that the bible still contains some truths, but these truths are surrounded by errors. The Qur'an says, where the scriptures of the bible agree with the revelation of the Qur'an....this is truth. Where they differ....it is not true. So, the Qur'an was revealed NOT to confirm previous books, but to correct them.

#2, I'm not sure where you're going with this one. :rollseyes

#3, I do believe I posted the verses for you from the bible that did talk about maiming as punishment in another post here

#4, There are many reasons why things are removed, forgotten, not recorded, etc. Really, we can only speculate. First, as I said earlier, the orginal revelations were completely destroyed or lost. The books of the bible were written long after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up and they are not believed to be written by eye-witnesses. They are believed to have been written based on hearsay, tradition, etc. It is believed the synoptics were written using similar documents, hence the name "synoptics"...meaning one-eyed. It seems those 3 writers used some of the same documents to write their own books. Out of the canonized books, why does John differ so drastically from the others? Why does Pauline doctrine? The answers, to me are obvious. They were not there to record the teachings of Jesus, pbuh. Don't forget that Paul was not interested in what Jesus, pbuh, taught....he only wanted Him dead and spent a good part of his life trying to do exactly that. So, over time, the originals were destroyed/lost, and writers tried to re-create them from the documents that did remain. However, these documents were not complete which allowed many things to go unrecorded and not able to be authenticated. Power hungry rulers of the day trying to "win" people over, altered text all the time. This was common practice. There are numerous other reasons, but mostly, any original documents that may have recorded His true words are simply not available and were not available to the book writers, or in some cases, they did not serve their purpose.

I could keep going with this post, but I think it's best i stop here and perhaps we can continue discussing one or 2 points at a time. :)

Hope this clarifies things somewhat and I apologize I didn't go into deep detail, but that can come later if you would like to continue the discussion.

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace again Nimrod:

I just wanted to comment on this portion of your post.

...and since the Bible came first, then Islam is left in the position off needing to reconcile what Islam teaches with what the Bible teaches or reasonably explain what Islam disagrees with in the Bible.

Actually, the bible didn't come first. First it was the Zubur, revealed to David, then the Torah revealed to Moses, next the Injeel (Gospel) revealed to Jesus and finally the Qur'an revealed to Muhammed, pbut. The Bible itself, was not the revelation. The Bible is a compilation of books/writings that came long after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up, but by authors that are not known with 100% certainty. And in reality, there have been 450 known versions of the Bible over time due to disagreements over content, etc. The Council of Nicea in 325 is probably the best known, but it was just one There were many other councils held that altered the Biblical books over time.

Again, this too can be discussed providing far more information, but when posts are too long it becomes "Information Overload" and fails to serve the purpose. At least that is my humble opinion. lol So, we can also discuss this further if you like. :)

Take care and Peace,
Hana

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

[extinction]

wow hana you sure know your stuff!!

[E'jaazi]

Okay Nimrod, prove it. Tell me where I can purchase a Bible with the original hebrew/aramaic text, so that I can see for myself. Also, you need to read the history of the compilation of the Bible, all the way up to and including the Nicene Council. These are historical facts, not Islamic facts.

[nimrod]

Black Jubba, perhaps you need to re-read what I posted. You seem to have missed the point. (btw, are the bold letters needed?)

Hana_Aku, I will try to address your points tommorow, Thanks.

Thanks
Nimrod

[Abu Omar]

Well all the corruption in the Bible may not be intentional. It may also be that the stories were written down hundreds of years after the actual events, which gives a lot of time for legends to evolve and things to be forgotten.

Also the Qur'an corrects the Bible. For example the Bible speaks of Pharaohs at times when the was no Pharaohs! You see, the Qur'an was sent down as al-Furqan (the Criterion) between right and wrong. Whatever in the Bible agrees with the Qur'an, we accept, and whatever differs, we reject.

And, many of the Laws sent down before was specifically ordained for the peoples who recieved them. The Qur'an abrogates everything that was before.

Also, according to Judaism and Christianity, only Bani Israil were given Prophets. Don't you think this is unfair? I mean, all the non-Jewish people who didn't get any Prophet and lived before Isaa (aleyhi salaam), are they condemned to Hell even though they didn't get a warner? According to Islam, all peoples recieved warners.

[nimrod]

Hana_Aku, Thanks for attempting to provide an answer.

