Interesting find - Christians please comment

[Hugo]

To Naudamar

You say the Qu'ran has been preserved and that makes it miracle so be extension ANY book that has the same content for let's us say 1400 years must also be a miracle. So if I select say the codex sinacticus then it has not changed for almost 2,000 years so it too must be a miracle or are you going to do your usual trick and say the test only applies to the Qu'ran?

 

[Hugo]

how about you start with the language your god spoke before you 'verify' that 'authoritative record'

Good question, it was Aramaic now what language did your God speak; Arabic and not a pure (has many lone words) one at that which was a late arrival on the scene and probably derives from Aramaic - or are you suggesting the language of Allah from all enternity has been 6th centuary Arabic?

 

[جوري]

You say the Qu'ran has been preserved and that makes it miracle so be extension ANY book that has the same content for let's us say 1400 years must also be a miracle. So if I select say the codex sinacticus then it has not changed for almost 2,000 years so it too must be a miracle or are you going to do your usual trick and say the test only applies to the Qu'ran?

The codex sinaiticus is about 1600 years old if at all.. do you want to start with the truth before you ensnare others into your web of lies? only one book is the unerring word of God, a book of textual integrity, logical consistency even when revealed as you put 'piecemeal' to flow in syntax, lyricism context, transcendence, a book of miracles and supernatural eloquence, scientific statements ahead of their time a book that engages its reader in every century and every region and is as relevant today as it was when first revealed, a book that continues on its own to draw a large audience even in light and converts in the thousands and all over the world.. Must really kill you to know that in spite of your viscous tirade that it continues to draw folks like the sister in law of Tony Blair.. not only so close to home but so close to a powerful political seat.

 

[جوري]

Good question, it was Aramaic now what language did your God speak

was your god's alleged unerring word written in Aramaic as he spoke it?.. let's see the first Aramaic bible translated into all other languages!

 

[Ramadhan]

I think you are missing the point, if I have some 20,000 manuscripts some going right back to ad 35 then I think I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said and in an earlier post I said that there are only three tiny vereses that are still in question.

You are being disingenuous. your so called thousands of "manuscripts" were the size of what? a stamp?
even bible scholars admit they have no knowledge of who wrote the four gospels and when they were written?
and your so called thousands of manuscripts were written in what language?
and why did you christians even believe 100%in what paul said about jesus pbuh, when he never even met jesus, and when he was an enemy of jesus?

I am entitled to say that I have an authoratative record of what Jesus did and said

the four gospels were originally written in what language?
What language did jesus speak?

If you want to dismiss all that evidence that is a matter of enternal concert to you alone and you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base

why were some gospels who dated earlier than the four "official" gospels dismissed?
and why were the other gospels not trusted when they were written by people who knew jesus pbuh?
are you telling us that they were no selection processes throughout the centuries what were included the bible and what?
why did the council of nicea have to "officiate" trinity? and why was this 350 years after jesus pbuh left?

you have almost no right to talk about standards when you have no manuscript base and you expect me to trust in a book that mostly relates what can be found elsewhere and has a single witness to its content on the basis that zislamic oral tradition is quite different to every other one

LOL.
you have not even adressed and explained to me how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?

 

[Ramadhan]

The codex sinaiticus is about 1600 years old if at all.. do you want to start with the truth before you ensnare others into your web of lies? only one book is the unerring word of God, a book of textual integrity, logical consistency even when revealed as you put 'piecemeal' to flow in syntax, lyricism context, transcendence, a book of miracles and supernatural eloquence, scientific statements ahead of their time a book that engages its reader in every century and every region and is as relevant today as it was when first revealed, a book that continues on its own to draw a large audience even in light and converts in the thousands and all over the world.. Must really kill you to know that in spite of your viscous tirade that it continues to draw folks like the sister in law of Tony Blair.. not only so close to home but so close to a powerful political seat.

