First Corrupted Verse

[جوري]

So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.

Allah swt on whose sole word exonerates Jesus isn't an enemy to Jesus or to mankind.. but Paul was a known enemy to Jesus and I reference you, to your own quote above...

I can easily say.. I can't stand Gene, and then after you are dead feign friendship if there is something to be gained, and win sympathy of the foolish and propagate whatever message suits my fancy.. will you come of the dead to persecute me?

You are yet to prove that the Quran isn't the literal word of God, until such a time you do, it is the primary authority on Jesus. Not saul!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.

we accuse christians of worshipping the messenger. The the 4 gospels are based around the death of christ.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Those four writers were just historians. They never met jesus (pbuh). The writers didn't seem to know their last names how can one trust their fate on that book?!

^^ True. Although the last names argument is actually somewhat of a weak one, because surnames were not common practice back then.

However, the Gospels were written by unknown authors, with the earliest one being about 40 years after the death of Jesus, and then decades later they were attributed to some of the disciples. For instance, Matthew wasn't written by Matthew, but was actually attributed to him later.

Actually, as I have posted before that we do know Mark's last name.

But more to the point, that the Gospel we call "the Gospel according to Matthew" was attributed Matthew does not mean that Matthew did not write it. Personally, I accept that though tradition has long held it was written by Matthew that we can't conclusively "prove". On the other hand, I think the support for the disciple John being the actually writer of the Gospel which bears his name to be rather strong. For we have it from John's own disciple that John testified that he wrote the Gospel.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Look, I'm a Muslim because I believe the Qur'an to be the Word of God. It tells us that Jesus brought a book called the Gospel. Now, there are several reasons to believe this "Gospel" is not the 4 Gospels we have today:

1) The 4 Gospels give differing accounts of the same event. To Christians, it's not a big deal, but as Muslims we believe that God would not reveal a book that contradicts itself. Therefor the 4 Gospels cannot be the True Word of God in entirety

2) 3 of the 4 Gospels describe the crucifixion of Jesus. How can Jesus receive revelation of his own crucifixion while he's on the cross and the events to come afterwards? Especially since none of the disciples were present (according to the 4 Gospels). This is similar to the Torah in the Old Testament being claimed to be written entirely by Moses; clearly if it describes his death it cannot be written entirely by him.

3) The 4 Gospels have changed over time. Even though today's more recent Bible editions go back to the earliest manuscripts, we don't even know if what we have today are the texts that were originally penned by the so-called authors.

So in short, the 4 Gospels do not hold up to the qualifications that would make them a book from God. Therefor, we believe what is confirmed by the Qur'an and authentic hadith, but we have to reject all that goes against it, because these are seen as changes made by man, and not the Words of God.

I hope that clears things up.

Yes, it clears it up that it is a point of faith. Which is all well and good. Just don't expect us to accept your book when it contradicts ours anymore than you're likely to accept our book when it contradicts yours. :bump1:

 

[AntiKarateKid]

Yes, it clears it up that it is a point of faith. Which is all well and good. Just don't expect us to accept your book when it contradicts ours anymore than you're likely to accept our book when it contradicts yours. :bump1:

The question is, of course, which is contradicting Allah?

Consider this for a moment Grace Seeker. Pretend that we both are without a religion and are contemplating what the perfect holy book would be like. Ill give 2 examples.

Book A
1. Variants in its manuscripts
2. Authors in some cases are unknown.
3. Was compiled in its present day form years after its respective revelation, without input from its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book A, most of it would be lost forever, a crippling blow to the religion

Book B has
1. No variants in manuscript.
2. Author is known.
3. Was compiled and completed during the process of revelation by its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.



Now, I tried putting in points which you can agree to without controversy. Now in your honest opinion, which book seems more likely to be from God and credible?

 

[Hugo]

The question is, of course, which is contradicting Allah? Consider this for a moment Grace Seeker. Pretend that we both are without a religion and are contemplating what the perfect holy book would be like. Ill give 2 examples.

Book A
1. Variants in its manuscripts
2. Authors in some cases are unknown.
3. Was compiled in its present day form years after its respective revelation, without input from its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book A, most of it would be lost forever, a crippling blow to the religion

Book B has
1. No variants in manuscript.
2. Author is known.
3. Was compiled and completed during the process of revelation by its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.

Now, I tried putting in points which you can agree to without controversy. Now in your honest opinion, which book seems more likely to be from God and credible?

Now it is fair enough to build a case with criteria as you have done but if oner is not careful one does it to support your own case and not in an open ended way that allows tests to take place. Using you criteria one might come to a decision about book A or B but if I may say so there are many other criteria so your argument is a fallacy because you have in effect introduced bias.