Concerning your answer to point #1:
"The Qur'an was revealed to correct omissions, scribal errors, interpolations, etc., from the previous revelations and it was necessary, as this time, the revelation was for ALL mankind. All of these errors, whether intentional or not, were done by man".

An adulterous woman was brought before Jesus to be stoned to death. That makes it clear that the stated punishment for adultery had not been changed from Moses’ time till Jesus’ time. There is no logical reason to not believe that the stated punishment for adultery was in need of correction due to “omissions, scribal errors, interpolations”.

Concerning point #2:
Why does the Qur’an state a different punishment than the Bible for that same offense?
What reasonable logical answer can you provide for that?

Concerning your answer to point #3:
The answer you provided on the other thread tried to link the Islamic teaching to maim a thief for life to the “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” scripture in the Old Testament law.
That is a flawed use of Old Testament law scripture.

The Old Testament law concerning the punishment for a thief is shown in my above posts.

Concerning your answer to point #4:
There really weren’t all that many years between Jesus’ resurrection and the earliest transcripts. Certainly not enough years had passed that the miracles recorded in the Qur’an would have been forgotten by the time the earliest transcripts were written.

A more logical answer would be that the miracles of Jesus’ childhood that are recorded in the Qur’an were not recorded in the Bible because the Apostles never said the miracles happened.
What would be a reasonable logical reason for the Apostles to have omitted or overlooked those miracles yet go on to record other miracles Jesus did?

“Power hungry rulers of the day trying to "win" people over, altered text all the time, this was common practice”.
Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume that if “power hungry rulers were trying to “win” people over” , they would have desired to leave in place any authentic miracles in order “win” over even more people?

Perhaps the idea of including miracles that, at that time, could be shown to be false would have done more damage to creditability of the earliest recorders of the New Testament than any gains made for the impressiveness of Jesus’ miracles that, at that time, could reasonably be shown to be true.

That kind of rules out the “Power hungry rulers of the day trying to "win" people over, altered text all the time” argument, wouldn’t you agree?

Concerning your last counterpoint:
Yes any scripture that follows any other scripture must reasonably agree with or fulfill the earlier scripture. All scripture must be reconciled with earlier scripture.

This principal most certainly applies to any revelations from God.
Islamic revelations were given at a later date than revealtions recorded in the Bible.

That leaves Islamic writings in the exact same position as the Book or Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price.
Neither religion gets a free pass on having to be reasonably reconciled to the scripture in the Bible.

Of the 450 versions of the Bible, do they agree concerning the points I have raised in my posts on this thread? Do they not all agree on the Old Testament law concerning the punishment for adultery and stealing having relations with animals?
Do their recordings disagree with Islamic writings?
If your answer is Yes, then what was your point?

Btw I disagree with your listing of the time-line of when what scripture was revealed. I believe it to be incomplete and inaccurate. An example, when was the book of Daniel revealed?

Hussein Radi, I have slow, dial-up, internet service, so if the movie you linked contains any relevant counter-points to the points I have made, you will have to type them out.

Hussein Radi, concerning your last point:
It does not matter if the Qur’an has suffered any changes or not, or its history, in regard to the points I have raised.

The argument that the Qur’an, of today, is exactly as Muhammad revealed it to the people only strengthens my position.

The disagreements I cited between Islamic writings and what is recorded in the Bible can be, beyond a shadow of a doubt, attributed to Muhammad. They can not be explained away by some fuzzy “re-writings”.

Abu Omar concerning the one relevant point you made
“The Qur'an abrogates everything that was before”.

Is there no Old Testament teachings that are repeated in the Qur’an?
What of the practice of circumcision was abrogated?

Thanks
Nimrod

[Abu Omar]

Abu Omar concerning the one relevant point you made
“The Qur'an abrogates everything that was before”.

Is there no Old Testament teachings that are repeated in the Qur’an?
What of the practice of circumcision was abrogated?

Well the NT doesn't abrogate the OT. Sure, that's what the church says, but the verse in NT clearly says that Isaa (aleyhi salaam) was sent to fulfill the Laws, not to abrogate it.

You should also read a little on the early history of Christianity. I mean, they decided on different councils the rulings and creed. For example, on one council it was decided that prayers for the dead would have an effect making sure that they reached Heaven. How can some people decide that on a council!? Furthurmore, the exact nature of Christ (according to Christianity) was also "decided" on a council.

