On the Preservation of the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter nimrod
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies Replies 39
  • Views Views 6K
Peace Nimrod:

Btw I disagree with your listing of the time-line of when what scripture was revealed. I believe it to be incomplete and inaccurate. An example, when was the book of Daniel revealed?
Click to expand...

Ummmm, are you trying to say the Zubur didn't come before the Torah which came before the Injeel which came before the Qur'an? :? I'm sure you don't mean that, so probably it's best you clarify first.

Also, the Book of Daniel wasn't a revelation. It is a form of Apocalyptic Literature, not so much prophecy and was written somewhere around 167-164BC, during the Maccabean Wars. It contains six stories regarding the trials of Daniel and his companions while they served at the court of Babylon. And also writes of four visions of the end of the world. The author of the book is not known, but the name of the book comes from its hero which was a 6th century Jew. The book was meant to encourage Jews who were facing religious persecution at the hands of the Hellenistic Kingdom of the Seleucids.

The part that some consider more prophetic is small and it's authenticity has been argued by many.

Anyway, still unsure what point you're trying to make with the Book of Daniel, but I'll leave that up to you to explain. :)

Peace,
Hana
 
Abu Omar “Well the NT doesn't abrogate the OT. Sure, that's what the church says, but the verse in NT clearly says that Isaa (aleyhi salaam) was sent to fulfill the Laws, not to abrogate it.” As an aside I have addressed that on this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/18491-new-christian-covenant-o-t-laws.html

As a further aside what exactly did you mean by “The Qur'an abrogates everything that was before”, if not what my reply implies you meant “Is there no Old Testament teachings that are repeated in the Qur’an?
What of the practice of circumcision was abrogated?”
When did the 10 commandments become abrogated?

I, the same as you, am not trying to sound rude, but your post contained nothing relevant to the points I have raised.
So far your argument has been that the differences I cited are due to men corrupting the Bible.
I have asked why that assumption would be reasonably and logically correct, concerning the differences I cited.

So far you have not given me an answer.

Contrary to the title this thread was given, this is what this thread concerns:
“Ansar Al-‘Adl was kind enough to break this out into a second thread concerning why folks might have a problem believing the Qur’an is the word of God”.

Hana_Aku, post #15, yes I will provide the Bible scriptures concerning what I cited on this thread. I would have thought you would be familiar with the Islamic writings I have cited.
I will look them up for you as well.

Hana_Aku, post #16, what logical reason do you offer for the Biblical omission
Of the miracles of the child Jesus that are found in Islamic writings?

You keep offering the explanation that the “Original manuscripts” are not available to us today. That reason is very lacking in many respects, the boldest of which is that you assume to know that the “Original manuscripts” were not available at the time the Bible was canonized. Why would you presume to know what writings and manuscripts were available to the studious men who canonized the Bible?

If your implications of these men, not doing due diligence, or, them having sinister motives for canonizing what they did, are to be believed in regard to what I cited on this thread you need to present a reasonable case for believing those implications.
So far you have not.

Hana_Aku, post #17, “No, absolutely not. There were many leaders that wanted to see Jesus, pbuh, dead as well as His followers. Why would they want to show how great He truly was?” if this is your line of thinking then I will have to ask you a question.

If these leaders wanted to diminish Jesus by omitting the Islamic miracles, then why didn’t they also omit the rest of Jesus’ miracles?
To be a bit plainer, why are only the Islamic miracles omitted? Why do Islamic writings disagree with the Bible in regard to the miracles Jesus performed?
You have not offered a reasonable answer to that.

Hana_Aku, post #18, “Yes, previous scriptures should agree, and the true teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and the prophets before Him, pbut, I do agree.”

We have found some common ground.

Now explain why Muhammad’s teachings should not have to agree with the things I cited on this thread.