Here for example your criteria have a major and perhaps fatal weakness, you have ignored what the book actually says and you would be a madman to accept any book with just the basis you claim. The book or Mormon (and likely many others) for example meets ALL your requirements. You also ignore manuscript evidence. In the case of the Bible there is a huge collection available. In the case of the Qu'ran there is almost nothing. There are of course many other possible criteria.

May I ask some questions:

Are you implying here that the author of the Qu'ran was prophet Mohamed because if you say it was God then that can only be believed and never shown to be fact.

You talk about variants in manuscripts but what do you mean: manuscripts were deliberately altered, added to or perhaps verses were deleted or do you mean there were scribal errors or defective scripts were used perhaps all of these?

 

[Zafran]

The book or Mormon (and likely many others) for example meets ALL your requirements

Including the last one with unbroken multiply transmitted oral tradition?

4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.

In the case of the Bible there is a huge collection available. In the case of the Qu'ran there is almost nothing.

???? You realy havent seen Islamic awraness (dot) org have you -

all the manuscripts dont match well togather in christainty anyway. You can have as many has you want - means little if they dont match. Good start is the famous stoning story and lets not forget about translation issues such as Barabus. Ofcourse the famous Bart Ehrman.

 

[rpwelton]

So, you don't actually know what it is that Jesus taught. Rather you accept second hand information regarding Jesus' teaching, just as you accuse us Christians of doing.

All we can do is go by the information the Qur'an gives us about Jesus and the parts of the Gospels that are validated by the Qur'an.

While we believe in Jesus as a Mighty Messenger and believe he brought the same message as those before him (worship only God and nothing besides Him and to be compassionate towards our fellow humans and follow the law in letter and spirit) , we simply don't know a whole lot about him beyond that. This goes for Christianity and Islam (if we only go by what Jesus actually said and did, not what others that came later said).

However, as Muslims we don't stake all of our practices on the teachings of Jesus; we have the teachings of Muhammad as he was the last of all Messengers and his life is the most documented life in history, so we know exactly what he taught.

So the fact that we have (outside of the information provided in the Qur'an) essentially what are weak hadith about Jesus (the 4 Gospels), that doesn't really affect us because we don't derive rulings from the teachings of his that we find in the Bible.

However, the reason that Muslims focus so much on Jesus is because we want to explain to the Christians how Jesus as he is depicted in the Bible did not teach the kinds of things Christians are preaching today. When referencing the Gospels, we are not saying this is what he definitely taught (if it is not backed up by the Qur'an), but rather we can only say what he taught according to Christians. And this is sufficient because if we both use the same source (the Gospels) to observe the teachings of Jesus, then we can both come to common terms about him without the Christian needing to believe the Qur'an.

Now of course not every Christian will be willing to believe that, but that is their choice.

 

[Hugo]

Including the last one with unbroken multiply transmitted oral tradition?

???? You realy havent seen Islamic awraness (dot) org have you -

all the manuscripts dont match well togather in christainty anyway. You can have as many has you wont - means little if they dont match. Good start is the famous stoning story and lets not forget about translation issues such as Barabus. Ofcourse the famous Bart Ehrman.

I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

You have no manuscript evidence to speak of for the Qu'ran, why is that do you think?

I have Ehrman's book do you have Ibn Warraq's book "Which Koran"? This really is my point, the criteria suggested in the earlier post is clearly designed to support the Islamic position, you use Ehrman (have you actually read it?) but don't read I assume Warraq?

 

[rpwelton]

I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

You have no manuscript evidence to speak of for the Qu'ran, why is that do you think?

I have Ehrman's book do you have Ibn Warraq's book "Which Koran"? This really is my point, the criteria suggested in the earlier post is clearly designed to support the Islamic position, you use Ehrman (have you actually read it?) but don't read I assume Warraq?

Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar; educated through Princeton's Divinity School and learned in the field of Biblical history and textual criticism (and is a professor).

What credentials does Ibn Warraq have? Did he attend university at a renowned Islamic university and dedicate his life to research in this field? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. His bio is sketchy at best in terms of credentials; all I can gather is that he garnered fame because he spoke out against Islam and became a prolific author. But this doesn't mean he's qualified.

 

[Zafran]

I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

You have no manuscript evidence to speak of for the Qu'ran, why is that do you think?

I have Ehrman's book do you have Ibn Warraq's book "Which Koran"? This really is my point, the criteria suggested in the earlier post is clearly designed to support the Islamic position, you use Ehrman (have you actually read it?) but don't read I assume Warraq?