I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.

i don't believe he did know know those facts, I believe he purposefully lie to confuse unlearned muslims.
Either that or he has some serious delusion problem.

 

[جوري]

I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.

i don't believe he did know know those facts, I believe he purposefully lie to confuse unlearned muslims.
Either that or he has some serious delusion problem.

He uses a trusted source which by the way I recommended him believing at the time that he had a genuine desire to gain historical information, but in reality he takes it and twists all the words in, adding, snipping, in fact I wasted a good half an hour correcting his misquotes-- but who can blame him, their entire religion is based on conjectures of lying scribes and invention of mythology by folks not unlike himself, only every attempt they try with the Quran fails them miserably -- Look at what he is doing above alleging that the codex sinaiticus is 2000 yrs old when any simply google search would tell you otherwise.. that is how he goes through life, lying, scheming, tirading, hoping to both deceive people and worse yet himself, for I don't know how a person can go to bed at night, knowing he is living off the money of those whom he despises, keeping their company and lying to everyone including himself.. You know when you lose your morality and have no religion to enforce morality on you, I suppose you can do that sort of thing with a clear conscious.. It seems his god died eating his sins so he is free to sin here to his heart's content.. Hate, lies, deception, hypocrisy .. you name it.. it falls under the 'stealth crusade' I disagree though that he is able to confuse Muslims.. even young children are on to him!

 

[Hugo]

To Naidama

1. It is absurd to even suggest that the diciples did not recall the teaching of Jesus and we have 4 Gospels, that is several witnesses. Do you know the name of every scribe who copies every Qu'ranic vesre and can verify it?

2. Jesus left no manuscripts but neither did Mohammad as he could not write and the manuscripts you say he did authorizes were burned. The point you miss is that for you as long as one knows the author the content can be ignored - I instead would argue that the greatest surety is found in the message itself as it is impossible to prove anything is from God as that would mean we have to prove he exists to start with

3. There may have been no strong oral tradition but there was a strong literary tradition and even you must agree that the written words is a more secure mode of trasnission if one wants accuracy. If you think that defaming Saul is a form of argument then consider your own position of some guy talking to an angel in a cave - let us not get into that kind of rubbish

4 there are many 1,000s of translation of tbd bible into 1,000 of languages and it is just silly to think these are all versions that have nothing in common. I can read my English bible and I can read my German bible and I see the same stories and the same teaching So what point are you making and is it preferable to have your holy book in 6th centuray Arabic that probably the vast majority of Muslim cannot understand? tbat teaching.

 

[جوري]

I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum

Do you remember this thread:

http://www.islamicboard.com/general...opied-say-christians-jews-20.html#post1371657

I have decided to forgo unsubscribing from threads instead of re-writing the same replies to his always same objections.. I imagine that is what he does, given his lameness and redundancy. From now on let's just reference him to where he was replied to before.. It will save alot of us time and hopefully webspace.!

Eid Mubarak insha'Allah.. I imagine you off to Eid prayers by now..

 

[Ramadhan]

It is absurd to even suggest that the diciples did not recall the teaching of Jesus and we have 4 Gospels, that is several witnesses. Do you know the name of every scribe who copies every Qu'ranic vesre and can verify it?

Are you suggesting the disciples wrote the gospels?

It seems you, like any other christians, very adept in using words that deflect from the truth and yet try to appear as the truth.

As for the qur'an, the scribes of the qur'an are known (only two options here: either you lie if you read all the articles and explanations by everyone in this forum with regard to the qur'an, or you sincerely don't knwo because you never read what everyone has written),
and

YET AGAIN

you failed to address one particular point:

how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?

