Qur'an or the Bible?

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you arcangel; and welcome to the forum;

I believe that both the Bible and the Qur’an, are intended to change and inspire the person who reads them. I think we often prefer to use our scriptures to try and change other people, rather than to change our self. If we are to compete against each other to find the best book, we should compete in doing good deeds, seeking justice for the poor and oppressed and giving the glory to God

In the spirit of searching for ‘One God’

Eric

 

[Independent]

From a historical point of view....neither can be certified. The Bible is partly a history of a people as well as a theology. Because of this many elements can be cross referenced. When we get to the New Testament, Jesus is a historical figure who is referred to by Tacitus and others. The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it. A single error is a serious problem for the Qur'an, but far less so for the Bible, and that's why Muslim scholars defend the 100% integrity of the Qur'an so very strongly.

Compared to the Bible, the Qur'an certainly has more internal consistency. But whether you believe it to be composed by man or God, it was all set down within a single lifetime so consistency is what you would expect either way. Unlike the Bible the Qur'an contains almost nothing that can be cross-checked against other sources - except for the Bible and the Torah, but any contradictions here are of course regarded as 'error' in the older works. For instance, I understand that it mentions only 6 cities by name, and most of those are entirely unknown to history. (Whereas the Bible refers to hundreds.) Surprisingly, the biography of Muhammad is also impossible to cross check or verify in almost any detail, and the first hundred years of Islam is similarly opaque.

The net result is that, surprisingly, the Qur'an exists in an almost complete historical vacuum. The more you look at it, it's remarkable how little reference there is to any aspect of Islam for the early years, outside of hadiths and the Qur'an itself, which of course all depend in the end on oral testimony. This doesn't make it wrong, but it does mean the Qur'an is far less easy to verify one way or the other by external sources than the Bible.

 

[Scimitar]

Regarding Aramaic - the language has evolved and today it is like old English; it sounds very different. But the way the original Aramaic was spoken is different to today, much like modern Arabic and the Old Arabic – I call the old Aramaic, Ancient Aramaic - espeically since the language is now defunct - whereas the old Arabic is still practiced.

The Ancient Church of the East, that emerged out of Jerusalem at the end of the Apostolic Age, referred to Aramaic as Leeshana Ateeqah or the "old tongue." It is still used in the liturgy, although it is explained in the modern vernacular by the priests and deacons during church services. There are a few priests and bishops that know how to read it. It comes in many dialects of the Middle East and Africa of the Eastern Churches or Eastern rites of the Catholic and Orthodox churches.

BUT - Nobody speaks this language anymore - not the ancient form of it anyway. Those who claim to speak Aramaic, are only speaking modern versions of the language, just as nobody speaks Old English or even Middle English anymore. Nobody speaks Koine Greek, Old Norse, or Old German, and so on. These languages have all evolved. And so today one also finds Hebrew and Aramaic spoken by millions of people in the Middle East, for example, but these are modern versions of the language. They don't sound the same as Ancient Aramaic. But the roots of many words are the same and the old form can be learned.

As I mentioned before, if anyone wants true interpretations of the Ancient Aramaic, then they’d have to go to a Muslim scholar for the interpretations because the Ancient Aramaic and the Old Arabic are very compatible together as languages, as is proven in the episode of history I mentioned above (Moses pbuh and Jethro) in my previous post.

There are surviving Aramaic manuscripts of the Ancient Church of the East, which survived the persecutions by the Roman and Greek pagans of the early centuries of Christianity. It survived the persecution of the Roman Church under Constantine and the early Emperors of Rome in the 4th and 5th centuries. It survived the persecution of the Crusaders who attacked the Holy Lands in subsequent centuries. Finally, this early Church ended up in Persia and was protected by the Persian kings until the upheavals of the Islamic conquests starting in the 7th Century drove the Ancient Church of the East into the mountain strongholds of Asia Minor (Ottoman Empire and later Turkey). The Church of the East survived and maintained the Scriptures in the original language all through the conquests of the Mongolians (Genghis Khan) 12th Century, and the Tartars (Tamerlane) 15th Century. The Church of the East had spread the faith in Jesus all the way to China, from the 5th to the 8th Century. The Church of the East survived the Islamic conquests of the Fertile Crescent and the Holy Lands. And this, namely because the Muslims were forbidden from destroying places of worship. Something other doctrines never allowed for.