By the way, what evidence do you have that today's Christianity is the correct one? In the Roman Empire(s) there were a lot of tension between different Christian school of thoughts. How do you know that, for instance, today's Christianity is more correct than the one taught by Arius? For sure, the priests of the Nicene creed (which would later evolve to Catholicism and Orthodoxism) rejected Arianism as heresy, but for some reason the Germanic peoples found Arianism deeply appealing and many of them converted, like the Goths and the Vandals. In fact, if not the Frankish king Clovis I had converted to Catholicism, the Germanic peoples might have turned in total to Arianism.

Arianism had significant differences from Nicenism. Read what Arius taught about Christ:

1. That the Logos and the Father were not of the same essence (ousia);
2. That the Son was a created being (ktisma or poiema); and
3. That though He was the creator of the worlds, and must therefore have existed before them and before all time, there was a "time" [although Arius refused to use words meaning time, such as cronos or aion] when He did not exist.

He also said that "the Father" had a higher rank than "the Son". In other words, he denounced the Trinity as taught by today's dominant Christian groups. While the Arian Germanic peoples were usually tolerant to their Trinitarian underlings, the Vandals treated them with great cruelty in north Africa and tried to force Arianism on them.

So how do you, as a Christian, know that Arianism is false and Nicenism is correct? Say that Arianism would have become the dominant religion among Germanic peoples (though I admit I do not know you ethnicity), and in the future also in USA. Would you then have converted to Nicenism?

It is such things as mentioned above which truly shows how much influenced Christianity is by humans.

Regarding Islamic laws. I admit I don't know what Islam says about those who have sexual relationships with animals. But remember you can't only turn to the Qur'an for laws and rulings. You also have to turn to the authentic Ahadeeth and the Sunnah to derive laws and rulings. In Christianity, the Word of Allaah (swt), the words of the Prophets (i.e Ahadeeth) as well as their biographies (i.e Sirah) are all fussioned into one book. So when one reads the Bible, one can find some narrative, and then some Revelation from Allaah (swt), then again some narrative, and then some laws. But we Muslims have separate books for all these things.

nimrod, please understand that I'm not trying to be rude. I actually think you are sincere and really wants to find out. Wa Allaahu alem.

[yussufmo]

How Many Times Has The Bible Ben Edited?

[Maimunah]

salaam
can someone answer what exactly happend to the real book that was given to jesus by god? is todays bible the same book as this??
wasalaam

[Trumble]

can someone answer what exactly happend to the real book that was given to jesus by god? is todays bible the same book as this??
wasalaam

There is no such thing. The Bible is actually a totally different sort of book to the Qur'an. Rather than the direct word of God given to his Messenger, as Muslims believe the Qu'ran to be, the Bible is a collection of "books" by different authors, those of the 'Old Testament' having been written by Jews before Jesus was born and those of the 'New Testament' being written by the new Christians after his death.

The New Testament is the heart of Christianity. It starts with four 'gospels', which tell the story of Jesus and reproduce his teachings, and is followed by a series of 'books' which describe the lives of those who came after him, and spread his teachings, such as Paul. Most Christians believe the authors to have been "inspired" by God, but there is no direct parallel to the Qur'an, and no book was given to Jesus in the way you suggest.

In essence the 'books' that form the Bible were decided upon at the Council of Nicea in 323 CE.

The Qur'an is therefore more authoratitive, IF you believe (as you do, obviously) that it is the direct word of God given to Mohammed. Christians don't believe that, of course - if they did they would be Muslims!

[*Hana*]

How Many Times Has The Bible Ben Edited?

Salam alaikum:

Well, I've tried to research that information for a long time, but there are no definite numbers. The only number I've been able to find is that there have been 450 versions of the bible over time, but how many of those have been edited and reproduced...I don't know.

Wasalam,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

I don't mind having this discussion with you, but it takes a lot of time to try to locate the verses you are referring to, and really it's a guess on my part. Would you please provide the verses and surahs to your post so we can be assured we're both on the same page. :)

Thanks and peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

A more logical answer would be that the miracles of Jesus’ childhood that are recorded in the Qur’an were not recorded in the Bible because the Apostles never said the miracles happened.
What would be a reasonable logical reason for the Apostles to have omitted or overlooked those miracles yet go on to record other miracles Jesus did?

Nimrod, how do you know the apostles never said those miracles happened? How do you know they omitted them? There are no books written or available from the lifetime of Jesus, pbuh. Any books that were, are long gone or destroyed. As I've tried to explain many times, the ORIGINAL manuscripts are not available for us to say what was written compared to what the Bible says now. The books of the Bible are by unknown authors, but most biblical and christian scholars agree they were not written by the Disciples or even by anyone that was an eyewitness or ear witness to His teachings.

