Quran VS Bible , a thoroughly comparative study,arranged by items

[Grace Seeker]

I actually know a few (Non-mainstream) Christians who believe the Bible came down from heaven, fully bound and in Elizabethan English. There are some Christians who do believe Jesus(as) and his apostles spoke Elizabethan English. I do believe that is some, not the majority. Ann Richards when she was elected Governor of Texas was asked which bible did she want to take the oath of office on? She answered "The KJV, if it was good enough for Jesus(as), it is good enough for me."

And I suppose you're going to tell me that it isn't so? If God didn't given them to us himself, then where do you suppose we got all those English translations?

 

[Hiroshi]

Now I am starting to wonder if you actually think that The Qur'an was conveyed and recorded in English, instead in Arabiyya.

If "Those who follow the messenger, full stop" makes sense in Arabic what is it saying?

 

[Al-manar]

Origin of the christianity that shouldn't had been p.1

After long time of reading ,reflecting ...I'm totally satisfied with the following approach to such matter .... I'm always satisfied when my arguments is based both on the Quran and the scholary works that based on the biblical text itself ,not the speculations ....

Christianity is a problem that resulted from vain desires ,and false hopes ....... before we provide our introduction to the root of the problem ,let's make a visit again to the Quran :

we have read that according to the Quran , The Jews differed in their reaction with Jesus ....

(1st)

A part of them accepted his message as a reformer prophet ....

the Quran - 3:52 When Jesus found Unbelief on their part He said: "Who will be My helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples: "We are Allah's helpers: We believe in Allah, and do thou bear witness that we are Muslims.

the Quran - 61:14
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed.

There is no wonder that some Jews accepted Jesus as a prophet of God :

traces of what have been Jesus's original claim as prophet remain in the Gospel texts.

"A prophet is not without honor, except in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house" (Mark 6:4).

A Pharisee thought to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would have known who and what sort of woman this is" (Luk 7:39). Why would the Pharisee wonder if Jesus was a prophet unless this was Jesus's claim or at least a claim made for him by his followers?

On the way through the district of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus "asked his disciples, 'Who do men say that I am?' And they told him, 'John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others one of the prophets'" (Mark 8:27).

When Jesus announced his resolve to go to Jerusalem, he is reported by Luke to have said, "Nevertheless I must go on my way …; for it cannot be that a prophet should perish away from Jerusalem" (Luke 13:33).

there are Jews who believed in Jesus as a prophet and nothing more during his lifetime, after his departure eg; those represented others who already quoted in NT ,and the Ebonite's etc.....


(2nd)

A second part believed in him as a prophet but from the false type ,as they believed that the the door of newly prophethood is closed ,just Elijah and the king messiah who would arrive .... such group refused him, ascribing to Him illegitimate birth, magic, and a shameful death ......

they refused him as he simply fulfilled not their own desires

the Quran - 2:87 And verily We gave unto Moses the Scripture and We caused a train of messengers to follow after him, and We gave unto Jesus, son of Mary, clear proofs (of Allah's sovereignty), and We supported him with the Holy spirit. Is it ever so, that, when there cometh unto you a messenger (from Allah) with that which ye yourselves desire not, ye grow arrogant, and some ye disbelieve and some ye slay?


(3rd)

A third party who neither accepted him as false prophet neither mere a prophet, such group though had something in common(the vain desire of messianic hopes ) with the second party already mentioned ,yet they overstepped the bounds .... the fact as they wouldn't be satisfied to accept Jesus as merely a prophet , they imported Old Testament titles Son of God,Son of man , a role and nature invalid for Jesus etc ..... to satisfy their desires and to give hope for those dreamers of a messianic golden age and the Earth that would turn into paradise ......

those third party are the writers of the New Testament and their communities ,who were already preceded by those(dead sea scrolls community) who had similar vain desires .....

In sum ,we have the Quran classifiying the Jews in such era into three basic parties ....and we provided non-Quranic clear text to support every verse...

next post would be the focus on the third party aka christians ......

we would try to investigate the origin , through a very satisfying approach:

How would you get the root of the matter?