Here you go - this has been posted like a million times on this forum


http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/

Bart Ehrman is a serious biblical scholar while Ibn Warraq is some guy with a pen name - give me someone serious - someone whos actaully is or was part of scholarly circles.

I've seen Bart Erhmans lecture - preety good. You can watch on Youtube.

I think you are missing my point, that selection of criteria to prove something is fraught with difficulty and you must agree with that surely?

for the first 3 points but not the last ones - you havent told me if Mormons have a unbroken multiply transmitted oral tradition? your the one who used them as an example?

 

[جوري]

btw.. the book of the Mormon looks surprisingly like the bible but comes with special underwear .. so I don't see how makes the list?..
If I come up with a book that looks surprisingly like the Quran but claim visitation you know like Joan or Arc or paul/saul from up above and come up with the Quran all over again, and ask folks to wear special vests to my house of worship does that mean I have indeed revelations from above?

The criteria for the Quran is already established and not awaiting the fools to re-set them...

come up with a book that
1- is a guidance to man kind in all aspects-- religion/politics/economics/social structure/ inheritenace/ signs of the end/ tales of folks of old/and have it flow in context, lyricism/ rhyme, so that one would love to hear it and memorize it, have it be transcendent withstand the test of time and be loved and practiced and reuniting to folks all over.. just to name a few.


I don't know about you, but I am sick of the belaboring arguments with these ignorants on boards...

 

[Grace Seeker]

You are yet to prove that the Quran isn't the literal word of God, until such a time you do, it is the primary authority on Jesus. Not saul!

I have never tried to make such a proof either. I already lost one dear friend because I spoke plainly regarding my understanding of Muhammed. Even on that occassion I was just answering a question, and had no intent nor desire to denigrate Muhammad at all. Nonetheless, what is said has been said and I can't change it now. But that does not mean I must repeat my mistake a second time.

So, while I will vigirously defend my faith, I did not come here to attack Islam. Therefore, I shall refrain from joining with those who desire to attack the Qur'an or the Prophet. If that means I can't win all of my points, so be it. I will respect the larger purpose of this forum and its community of which I am only a guest.

 

[Grace Seeker]

The question is, of course, which is contradicting Allah?

Consider this for a moment Grace Seeker. Pretend that we both are without a religion and are contemplating what the perfect holy book would be like. Ill give 2 examples.

Book A
1. Variants in its manuscripts
2. Authors in some cases are unknown.
3. Was compiled in its present day form years after its respective revelation, without input from its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book A, most of it would be lost forever, a crippling blow to the religion

Book B has
1. No variants in manuscript.
2. Author is known.
3. Was compiled and completed during the process of revelation by its messenger.
4. If some madman burned every existing copy of book B, its adherents who have memorized it would write it anew, thus ensuring the survival of said religion until every single adherent was killed.



Now, I tried putting in points which you can agree to without controversy. Now in your honest opinion, which book seems more likely to be from God and credible?

Note my answer to Gossemer Sky above. However, given that I have read both and tend to accept and follow the teaching of the Bible over that of the Qur'an, I suppose my answer is rather obvious.

 

[Hugo]

Bart Ehrman is a Biblical scholar; educated through Princeton's Divinity School and learned in the field of Biblical history and textual criticism (and is a professor).

What credentials does Ibn Warraq have? Did he attend university at a renowned Islamic university and dedicate his life to research in this field? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. His bio is sketchy at best in terms of credentials; all I can gather is that he garnered fame because he spoke out against Islam and became a prolific author. But this doesn't mean he's qualified.

Ehrman is a biblical scholar and studied under Bruce Metzger so he had the very best of teachers in terms of biblical New Testament studies so although I might or might not agree with him he is qualified to speak on NT issues.

Ibn Warraq studied in Edinburgh under Montgomery Watt a world class and outstanding teacher in Arabic studies. It follows the Ibn Warraq is qualified to speak on Islamic issues.

I am not sure what point you are making here. Is it that one has to be qualified academically to be able to say anything with authority?

 

[Hugo]

btw.. the book of the Mormon looks surprisingly like the bible but comes with special underwear .. so I don't see how makes the list?..

The criteria for the Quran is already established and not awaiting the fools to re-set them...

come up with a book that
1- is a guidance to man kind in all aspects-- religion/politics/economics/social structure/ inheritenace/ signs of the end/ tales of folks of old/and have it flow in context, lyricism/ rhyme, so that one would love to hear it and memorize it, have it be transcendent withstand the test of time and be loved and practiced and reuniting to folks all over.. just to name a few.

