Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Walter
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 306
  • Views Views 41K
Does the Qur'an actually use the word "Bible"(or whatever the Arabic for "Bible" is)?
the word used is 'Injeel' and that was the name of the book.

I ask, because the only Bible we have ever had has been in a compilation of books, in other words (in your way of thinking) it has been "the bible from humans".
that's what you believe, but the bible we believe in, is the bible (Injeel), sent from Allah swt .
No Bible that could be described as "one book sent from Allah" has ever existed, so why would the Qur'an mention it?
again you are making your statement using christian beliefs. We believe the books Jesus a.s was sent with is a book from Allah. and is not the book you believe today which were written by those people.
 
the word used is 'Injeel' and that was the name of the book.

that's what you believe, but the bible we believe in, is the bible (Injeel), sent from Allah swt .
again you are making your statement using christian beliefs. We believe the books Jesus a.s was sent with is a book from Allah. and is not the book you believe today which were written by those people.


Oh, I very much understand that we are talking about different books. Given that we are, I don't think it is wise to use the same name to refer to both of them. As you said the word is Injeel. Also as you said, the Injeel is not the Bible that Christians speak of. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Muslims to speak of the Bible of the Christians being corrupted, based on a comment that we don't have the Injeel. They are different books. Imagine saying that Harry Potter was corrupted because it wasn't the Injeel. Doesn't make any sense does it? So, as the Bible that Christians possess is not intended to be the Injeel that Muslims believe was given to Moses or Jesus, then it is wrong to condemn it for not being something that it does not claim to be. It is a completely different type of record than the Injeel.

Which does bring us back to a question related to this thread -- why would Mohammad even suggest that Muslims believe in this book that is not the Injeel? Or is that your point, Muhammad was telling his people to believe in the Injeel, but was not telling them to read the Bible in order to find that Injeel?
 
I would highly recommend a Muslim/Jew/etc. to read the Bible. Not for factual reference, but in order to better understand what each religious sects believe.
 
salam.

Therefore, it is inappropriate for Muslims to speak of the Bible of the Christians being corrupted,

so at least your understand now...christians are not christian without Injeel that Allah put in Isa mouth...

when Muslim tell you the Bible is corrupt...it's means the bible corrupted the mission and teaching of Isa (as).
 
salam.



so at least your understand now...christians are not christian without Injeel that Allah put in Isa mouth...
I find this to be a statement that I cannot agree with.

when Muslim tell you the Bible is corrupt...it's means the bible corrupted the mission and teaching of Isa (as).
Well, this is what YOU mean by the Bible being corrupt. I have a sense that others mean other things by it, as we cannot even get a consistent answer to my question in another thread on when it was that the Bible was corrupted.

Also, to know that the Bible corrupted the teaching of Jesus, wouldn't you have to have a record of the true Injeel delivered by Jesus to compare it with. Perhaps you are wrong in the assumption that the record of the Bible is not a true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus. Do you have another contemporaneous record of what Jesus' mission and teaching was that Christians are not aware of?
 
Last edited:
Oh, I very much understand that we are talking about different books. Given that we are, I don't think it is wise to use the same name to refer to both of them. As you said the word is Injeel. Also as you said, the Injeel is not the Bible that Christians speak of. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Muslims to speak of the Bible of the Christians being corrupted, based on a comment that we don't have the Injeel. They are different books. Imagine saying that Harry Potter was corrupted because it wasn't the Injeel. Doesn't make any sense does it? So, as the Bible that Christians possess is not intended to be the Injeel that Muslims believe was given to Moses or Jesus, then it is wrong to condemn it for not being something that it does not claim to be. It is a completely different type of record than the Injeel.

I fully agree with you that the Injeel and the 4 NT gospels are not the same thing. We Muslims believe that the Injeel was the revelation given directly to Jesus (as) that he shared with his disciples and other followers while he walked among them. I believe that fragments of the Injeel are captured in the gospels such as the Beatitudes, various parables and prophesy about the coming of the Comforter.
Also, to know that the Bible corrupted the teaching of Jesus, wouldn't you have to have a record of the true Injeel delivered by Jesus to compare it with. Perhaps you are wrong in the assumption that the record of the Bible is not a true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus. Do you have another contemporaneous record of what Jesus' mission and teaching was that Christians are not aware of?
Although I am sure that you believe the Gospel of Barnabas is a Muslim fabrication, we Muslims believe that it may be a more accurate account of Jesus' life and teachings than the 4 NT gospels.