I do find it strange that there are those among the Catholics and the Protestants who say, "We believe in God, not Allah." And the recent falsified attacks on America and the West have escalated this notion that God and Allah are two different deities. The fact of the matter is that "Allah" is much closer to the name of the Creator of the Universe than "God." In Aramaic it is "Allaha."

Scimi

 

[Signor]

The Bible is a compilation of writings showing us how people walked with God and how their relationship with him developed and matured.

It reminds me of an incident happened with a Muslim scholar,once he went to a high official of a Church and asked him: A number of books are included of which OT and NT compromises,how does a person able to get which is the true Bible?The official replied:None of them is The Bible but...(a short pause)The Bible is in them.

 

[Hulk]

The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it. A single error is a serious problem for the Qur'an, but far less so for the Bible, and that's why Muslim scholars defend the 100% integrity of the Qur'an so very strongly.

I find it strange that a person's criteria for a Holy Book doesn't require for it to be free of errors. How can you believe that someone is "inspired" by God in the first place if his writing is so full of errors? Isn't that a red flag to his credibility?

Unlike the Bible the Qur'an contains almost nothing that can be cross-checked against other sources - except for the Bible and the Torah, but any contradictions here are of course regarded as 'error' in the older works.

You yourself stated that the Bible has contradictions within itself so do you think that it makes sense to cross check the verses in the Quran with what is in the Bible? The Quran however can be "cross checked" with one's intellect, reason and understanding. It is a proof for itself for those who seek the truth and it does not need to rely on external sources for verification.

The way I see it. According to your understanding, the Bible relies heavily on historical places for it's credibility. In that sense that if for any reason thousands of years from now all physical evidence of those places are lost then the Bible loses it's credibility, it can't possibly stand on it's own especially with all the contradictions within itself. To me this doesn't make sense for a book that is supposedly meant to be the guidance for humanity.

The Quran doesn't rely on anything. Whether anyone sees the truth in it is dependent on themselves (through God's guidance). It tells the reader to reflect upon all the creation around him, to think. It tells the reader not to follow anything that he has no knowledge of.

If however one is able to cross check verses in the Quran with any places/event in history or scientific study then it is only mere additional information.

 

[جوري]

The Quran is cross referenced against itself and the passage of time!
This has been discussed with such length and details!

 

[Independent]

The way I see it. According to your understanding, the Bible relies heavily on historical places for it's credibility.

No, I'm only talking about both books in the context of their historical record. I doubt whether anyone believes in the Bible because they think it's a great history book. But from a historian's point of view, there are far more things you can cross reference in the Bible than in the Qur'an (and there is a thriving industry in doing just that). The Qur'an is striking because, in its content, there are almost no places or events that can be cross referenced with anything. I don't say this is good or bad - it's simply the way it is.

How can you believe that someone is "inspired" by God in the first place if his writing is so full of errors?

Many of the Books in the Bible describe man's interaction with God, but don't claim to be actually written by God. To err is human. Whereas, the Qur'an must be maintained as perfect to the last detail because it is the actual word of God. This has had profound impact on the way the two books influence their followers.

From a historical point of view - and for that matter a scientific point of view - the Bible can 'tolerate' a certain amount of contradiction without being invalidated, whereas the Qur'an has to exist at a more demanding criterion of absolute perfection.

I find it strange that a person's criteria for a Holy Book doesn't require for it to be free of errors.

I'm no longer a Christian myself and one major contributor to that was reading the work of Elaine Pagels, who looked at the development of Christianity and the Bible in the historical political and social context, and especially the effect of the Greek world in which it grew. In comparison, very little similar work of this kind has been done with the Qur'an. This is because Muslim historians feel unable to ask such questions, and non Muslims have been less interested. Also, for the reasons given above, the Qur'an is extraordinarily difficult for the historian to approach because there is so remarkably little in the record - even though it is of course composed at a much later date.

