A Question Relating to the Bible being changed

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Regarding:
I don't deny your experience, but perhaps you are not telling the whole story either. Were you actively proselyting and distributing Gideon Bibles? If so, I can understand the rules you encountered. Islamic leaders have a responsibility for the people under their authority. "[/I]

That is not the case. I am not a missionary. I travel internationally on business. I certainly don't run around with a briefcase full of Gideon Bibles.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Don, Ahmed Deedat has books and videos that point out errors and contradictions in the Bible much better than I can. For example this link may be helpful. http://www.ahmed-deedat.co.za/frameset.asp

Can anyone explain Hebrews 7:1-3? "This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High (Allah, by my interpretation). He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kiings and blessed him, and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also "king of Salem" means "king of peace." Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever." According to my limited knowledge the only ones to have no mother or father are Adam and Eve as they were created beings. Even though Jesus had no father, he had a mother. We believe that he also was a created being since he was not conceived in the natural way. Quran 19:35-36 "It is not befitting to (the majesty of) Allah that He should beget a son. Transcendent is He! When He determines a matter, He only says to it: “Be!” and it is. (And Jesus had declared): “Assuredly Allah is my Lord and your Lord. Therefore serve Him. That is the Straight Path.” and Quran 3:59 – "The likeness of Jesus with Allah is as the likeness of Adam. He created him from dust, then He said to him: “Be!” and he was."

The fundamental article of Islamic faith can be summarized in Quran 112:1-4, "Say: He Allah, is One! Allah, the eternally Besought! He has not begotten, nor been begotten, and equal to Him there is none."

Greetings. I will share my perspective on that question, but I'm not here to make converts.

Because his name has a meaning he had no lineage does not mean the Bible is saying the man had no lineage physically.

From the Christian perspective, God made man in his own image, so the idea of a Son is not completely foreign.
From the Muslim perspective, the Bible is corrupt so the Qur'an is held as the truth. The Qur'an directly refutes the idea God would lower himself to have a son, so it can't be true.
As for the words of Jesus (pbuh), the Christian perspective is of course they are contained in the Bible. From the Muslim perspective, the Bible is corrupt so the only words a Muslim would believe Jesus said are in the Qur'an.

Peace.

Hey don.


But even if we look in the history of mankind, when all the previous prophets came - none of them said that they are God or God's begotten son, they all said that our God is One, and that one shouldn't associate partners with Him in worship. This is what all the prophets called to, so why would it be that all of a sudden another Messenger of God comes, yet people start claiming that he is God incarnate? When infact none of the earlier prophets claimed that?

format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

Hey don.


But even if we look in the history of mankind, when all the previous prophets came - none of them said that they are God or God's begotten son, they all said that our God is One, and that one shouldn't associate partners with Him in worship. This is what all the prophets called to, so why would it be that all of a sudden another Messenger of God comes, yet people start claiming that he is God incarnate? When infact none of the earlier prophets claimed that?

Greetings.
That's one of the very pivotal questions, isn't it?
Christians believe the coming of God's begotten son was prophesied and He is the fulfillment of the old law, the perfect sacrifice; giving Christians freedom in His grace and salvation.
Muslims believe the Bible to be corrupt and the idea of associating any partner to God to be blasphemy.
Contradictions or difficulties in the Bible are pointed out by some, and explained by others.
Contradictions or difficulties in the Qur'an are pointed out by some and explained by others.
Neither seems to comprehend the others' perspective.
Perhaps one must choose.

Peace.

Does it state in the Tanakh that it would occur? What was it prophecised in, and could you find the source and evidences please? Because we don't believe that God begets children as He only does what befits His Majesty, and could you clarify what the previous prophets called to according to the christianity perspective?


Thanks.

format_quote Originally Posted by Fi_Sabilillah

Does it state in the Tanakh that it would occur? What was it prophecised in, and could you find the source and evidences please? Because we don't believe that God begets children as He only does what befits His Majesty, and could you clarify what the previous prophets called to according to the christianity perspective?


Thanks.

I am referring to the Messianic prophecies in the Old Testament. There are many, so below is a link to some of them. They occur in Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Psalms, Genesis and other books in the Old Testament.

To answer your last question, as you can probably tell, I am not a great philosopher or student of the Bible or Qur'an, but I always thought the prophets were sent to speak for God on earth.

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.co...ophecies.shtml

Peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by don532

That is not the case. I am not a missionary. I travel internationally on business. I certainly don't run around with a briefcase full of Gideon Bibles.

I stand corrected. I have heard about missionary activities associated with distribution of humanitarian aid and efforts to distribute free Bibles in Muslim countries. I now understand that your perspective is not from this angle.

format_quote Originally Posted by don532

As for the words of Jesus (pbuh), the Christian perspective is of course they are contained in the Bible.

What portion of the New Testament, or even for that matter the 4 gospels, are the literal words of Jesus (pbuh) such that there is 100% agreement between specific quotations in the different gospels? What about the response to Peter's "confession" of Jesus being the "Christ" in Matthew 16:17-19 and Luke 9:21-27? Which of these quotes did Jesus actually say?

format_quote Originally Posted by don532

From the Muslim perspective, the Bible is corrupt so the only words a Muslim would believe Jesus said are in the Qur'an.