I think that we can agree that the disciples did not preserve (even take notes) what was revealed to Jesus (as) immediately as he spoke. Contrast this to the Quran which was written and memorized immediately as it was being revealed and what had been revealed was recited each year during the month of Ramaddan.

The only portion of the NT that can be claimed to be comparable to the Injeel is the gospels. Acts was written to record the actions of the disciples after Jesus' ascension, the letters to the churches were written by Saul/Paul who apparently never even met Jesus during his life on earth and Revelation was apparently a revelation given to John. It is clear that the gospels are narrative stories written from memory many years after Jesus' ascensionand that they are not the revelation "in toto" given to Jesus (as).

[pie]
Wikipedia
Gospel's Date of Origin
The following are mostly the date ranges given by the late Raymond E. Brown, in his book An Introduction to the New Testament, as representing the general scholarly consensus in 1996
Mark: c. 68–73
Matthew: c. 70–100 as the majority view; some conservative scholars argue for a pre-70 date, particularly those that do not accept Mark as the first gospel written.
Luke: c. 80–100, with most arguing for somewhere around 85
John: c. 90–110. Brown does not give a consensus view for John, but these are dates as propounded by C K Barrett, among others. The majority view is that it was written in stages, so there was no one date of composition.

Gospel's Authorship
Mark: The gospel itself is anonymous, but as early as Papias in the early 2nd century, a text was attributed to Mark, a disciple of Peter, who is said to have recorded the Apostle's discourses.

Matthew: Although the document is internally anonymous, the authorship of this Gospel has been traditionally ascribed to Matthew the Evangelist, a tax collector who became an Apostle of Jesus. .... Beginning in the 18th century, however, scholars have increasingly questioned that traditional view, and today the majority agree Matthew did not write the Gospel which bears his name.

Luke: According to this view, Paul's "dear friend Luke the Doctor" (Col 4:14) and "fellow worker" (Phlm 24) makes the most likely candidate for authorship out of all the companions mentioned in Paul's writings. Modern scholarship is divided on these points, with many believing that the author of Luke is unknown.

John: The authorship has been disputed since at least the second century, with mainstream Christianity believing that the author is John the Apostle, son of Zebedee. Modern experts usually consider the author to be an unknown non-eyewitness,....Starting in the 19th century, critical scholarship has further questioned the apostle John's authorship, arguing that the work was written decades after the events it describes.
[/pie]
The dates of origin being many years after Jesus' ascension, the narrative style and the lack of authorship documentation points to the fact that the gospels are not the unadulterated revelation given to Jesus (as). I think that you can agree with this point.

We Muslims can make an analogy between the NT gospels and various hadith recording what Prophet Muhammad (saaws) said and did. Just as there are strong, authentic hadith, so also there are weak and even fabricated hadith attributed to Muhammad (saaws). These hadith were recorded as individual actions and words for a specific situation. There were not collated into a narrative story as were the gospels.

The Quran is the "ver batim" revelation given to Muhammad (saaws) while the NT gospels are not the "ver batim" revelation given to Jesus (as).

Which does bring us back to a question related to this thread -- why would Mohammad even suggest that Muslims believe in this book that is not the Injeel? Or is that your point, Muhammad was telling his people to believe in the Injeel, but was not telling them to read the Bible in order to find that Injeel?
The fact that the NT gospels preserve even fragments of the Injeel points to the fact of Divine revelations being given to previous Prophets - Moses, David, Jesus - of which the Quran is a continuation and termination of the chain. Even Mark 12:29 "The most important one," answered Jesus, is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one." is enough for us to believe that ithe Bible contains portions of the Injeel. However, there has been so much added (e.g. letters by Paul) that were not part of the Injeel that it is impossible for the unlearned to discern the fragments of Truth.
 
Hi Vpb:

Let us clear up some misunderstandings.

1. Believe in a Book

The Qu’ran does not say to believe in a Book, it says:

4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

So you are not to believe in any scripture, you are to believe the scripture. The Qu’ran indicates that you are to believe “the scripture which He sent to those before” in the same manner that you believe “the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger”. Therefore whether you read it or hear it is up to you, but you must somehow understand and believe it. If you only “believe in” or believe that God sent books, then it seems that you have fallen far far short of the requirement.


2. The Scripture sent before

You noted:
muslims don't believe in the bible that is today. today we have the bible from humans (paul,matthew etc...) , while the Bible that Qur'an talks about is one book sent from Allah swt to Isa a.s and it's not a "collection of books".”