 

[Hulk]

Greetings and peace be with you arcangel; and welcome to the forum;

I believe that both the Bible and the Qur’an, are intended to change and inspire the person who reads them. I think we often prefer to use our scriptures to try and change other people, rather than to change our self. If we are to compete against each other to find the best book, we should compete in doing good deeds, seeking justice for the poor and oppressed and giving the glory to God

In the spirit of searching for ‘One God’

Eric

I very much appreciate your input brother eric. indeed it is important to keep our own hearts in check before examining others.

 

[جوري]

I don't think the OP is coming back to participate- He just wanted to drop his bombs and duck which was expected.

let's examine in a scholarly fashion, not the fast food approach:

Examining The Qur'an It is worthwhile knowing something about the Orientalism and its distortion of Islam. The academic study of the Oriental East by the Occidental West was often motivated and often co-operated hand-in-hand with the imperialistic aims of the European colonial powers. Without a doubt, the foundations of Orientalism are in the maxim "Know thy enemy". When the Christian Nations of Europe began their long campaign to colonize and conquer the rest of the world for their own benefit, they brought their academic and missionary resources to bear in order to help them with their task. Orientalists and missionaries whose ranks often overlapped, not just the servants of an imperialist government who were using their services as a way to subdue or weaken an enemy, however subtly.
Quite a few Orientalist scholars were Christian missionaries. Two examples worth mentioning are that of Sir William Muir and Rev. St. Claire Tisdall, who were active missionaries and authors of several books on Islam. Today, these books are viewed as very biased studies, even though they continue to be used as references for those wishing to attack Islam to this very day. That Christians were the source of some of the worst lies and distortions about Islam should come as no surprise, since Islam was its main "competitor" on the stage of World Religions. Far from honouring the commandment not to bear false witness against one's neighbour, Christians distortions and outright lies about Islam were widespread.
The modern day Orientalists may have become de-Christianised, but there still exist some age-old notions about Islam. The Christian missionaries as usual, rely on the material of Orientalists. But unfortunately, the Orientalists do not say what the Christian missionaries would like to point out. Hence misquoting is very rife in Christian missionary writing as most of the articles below would show.
This page exclusively deals with the Christian missionary propaganda, lies and distortion about the Qur'an. The Muslims assert that the Qur'an is same as recited by the Prophet Muhammad[SUP](P)[/SUP]. There are no additional materials added to it nor subtracted after the death of the Prophet[SUP](P)[/SUP].
We have divided them into following sections so as to enable the reader to understand the issues involved here.

Textual Integrity

Logical Consistency

Miraculous Features

Supernatural eloquence
Scientific statements far ahead of its time
​

Sources Of The Qur'an

Issue Of Abrogation

Tafsir of the Qur'an

In this section, the Tafsir of some of the important verses of the Qur'an misquoted by the Christian missionaries would be provided along with the methodology of interpreting the Qur'an.
​

Qur'anic Studies

The content is be primarily the interesting papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Some material is also the excerpts from books. The aim of bringing such material on the web is to disseminate interesting information which otherwise would end up getting stacked in the libraries, unread.
​

Integrity of the Bible according to the Qur'an?

May be we should first check what the Church tradition has to say about the integrity or lack of it of the Bible!

The Canons Of The Old Testament & The New Testament Through The Ages

A comprehensive collection of biblical canons throughout the history from the time of Jesus to the modern day critical editions.
​

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Bible/Text/Canon/canonages.htmlOn The Textual Sources Of The New International Version (NIV) Bible

What are the textual sources of the NIV Bible? Can these textual sources be considered "inspired" or "original"? Such issues are dealt with in this article. It should be added that the arguments made against the "inspiration" or "originality" of textual sources of the NIV Bible are also valid for RSV, NASV and other Bibles. Please note that the article is not about translations of the Bible; it is about their textual sources.
​

The Integrity Of The Bible According To The Church Tradition
What about the Bible at the time of Muhammad[SUP](P)[/SUP]?