It is when you follow that formula:
1- If you analyze some of the errors of the writers of the New testament (the source from which christianity comes from)
2- you would get the intention of the writers
3- getting the intentions of the writers would get you a clue of the origin of the whole matter .....

to be continued

peace

 

[Hiroshi]

1- If you analyze some of the errors of the writers of the New testament (the source from which christianity comes from)
2- you would get the intention of the writers
3- getting the intentions of the writers would get you a clue of the origin of the whole matter .....



peace

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

 

[Ramadhan]

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

Did God ever say He was going to preserve Injil?

 

[Al-manar]

So God wasn't able to protect his Injil, his written word, from error?

well;.......

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

etc... etc..........

many questions from this kind ,while it is expected questions from agnostic ,atheist .... but I don't think it would be wise if a christian to ask a muslim such kind of questions.....

God doesn't reveal a first class message that he protects from corruption and second class message that he let to be corrupted..
but he has two types of humans,those who undertake the trust and those not...

 

[Hiroshi]

Did God ever say He was going to preserve Injil?

Surah 6:34 says: "there is none that can alter the Words and Decrees of Allah". I believe that these words can apply to both the promises of God and also to the written scriptures in which they were recorded.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif

says:

Islamic tradition holds that the Gospel was available to Arabs as narrated by 'Aisha:

"The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to (the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."[12]
​

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufil, the son of Khadija's paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write...[13]
​

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i.e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i.e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write...[14]
​

These Hadiths suggest that in the late 700s Jews and Christians were still using an uncorrupted text. If this is the suggested time of corruption there would already be too many copies in circulation to change — not to mention the diversity of language as there were even texts in Arabic.


This same source also says that:

The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm (10th century).



So then, it wasn't until the 10th century, hundreds of years after the rise of Islam, that the Injil first came to be accused of corruption. If this accusation were true then the corruption must have taken place between the 7th and the 10th centuries. But we today have manuscripts of the NT dating back to even before the 7th century.

 

[Hiroshi]

A christian memeber, wondered the same before, and that was my reply

God is sovereign and man has free will

I don't find the question why God allowed the bible to be corrupted by man,to be wise ,cause it would lead to other questions

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will) to steal?

Why would the sovereign God allow the man X (who has free will)to produce cigarettes, harming himself and the others?

etc... etc..........

Actually these are very good questions. Why does God permit evil and all the related suffering? The answer is that Satan has challenged that he can cause any of God's intelligent creatures, human or angelic, to rebel against the Creator. This outrageous challenge calls into question the love, faithfulness and integrity of all of God's servants and even calls into question God's very right to rule.

But these are moral issues. These are not questions that can be settled by a display of power or force. For example, God could have destroyed Satan at the very beginning. But that would not have proven that God was in the right. It might actually have suggested to all onlookers, that rather Satan was the one in the right.

God has wisely allowed Satan to carry out his challenge which means that each one of us is faced with a test. Do we give in to evil as Satan would wish? Or do we prove Satan to be a liar by showing love and obedience to God and try to leave in a way that pleases him?

Sadly, many fall prey to Satan's snares. But there are also countless others who bring glory to God by showing their loyalty to him and their willingness to accept his Sovereignty even in the face of death. These ones show that Satan is a slanderer and a liar. In the final end, God will be fully justified in destroying Satan and all who side with him. This final judgement will set an important precedent. Then there will be peace and harmony throughout creation and no one else will ever again challenge God's righteous way of ruling.

 

[جوري]

Surah 6:34 says: "there is none that can alter the Words and Decrees of Allah". I believe that these words can apply to both the promises of God and also to the written scriptures in which they were recorded.