It is very unfortunate these documents did not survive, but without them, you can't say with absolute certainty the miracles were not once part of the original manuscripts. And we can't say they were intentionally omitted.

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

Wouldn’t it be more logical to assume that if “power hungry rulers were trying to “win” people over” , they would have desired to leave in place any authentic miracles in order “win” over even more people?

Perhaps the idea of including miracles that, at that time, could be shown to be false would have done more damage to creditability of the earliest recorders of the New Testament than any gains made for the impressiveness of Jesus’ miracles that, at that time, could reasonably be shown to be true.

No, absolutely not. There were many leaders that wanted to see Jesus, pbuh, dead as well as His followers. Why would they want to show how great He truly was? Jesus, pbuh, was not accepted by His own people. Why do you think so many councils were held dismissing some scripture, editing others, adding new information, etc.? It certainly wasn't done in an effort to preserve the true teachings of Jesus, pbuh, or the prophets that came before Him.

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

Yes any scripture that follows any other scripture must reasonably agree with or fulfill the earlier scripture. All scripture must be reconciled with earlier scripture.

This principal most certainly applies to any revelations from God.
Islamic revelations were given at a later date than revealtions recorded in the Bible.

That leaves Islamic writings in the exact same position as the Book or Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price.
Neither religion gets a free pass on having to be reasonably reconciled to the scripture in the Bible.

I'm not really sure what your point is here to be honest. Yes, previous scriptures should agree, and the true teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and the prophets before Him, pbut, do agree. What doesn't agree, is the scripture found inside the books of the bible.

Yes, of course the Qur'an was revealed at a later date. It was said it was the LAST, for ALL mankind (not just a particular nation), and there would be no more prophets. It was the last and there have not been anymore prophets. Even Jesus, pbuh, was quoted in the bible telling of another comforter to come.

The Qur'an is not in the same position as any version of the bible. Regardless of what version of the bible you choose to read, it doesn't change the fact that the information inside was obtained through unknown authors long after Jesus, pbuh, was taken up. The words of Allah, swt, as they were revealed to Prophet Muhammed, pbuh, were written, recorded and memorized all during His lifetime to ensure accuracy. This final word of God has been completely preserved as promised.

Peace,
Hana

[extinction]

I dont see how the bible can still be preserved from the time of isa(a.s) its absurd......

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

Of the 450 versions of the Bible, do they agree concerning the points I have raised in my posts on this thread? Do they not all agree on the Old Testament law concerning the punishment for adultery and stealing having relations with animals?
Do their recordings disagree with Islamic writings?
If your answer is Yes, then what was your point?

Well, if the 450 were still available, we might be able to compare. However, that is not the case and because there were 450 versions I would be more concerned about WHY there were so many required. What was in some of the earlier versions that is not in any of todays versions? This would be my biggest concern.

Do they disagree with islamic writings? Who knows and it doesn't matter. For those of us that believe the Qur'an is true and final word of God, anything that was true in those books would be confirmed in the Qur'an anyway. The question is not for Muslims, it is for Christians to ask themselves why 450 versions were necessary in the first place, and why there are still revisions being made today.

Peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

Btw I disagree with your listing of the time-line of when what scripture was revealed. I believe it to be incomplete and inaccurate. An example, when was the book of Daniel revealed?

Ummmm, are you trying to say the Zubur didn't come before the Torah which came before the Injeel which came before the Qur'an? :? I'm sure you don't mean that, so probably it's best you clarify first.

Also, the Book of Daniel wasn't a revelation. It is a form of Apocalyptic Literature, not so much prophecy and was written somewhere around 167-164BC, during the Maccabean Wars. It contains six stories regarding the trials of Daniel and his companions while they served at the court of Babylon. And also writes of four visions of the end of the world. The author of the book is not known, but the name of the book comes from its hero which was a 6th century Jew. The book was meant to encourage Jews who were facing religious persecution at the hands of the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Seleucids.

The part that some consider more prophetic is small and it's authenticity has been argued by many.