Is The Bible In Our Hands Same As During The Time Of Muhammad[SUP](P)[/SUP]?
​

Insha'allah, more information can be obtained by clicking on the above and following the argument through the links.

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

 

[Scimitar]

No, I'm only talking about both books in the context of their historical record. I doubt whether anyone believes in the Bible because they think it's a great history book. But from a historian's point of view, there are far more things you can cross reference in the Bible than in the Qur'an (and there is a thriving industry in doing just that). The Qur'an is striking because, in its content, there are almost no places or events that can be cross referenced with anything. I don't say this is good or bad - it's simply the way it is.


Many of the Books in the Bible describe man's interaction with God, but don't claim to be actually written by God. To err is human. Whereas, the Qur'an must be maintained as perfect to the last detail because it is the actual word of God. This has had profound impact on the way the two books influence their followers.

From a historical point of view - and for that matter a scientific point of view - the Bible can 'tolerate' a certain amount of contradiction without being invalidated, whereas the Qur'an has to exist at a more demanding criterion of absolute perfection.

Interesting analysis from a non-Muslim.

Firstly, the Quran must not be viewed as a compilation of individual injunctions and exhortations but as one integral whole: that is, as an exposition of an ethical doctrine in which every verse and sentence has an intimate bearing on other verses and sentences, all of them clarifying and amplifying one another. Consequently, its real meaning can be grasped only if we correlate every one of its statements with what has been stated elsewhere in its pages, and try to explain its ideas by means of frequent cross-references, always subordinating the particular to the general and the incidental to the intrinsic. Whenever this rule is faithfully followed, we realize that the Quran is its own best commentary.

Secondly, no part of the Quran should be viewed from a purely historical point of view: that is to say, all its references to historical circumstances and events - both at the time of the Prophet and in earlier times - must be regarded as illustrations of the human condition and not as ends in themselves. Hence, the consideration of the historical occasion on which a particular verse was revealed - a pursuit so dear, and legitimately so, to the hearts of the classical commentators - must never be allowed to obscure the underlying purport of that verse and its inner relevance to the ethical teaching which the Quran, taken as a whole, propounds.

Let's not forget, the Quran is a book of HIS Signs which The Creator and Sustainer - ALLAH has given us through HIS Mercy, after all.

Scimi

 

[Insaanah]

The Bible is a book written over many centuries bu many different people.

The Bible is NOT God's revelation to us.

Remember, the Bible is NOT dictated. Not as Muslims believe the Qu'ran to have been dictated.

Just to add and perhaps clarify here as well, that just as we believe the Qur'an to be a scripture bestowed on Prophet Muhammad (peace and salutations of Allah be upon him) by God, we also believe that Jesus (peace be upon him) was given a scripture from God, called the Injeel. It was God's words, not the words of any human. Unfortunately, as was done with the Torah given to Moses (peace be upon him) by God, scribes and others interfered with/tampered with those two scriptures til they became what they are today.

So while Christians may not believe that Jesus ever received a scripture which was Gods words, and that the Bible was always supposed to be written by people, as Muslims, we don't believe that's the case, and believe that he was given a scripture from God:

And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which came before him in the Torah; and We gave him the Injeel, in which was guidance and light, confirming that which preceded it of the Torah as guidance and instruction for the righteous. (5:46)

And We have already sent Noah and Abraham and placed in their descendants prophethood and scripture; and among them is he who is guided, but many of them are defiantly disobedient. Then We caused Our messengers to follow in their footsteps; and We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow, and gave him the Injeel, and placed compassion and mercy in the hearts of those who followed him... (57:26, 27 part)

We believe totally in the scriptures given by Allah to Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them), without even having seen them, which is part of our articles of faith. To not do so, takes one outside the fold of Islam.

In the first few verses of the second Surah, Allah says:

This is the Book (Qur'an) about which there is no doubt, a guidance for those conscious of Allah -
who believe in the unseen, establish prayer, and spend out of what We have provided for them,
and who believe in what has been revealed to you, [O Muhammad], and what was revealed before you, and of the Hereafter they are certain [in faith].
Those are upon

guidance from their Lord, and it is those who are the successful.​

(2:2-5)

The Bible does not claim to be 'dictated by God', but instead is 'inspired by God and written by humans', so it doesn't need to be perfect in every detail to retain credibility, even if you find other reasons not to believe it.

