Proof that the Bible is ‘Corrupted’

[Trumble]

as far as Quran is concerned, proof of what?

'Proof' that the Qur'an is the word of God and not of man, deduced logically from its contents. A consequence of such a 'proof' must also be that any other version of what God says or thinks must be wrong.

Muslims seem very keen on trying to do that, far more than Christians with the Bible, although I will admit the Qur'an is probably rather more favourable ground. Christians are much happier just to rely on faith, which I rather sympathise with, considering that none of the attempted "proofs" I have seen have been remotely convincing without a large dash of faith thrown in, usually by their author.

 

[lolwatever]

Well god has made a fair number of challenges, including the challenge of 'bring on a similar verse or chapter if u can'... as well as some of the things mentioned that would be ridiculous to attribute to the inbuilt ability of human beings

srsly.. how is an arab in the middle of arabia suppose 2 knwo about water under currents, and how is someoen in such an area supose 2 hav any clue about air pressure rising as you ascend up (considering there's barely any decent mountains to show that property in arabia)... amongst other things

if it's not god who revealed that info, then who?

some ppl come up with mythst hat the prophet went to the greeks or wat not, where's the proof? and the greeks hav a fair share of sci inaccuracies, especially aristotlean outlook on the universe, so obviously the quran would hav inherited some of those errors if that where indeed true.

 

[evangel]

Got morals??

Do you realize you insult everyone who is non-Muslim? It seems to me that all but the more radical Muslims distance themselves from your arrogant, aggressive and childish attitudes.


Matthew 7:1,2
"Judge not, that you be not judged.
For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get."

John 8:15
You judge according to the flesh, I judge no one.

 

[جوري]

'Proof' that the Qur'an is the word of God and not of man, deduced logically from its contents. A consequence of such a 'proof' must also be that any other version of what God says or thinks must be wrong.

Muslims seem very keen on trying to do that, far more than Christians with the Bible, although I will admit the Qur'an is probably rather more favourable ground. Christians are much happier just to rely on faith, which I rather sympathise with, considering that none of the attempted "proofs" I have seen have been remotely convincing without a large dash of faith thrown in, usually by their author.

I am ok with people not wanting to be Muslim but I rather like it more when people bring something to the table I can chew on.... I can give countless examples some off the top of my head..... for instance the Quran addressing the bees in the female form... something that wasn't even done up to Shakespearean time, if you'd refer to some of some of his enlightened literature...In the 16th chapter the Qur'an mentions that the female bee leaves its home to gather food.l2 Now, a person might guess on that, saying, "The bee that you see flying around - it could be male, or it could be female. I think I will guess female." Certainly, he has a one in two chance of being right. So it happens that the Qur'an is right. But it also happens that was not what most people believed at the time when the Qur'an was revealed. Can you tell the difference between a male and a female bee? Well, it takes a specialist to do that, but it has been discovered that the male bee never leaves his home to gather food. However, in Shakespeare's play, Henry the Fourth, some of the characters discuss bees and mention that the bees are soldiers and have a king. That is what people thought in Shakespeare's time - that the bees that one sees flying around are male bees and that they go home and answer to a king. However, that is not true at all. The fact is that they are females, and they answer to a queen. Yet it took modern scientific investigations in the last 300 years to discover that this is the case.

. I can't imagine why that along with countless others isn't significant? or considered "subjective" and based on faith when it is truly remarkable ... just that as a lone example is remarkable to me even if I knew nothing at all of science, or history or the age of this book.... so why this vehemence on how remotely "unconvincing"
– Worker bees being female (Qur'an 16:68)

A subtle yet extraordinary precision in describing a natural phenomenon occurs in Q.16:68: “And your Lord inspired the bee, (saying), 'Take for yourself dwellings in hills, on trees and in what they (mankind) build.’” The imperative “take” above is the translation of the Arabic word “ittakhidhi”, which is a feminine form (for Arabic verbs, unlike English ones, differentiate between the sexes). In Arabic, the female form is used when all those it refers to are female, whereas the masculine is used when a group contains at least one male. Therefore the Qur’an is in fact saying: “Take for yourself, you female bees, dwellings…”

I really love the verse from the Qur'an that states بَلْ يُرِيدُ كُلُّ امْرِئٍ مِّنْهُمْ أَن يُؤْتَى صُحُفًا مُّنَشَّرَةً {52}

[Yusufali 74:52] Forsooth, each one of them wants to be given scrolls (of revelation) spread out!
I think it applies for a great majority......... if it were the word of Mohammed what would he have to gain by living poor and calling to the belief in one God? I'd think he'd want a peter the great style kingdom to sing his praise........
peace

 

[dougmusr]

Well god has made a fair number of challenges, including the challenge of 'bring on a similar verse or chapter if u can'... as well as some of the things mentioned that would be ridiculous to attribute to the inbuilt ability of human beings

This verse would be a pretty untrustworthy test of the Quran's divine origin for several reasons. There is no criteria provided by which the produced work can be evaluated, nor is there any qualifications given to the witnesses. I have read the entire Bible and much of the Quran. I find the Bible to be a superior piece of work, and I have many witnesses who agree. Therefore I would have to say the Bible has met the challenge of this verse and has won the challenge.