Anyway, still unsure what point you're trying to make with the Book of Daniel, but I'll leave that up to you to explain. :)

Peace,
Hana

[nimrod]

Abu Omar “Well the NT doesn't abrogate the OT. Sure, that's what the church says, but the verse in NT clearly says that Isaa (aleyhi salaam) was sent to fulfill the Laws, not to abrogate it.” As an aside I have addressed that on this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...-o-t-laws.html

As a further aside what exactly did you mean by “The Qur'an abrogates everything that was before”, if not what my reply implies you meant “Is there no Old Testament teachings that are repeated in the Qur’an?
What of the practice of circumcision was abrogated?”
When did the 10 commandments become abrogated?

I, the same as you, am not trying to sound rude, but your post contained nothing relevant to the points I have raised.
So far your argument has been that the differences I cited are due to men corrupting the Bible.
I have asked why that assumption would be reasonably and logically correct, concerning the differences I cited.

So far you have not given me an answer.

Contrary to the title this thread was given, this is what this thread concerns:
“Ansar Al-‘Adl was kind enough to break this out into a second thread concerning why folks might have a problem believing the Qur’an is the word of God”.

Hana_Aku, post #15, yes I will provide the Bible scriptures concerning what I cited on this thread. I would have thought you would be familiar with the Islamic writings I have cited.
I will look them up for you as well.

Hana_Aku, post #16, what logical reason do you offer for the Biblical omission
Of the miracles of the child Jesus that are found in Islamic writings?

You keep offering the explanation that the “Original manuscripts” are not available to us today. That reason is very lacking in many respects, the boldest of which is that you assume to know that the “Original manuscripts” were not available at the time the Bible was canonized. Why would you presume to know what writings and manuscripts were available to the studious men who canonized the Bible?

If your implications of these men, not doing due diligence, or, them having sinister motives for canonizing what they did, are to be believed in regard to what I cited on this thread you need to present a reasonable case for believing those implications.
So far you have not.

Hana_Aku, post #17, “No, absolutely not. There were many leaders that wanted to see Jesus, pbuh, dead as well as His followers. Why would they want to show how great He truly was?” if this is your line of thinking then I will have to ask you a question.

If these leaders wanted to diminish Jesus by omitting the Islamic miracles, then why didn’t they also omit the rest of Jesus’ miracles?
To be a bit plainer, why are only the Islamic miracles omitted? Why do Islamic writings disagree with the Bible in regard to the miracles Jesus performed?
You have not offered a reasonable answer to that.

Hana_Aku, post #18, “Yes, previous scriptures should agree, and the true teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and the prophets before Him, pbut, I do agree.”

We have found some common ground.

Now explain why Muhammad’s teachings should not have to agree with the things I cited on this thread.

That leaves us at this point:
If you are implying that Muhammad’s teachings didn’t need to be reconciled to God’s previous words, then explain why you believe that.
Or
You think the differences I cited are due to corruption, which takes us back to square one.

If you think the differences are due to corruption, then show me why you reasonably believe that to be the case.

I have given points of reason for suggesting what I have suggested, counter those points.

I know you think you have, but you have a bias “ok, I will wait until you have time to show the verses where the apostles went away from the word of God and the teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and incorporated their own laws.”

Why would you be so quick to assume the Apostles strayed from Jesus’ teachings? What would make you assume they were not acting with in the confines of the authority Jesus had bestowed upon them? (This, btw, is exactly what they were doing.)

Hana_Aku, post #20, you were the one that cited the number of versions of the Bible; I didn’t even once ask you to cite a source for that number. I didn’t pursue the reasonable counter argument that the oldest Bibles agree with what I cited, therefore any later revisions have no bearing on my argument regardless of their number.
I could have very easily disarmed your counter-point, but I didn’t.
Instead I simply asked you “If your answer is Yes, then what was your point?”

What was your point in what you cited, if not to imply that somehow the reason for differences I cited were due to the Bible being corrupted.

This brings us back to square one, give me a reasonable logical argument to support the assumption that the differences I cited are due to the Bible being corrupted.

Before anyone posits that I am just being unreasonable in my judgments concerning the replies given on this thread, I had a reason for dragging the Book of Mormon and the book Pearl of Great Price into the thread.

If you say I am unreasonably judging the replies on this thread, the Mormons or LDS offer almost the exact same counter arguments that have been offered on this thread.

I highly doubt you would find those arguments from them to be credible.

Hana_Aku, post #21, are you trying to imply that Daniel didn’t reveal words from God to mankind? If that isn’t your implications then what you posted in post #21 is purely a case of arguing semantics and my original statement stands.

Thanks
Nimrod

[nimrod]

Sorry, wrong thread.