This is rather convenient by whoever removed the claim that it was from God, as that then gave a license to anyone to write whatever they wanted in it and claim that they were divinely inspired. As was done.​

​

​

 

[Independent]

no part of the Quran should be viewed from a purely historical point of view: that is to say, all its references to historical circumstances and events - both at the time of the Prophet and in earlier times - must be regarded as illustrations of the human condition and not as ends in themselves.

I wholly agree with you. My perspective is historical, not theological, although of course Christianity and Islam are very much part of history themselves so they have to be included.

 

[Independent]

This is rather convenient by whoever removed the claim that it was from God, as that then gave a license to anyone to write whatever they wanted in it and claim that they were divinely inspired. As was done.

This is not a fair criticism because no one claimed that the Bible was dictated by God in the first place. Therefore, a non-existent claim cannot ever be 'removed'. In fact, I'm not aware of any other major religion that makes a similar claim, although someone may correct me....

 

[arcangel]

the Qur'an exists as it was completed by revelation. no single Bibleexistence, is complete. NONE! they all have changes.

First letme say that I am new to this site so excuse me if it takes me a while to getthe formatting down.

Even if the Quran were a perfect reflection of what was revealed it would beimpossible to know. Uthman burned every Quran he could find specificallybecause people were infighting over different readings and interpretations.Historical records of the Quran's textual tradition end at that point. Neitherthe Bible nor the Quran has originals in existence. However if you haveprolific and independent copying ofthe early texts it is possible to say with reliability what the originalcontained. The Quran's compilation under Uthman was strictly controlled by thestate. That means it does not have independentconvergent confirmation as the Bible does. Nor does it even have original independentauthors as the Bible does.

no one knows who wrote the majority of the New Testament. the 4 Gospelscan't even agree on what day Jesus, pbuh, was allegedly executed. nor camMatthew and Luke agree that Jesus was from Nazareth or Galilee.

Wellwe certainly know that not one Quran in existence was written by anyone that receivedthe revelations recorded. How is that any better? It is very likely that allthe traditional authors are correct with the exception of one that is stillhighly contended (Hebrews). Scholarship has shown the Gospels to be thereliable testimony of contemporary authors to many eye witnessed events. Youhad about 20 points in that one statement. Let me start from the beginning andthen we can look at others. Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lyndhurst are some ofhistories (if not history’s) greatest experts on testimony and evidence. Bothtestify that the Gospels meet every modern legal requirement for reliable testimonyand evidence. Before we get detailed you would have to be able to contend withtheir determinations. Experts do not get any better. One cofounded histories most distinguished law school andwrote textbook on evidence. The other is the only person to occupy every seatof the highest courts of the largest empire in human history (England).

Paul even claims that he taught a different Gospel than the one taughtby the disciples of Jesus, pbuh.

That is news to me and about every Christian in history. Verse please.
He in fact said the opposite:

If anyone teaches otherwise and does not agree to the sound instruction of ourLord Jesus Christ and to godly teaching,
they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest incontroversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicioustalk, evil suspicions.

That would include what Muhammad taught.

i'll stick to the Qur'an, thank you very much. at least we know what itis!

I have no argument about what you will stick to. People stick to allkinds of stuff without justification. My arguments are about what history justifiesnot what people will choose.

rotflmao! i reckon you don't read much Ehrman. i'm currently reading TheOrthodox Corruption of Scripture. can't even go back to Uthman is funny.Uthman was hafz of Qur'an and companion of the Prophet, pbuh!

What does rotflmao stand for? You must be reading something else. Isaid we can't go past Uthman. Yes Ihave read Ehrman (I would bet quite a bit more than you but that is a guess). Itis his numbers that I use for errors in the Bible, approx. 5% and he evenadmits there are none in essential doctrine. He says the Quran is full oferrors by the way.

no one knows who wrote ANY of the Gospels! Ehrman clearly states that wecan't know what the original words of any of the books of the Bible are becausecopies don't exist for generations after Jesus, pbuh, lived.