I don't know about you, but I am sick of the belaboring arguments with these ignorants on boards...

We have been here before but tell me in your opinion is there no other book anywhere that has any value or beauty or instruction or rhythm or lyricism or stories and has stood the test of time?

 

[rpwelton]

Ehrman is a biblical scholar and studies under Bruce Metzger so he had the very best of teachers in terms of biblical New Testament studies so although I might or might not agree with him he is qualified to speak on NT issues.

Ibn Warraq studied in Edinburgh under Montgomery Watt a world class and outstanding teacher in Arabic studies. It follows the Ibn Warraq is qualified to speak on Islamic issues.

I am not sure what point you are making here. Is it that one to be qualified academically to be able to say anything with authority?

Do you see the connection between these two writers and their mentors?

Ehrman, who during the time leading up to seminary was a devout Christian, studied under a man who had such a high regard of Christianity and lived it in his life. Metzger was actively engaged in Biblical translations and was even an ordained minister. So you have a Christian studying under a Christian.

Watt was a Christian, although he did regard the Qur'an quite highly. Warraq, from what I gather about his biography, never practiced Islam to a high regard, and himself claims he was never "indoctrinated in religion." Here you have a (supposed) Muslim studying under a Christian.

Do you think, using these comparisons, it's fair to judge Ibn Warraq as a reputable source? I don't think so.

Show me a Muslim scholar who turned to another religion (or became atheist as Ehrman did) and then we'll talk.

Ehrman was a devout Christian during his studies (or at least, leading up to them), and Warraq was not (a devout Muslim).

I'm not saying Ehrman is the end-all-be-all, but at least bring someone more credible than Warraq to the table if you're going to dispute this.

In terms of sheer knowledge, you can't really say they're on the same level.

 

[جوري]

studying Arabic doesn't Qualify one for scholarship on Islamic studies. I can't study medicine and claim scholarship in engineering, simply because I have a vendetta against engineers and want to make a buck fueling hatred.

Yeah, you need to be qualified academically to be able to say something with some authority in the field of your scholarship!
and it follows indeed that scholarship in a field doesn't usually fuel someone with hatred rather knowledge on the subject at hand.
If I studied Caravaggio to a great extent I'd be able to write of his work with some authority.. my dislike for him for instance taking a common street w h o r e to depict the virgin Mary would be a matter of personal distaste, rather than down right dismissal of him as a brilliant artist, unconventionality and rebellious streak!

I don't think you are able to distinguish the difference indeed, and have so little in your ammo, simply because, you are extremely ill read on the basics, so natural of course that you'd creative with the ancillary furnishings!

 

[جوري]

We have been here before but tell me in your opinion is there no other book anywhere that has any value or beauty or instruction or rhythm or lyricism or stories and has stood the test of time?

Nothing compares to the Quran indeed that has fulfilled all of its criteria.

 

[Hugo]

No, one does not need strict academic credentials per se, but rather we should at least know what kind of knowledge a person has on a subject, and as a result, judge his/her qualifications. Do you see the connection between these two writers and their mentors?

Ehrman, who during the time leading up to seminary was a devout Christian, studied under a man who had such a high regard of Christianity and lived it in his life. Metzger was actively engaged in Biblical translations and was even an ordained minister. So you have a Christian studying under a Christian.

Watt was a Christian, although he did regard the Qur'an quite highly. Warraq, from what I gather about his biography, never practiced Islam to a high regard, and himself claims he was never "indoctrinated in religion." Here you have a (supposed) Muslim studying under a Christian.

Do you think, using these comparisons, it's fair to judge Ibn Warraq as a reputable source? I don't think so.

Academics is not everything, but Ehrman is a scholar and Warraq is not.
Ehrman was a devout Christian during his studies (or at least, leading up to them), and Warraq was not (a devout Muslim).

I'm not saying Ehrman is the end-all-be-all, but at least bring someone more credible than Warraq to the table if you're going to dispute this.

In terms of sheer knowledge, you can't really say they're on the same level.

Well as we say the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I have read Ehrman, Metzger, Watt and Warraq.

Since we are focusing on Warraq then if you have read any of his books you will see they are fully research and referenced and would pass any scholarly test. The writing is lucid and the coverage beyond reproach and shows a deep understanding of the issues and points of view and is scrupulously honest in expressing viewpoints. His books vary, some are collections of scholarly papers and others are in the form of treatise or explanations and refutations.

If you want to discuss any them or show me their faults then do so, that is what academic study is about.