Thanks
Nimrod

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

I am at work now and unable to reply properly right now, however, with regards to your comment:

Hana_Aku, post #15, yes I will provide the Bible scriptures concerning what I cited on this thread. I would have thought you would be familiar with the Islamic writings I have cited.
I will look them up for you as well.

I have been down this road many times discussing comparative religion and requesting verses, surahs has nothing to do with the knowledge or lack of it by either person. I provide the verses/Surahs 99% of the time and request the same to ensure we are speaking of the same thing. It has been my experience, that to assume what surah/verse is meant is a waste of time because as soon as it is explained, logically, the other person says, "That's not the surah I was referring to, so you don't know what you're talking about." I sincerely try to take the time to answer each point to the best of my ability, and quite frankly, I don't want my time wasted by these types of responses. It's not a difficult request, at least I don't think so, that you provide the surah and/or verse numbers. It is also to your benefit as you will come to have a better understanding of the meanings from the Qur'an, even if you choose not to accept them as truth, and vice versa.

Inshallah, (God willing), this will give you an explanation as to why I request and provide verses and/or surahs when discussing comparative religion. :) It is not to make things difficult, it is to make things more clear.

Peace,
Hana

[nimrod]

Hana_Aku I wanted to offer you a word of thanks. You caused me to do more research into Islam’s teachings on perverted men and some of the things they do and how Islam handles it.

After further research I have found there are two competing understandings of Islam’s punishment for having relations with animals.
One group say’s that the man is to be punished and the animal is to be killed.
The other group say’s that they are both to be killed.

The argument stems from quotes from those who knew Muhammad. One group say’s when Muhammad was informed that a fellow had been caught doing the sin, Muhammad is recorded as to have said “punish the man and kill the animal, the other group records the instructions as “Kill the man and Kill the animal”.

From what I have learned about Muhammad and Islam, I highly believe the second account to be true, Kill the man and kill the animal.
Exactly the same teaching as found in the Bible.

It is a good day when a man learns something new.

Thanks
Nimrod

[*Hana*]

Peace Nimrod:

Hana_Aku, post #16, what logical reason do you offer for the Biblical omission
Of the miracles of the child Jesus that are found in Islamic writings?

You keep offering the explanation that the “Original manuscripts” are not available to us today. That reason is very lacking in many respects, the boldest of which is that you assume to know that the “Original manuscripts” were not available at the time the Bible was canonized. Why would you presume to know what writings and manuscripts were available to the studious men who canonized the Bible?

I keep offering you the same explanation for the same question because what I'm telling you are FACTS...the same FACTS that are told by your own christian and biblical scholars. The O.T. (Hebrew Bible), was canonized around 300 BC. There are NO original manuscripts available anywhere to compare those canonized books. What IS available are SOME copies of copies of copies, of translations, of copies. The original Zubur and Torah do NOT exist. Again, your own christian and biblical scholars will tell you there are errors for a variety of reasons...but errors there are! The NT, as we see it today, was canonized around 375 AD. Again, there were NO originals available then and there are NO originals available now. Regardless of how highly respected the men were that compiled these books, the FACT is, they did NOT use original manuscripts and there's not a reputable scholar or clergyman that would suggest otherwise. At the time the bible was canonized they used the oldest manuscripts available. This is one reason the bible has been revised so many times. As older manuscripts are located, the bible is "updated" in an attempt to bring it ever closer to the wording of the original manuscripts and teachings of the prophets, pbut.

How and why manuscripts were destroyed, altered, twisted, omitted, removed, etc., would need an enormous amount of time to discuss. I have given you examples and you choose not to accept them. I'm afraid you will have to take that up with the leaders of the Christian faith because they fully realize and accept this.

Most early and original manuscripts were written on papyrus which deteriorated extremely fast due to humidity, excessive heat, decay and overuse. Leather was stronger, but would deteriorate over time. Those opposed to the teachings of Jesus, pbuh, would destroy all the manuscripts they could find, ie: Antiochus Epiphanies in 165 BC and Diocletian in 300 AD. Scribal errors consisted of: Confusing similar letters; transposing letters, confusing similar sounding words, unintentionally omitting words or groups of words, including marginal notes that were never intended to be part of the main works, etc., etc., etc.