On this I disagree with Ehrman. Is this just a repeat from above?

and yet, you would like to proclaim your delusion that unknown personsare better witnesses than actual eye witnesses???

Wow, one post and you have me diagnosed already. You must be quite thepsychiatrist. In fact four unknown reliable eyewitness accounts are better thanone of any kind. Much less one as suspicious and questionable as Muhammad.However simply because you do not agree who wrote the Gospels is hardly meritfor claiming there is widespread disagreement about who did. The Gospelsthemselves claim who wrote them. There exist no competitors claims in ehhistorical record. Do you have evidence anyone else did? There exists not onesingle contemporary claim like "Paul did not write that I did" or"I was there and that did not happen". Not one. Yet you apparentlyhave evidence they did not write them. Until you post it I deny your assertion.

let me know how that works for you!

Ok. I used the NT as aspiritual roadmap and found exactly what it promised God. Unlike Islam aChristian does not become a Christian by intellectual agreement with aproposition. We and I became one by direct experience with God. I met God. Thatis how well it worked for me.

When you stop diagnosing my sanity and present evidence I will deal with it. Since I am new I had to go back and delete all my links.

 

[arcangel]

If the author is God and that's indeed who authored the noble book then your entire scope, vision, 'field of study' is null & void..

Then do they not reflect upon the Qur'an? If it had been from [any] other than Allah , they would have found within it much contradiction.

__________________

Comparative religion usually denotes a comparison is going on not your personal opinion or the opinion of your learned pastors from my understanding Quran burning isn't a form of honest compare/contrast!

best,

​

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case. The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not. All the signs are there for teh Bible (2500 prophecies, miracles, a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors, explanatory power, universality, 25,000 historical corroborations, etc...).With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles, a very limited narrative given to by one man, no prophecies worthy of the name, a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc...and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran. Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

 

[جوري]

Even if the Quran were a perfect reflection of what was revealed it would beimpossible to know. Uthman burned every Quran he could find specificallybecause people were infighting over different readings and interpretations.Historical records of the Quran's textual tradition end at that point.

Even though the Quran is an oral tradition. We don't need to have hard copies of it, the decision for hard copies was made after a 70 hafiths were killed when they were sent to teach it to obvious traitors. Many of us on this board here are also memorizers of the Quran and it is recited 17 times a day across the globe by 1.8 billion Muslims just as it began. It was always compiled and with direct supervision of the messenger

so in fact the bible is no way on equal footing with the Quran and if anything it can be compared with it would be the hadith and even those have a strong chain of Isnad that is bar none!

The Quran's compilation under Uthman was strictly controlled by thestate. That means it does not have independentconvergent confirmation as the Bible does. Nor does it even have original independentauthors as the Bible does.

That's nonsense:
It is unanimous that the Quran was compiled during the reign of Uthman not written:

Here are some of the earliest parchments before collections and they can be found in various museums around the world:

recommended reading because you seem very under educated on the topic.
http://www.kalamullah.com/Books/history_of_quranic_text.pdf

you should argue from knowledge not out of whimsy.
Also did you take the Quiz I provided?
I am wondering how well you scored?
http://exchristian.net/3/

good luck.. also please try to space your words when you write, aside from the nonsensical contents one can't sort through the words. Do you not have a spacebar on your keyboard?

best,

 

[جوري]

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case.

I have no idea what this nonsense means? In fact math is borne out of our imagination but I don't think you've the capabilities to play around with the rules not that the possibilities don't exist!

The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not

What evidence is that? your testimony? The evidence suggests strongly otherwise.
one book is a confused mess of a self-immolating man god and the other a guidance to mankind which covers every aspect of man's life and in and of itself has many miraculous features that it is the foundation upon which many other things were borne, from inheritance laws, to economic theories and even modern day grammar.
You can't get two bibles to agree with each other on the very basics otherwise what a very confused god you've there? But then again given that said god prayed to himself not to forsake himself in gethsemane, immolated the next day anyway, choose ineffectual apostles peter himself forsook him thrice before he killed himself so he appeared to a charlatan to throw the masses into confusion and tell them forget that god of the OT Saul said so.