No, I disagree. The only words in the Bible that a Muslim would believe are the ones that are in agreement with the Quran. A few verses that I agree with are: Mark 12:28-29 - “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” - “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” and Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ”

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

What portion of the New Testament, or even for that matter the 4 gospels, are the literal words of Jesus (pbuh) such that there is 100% agreement between specific quotations in the different gospels? What about the response to Peter's "confession" of Jesus being the "Christ" in Matthew 16:17-19 and Luke 9:21-27? Which of these quotes did Jesus actually say?

No, I disagree. The only words in the Bible that a Muslim would believe are the ones that are in agreement with the Quran. A few verses that I agree with are: Mark 12:28-29 - “Of all the commandments, which is the most important?” - “The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one.” and Matthew 4:10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’ ”

It is my turn to stand corrected. I misstated the Muslim perspective that what agrees in the Bible with the Qur'an would be considered true. Certainly you are correct. My mistake.

As to the difference in the accounts between Matthew and Luke, yes the accounts differ in their exact words as recorded by different authors. Luke omits the first part that was included in Matthew. Now I am not a great philosopher or student of either the Bible or the Qur'an, but I would say the Christian belief is that the message is the same. Christians would not consider these two passages contradictory, but different accounts of the same event. Just as in the Qur'an, some verses are explained by others, Christians believe in the harmony of the Bible, that the message is woven throughout it from the messianic prophecies all the way to Revelation. So when I referred to the words of Jesus, I in no way meant to imply his exact words as if I believed the Bible was straight from the mouth of Jesus to the printed page.

The Muslim perspective, as I understand it, is that the books that make up the Bible were written as stand alone documents and cannot be interpreted as a whole. If I also understand correctly, the Muslim perspective of the Qur'an is that it is the literal words of God as given to Muhammad(pbuh).

Thank you and peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by don532

So when I referred to the words of Jesus, I in no way meant to imply his exact words as if I believed the Bible was straight from the mouth of Jesus to the printed page.

The Muslim perspective, as I understand it, is that the books that make up the Bible were written as stand alone documents and cannot be interpreted as a whole. If I also understand correctly, the Muslim perspective of the Qur'an is that it is the literal words of God as given to Muhammad(pbuh).

You spoke well. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

What about the letters to the early churches from Paul? Where did he get the "gospel" that he defended so staunchly in Galations 1:6-9? Did he get it first hand from following, along with the disciples, Jesus during his time on earth? Did he get it second hand from the disciples? No, according to the Bible, he got it by direct revelation from Jesus (pbuh) after his ascension (Gal. 1:12) or from God (Gal. 1:15-17). Does this direct revelation make him the defacto prophet to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8) of the "gospel" that Jesus (pbuh) was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of the world.

Quoting a letter that I sent to a TV minister: "I recently had the pleasure of watching one of your TV programs where you were talking about Paul as the founder of the “gospel” of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) death for our sins, burial and resurrection. I was amazed to hear that you were correctly stating that Jesus (pbuh) did not teach this doctrine as he had not yet died nor did Peter properly understand it as his conflicts with Paul in Galatians demonstrated."

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You spoke well. This is exactly the point I was trying to make.

What about the letters to the early churches from Paul? Where did he get the "gospel" that he defended so staunchly in Galations 1:6-9? Did he get it first hand from following, along with the disciples, Jesus during his time on earth? Did he get it second hand from the disciples? No, according to the Bible, he got it by direct revelation from Jesus (pbuh) after his ascension (Gal. 1:12) or from God (Gal. 1:15-17). Does this direct revelation make him the defacto prophet to the Gentiles (Gal 2:8) of the "gospel" that Jesus (pbuh) was the Son of God and that he died on the cross for the sins of the world.

Quoting a letter that I sent to a TV minister: "I recently had the pleasure of watching one of your TV programs where you were talking about Paul as the founder of the “gospel” of Jesus’ (peace be upon him) death for our sins, burial and resurrection. I was amazed to hear that you were correctly stating that Jesus (pbuh) did not teach this doctrine as he had not yet died nor did Peter properly understand it as his conflicts with Paul in Galatians demonstrated."

I think the Christian perspective of Paul's message is the same as the Christian perspective on Jesus'(pbuh) message, which was for all nations. John 8:12 says Jesus(pbuh) was the Light of the world. Matthew 28:19 says to go make disciples of all nations. Luke 24:46 and 47 says repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached to all nations starting with Jerusalem. So even though Paul travelled extensively on journeys to proclaim the gospel, so did others.

I would then disagree with the TV preacher that Paul was the founder of the gospel. The gospel seems to have been preached before Jesus'(pbuh) death. I would say further that the death, burial and resurrection was prophesied in the Old Testament as I have posted a link in another forum to some of these messianic prophecies. Also Matthew 16:21 says Jesus(pbuh) began to show his disciples he must go to Jerusalem to suffer many things, be killed and be raised on the third day.