Not all the ancient Judeo-Christian manuscripts even found their way into the bible for a variety of reasons. ie: The Letter of Clement I was written about A.D. 95-6 and was included in some early canonical lists. It is the oldest Christian manuscript that is NOT in the canon. After Jesus, pbuh, was taken up, hundreds of self proclaimed apostles began to write "gospels", as did the true Apostles, however, not all the "fake" apostles were considered fake by their followers. This introduced a lot of new and innovative ideas and teachings into the Christian faith. This also caused many sects to form and they, literally, slaughtered each other for their beliefs. The number of debates and councils held during this time were NUMEROUS!! By the end of this mess over 12 million people were slaughtered, manuscripts were destroyed and among them ,there's a strong possibility, there were original, authentic works, etc.

Going back to the Jewish scribes, it was normal practice for them to burn and destroy previous manuscripts. ie: If a scribe was re-copying a manuscript for whatever reason, (perhaps in an attempt to preserve the word because the previous manuscript was deteriorating), he would destroy the old one by burning it, not out of malice, but with the intent of preserving and storing the newest copy. Unfortunately, because all this was done by hand, there is no way to know what text may have been omitted either intentionally or unintentionally. Altering texts between the Jews and Christians is well known. This happened on both sides and both sides accused the other of doing it.

These are only some of the reasons original manuscripts are not available....there are, literally, hundreds of reasons.

I don't know how else I can tell you that you do not have the original manuscripts or that none of the originals were available at the time the bible was canonized. Perhaps you would have better luck believing it if you heard it from your own clergy. Contrary to your accusation about me....I do not assume anything. I don't go to one source when I research information, I go to many. I can only suggest you do the same. You will find the same information I did.

As for me, I feel I have given you everything I possibly can on the subject, short of writing a novel, and I really don't want to spend days beating a dead horse. You can choose to believe the bible came from original manuscripts, that's entirely up to you. I choose to believe the facts as they have been presented to me which differ from your opinion.

I also feel you are getting somewhat agitated with this discussion, so if you want to take a break from it, I have no problem with that.

Sincerely and with peace,
Hana

[*Hana*]

Hana_Aku I wanted to offer you a word of thanks. You caused me to do more research into Islam’s teachings on perverted men and some of the things they do and how Islam handles it.

After further research I have found there are two competing understandings of Islam’s punishment for having relations with animals.
One group say’s that the man is to be punished and the animal is to be killed.
The other group say’s that they are both to be killed.

The argument stems from quotes from those who knew Muhammad. One group say’s when Muhammad was informed that a fellow had been caught doing the sin, Muhammad is recorded as to have said “punish the man and kill the animal, the other group records the instructions as “Kill the man and Kill the animal”.

From what I have learned about Muhammad and Islam, I highly believe the second account to be true, Kill the man and kill the animal.
Exactly the same teaching as found in the Bible.

It is a good day when a man learns something new.

Thanks
Nimrod

Peace Nimrod:

Oh, that's good to hear. :) Yes, it is always a good day when we learn something new! Actually, researching information for my last post I learned a lot as well, mashallah. :)

So, I'm very happy to know we are both learning from our discussion which was the purpose of our original discussion. :happy:

Take care and peace,
Hana

[Al-Mu'min]

Peace.

Since the topic is about the preservation of the Bible, we should know the who the authors are:

GENESIS
AUTHOR One of the "five
books of Moses."

EXODUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

LEVITICUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

NUMBERS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

JOSHUA
AUTHOR. Major part
credited to Joshua.

JUDGES
AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,

RUTH
AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.

FIRST SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Unknown,
probably collected and
edited by Ezra.

SECOND CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Likely collected
and edited by Ezra.
EZRA
AUTHOR. Probably written
or edited by Ezra.

ESTHER
AUTHOR. Unknown.

JOB
AUTHOR. Unknown.

PSALMS
AUTHOR. Principally David,
though there are other writers.

ECCLESIASTES
AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon.

ISAIAH
AUTHOR. Mainly credited
to Isaiah. Parts may have been
written by others.

JONAH
AUTHOR. Unknown.

HABAKKUK
AUTHOR. Nothing known of
the place or time of his birth.

I'll post on the New Testament later.

Please read this very interesting book called "Is the Bible God's Word" by Ahmed Deedat. It's only three pages so don't be lazy.:uhwhat
http://jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html
But before reading it please bring along your Bible to verify everything that is written in it.:happy:

Peace out.

[*Hana*]

Peace.