Jesus left no manuscripts but neither did Mohammad

did jesus pbuh's disciples left any mansucripts? NO.
did jesus pbuh's memorise every jesus pbuh's sayings and actions and was there any record and evidence that jesus pbuh sayings and actions were recorded and preserved by either manuscripts or memorisation? NO.
was there record of transmission as in jesus relayed to -disciples- relayed to a - relayed to b- relayed to c - relayed to d - relayed to e - relayed to authors of bible (which were in a different language and scripts altogether than the source)? NOT EVEN.

did prophet Muhammad SAW left manuscripts? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW taught the shahaba (ie. disciples) the Qur'an and ensured that they memorised it down to the single letter and mark? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW ask the shahaba to write down the Qur'an in leather, stone, barks? YES
was the whole quran memorise by many disciples? yes
was there strict efforts to preserve the Qur'an from the beginning with memorisation down to this day where millions of people memorise the whole qur'an down tothe single letter and mark? yes.

The point you miss is that for you as long as one knows the author the content can be ignored - I instead would argue that the greatest surety is found in the message itself as it is impossible to prove anything is from God as that would mean we have to prove he exists to start with

LOL. you are getting desperate, arent you?
now, you argue like you are an atheist. LOL again.

As I said, whether you believe that the Qur'an is from God or not is a different issue completely.
But you cannot argue the authenticityof the Qur'an and its pedigree all the way to the prophet Muhammad SAW.

Again, I have not yet you show it is possible that currently there is one EXACT qur'an in the world.

Had there been just a single slight variation of the qur'an during the time of prophet Muhammad SAW or the disciples, CERTAINLY that one single variation would have been multiplied, magnified and carried over to this day.

4 there are many 1,000s of translation of tbd bible into 1,000 of languages and it is just silly to think these are all versions that have nothing in common. I can read my English bible and I can read my German bible and I see the same stories and the same teaching So what point are you making and is it preferable to have your holy book in 6th centuray Arabic that probably the vast majority of Muslim cannot understand? tbat teaching.

Again, you are being disingenous.
I think that is very generous of me not calling you a liar.

Are you sincerely saying that the many bible versions are only due to many languages? and not due to the fact that some bibles contain different number of books than others? and not due to the fact that some have fundamentally different interpretations of the bible? and how many previous bible versions have spawned more bible versions?

either you are severely lacking in your knowledge of bible, or you serious issue with delusion, or you are too embarrassed you explain to us the whole truth.

Ahem.
How many gospels were there originally?
and why were the first gospels not even included in the bible?
Ahem, why was it politics that determined which books included in the bible and which were not?
ahem, why a king who wanted independence from the vatican commissioned a watershed translation of bible?
etc,
etc,
etc


You can continue brying your head in the sand, Hugo.

But do not expect the rest of us to fall for your tricks of twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.

 

[Hugo]

I dont even know why Hugo is still allowed in this forum, while he keep spreading lies.

I resent being called a liar so please state the post and the supposed lies or lies that you attribute to me and I will appologise and remove them.

 

[Ramadhan]

I resent being called a liar so please state the post and the supposed lies or lies that you attribute to me and I will appologise and remove them.

you are too cunning to outright lie, but you do twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.
you also pretend to not know certain facts, while they have been explained again and again and again to you.

and this is plain for everyone to see, except yourself.

 

[Hugo]

To Naidamar

I am aware of an article by Dr Al Azami on the scribes used by Mohammed, perhaps you can quote a sources that names them. Do these scribes then become the authors? You complain that the Gospels were written down by other than Jesus but are quite happy when it comes to the Qu'ran to accept this fact. Well who is the author of the Qu'ran and did he actually write down the words himself? Anyone can accept that Mohamed checked scribal copies but that is not the same as checking with the author is it?

I think you have to understand why we differ, you accept anything that is written by Muslims and I do not. Muslim accounts always call on Allah as a verification but once you do that you can prove anything because no one can show it to be wrong or even suggest a way to show it is wrong. In exactly the same way I can invoke God and you cannot show it to be wrong.