This has to be your personal opinion which you are free to embrace. However, the evidence does not support it.

What is this scripture sent before? The Qu’ran indicates that it is God’s revelations that comprise the “scripture which He sent to those before”. We can debate what this scripture contains, but we can at least agree that it contains words that God spoke to and through His prophets. Therefore, this does not include any narration or commentary, but the actual words spoken by God and Jesus.

This information is contained in the Bible. You can choose to disbelieve the narration, but the Qu’ran directs you to believe the Word of God.

Regards,
Grenville
 
The Qu’ran does not say to believe in a Book, it says:

4:136 - O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth Allah, His angels, His Books, His Messengers, and the Day of Judgment, hath gone far, far astray.

O ye who believe! Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger and the scripture which He sent to those before (him).

The Qu’ran does not say to believe in a Book

so what it is saying then??? muslims to put in practice the bible and torah???

So you are not to believe in any scripture, you are to believe the scripture. The Qu’ran indicates that you are to believe “the scripture which He sent to those before” in the same manner that you believe “the scripture which He hath sent to His Messenger”. Therefore whether you read it or hear it is up to you, but you must somehow understand and believe it. If you only “believe in” or believe that God sent books, then it seems that you have fallen far far short of the requirement.

I don't know how are u trying to prove that muslims are obligated to read bible or torah. We already showed u proof that muslims are obligated to believe that Bible and Torah were books sent from Allah swt. And this doesn't include reading bible, bc bible is not the one that Qur'an is talking about, otherwise why would Qur'an be revealed?.

This has to be your personal opinion which you are free to embrace. However, the evidence does not support it.

this is not just my personal opinion, but all muslims' opinion. as you have already seen.

as for the evidence, :) do we really have to go on this? it can be easily proved that bible today is just a derivation of the real book sent from Allah. but I would recommend u to study your own history of Christianity and the gospels, before asking me for evidence :). I don't need now to bring evidence, you should already have seen those evidence :)

What is this scripture sent before? The Qu’ran indicates that it is God’s revelations that comprise the “scripture which He sent to those before”.

yes, they were Allah's revelations. and those were torah injeel.

We can debate what this scripture contains, but we can at least agree that it contains words that God spoke to and through His prophets.

Torah and Injeel taught the same thing as Qur'an teaches. We already have said that all messengers were sent mainly for the message "There is no god worthy of worship but Allah".
but we can find difference on the shariahs (divine laws), which differ at this time and on moses's time etc.

Therefore, this does not include any narration or commentary, but the actual words spoken by God and Jesus.

I don't get this statement.

This information is contained in the Bible. You can choose to disbelieve the narration, but the Qu’ran directs you to believe the Word of God.

We don't say that 100% of bible is false, but majority , especially the main point which is oneness of Allah were altered. So therefore we can take it as a book that has been altered. and that's why Qur'an is sent. This is simple logic.

Why was Qur'an sent?

to confirm other books and fix peoples' beliefs since they change God's word intentionally or unintentionally.

Yes, I agree Qur'an obligates muslims to believe these books that were sent by Allah. But I don't know how you are saying that by saying "you have to believe those books" you are obligated to follow those books.


And simply we cannot follow bible, because many laws are different. So for people from time of Muhammed till the day of judgement, the only source for guidance is the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Does bible contains Surah Al-Fatiha which is required in the prayer?
Does bible contains the laws of performing wudu?
Does bible teaches the same concept of Aqeedah (beliefs) as Qur'an does?
Does bible teaches about the business laws that are taught in the Qur'an?
Does bible teaches about the laws of marriage in Islam (which are taught in Qur'an)??
Does bible teaches of obeying Muhammed saws as Qur'an does?
Does bible teaches the same concept about the angels and other creatures and their degrees/duties??
Does bible have the power of healing people spiritually?
Does bible teaches the same concept of Jesus a.s as Qur'an does?


these are just few.

The only source of guidance from muslims now days to act upon is Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammed saws. Other sources belong to previous nations, to be more specific, to people before Muhammed saws came.

Otherwise so far you have only showed proof that muslims should believe that Bible and Torah were books sent by Allah swt. ( and we do cuz it's part of islamic belief) and we have to believe (accept) them as the books revealed by Allah. But that has nothing to do with acting upon them. they belong to nations before Muhammed. Nothing till now showed the contrary, apart from your own opinions.
 