That leaves us at this point:
If you are implying that Muhammad’s teachings didn’t need to be reconciled to God’s previous words, then explain why you believe that.
Or
You think the differences I cited are due to corruption, which takes us back to square one.

If you think the differences are due to corruption, then show me why you reasonably believe that to be the case.

I have given points of reason for suggesting what I have suggested, counter those points.

I know you think you have, but you have a bias “ok, I will wait until you have time to show the verses where the apostles went away from the word of God and the teachings of Jesus, pbuh, and incorporated their own laws.”

Why would you be so quick to assume the Apostles strayed from Jesus’ teachings? What would make you assume they were not acting with in the confines of the authority Jesus had bestowed upon them? (This, btw, is exactly what they were doing.)

Hana_Aku, post #20, you were the one that cited the number of versions of the Bible; I didn’t even once ask you to cite a source for that number. I didn’t pursue the reasonable counter argument that the oldest Bibles agree with what I cited, therefore any later revisions have no bearing on my argument regardless of their number.
I could have very easily disarmed your counter-point, but I didn’t.
Instead I simply asked you “If your answer is Yes, then what was your point?”

What was your point in what you cited, if not to imply that somehow the reason for differences I cited were due to the Bible being corrupted.

This brings us back to square one, give me a reasonable logical argument to support the assumption that the differences I cited are due to the Bible being corrupted.

Before anyone posits that I am just being unreasonable in my judgments concerning the replies given on this thread, I had a reason for dragging the Book of Mormon and the book Pearl of Great Price into the thread.

If you say I am unreasonably judging the replies on this thread, the Mormons or LDS offer almost the exact same counter arguments that have been offered on this thread.

I highly doubt you would find those arguments from them to be credible.

Hana_Aku, post #21, are you trying to imply that Daniel didn’t reveal words from God to mankind? If that isn’t your implications then what you posted in post #21 is purely a case of arguing semantics and my original statement stands.

Thanks
Nimrod
 
Peace Nimrod:

I am at work now and unable to reply properly right now, however, with regards to your comment:
Hana_Aku, post #15, yes I will provide the Bible scriptures concerning what I cited on this thread. I would have thought you would be familiar with the Islamic writings I have cited.
I will look them up for you as well.
Click to expand...

I have been down this road many times discussing comparative religion and requesting verses, surahs has nothing to do with the knowledge or lack of it by either person. I provide the verses/Surahs 99% of the time and request the same to ensure we are speaking of the same thing. It has been my experience, that to assume what surah/verse is meant is a waste of time because as soon as it is explained, logically, the other person says, "That's not the surah I was referring to, so you don't know what you're talking about." I sincerely try to take the time to answer each point to the best of my ability, and quite frankly, I don't want my time wasted by these types of responses. It's not a difficult request, at least I don't think so, that you provide the surah and/or verse numbers. It is also to your benefit as you will come to have a better understanding of the meanings from the Qur'an, even if you choose not to accept them as truth, and vice versa.

Inshallah, (God willing), this will give you an explanation as to why I request and provide verses and/or surahs when discussing comparative religion. :) It is not to make things difficult, it is to make things more clear.

Peace,
Hana
 
Hana_Aku I wanted to offer you a word of thanks. You caused me to do more research into Islam’s teachings on perverted men and some of the things they do and how Islam handles it.

After further research I have found there are two competing understandings of Islam’s punishment for having relations with animals.
One group say’s that the man is to be punished and the animal is to be killed.
The other group say’s that they are both to be killed.

The argument stems from quotes from those who knew Muhammad. One group say’s when Muhammad was informed that a fellow had been caught doing the sin, Muhammad is recorded as to have said “punish the man and kill the animal, the other group records the instructions as “Kill the man and Kill the animal”.

From what I have learned about Muhammad and Islam, I highly believe the second account to be true, Kill the man and kill the animal.
Exactly the same teaching as found in the Bible.

It is a good day when a man learns something new.