Please read this very interesting book called "Is the Bible God's Word" by Ahmed Deedat. It's only three pages so don't be lazy.:uhwhat
http://jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html
But before reading it please bring along your Bible to verify everything that is written in it.:happy:

Peace out.

Salam Alaikum:

I read it and it is very interesting. The one by Zakir Naik is very good as well.

Wasalam,
Hana

[Mohsin]

Which Dr Naik book?

[*Hana*]

Which Dr Naik book?

Salam Alaikum:

All of them! lol But, I was referring to "Is the Qur'an God's Word". You can find it here

The True Message of Jesus Christ, by Bilal Phillips is very good as well. You can read it on the same link.

Enjoy :)

Wasalam,
Hana

[nimrod]

Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.

Thanks
Nimrod

[*Hana*]

Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.

Thanks
Nimrod

Peace Nimrod:

LOL at first I thought you posted on the wrong thread. :giggling: I had to go back to the first page to have a 2nd look. I never even realized the thread went from one name to another. :-[

I seriously need more sleep and I think I'll start now. :rollseyes

Take care and peace,
Hana

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.

Hi nimrod,
Sorry if I did not name the thread appropriately, but from what I understood from your post, it seemed your objections to the Qur'an were on the basis of differences between the Qur'an and the Bible. The crucial discussion therefore is whether or not the Bible has been perfectly preserved - if not, then we need to use the Qur'an as the criterion to determine what is from God and what isn't.

If I have misunderstood your argument, could you please restate your objection to the Qur'an? Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread.

Regards

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-'Adl, I have no problems agreeing that the Bible we have today isn't "word for word" as it was given by God.

That leaves us with this:

When a person thinks a scripture might be wrong, they WILL be held accountable for assuming what they assume.

This thread is about reasonable/logical assumptions in regard to the source, of differences, between what the Bible say’s and what Islam say’s.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I know you don’t intend to come across as you have, but think about how your wording looks to me “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

You moved my post and made a whole different thread of it. You didn’t even bother to sending a pm to me as to why.

You only move part of what I had posted on the other thread. You broke the train of reasoning by only moving part of it, I had to restore it.

Your post, on the thread you moved (no pm) the post from, has the implication that you would love to turn this into a debate on the preservation of the Bible.
Then you title this new thread about the preservation of the Bible and signed my user name to it.

Now you post that “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

Think about how that looks.

I have tried to change the title myself, but the system won’t let me.

Thanks
Nimrod

[i_m_tipu]

Ansar Al-'Adl, I have no problems agreeing that the Bible we have today isn't "word for word" as it was given by God.

That leaves us with this:

When a person thinks a scripture might be wrong, they WILL be held accountable for assuming what they assume.

This thread is about reasonable/logical assumptions in regard to the source, of differences, between what the Bible say’s and what Islam say’s.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I know you don’t intend to come across as you have, but think about how your wording looks to me “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

You moved my post and made a whole different thread of it. You didn’t even bother to sending a pm to me as to why.

You only move part of what I had posted on the other thread. You broke the train of reasoning by only moving part of it, I had to restore it.

Your post, on the thread you moved (no pm) the post from, has the implication that you would love to turn this into a debate on the preservation of the Bible.
Then you title this new thread about the preservation of the Bible and signed my user name to it.

Now you post that “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

Think about how that looks.

I have tried to change the title myself, but the system won’t let me.

Thanks
Nimrod

i think admin has a right to do what make his system run according to the disciplinary

it's apply just not for u but for all

but i think PM should be used when such action is taken

i have a same Experience also

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi nimrod,
I'm sorry I wasn't able to pm you about the move, but considering the large amount of moderating we have to do on the forum, pming each member involved individually simply isn't practical.

Do you want me to change the title to 'Explanation for Biblical-Qur'anic differences?' or Implications of Biblical-Qur'anic differences?

Regards

[nimrod]

Ansar Al-'Adl, Lets not worry about it. I know you meant no harm.
I can understand about the work load of being a Mod. I have been there and done that, no pay, lots of time invested, atleast some of the people are mad at you ALL the time.

I just wanted you to see what your actions looked like from an outside position.

May God bless us all, amen.

Thanks
Nimrod

p.s. Just for the record will you tell I_m_Tipu that I was not being punished for anything and I was following the rules.

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

Hi nimrod,
Thanks for your understanding :)

Regards

[i_m_tipu]

Just for the record will you tell I_m_Tipu that I was not being punished for anything and I was following the rules.

hi nim
Apology :)
i really don't mean what u understand