With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles

In fact the Quran is full of miracles:
http://www.islamicboard.com/172587-post14.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)
http://www.islamicboard.com/171261-post12.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)
http://www.islamicboard.com/170015-post7.html (Miracles of the Quraan!!)

and some that are probably well over your head:
According to the laws behind combinatorics, the probability of a word occuring a specific number of times in the text decreasing as the text grows longer, as the number of possibilites increases rapidly. That means if you took a book that was 20 000 pages, and the word night was mentioned exactly as many times as day, it would be far more astonishing than if you found the same thing in a single page report. Also, if the word repetitions are small, then there is a greater chance that it was intentionally done that way. But if the repetition number is bigger, it is practically impossible.
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/13998-prove-quran-word-god-4.html

a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc..

I challenge you to prove that!
I expect complete scholarship which includes knowledge of Arabic, as well names and dates of those borrowed from. Put your money where your mouth is!

and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran

In the facts the mistakes are in your bible imposed against its own self not the Quran!

Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

After we strip all of the crap it is the only conclusion that is logical & sensical. The rest is just your tantrums and assertions.

best,

 

[arcangel]

I challenge this by asking: Underwhat scholarship are you referring to that the Bible is known to be superior tothe Qur'an?

Multiple attestation, the historical method, independentan early copying with no Uthman burning every other copy in existence, for in-depthinfo see a critique by one of history’s greatest (if not, the greatest) experton testimony and evidence. See Testimony of the evangelists by Simon Greenleaf.If there is a more qualified person of testimony or evidence I am unaware ofthem. I can't post links because I am new but his work is famous and easilyavailable. He gives in depth analysis on the methods for examining testimonyand wrote textbooks and taught the subject at Harvard (which he co-founded).

My other challenge: The Bible is authored by many. But despite thesechains of transmission, there needs to be proof that these come from God. Tellme where the Bible says clearly, "This revelation is from God."Otherwise, your claim is very weak with the chains of transmission of theauthors.

I have always regarded the almost exclusive Islamic tactic ofdictating what words God must use as absurd. I can't post links yet, howeverthe Bible is full of these claims. See Exodus 4:30, Joshua 3:9, 2 Kings 17,Isaiah 59 or 23, many Psalms, John 16, Thess 2 or a hundred other verses.

The Bible is an inaccurate book of history now, and its true spirit hasbeen lost. Uthman (ra) collected the Qur'an 30 years after the demise of theHoly Prophet (saw), and before him Abu Bakr (ra) and Umar (ra) also took careto collect the Qur'an. Uthman (ra) simply kept only one of the dialects of theQur'an to avoid confusion among Muslims later on. The Bible's first four bookshave varying reports, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The stories areinconsistent to say the least.

There are about 6 assumptions and no evidence in that paragraph. Youwill have to assume less or justify more before I could counter. Since Muhammadhimself said the Bible was to be used to judge the Quran and since we knowexactly what the Biblical text of Muhammad's time looked like; he was eithermaking what he said up, simply wrong, or demanding something impossible forpeople to do, because the Bible of his time does anything but confirm theQuran. That is the reason these claims of corruption were manufactured. TheBible never acknowledges the Quran or Muhammad so it does not have thisproblem. Either the Bible was/is correct or Muhammad was wrong in demanding itjudge the Quran.

So under what claim are you suggesting the Qur'an is inferior then? Itsays much more clearly that it is a revelation from God than the Bible does.Just what indication is there that the Bible that exists today is from GodHimself? For all we know the real Bible is long gone.

Is the test for who is right, who screams they are the loudest. I havealways been puzzled by Islam's use of this argument. It is one of the most invalidI am aware of. That would be true even if the Bible did not claim to be theword of God as it does in 2 Tim 3:16 and countless other places. If you claimthe Bible is long gone then you must supply it's original language and the datechanged. Until they are known the argument is void.