Thanks
Nimrod
 
Peace Nimrod:

Hana_Aku, post #16, what logical reason do you offer for the Biblical omission
Of the miracles of the child Jesus that are found in Islamic writings?

You keep offering the explanation that the “Original manuscripts” are not available to us today. That reason is very lacking in many respects, the boldest of which is that you assume to know that the “Original manuscripts” were not available at the time the Bible was canonized. Why would you presume to know what writings and manuscripts were available to the studious men who canonized the Bible?
Click to expand...

I keep offering you the same explanation for the same question because what I'm telling you are FACTS...the same FACTS that are told by your own christian and biblical scholars. The O.T. (Hebrew Bible), was canonized around 300 BC. There are NO original manuscripts available anywhere to compare those canonized books. What IS available are SOME copies of copies of copies, of translations, of copies. The original Zubur and Torah do NOT exist. Again, your own christian and biblical scholars will tell you there are errors for a variety of reasons...but errors there are! The NT, as we see it today, was canonized around 375 AD. Again, there were NO originals available then and there are NO originals available now. Regardless of how highly respected the men were that compiled these books, the FACT is, they did NOT use original manuscripts and there's not a reputable scholar or clergyman that would suggest otherwise. At the time the bible was canonized they used the oldest manuscripts available. This is one reason the bible has been revised so many times. As older manuscripts are located, the bible is "updated" in an attempt to bring it ever closer to the wording of the original manuscripts and teachings of the prophets, pbut.

How and why manuscripts were destroyed, altered, twisted, omitted, removed, etc., would need an enormous amount of time to discuss. I have given you examples and you choose not to accept them. I'm afraid you will have to take that up with the leaders of the Christian faith because they fully realize and accept this.

Most early and original manuscripts were written on papyrus which deteriorated extremely fast due to humidity, excessive heat, decay and overuse. Leather was stronger, but would deteriorate over time. Those opposed to the teachings of Jesus, pbuh, would destroy all the manuscripts they could find, ie: Antiochus Epiphanies in 165 BC and Diocletian in 300 AD. Scribal errors consisted of: Confusing similar letters; transposing letters, confusing similar sounding words, unintentionally omitting words or groups of words, including marginal notes that were never intended to be part of the main works, etc., etc., etc.

Not all the ancient Judeo-Christian manuscripts even found their way into the bible for a variety of reasons. ie: The Letter of Clement I was written about A.D. 95-6 and was included in some early canonical lists. It is the oldest Christian manuscript that is NOT in the canon. After Jesus, pbuh, was taken up, hundreds of self proclaimed apostles began to write "gospels", as did the true Apostles, however, not all the "fake" apostles were considered fake by their followers. This introduced a lot of new and innovative ideas and teachings into the Christian faith. This also caused many sects to form and they, literally, slaughtered each other for their beliefs. The number of debates and councils held during this time were NUMEROUS!! By the end of this mess over 12 million people were slaughtered, manuscripts were destroyed and among them ,there's a strong possibility, there were original, authentic works, etc.

Going back to the Jewish scribes, it was normal practice for them to burn and destroy previous manuscripts. ie: If a scribe was re-copying a manuscript for whatever reason, (perhaps in an attempt to preserve the word because the previous manuscript was deteriorating), he would destroy the old one by burning it, not out of malice, but with the intent of preserving and storing the newest copy. Unfortunately, because all this was done by hand, there is no way to know what text may have been omitted either intentionally or unintentionally. Altering texts between the Jews and Christians is well known. This happened on both sides and both sides accused the other of doing it.

These are only some of the reasons original manuscripts are not available....there are, literally, hundreds of reasons.

I don't know how else I can tell you that you do not have the original manuscripts or that none of the originals were available at the time the bible was canonized. Perhaps you would have better luck believing it if you heard it from your own clergy. Contrary to your accusation about me....I do not assume anything. I don't go to one source when I research information, I go to many. I can only suggest you do the same. You will find the same information I did.