Hi Vpb:

Thank you for your post. Please know that we are both looking at the same thing but from different perspectives. You have provided some useful information which I very much appreciate. By providing information, we can see each other’s perspectives a little clearer. If we simply responded by saying “I do not agree”, then there is no opportunity to improve one’s understanding.

The Qu’ran says to believe the scriptures that came before. Since you believe that the scriptures are no longer available, you have reconciled this belief with what the Qu’ran has stated by interpreting the Qu’ran to say “believe that Allah sent Scriptures before”.

The problem is that the Qu’ran does not say this. It says that you must believe the scriptures them selves. Which means that you must read or hear them?

But how can this be if the scriptures sent before are no longer available? That is the problem. That is the issue that you should be trying to resolve rather than inventing something that the Qu’ran simply does not say. It is easy to misinterpret a verse to avoid dealing with the consequences of following it.

There has been sufficient evidence provided in this thread to confirm that Mohammed saw the scriptures that were sent before. The evidence is irrefutable. For example.

1. Torah was available according to the Tafsir

(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought the Tawrah and read from it until the reader reached the verse about stoning.

2. The Torah was available according to the Qu’ran

2. 7:91 - No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.

3. Mohammed accepted the validity of the Books sent before during his time

5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

5:66 - If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

5:69 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

So some Jews and Christians who followed their scriptures during Mohammed’s time (600 AD), were on the right course. This concept is confirmed repeatedly in the Qu’ran and there is no evidence that Monks and Rabbis would have had any other scriptures to follow than what is contained in the Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus (330-350 AD) is on permanent display at the British Museum for all to see. The latest research suggests that it was one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine and it was written in Egypt. We know that the Bible is the most copied Book and even Mohammed came across persons with copies in their hands some 300 years later, probably copied from the same Codex Sinaiticus in Egypt.

We can argue about some of the books and the quality of copying until the Lord returns but we must always remember: The goal of you all is to Allah; it is He that will show you the truth of the matters in which ye dispute;. (5:48)

Therefore your belief that the scriptures are not available is unsupported.

Now you raised a valid concern.

And simply we cannot follow bible, because many laws are different.
Does bible contains Surah Al-Fatiha which is required in the prayer?
Does bible contains the laws of performing wudu?
Does bible teaches the same concept of Aqeedah (beliefs) as Qur'an does?
Does bible teaches about the business laws that are taught in the Qur'an?
Does bible teaches about the laws of marriage in Islam (which are taught in Qur'an)??
Does bible teaches of obeying Muhammed saws as Qur'an does?
Does bible teaches the same concept about the angels and other creatures and their degrees/duties??
Does bible have the power of healing people spiritually?
Does bible teaches the same concept of Jesus a.s as Qur'an does?

We should not be afraid of such questions. If God is God and His word is correct, then we should not fear to give a response. We should certainly not hold an unsupported belief for this can mislead people.

As previously mentioned in this thread, the Qu’ran does not contain everything in the Bible, and the Bible does not contain everything in the Qu’ran. The Bible refers to information which appears to be unavailable, and the Qu’ran refers to the Books that came before. However, both books contain guidance that is beneficial for mankind.

So what are you instructed to do? You are instructed to believe (therefore read or listed and understand) scriptures sent before. As previously noted, it is irrefutable that such scriptures were available to Mohammed and that he sanctioned their use. This idea of them being unavailable is not supported by the Qu’ran.

If you read them, you will find that the things that you think are contradictions may not be so. We should have faith that God will not contradict Himself. The problem is that you neither read it yourselves, neither do you permit those who are willing to read it. Be very careful.

Regards,
Grenville
 
I and many other muslims have already cleared up this issue, using verses, tafsirs from some of the greatest scholars, we have provided logic examples, and many other examples in general, and you still keep saying that we are obligated to read/follow bible/torah. No evidence at all showed that we are obligated to do such thing apart from your opinions. If you think that you are smarter and know more than some scholars, who some of them even lived with Muhammed saws, and spent their whole life on studying and commenting Qur'an, then I don't have much to say.

and I am not interested on posting anymore in this thread. All you are doing is just making your own conclusions, and just using some out of context verses, and trying to tell our scholars of such a high caliber that they are wrong, and you are right , and trying to comment Qur'anic verses. Although you are not saying that directly, but you are doing it from the corner.
We already know the answer, and it has been made clear.