During the last supper, the account of Luke in chapter 22, says Jesus(pbuh) took the cup and said it was the new covenenant - Christians take that to mean the old law of sacrifice has passed away. The account of Matthew in chapter 26 says Jesus(pbuh) took the cup and told the disciples it was the blood of the covenant for the forgiveness of sins.

That, I believe is representative of the Christian perspective. I am not a scholar, so I may have left something out. One moral of the story is you can't believe everything you hear on TV....but I think you probably know that already. I have wanted to write some TV preachers too, after hearing some of the trash that is broadcast. I am glad you did so. Perhaps your guidance will help him.

Good discussion. Thank you and peace.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

Which of Jesus' (pbuh) actual words are contained in the Bible exactly as he spoke them? Perhaps you would claim part of Matthew 27:46. "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" - which means, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" I do not believe that Jesus would speak in such terms to Allah, but if he did, then "my God" is "his God" that he also prayed to in the Garden of Gethsemane. Also, which version of "the Lord's Prayer", Matthew 6:9-13 or Luke 11:2-4, are the actual words spoken by Jesus (pbuh).

Just a point of information, the phrase Jesus spoke, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" is a quote from a Psalm. It is a matter of interpretation whether or not Jesus actually felt forsaken, or was simply quoting from this Psalm for another purpose.

Secondly from the point of view of the Qur'an, it would not have been Jesus speaking those words, as they were spoken from the cross, which Muslims don't believe Jesus was ever on.

The other items of your post I would really like to discuss more fully, but alas they reliability (or lack there of) of the Qur'an is not pertinent to this thread.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

Secondly from the point of view of the Qur'an, it would not have been Jesus speaking those words, as they were spoken from the cross, which Muslims don't believe Jesus was ever on.

You spoke correctly. I was just making a point about the few literal (Aramaic I think) words that Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as having said in the gospels.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker

The other items of your post I would really like to discuss more fully, but alas they reliability (or lack there of) of the Qur'an is not pertinent to this thread.

Perhaps, you would like to respond to some of the earlier points about whether the Bible is Word of God, or not.

format_quote Originally Posted by MustafaMc

You spoke correctly. I was just making a point about the few literal (Aramaic I think) words that Jesus (pbuh) is quoted as having said in the gospels.

Hebrew.

Perhaps, you would like to respond to some of the earlier points about whether the Bible is Word of God, or not.

Jesus is the Word. It is by the Word of God, that God spoke and all creation came into being. The Bible is a record of the Word. Thus the Word of God is inerrant, but the Bible is a collection of human writings -- under divine inspiration I submit, but still human and thus prone to the possibility of error to the degree that the writer was a good recorder (or was not a good recorder) of what was revealed to him. Given different authors in different situations writing over an extended period of time, it would not be surprising to find some sections to be a better record of God's revelation than others.

format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi

I think the Muslim members should becareful in being to quick to affirm or reject.

If we have a Biblical Text that agrees with the Qu'ran then this does not mean that the Biblical Text is true. What it means is that it might be true.

The process that allowed some mistakes to enter the Biblical Writing is one that doesn't just dissapear when a part of the text agrees with the Qu'ran. To say such would be illogical and very bias.

Rather if a text agrees with the Qu'ran then we say that might be or might not be, we cannot be sure, rather the only reason we are sure that Jesus did not say 'Woman, what have I to do with thee?' is because this would contradict the nature given to him in the Qu'ran, i.e. of being dutiful to his mother.

Then again most writing could be interpreted in different ways, even 'I and the father are one' in reality if interpreted in a way will not contradict the Qu'ran and Sunnah.

I have alot to say, including prophecies, testimony, and so forth, but I'll leave it until I am more prepared.

Eesa.

Eesa,

I just realized something, that I don't know why it didn't sink in before. It would do absolutely no good -- with respect to Islam that is -- for Christians to be in possessions of the original autographs of the Bible. As far as Islam is concerned, even what was originally written down could itself be tainted and you would be under no compulsion to accept it as the accurate record of Jesus revelation or any other revelation of God. It would still be just as you said above --"The process that allowed some mistakes to enter the Biblical Writing is one that doesn't just dissapear when a part of the text agrees with the Qu'ran." -- unless it were penned by Jesus himself. And even if that existed, but there were differences between that and what was written in the Qur'an, Islam would just argue that it was not the work of Jesus based on the belief that the Qur'an was authentic and thus anything else that disagreed must be what is in error. There is no proof that anyone could ever to a true believe in the Qur'an that anything else could be valid if it disagreed with the Qur'an. It is not a question of proof or reason, it is purely a question of faith.

format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow

Speaking for myself, I would say that if there had been no loss or distortion of the Message Isa(as) was given, he would have been the final Prophet(PBUH) and there would have been no need for Allah(swt) to have sent the Qur'an as Muhammad(PBUH) would have already had the true Injil to spread to the world.

Just my opinion and thoughts Astragfirullah

Nicely said. That is exactly what I do believe happened.