 

[Hugo]

To Naidamar

Let us suppose there are billion Qu'rans out there then tell me where is the original, that is the printer who first made a copy must have used a manuscript copy so what was it and where is it? I think if you check you will find that the Qu'ran you have is based on the 1924 Cairo edition so again do you know what was used to get that?

I say again that if I pick up copies of the Bible one in English, Welsh, Arabic, German ... Then the message is always the same. If I meet a Spanish Christian and mention say the sermon on the Mount then he knows it as well as I do, he does not say to me he has never heard it. Go and pick say the NIV and the NEB and compare them, then do it in Arabic or any language you like and you will find the message is the same and the stories do not differ. You see the message is what matters.

The point you are missing is that ANY test you suggest for the Qu'ran as to it's trustworthiness or otherwise must be applicable to any book - the thing that makes the Bible special is it's timeless message - go and read the Sermon on the Mount and then you will see what I mean, read Genesis and see God interacting with Abraham.

 

[Hugo]

To Naidamar

You say there is only one Qu'ran but on page 19 of Dr Al Azami's book "the History of the Qu'ranic text" he speaks of obtaing "the most accurate ...in the world. I leave it to you to ponder what that means.

What difference does it make to the message if different languages are used, every text has to be interpreted even the Qu'ran and surely you are not asserting that there has only been one interpretation and it is the correct one?

The NT manuscripts range from a few verses to virtually complete NTs and you can find them in Museums all over the world and of very early date. The earliest are the papyri and these are dated 1st or 2nd century though some parts go back even further. If you wish we can go through the list, including the apocryphal ones as there is no shortage of materials.

There is an agreed Greek text and scholars say that only as little as 1/1000 of it is in doubt and none of that changes doctrine. So the Bible I use and the Bible a German uses are based on the Greek text and apart from language there is no difference in content. If you don't agree then provide examples of translations where say the Sermon on The Mount differs.

Finally, there are both OT and NT apocryphal books where some sections of the Church accept the OT apocryphal books though not the Jews or Protestants. As far as I know no one accepts the NT apocryphal books because they are invariably of late dates and contain such silly stories that they are obviously heretical - one for example has Paul baptising a lion who later in the Roman Arena recognises him and refuses to kill him.

If you know anything about this then let us discuss it

 

[Ramadhan]

I am aware of an article by Dr Al Azami on the scribes used by Mohammed, perhaps you can quote a sources that names them. Do these scribes then become the authors?

http://www.islamicboard.com/general/134299020-islam-has-copied-say-christians-jews-20.html#post1371657

You complain that the Gospels were written down by other than Jesus but are quite happy when it comes to the Qu'ran to accept this fact

You are getting more desperate.
I think you are realising that you have less and less to cover all the shortcomings of bible.

again, let me ask you:
did jesus pbuh's disciples left any mansucripts? NO.
did jesus pbuh's memorise every jesus pbuh's sayings and actions and was there any record and evidence that jesus pbuh sayings and actions were recorded and preserved by either manuscripts or memorisation? NO.
was there record of transmission as in jesus relayed to -disciples- relayed to a - relayed to b- relayed to c - relayed to d - relayed to e - relayed to authors of bible (which were in a different language and scripts altogether than the source)? NOT EVEN.

did prophet Muhammad SAW left manuscripts? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW taught the shahaba (ie. disciples) the Qur'an and ensured that they memorised it down to the single letter and mark? YES
did prophet Muhammad SAW ask the shahaba to write down the Qur'an in leather, stone, barks? YES
was the whole quran memorise by many disciples? yes
was there strict efforts to preserve the Qur'an from the beginning with memorisation down to this day where millions of people memorise the whole qur'an down tothe single letter and mark? yes.

How many gospels were there originally?
and why were the first gospels not even included in the bible?
Ahem, why was it politics that determined which books included in the bible and which were not?
ahem, why a king who wanted independence from the vatican commissioned a watershed translation of bible?
etc,
etc,
etc

I think you have to understand why we differ, you accept anything that is written by Muslims and I do not. Muslim accounts always call on Allah as a verification but once you do that you can prove anything because no one can show it to be wrong or even suggest a way to show it is wrong. In exactly the same way I can invoke God and you cannot show it to be wrong.