I can't see the reason behind such a desire to convince muslims that they should follow bible/torah too.

and the Prophet Muhammed saws said:

"I Leave two great and precious things among you: The Book of Allah and My Household"



 
OK Vpb:

You wrote:
I and many other muslims have already cleared up this issue, using verses, tafsirs from some of the greatest scholars, we have provided logic examples, and many other examples in general, and you still keep saying that we are obligated to read/follow bible/torah.

You failed to mention that the verses and the tafsirs that were quoted actually supported my position - you are free to go back and read them for yourself. However, we can simply agree to disagree.

Best regards,
Grenville
 
Gospel of Barnabas 10

Jesus having come to the age of thirty years, as he himself said unto me, went up to Mount Olives with his mother to gather olives. Then at midday as he was praying, when he came to these words: "Lord, with mercy...," he was surrounded by an exceeding bright light and by an infinite multitude of angels, who were saying: "Blessed be God." The angel Gabriel presented him as it were a shining mirror, a book, which descended into the heart of Jesus in which he had knowledge of what God had done and what hath said and God willeth insomuch that everything was laid bare and open to him; as he said unto me: "Believe Barnabas, that I know every prophet with every prophecy, insomuch that whatever I say the whole hath come forth from that book.

In Islam we know this book that descended into the heart of Jesus as the Injeel in which every Muslim believes as a fundamental article of faith. Unfortunately, this book of revelation was not recorded except for a few fragments that made their way into the NT gospels.
 
salam

Well, this is what YOU mean by the Bible being corrupt. I have a sense that others mean other things by it, as we cannot even get a consistent answer to my question in another thread on when it was that the Bible was corrupted.

well that's the biggest corruption in the bible..what u think about me are not important..it's easy to see that.....since Moses, David, Solomon and other Jewish prophet they say God is one and only...there is no savior beside God..they live with Law...

when Jesus came he brought something totally different...then there is trinity...Godman...complete different concept of salvation...no need for social law...etc...ironically all this is just 'interpertation'...

Also, to know that the Bible corrupted the teaching of Jesus, wouldn't you have to have a record of the true Injeel delivered by Jesus to compare it with. Perhaps you are wrong in the assumption that the record of the Bible is not a true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus. Do you have another contemporaneous record of what Jesus' mission and teaching was that Christians are not aware of?


this is absurd..injeel was lost..God did not preserve it..why? u ask him urself..because God also have free will..so the only thing left for us is to reason..ask ur self why Jesus teaching and doctrine(according to you) so differed than previous prophet?is this because God change His mind?again?

not to mention the interpolation confirmed by your own scholar...that is not a good thing...
 
I find this to be a statement that I cannot agree with.

Well, this is what YOU mean by the Bible being corrupt. I have a sense that others mean other things by it, as we cannot even get a consistent answer to my question in another thread on when it was that the Bible was corrupted.

Also, to know that the Bible corrupted the teaching of Jesus, wouldn't you have to have a record of the true Injeel delivered by Jesus to compare it with. Perhaps you are wrong in the assumption that the record of the Bible is not a true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus. Do you have another contemporaneous record of what Jesus' mission and teaching was that Christians are not aware of?


We have the qur'an which has not been changed over the centuries. that tells us all we need to know about prophet Jesus pbuh.

If you want to convince me that the bible is a 'true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus' (peace be upon him) you have to show me that it is a document with integrity and accuracy. whereas I already know it is a document full of mistakes and errors, and interpolations. why should I put my trust in such a document? is God the author of confusion? is He careless of details? has He sent His message, the greatest message ever and the most important and vital information the human race needs for its salvation, in a document so full of contradictions and mistakes?

peace
 
Hi Vpb:

The Qu’ran says to believe the scriptures that came before. Since you believe that the scriptures are no longer available, you have reconciled this belief with what the Qu’ran has stated by interpreting the Qu’ran to say “believe that Allah sent Scriptures before”.

The problem is that the Qu’ran does not say this. It says that you must believe the scriptures them selves. Which means that you must read or hear them?

You are wrong. It does not say 'believe the scriptures and follow them'. brother vpb has already shown you this but you are wilfully misunderstanding. It says 'believe in.....the scriptures' which, quite apart from the finer points of linguistics, logic alone tells us that if elsewhere in the qur'an God tells us that Jesus pbuh was a prophet and nothing else, and was not crucified, we DO NOT take those scriptures as completely accurate. or are you saying that God urges us in the qur'an to read the Christian scriptures, and then shows His ignorance of them by contradicting them? this is not a reasonable position for you to hold. anyway go away and get your degree in classical arabic before you presume to tell scholars about the nuances of the language in which they are experts.