By the way, multiple authors, who authored multiple versions of the samestories in a book does not merit that book as being accurate. If all of thebooks had the same stories with no contradictions, then they would be accurate.But there are clearly many contradictions in the Bible, and so such a bookcannot be called a Book of God.

I never said multiple attestation makes anything true. However it isone of the methods or parameters scholars use to assess reliability. In allareas multiple witnesses are more reliable than one. Again until you provideevidence or examples of contradiction there is nothing for me to counter. Vagueand generalized assumptions and assertions require no refutation.

The Qur'an contains no contradictions. This is already a strong argumentin favor of the Qur'an.

That is one convenient assumption. I can postdozens upon dozens if you wish. Until I can post links his is a hassle but willdo so anyway if desired.

It is the main reason why the Qur'an is far superior to theBible.

Even if it was true that the Quran was not internallycontradictory it would not overturn the several other objections I made to it.It however is very contradictory. If you wish to contend this point I willsupply examples.

While the Bible contains contradictions, despite its multiple authors,despite its no signs of plagiarizing, despite its apparent 99% textual accuracy(I strongly doubt it, and with strong proof which I am ready to give) anddespite the independent chains of transmission - this then shows that there issome false premises here. Again, i challenge the authority on which you aregiving your facts. Give the source and give the proof. Believe me, you have todo a lot of convincing yourself if you want those claims to be taken seriously.Either you show us the source, or if you are the scholar who came to theseconclusions, then demonstrate this proof.

How many posts do I have to make before links are able to be posted byme. Until I can do so giving examples of these scholars and their claims isextremely time consuming. I had no idea there was a restriction on postinglinks until I have made a certain number of posts when I initially made theseclaims. In the meantime I will list some examples that indicate the Quran isnot from God. Virtually every form of worship practice in the Quran is wellknown to have existed in Judaism (that is not so bad), or Paganism (thsi isvery bad). Veneration of the Stone (which would be objectionable even if thePagans had not done so), 5 daily prayers toward Mecca, fasting on the 10th ofMuharram, Circumambulation, and even the Kaaba itself, etc.... Until I can postlinks this is about all I can get to easily. BTW, the claimed Abrahamicconnection to the Kaaba is a well-known historical absurdity.

I await your response.

I will appreciate your patience until Ican post links and copy text.

 

[M.I.A.]

That is an assumption of the conclusion and then making an argument from it. I could say that if 2 + 2 = 5 and then state that all mathematicians are wrong, but I have hardly made the case. The point is that the evidence suggests very strongly the Bible is from God and the Quran is not. All the signs are there for teh Bible (2500 prophecies, miracles, a consistent narrative over almost 2000 years and many authors, explanatory power, universality, 25,000 historical corroborations, etc...).With the Quran we have a refusal to do any miracles, a very limited narrative given to by one man, no prophecies worthy of the name, a narrative composed of borrowing from heretical, pagan sources, and Arabian myth, etc...and historical mistakes with almost every Biblical narrative mentioned in the Quran. Your extrapolation would be true if your premise was but you can't assume your premise is true and then demand a conclusion based on it.

if you have a ten lap race, you actually have to do eleven to finish.

anyway, thats besides the point.

the thing about miracles is there interpretation.

...so the fact that an absolutely normal man... by your standards.. changed the face of the world almost makes it more noteworthy.

or not, depends on who writes the history books i suppose.


imitative narrative is like saying that people dont add to the theories within matamatics or science.

but the above statement is void because its not like a person just saw or heard the world and got people to write it down.
or wrote it down himself.

it was sent through an angel.

i mean its not like you have Noah's AS ark anywhere.


in case of miracles, i would think that a man does not make them... god does.



that takes a long time to get your head around.


it may not always be the case, but thats how i would like to think of it.

 

[arcangel]

By the way can anyone tell me how to edit my posts? I am on a DOD server and so can't download the spellcheck and when I copy to word it gets scrambled on the return trip. If my posts are left to the mercy of my spelling ability there is no hope. Thanks