As for me, I feel I have given you everything I possibly can on the subject, short of writing a novel, and I really don't want to spend days beating a dead horse. You can choose to believe the bible came from original manuscripts, that's entirely up to you. I choose to believe the facts as they have been presented to me which differ from your opinion.

I also feel you are getting somewhat agitated with this discussion, so if you want to take a break from it, I have no problem with that.

Sincerely and with peace,
Hana
 
nimrod said:
Hana_Aku I wanted to offer you a word of thanks. You caused me to do more research into Islam’s teachings on perverted men and some of the things they do and how Islam handles it.

After further research I have found there are two competing understandings of Islam’s punishment for having relations with animals.
One group say’s that the man is to be punished and the animal is to be killed.
The other group say’s that they are both to be killed.

The argument stems from quotes from those who knew Muhammad. One group say’s when Muhammad was informed that a fellow had been caught doing the sin, Muhammad is recorded as to have said “punish the man and kill the animal, the other group records the instructions as “Kill the man and Kill the animal”.

From what I have learned about Muhammad and Islam, I highly believe the second account to be true, Kill the man and kill the animal.
Exactly the same teaching as found in the Bible.

It is a good day when a man learns something new.

Thanks
Nimrod
Click to expand...

Peace Nimrod:

Oh, that's good to hear. :) Yes, it is always a good day when we learn something new! Actually, researching information for my last post I learned a lot as well, mashallah. :)

So, I'm very happy to know we are both learning from our discussion which was the purpose of our original discussion. :happy:

Take care and peace,
Hana
 
Peace.

Since the topic is about the preservation of the Bible, we should know the who the authors are:

GENESIS
AUTHOR One of the "five
books of Moses."

EXODUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

LEVITICUS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

NUMBERS
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

DEUTERONOMY
AUTHOR Generally
credited to Moses.

JOSHUA
AUTHOR. Major part
credited to Joshua.

JUDGES
AUTHOR. Possibly Samuel,

RUTH
AUTHOR. Not definitely known, perhaps Samuel.

FIRST SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND SAMUEL
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

SECOND KINGS
AUTHOR. Unknown.

FIRST CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Unknown,
probably collected and
edited by Ezra.

SECOND CHRONICLES
AUTHOR. Likely collected
and edited by Ezra.
EZRA
AUTHOR. Probably written
or edited by Ezra.

ESTHER
AUTHOR. Unknown.

JOB
AUTHOR. Unknown.

PSALMS
AUTHOR. Principally David,
though there are other writers.

ECCLESIASTES
AUTHOR. Doubtful, but
commonly assigned to Solomon.

ISAIAH
AUTHOR. Mainly credited
to Isaiah. Parts may have been
written by others.

JONAH
AUTHOR. Unknown.

HABAKKUK
AUTHOR. Nothing known of
the place or time of his birth.

I'll post on the New Testament later.

Please read this very interesting book called "Is the Bible God's Word" by Ahmed Deedat. It's only three pages so don't be lazy.:uhwhat
http://jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html
But before reading it please bring along your Bible to verify everything that is written in it.:happy:

Peace out.
 
Al-Mu'min said:
Peace.

Please read this very interesting book called "Is the Bible God's Word" by Ahmed Deedat. It's only three pages so don't be lazy.:uhwhat
http://jamaat.net/bible/Bible1-3.html
But before reading it please bring along your Bible to verify everything that is written in it.:happy:

Peace out.
Click to expand...

Salam Alaikum:

I read it and it is very interesting. The one by Zakir Naik is very good as well.

Wasalam,
Hana
 
Moss said:
Which Dr Naik book?
Click to expand...

Salam Alaikum:

All of them! lol But, I was referring to "Is the Qur'an God's Word". You can find it here

The True Message of Jesus Christ, by Bilal Phillips is very good as well. You can read it on the same link.