There has been sufficient evidence provided in this thread to confirm that Mohammed saw the scriptures that were sent before. The evidence is irrefutable. For example.

1. Torah was available according to the Tafsir

(Bring here the Tawrah and recite it, if you are truthful.) So they brought the Tawrah and read from it until the reader reached the verse about stoning.

Our Prophet was able to prove a point to the Jews of the time by showing them what was in their own scriptures. That is all. It is by no means a complete affirmation of their entire scriptures.

2. The Torah was available according to the Qu’ran

2. 7:91 - No just estimate of Allah do they make when they say: "Nothing doth Allah send down to man (by way of revelation)" Say: "Who then sent down the Book which Moses brought?- a light and guidance to man: But ye make it into (separate) sheets for show, while ye conceal much (of its contents): therein were ye taught that which ye knew not- neither ye nor your fathers." Say: "Allah (sent it down)": Then leave them to plunge in vain discourse and trifling.
hn
yes, thanks for pointing this out to me. despite the assertion that the Jews had translated their scriptures into Greek by the time of this revelation, God tells us here that they have 'CONCEALED MUCH' of its contents. so the first 5 books of the OT are not even to be relied upon as the complete Torah.

3. Mohammed accepted the validity of the Books sent before during his time

5:82 Strongest among men in enmity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and Pagans; and nearest among them in love to the believers wilt thou find those who say, "We are Christians": because amongst these are men devoted to learning and men who have renounced the world, and they are not arrogant.

This is by no means an acceptance of the validity of the Christian scriptures, it is acceptance by God of the sincerity and humility of certain Christians between the times of Jesus pbuh and Muhammad pbuh. the emphasis in this verse is on the people NOT the scriptures.

5:66 - If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side. There is from among them a party on the right course: but many of them follow a course that is evil.

Here, the 'gospel' is the injeel, I thought it was understood that in the context of the qur'an the injeel is the message that Jesus brought, confirming 'the Law' and calling people to the worship of One God.

5:69 - Those who believe (in the Qur'an), those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Sabians and the Christians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness,- on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.

Read it again, carefully. It says 'those who follow the Jewish (scriptures)....and the Christians'. It doesn't say, those who follow the Jewish scriptures and who follow the Christian scriptures. The qur'an is extremely precise here. The Jewish scriptures are mentioned - but not the Greek translation of them, ie the OT, because as we have already been told, the Jews have CONCEALED much of their scriptures therefore all the scriptures that the Christians have (OT and NT) are not referred to here. So to reiterate - all who believe in Allah (which in the context of the qur'an means the Oneness of Allah), and the day of judgement, and do good deeds - on them no fear or grief. Seems fine to me. sorry to tell you it doesn't mean you or anyone else who believes in the Trinity.

So some Jews and Christians who followed their scriptures during Mohammed’s time (600 AD), were on the right course. This concept is confirmed repeatedly in the Qu’ran and there is no evidence that Monks and Rabbis would have had any other scriptures to follow than what is contained in the Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus (330-350 AD) is on permanent display at the British Museum for all to see. The latest research suggests that it was one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine and it was written in Egypt. We know that the Bible is the most copied Book and even Mohammed came across persons with copies in their hands some 300 years later, probably copied from the same Codex Sinaiticus in Egypt.

You are starting off on the wrong premise again. certainly some Christians of that time were not Trinitarians. God has avoided mentioning 'the Christian scriptures' because that would indeed confuse you Christians of today.

Thanks for mentioning the Codex Sinaiticus. Do you believe the Gospel of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas are the 'inspired Word of God'? the compilers of the Codex Sinaiticus surely did.

sorry I am unable to 'multiple quote' so I have inserted my replies in bold.

peace
 
We have the qur'an which has not been changed over the centuries. that tells us all we need to know about prophet Jesus pbuh.

If you want to convince me that the bible is a 'true record of the mission and teaching of Jesus' (peace be upon him) you have to show me that it is a document with integrity and accuracy.

I doubt that I can. But the reason isn't because it isn't accurate, the reason is in what follows in your own post:

whereas I already know it is a document full of mistakes and errors, and interpolations.
You've already reached your conclusion. So, I won't try to confuse you with the facts.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top