I find it amusing that you finally came to this point. It's almost like saying ok, you are right without having to say so.

You were the one in the beginning who kept peppering about the authenticity of the Qur'an.

And when all the learned muslims here in this forum gave you every single answers to your question and charge, you retreated.

And then when the table is turned by peppering the same about bible, you are saying, oh let's ask God.

I am LOL-ing.

I am awaiting for your next move to keep evading the truth about your bible.

 

[Ramadhan]

You say there is only one Qu'ran but on page 19 of Dr Al Azami's book "the History of the Qu'ranic text" he speaks of obtaing "the most accurate ...in the world. I leave it to you to ponder what that means.

Show me that if there are more than one qur'an in the world. Show me two memorisers of the qur’an who memorise two different qur’an. Otherwise I am calling you a liar for saying there are two different qur’an in the world.
It should be an easy task to do right, if there were indeed two different qur’ans existing?

I am glad actually you are asking all these question. It opens the eyes of non-muslims especially christians who have doubt about their faith.

You should keep asking more questions about Islam and the Qur'an, and Insha Allah our learned members will be able to answers those.
In the meantime, we will expose more and more the “truth” about bible.

What difference does it make to the message if different languages are used, every text has to be interpreted even the Qu'ran and surely you are not asserting that there has only been one interpretation and it is the correct one?

Again, you are being disingenuous.
Other members are too polite to call you what you are, but I am not, because it is who you are.
You are saying the different versions of bible is a matter of translations.\
Let me ask you:
How many books are in the bible used by the catholic church?
How many books are in the KJV bible?
How many books are in the bible used by KJV?
Do you endorse the New World Translation bible? And if not, why?

Also, it seems you are being extremely forgetful:
We have the qur’an.
You don’t have the gospel according to jesus.

The NT manuscripts range from a few verses to virtually complete NTs and you can find them in Museums all over the world and of very early date. The earliest are the papyri and these are dated 1st or 2nd century though some parts go back even further. If you wish we can go through the list, including the apocryphal ones as there is no shortage of materials.

OK, I’m glad you offered, I’ve been expecting it.
Now I’d like to see the manuscripts of the NT in the language spoken by jesus pbuh, from the time of jesus pbuh or the disciples.
Please show us as you have promised to do so.

 

[Ramadhan]

In the meantime, you have not solved the riddle:


how is it possible that there is only ONE qur'an existing in the world? This is after 1,400 years, and spread among 1.2 billion of muslims. how is it even possible?

compared this with god knows how many bible versions out there today. which bible to use? which bible to trust?

so, which is more to be trusted?

a book whose chain of transmission is recorded all the way to the prophet?

or

many versions of a book whose pedigree cannot be traced all the way to jesus pbuh and that even its authors are unknown?
and which has undergone god know how many translations, retranslations, reinterpretations, re-reinterpreatations that result in christians today freely interpret according their own desires?

 

[aadil77]

you are too cunning to outright lie, but you do twisting words, embellishing and omitting facts.
you also pretend to not know certain facts, while they have been explained again and again and again to you.

Spot on, if there is one word to describe Hugo its - cunning.

 

[Muhammad]

Dear Hugo,

It seems despite a 34 page long discussion on the miraculous nature of the Qur'an, you are repeating exactly the same points explained and addressed there to other members. That discussion was closed due to certain members showing a complete lack of interest in pursuing the real answers, manifested by blatant overlooking of information and repetition of baseless assertions. The last post in that thread details the other issues encountered. From what I am seeing here, it does not look like much has changed.