Enjoy :)

Wasalam,
Hana
 
Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.

Thanks
Nimrod
 
nimrod said:
Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.

Thanks
Nimrod
Click to expand...

Peace Nimrod:

LOL at first I thought you posted on the wrong thread. :giggling: I had to go back to the first page to have a 2nd look. I never even realized the thread went from one name to another. :-[

I seriously need more sleep and I think I'll start now. :rollseyes

Take care and peace,
Hana
 
nimrod said:
Al-Mu'min, this thread is NOT about the preservation of the Bible, it is about why a person might logically not believe the Quran is the Word of God.
Click to expand...
Hi nimrod,
Sorry if I did not name the thread appropriately, but from what I understood from your post, it seemed your objections to the Qur'an were on the basis of differences between the Qur'an and the Bible. The crucial discussion therefore is whether or not the Bible has been perfectly preserved - if not, then we need to use the Qur'an as the criterion to determine what is from God and what isn't.

If I have misunderstood your argument, could you please restate your objection to the Qur'an? Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread.

Regards
 
Ansar Al-'Adl, I have no problems agreeing that the Bible we have today isn't "word for word" as it was given by God.

That leaves us with this:

When a person thinks a scripture might be wrong, they WILL be held accountable for assuming what they assume.

This thread is about reasonable/logical assumptions in regard to the source, of differences, between what the Bible say’s and what Islam say’s.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I know you don’t intend to come across as you have, but think about how your wording looks to me “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

You moved my post and made a whole different thread of it. You didn’t even bother to sending a pm to me as to why.

You only move part of what I had posted on the other thread. You broke the train of reasoning by only moving part of it, I had to restore it.

Your post, on the thread you moved (no pm) the post from, has the implication that you would love to turn this into a debate on the preservation of the Bible.
Then you title this new thread about the preservation of the Bible and signed my user name to it.

Now you post that “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

Think about how that looks.

I have tried to change the title myself, but the system won’t let me.

Thanks
Nimrod
 
nimrod said:
Ansar Al-'Adl, I have no problems agreeing that the Bible we have today isn't "word for word" as it was given by God.

That leaves us with this:

When a person thinks a scripture might be wrong, they WILL be held accountable for assuming what they assume.

This thread is about reasonable/logical assumptions in regard to the source, of differences, between what the Bible say’s and what Islam say’s.

Ansar Al-‘Adl, I know you don’t intend to come across as you have, but think about how your wording looks to me “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

You moved my post and made a whole different thread of it. You didn’t even bother to sending a pm to me as to why.

You only move part of what I had posted on the other thread. You broke the train of reasoning by only moving part of it, I had to restore it.

Your post, on the thread you moved (no pm) the post from, has the implication that you would love to turn this into a debate on the preservation of the Bible.
Then you title this new thread about the preservation of the Bible and signed my user name to it.

Now you post that “Then we can discuss a more suitable title for the thread”.

Think about how that looks.

I have tried to change the title myself, but the system won’t let me.

Thanks
Nimrod
Click to expand...
i think admin has a right to do what make his system run according to the disciplinary

it's apply just not for u but for all

but i think PM should be used when such action is taken

i have a same Experience also
 
Hi nimrod,
I'm sorry I wasn't able to pm you about the move, but considering the large amount of moderating we have to do on the forum, pming each member involved individually simply isn't practical.

Do you want me to change the title to 'Explanation for Biblical-Qur'anic differences?' or Implications of Biblical-Qur'anic differences?

Regards
 
Ansar Al-'Adl, Lets not worry about it. I know you meant no harm.
I can understand about the work load of being a Mod. I have been there and done that, no pay, lots of time invested, atleast some of the people are mad at you ALL the time.

I just wanted you to see what your actions looked like from an outside position.

May God bless us all, amen.

Thanks
Nimrod

p.s. Just for the record will you tell I_m_Tipu that I was not being punished for anything and I was following the rules.
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top