002.023
YUSUFALI: And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true.
PICKTHAL: And if ye are in doubt concerning that which We reveal unto Our slave (Muhammad), then produce a surah of the like thereof, and call your witness beside Allah if ye are truthful.
SHAKIR: And if you are in doubt as to that which We have revealed to Our servant, then produce a chapter like it and call on your witnesses besides Allah if you are truthful.

 

[جوري]

This verse would be a pretty untrustworthy test of the Quran's divine origin for several reasons. There is no criteria provided by which the produced work can be evaluated, nor is there any qualifications given to the witnesses. I have read the entire Bible and much of the Quran. I find the Bible to be a superior piece of work, and I have many witnesses who agree. Therefore I would have to say the Bible has met the challenge of this verse and has won the challenge.

.

How so? because you and several "witnesses" say so?
what do you mean by criteria provided? and what do you mean by qualifications of witnesses?... it is simple really... if you can produce a sura of any sort even like the shortest sura (108) comprable to the beauty, the rhyme, the meaning.. the time transcendance to that of the quran then by all mean do so... you can't compare the bible to the Qur'an... it is apples and oranges.... one thing in the least you'd have to read it in Arabic to actually fully grasp what we mean otherwise it is all talk.... when you see a sura part mekya, part medina... 10 years or more apart... yet carry on the same rhythm, fit in with meaning, textual style and divine brilliance... can we come and compare the book that has been altered a thousand times over to fit the centuries choice... to the book that has stood the test of time
peace

 

[dougmusr]

How so? because you and several "witnesses" say so?
what do you mean by criteria provided? and what do you mean by qualifications of witnesses?... it is simple really... if you can produce a sura of any sort even like the shortest sura (108) comprable to the beauty, the rhyme, the meaning.. the time transcendance to that of the quran then by all mean do so... you can't compare the bible to the Qur'an... it is apples and oranges.... one thing in the least you'd have to read it in Arabic to actually fully grasp what we mean otherwise it is all talk.... when you see a sura part mekya, part medina... 10 years or more apart... yet carry on the same rhythm, fit in with meaning, textual style and divine brilliance... can we come and compare the book that has been altered a thousand times over to fit the centuries choice... to the book that has stood the test of time
peace

That's just it. It does not say, if you can write better arabic, or better rhyme, or better prophecy. It does not specify who is responsible for making the determination that an attempted sura has met the challenge, except that the person who writes it can choose the evaluators. It does not establish any criteria.

 

[جوري]

the criteria is.... if you don't believe it is the word of God then bring forth the word of God in similar or better style.... why is that difficult?

 

[dougmusr]

the criteria is.... if you don't believe it is the word of God then bring forth the word of God in similar or better style.... why is that difficult?

I believe the Bible is a better book in a better style, but that's what I would be expected to believe as a Christian.

Have you spent any time reading the Hadiths?

 

[جوري]

I believe the Bible is a better book in a better style, but that's what I would be expected to believe as a Christian.

Have you spent any time reading the Hadiths?

What sort of question is that?.......... in fact my reading the hadiths affirms to me that the man who spoke those words couldn't have come up with the Qur'an... no two suras are the same whereas the style of the hadiths is very distinct... what are you derving at?............... I am glad the bible works better for you in a superior style... blessings to you

 

[dougmusr]

What sort of question is that?.......... in fact my reading the hadiths affirms to me that the man who spoke those words couldn't have come up with the Qur'an... no two suras are the same whereas the style of the hadiths is very distinct... what are you derving at?............... I am glad the bible works better for you in a superior style... blessings to you

I am under the impression that Islam considers the Hadiths to be an inspired historical account of how Muhammed himself lived the teachings of the Quran, much like the Gospels are accounts of how Christ lived the teachings of the Old Testament. Is that not what you believe?

 

[جوري]

yup... what do hadiths have to do with the Qura'an though? you quoted a quranic verse in your query... then you switched to hadiths... which would you like to discuss?

 

[dougmusr]

yup... what do hadiths have to do with the Qura'an though? you quoted a quranic verse in your query... then you switched to hadiths... which would you like to discuss?

It was more of a follow on question, not meant to be related so I should post it elsewhere I guess. Sorry.

 

[جوري]

no harm done... may God guide you unto the path of the righteous ......

 

[Joe98]

may God guide you unto the path of the righteous ......

I am already on that path, thank you :thumbs_up

 

[Trumble]

I believe the Bible is a better book in a better style, but that's what I would be expected to believe as a Christian.

Have you read both Qur'an and Bible in their original languages? If not, the only "style" it is possible to meaningfully comment on is that of the translators.

 

[lolwatever]

ive read parts of the old testement and i'm not sure if you pretty much treat prophets as being playboys as something particularly respectful.... and really the contradictions present in the bible just make the mind boggle as 2 how it could be anywhere near a divine book (in its current shape)...

and anyway.. the bible is just a collection of chaptes written by humans, there's chapter paul, mark, luke... but where's Allah's chapter :?

my comment about the Quran still holds alhamdulilah. salamz

 

[duskiness]

Week without "Bible corruption" thread is a week wasted, isn't it?