1. I have seen you quote Dr Al Azami on several occasions. If you are truly interested in what he has to say, then please tell me what you think about his conclusion at the end of the first half of the book dealing with preservation of the Qur'an (page 260). In that conclusion, Dr Al Azami makes mention of the following, (this is not the exact quote):

Munich University in Germany, at the turn of the current century, embarked on an extensive research project on the reliability of the Qur’an. A large team was involved in obtaining almost all the editions ever published anywhere in the world, including the oldest copy of the Qur’an said to have been used by the third Islamic leader ‘Uthman B. Affan, which was available in the Taskqand library in Uzbekistan. The researchers vetted and tallied the copies with each other and compared them with the oldest one. Their findings were remarkable. The conclusion reached was that no changes ever occured in the Qur’an and the presently available Qur’an is exactly the same as the oldest extant copy.”

​

2.More about preservation of the Qur'an, which may help you with some of your other questions:

Sir William Muir who was a Christin preacher from Oxford University who says,

“The recension of ‘Uthman has been handed down to us unaltered. So carefully, indeed, has it been preserved, that there are no variations of importance, – we might almost say no variations at all, – amongst the innumerable copies of the Koran scattered throughout the vast bounds of empire of Islam. Contending and embittered factions, taking their rise in the murder of ‘Uthman himself within a quarter of a century from the death of Muhammad have ever since rent the Muslim world. Yet but one Koran has always been current amongst them…. There is probably in the world no other work which has remained twelve centuries with so pure a text.”

William Muir. The Life of Mohammad(1912). Edinburgh. p. xxii-xxiii
​

Adrian Brockett says regarding the preservation of the Qur’an via both memorisation and writing,

“There can be no denying that some of the formal characteristics of the Qur’an point to the oral side and others to the written side, but neither was as a whole, primary. There is therefore no need to make different categories for vocal and graphic differences between transmissions. Muslims have not. The letter is not a dead skeleton to be refleshed, but is a manifestation of the spirit alive from beginning. The transmission of the Qur’an has always been oral, just as it has been written.”
​

He also says,

“Thus, if the Qur’an had been transmitted only orally for the first century, sizeable variations between texts such as are seen in the hadith and pre-Islamic poetry would be found, and if it had been transmitted only in writing, sizeable variations such as in the different transmissions of the original document of the constitution of Medina would be found. But neither is the case with the Qur’an. There must have been a parallel written transmission limiting variation in the oral transmission to the graphic form, side by side with a parallel oral transmission preserving the written transmission from corruption.”

Andrew Rippin. Approaches of the History of Interpretation of the Qur’an(1988). Oxford: Clarendon Press. p. 34
​

Bernard Lewis who was a writer, critic, historian and Orientalist says about the Qur’an,

“From an early date Muslim scholars recognized the danger of false testimony and hence false doctrine, and developed an elaborate science for criticizing tradition. “Traditional science”, as it was called, differed in many respects from modern historical source criticism, and modern scholarship has always disagreed with evaluations of traditional scientists about the authenticity and accuracy of ancient narratives. But their careful scrutiny of the chains of transmission and their meticulous collection and preservation of variants in the transmitted narratives give to medieval Arabic historiography a professionalism and sophistication without precedent in antiquity and without parallel in the contemporary medieval West. By comparison, the historiography of Latin Christendom seems poor and meagre, and even the more advanced and complex historiography of Greek Christendom still falls short of the historical literature of Islam in volume, variety and analytical depth.”

Bernard Lewis. Islam in History(1993). Open Court Publishing. p. 104-105
​

3.

I say again that if I pick up copies of the Bible one in English, Welsh, Arabic, German ... Then the message is always the same.

There are over 50 different versions of the Bible in English alone, and please remember that these contain different numbers of books. It is not just a case of merely being different translations. There is no agreement amongst Christians as to which books qualify as scripture, such that each of the major doctrinal factions champion their own versions of an "inspired scripture" and one man's scripture is another man's apocrypha. This is a very stark contrast to the consensus over the Qur'an in the Muslim world.

Peace.