(Encyclopedia Biblica (Vol. 4. p. 4980)

Wasn't "encyclpedia biblica" published in 1899? If so, then few things have changed since then. In Bible studies aslo. (for example: statement that "gospels were written for greeks by greeks" today is considered not exactly true..)

The oldest Bible we possess today, Codex Sinaiticus, which contains both Old and New Testaments does not conatin Mark 16:9-20 [it stops at Mark 16:8:

Oh...what a surprise! or maybe not....in my Bible this fact is mentioned as a footnote. Seems it's enough to read Bible to know this...If you would be interested why it's still there it's quite easy to find out. But i doubt you are, so let's leave it like that...

today we have more than 5500 manuscripts of New Testament. The oldest one is dated around 120AD. Codex Sinaticus (together with Codex Vaticanus) are the oldes manuscripts of whole Bible in one pice. But it is almost possible to make whole text of NT from manuscripts older than C.Sinaticus or Vaticanus.
In those 5500 manuscripts we have more than few hundred thousand variation in text (thats more than there are words in NT).
But those variation appear only in 20% of NT's text (= 80% of text is the same).
Variations that happen in those 20% are unimportant differences in grammar or word order in sentence. Only 200 (out of few hundred thousand variations) affect the meaning of sentence.
Thanks to text critic in case of 185 we know which one is the original. 15 are left and still discussed.
To save your time, I'll list the most famous of 15: Mk 16,9-20; L 22,43-44; J 7,53 - 8,11; 1J, 5,7.
none of this texts add or omit any dogmatic truth. Adding them or omitting wouldn't change christian doctrine.
today we have no original manuscripts of NT but thanks to other manuscripts and text critic we can quite precisely know how this original text look like.
1% of text is in doubt
All together it probably makes it the best preserved ancient text that we have (and please remember that not only time was against Bible but also it was being burned durnig prosecutions)
As a christian i can say i don't belong to any "ahl al-kitab". Our faith is not faith in the book. First christians didn't have any new testament. NT is testimony of their faith, which they based on something different.
So what's Bible for me? It's the most important book there is - book about God's relationship with us, by God inspired, inerrant in matters of faith.
Was (for example) J 7,53 - 8,11; in john's Gospel from the very start? I don't know and i don't care that much. Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was but while coping the text it was omitted in some copies, or maybe it was for longer time passed in oral tradition and later added, or maybe it was a pious fraud.
Whatever way this fragment got into NT i believe He wanted it to be there.
"If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." - I'm quite sure He is behind those words.

and anyway.. the bible is just a collection of chaptes written by humans, there's chapter paul, mark, luke...

that's exactly what Bible is.

but where's Allah's chapter :?

our God doesn't write books...


If you are still reading this, then have a little more patience and read a bit more.
I'm tired of this threads.
Sometimes it seems this forum should be renamed from"comparative religion" into "lets prove that christianity is wrong". What's the aim of searching web for article that "prove" how silly christianity is, and copy-pasting them here? Do you understand us better, know more about different faith?
Or maybe it helps you to understand why there are people who stick to christianity and don't convert to islam? For you answer is simple, isn't it? We are bunch of idiots who don't know history, don't read bible and can't count to 3.
To compare you have to understand (or at least try to..). To understand others you have to try to see world through their lances.
n.
edit:word order

 

[glo]

Week without "Bible corruption" thread is a week wasted, isn't it?
[...]
I'm tired of this threads.
Sometimes it seems this forum should be renamed from"comparative religion" into "lets prove that christianity is wrong". What's the aim of searching web for article that "prove" how silly christianity is, and copy-pasting them here? You understand us better, know more about different faith?
Or maybe you understand why people stick to christianity and not convert to islam? For you answer is simple, isn't it? We are bunch of idiots who don't know history, don't read bible and can't count to 3.
To compare you have to understand (or at least try to..). To understand others you have to try to see world through their lances.
n.

Hi duskiness

Bless you!
That's exactly how I feel.

Actually, I am always a little suspicious when people display such a strong desire to undermine and destroy other people's faiths, beliefs, and holy books.
I mean, why do people do that???
I wonder if for some there is an element of needing to fight against other faiths in order to strengthen their own faith. :rollseyes

Sharing your faith with people is one thing, trying to undermine and ridicule their faith is another!

Besides, as Trumble is always very good at pointing out, these arguments are rather pointless, and never provide the 'proof' they claim to provide. :?

Peace.

 

[QuranStudy]

Let's see:

1.) Bible does not go along with science AT ALL.
2.) Hundreds of contradictions.
3.) Words changed over time by various "Christians." (ex. slave ---> servant)
4.) Unicorns, 4 legged spiders, flying serpants and other mythical creatures
5.) Contains information already disproved (ex. flat earth)
6.) "Morals" include subjugation of women, establishing institution of slavery, and killing of disobedient children.
7.) Absolutely incompatible with history (ex. Great Flood regarded as myth by most scientists). The Old testament may have a basis of facts, but the New Testament is regarded as purely mythical.
8.) Personification of animals (ex. lions killing via strangulation)

Source: Wikipedia