This link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrif

says:

Islamic tradition holds that the Gospel was available to Arabs as narrated by 'Aisha:

"The Prophet returned to Khadija while his heart was beating rapidly. She took him to Waraqa bin Naufal who was a Christian convert and used to read the Gospels in Arabic. Waraqa asked (the Prophet), "What do you see?" When he told him, Waraqa said, "That is the same angel whom Allah sent to (the Prophet) Moses. Should I live till you receive the Divine Message, I will support you strongly."[12]
​

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa bin Naufil, the son of Khadija's paternal uncle. Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the Pre-lslamic Period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write...[13]
​

... Khadija then took him to Waraqa b. Naufal b. Asad b. 'Abd al-'Uzza, and he was the son of Khadija's uncle, i.e., the brother of her father. And he was the man who had embraced Christianity in the Days of Ignorance (i.e. before Islam) and he used to write books in Arabic and, therefore, wrote Injil in Arabic as God willed that he should write...[14]
​

These Hadiths suggest that in the late 700s Jews and Christians were still using an uncorrupted text. If this is the suggested time of corruption there would already be too many copies in circulation to change — not to mention the diversity of language as there were even texts in Arabic.


This same source also says that:

The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm (10th century).



So then, it wasn't until the 10th century, hundreds of years after the rise of Islam, that the Injil first came to be accused of corruption. If this accusation were true then the corruption must have taken place between the 7th and the 10th centuries. But we today have manuscripts of the NT dating back to even before the 7th century.

what you don't know about ibn waraq is that in fact he wasn't a practicing christian because he believed the 'gospel' was very corrupted .. try to look for him in islamic sources after all that is the primary source from which Wikipiedia or other orientalists take a historical piece and add or subtract their spin!

all the best

 

[جوري]

Actually these are very good questions. Why does God permit evil and all the related suffering?

see this thread:
http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/7938-problem-evil-temp-split-teog-thread.html

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

what you don't know about ibn waraq is that in fact he wasn't a practicing christian because he believed the 'gospel' was very corrupted .. try to look for him in islamic sources after all that is the primary source from which Wikipiedia or other orientalists take a historical piece and add or subtract their spin!

all the best

So what are you saying was corrupted? Was it Ibn Waraq that was corrupted in his thinking? Or was the Injil already corrupted even in Muhammad's time?

 

[جوري]

So what are you saying was corrupted? Was it Ibn Waraq that was corrupted in his thinking? Or was the Injil already corrupted even in Muhammad's time?

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

 

[Hiroshi]

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side."

It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

 

[Hiroshi]

what I am saying is obvious, Ibn Warraq didn't follow Christianity as you know it nor did he think it was the right path, if he did logic would dictate that he'd not vouch for prophet Mohammed's (PBUH) prophet-hood. Your bible has been corrupted since the inception of Trinitarianism and that happened well before Islam as such if God wanted to give people a chance to walk aright to the path of the righteous he'd make authoritative and beyond a reasonable doubt that such a doctrine of 'Trinitarianism' is corrupt indisputably and that was indeed crystallized in the Quran.

all the best

I quoted this from the link:

"The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm."


Do you disagree with that statement?

 

[جوري]

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side." It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

I quoted this from the link:

"The theme of tahrif found its first detailed elaboration in the writings of Ibn Hazm."


Do you disagree with that statement?

I think the verse is obvious I don't see how you can possible render to it another meaning? you neither believe nor are you righteous you're in fact corrupt and following your own whims and don't at all follow any laws of God.. How is it that you always find another meaning.. I don't even have to dig into tafsir when it is so patent!
The 'theme of tahrif' has existed since you've had Trinitarianism.. so look into the council of nicea and see when the vote was taken to make man a god and that is how far back it goes.. further there is no evidence that the injil was ever in the hands of the people.. it was merely what Jesus (p) uttered, and you can't trace any utterances as having been said by him, heck you don't even know what language he spoke!

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

Surah 5:65-66 says: " If only the People of the Book had believed and been righteous, We should indeed have blotted out their iniquities and admitted them to gardens of bliss. If only they had stood fast by the Law, the Gospel, and all the revelation that was sent to them from their Lord, they would have enjoyed happiness from every side."

It doesn't make sense that the Qur'an would encourage these people to stand fast by corrupted books.

And it is not telling them to do so. It is telling them that they should have abided by the injeel and taurat, not man made teachings. And that they should have followed all the revelations from their Lord, and so when the Qur'an was revealed, followed that.

And had they followed the unchanged revelations of Allah, at the time when Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) was sent as a Messenger, they would have readily recognised that the Qur'an contained the same Message that was contained in the former revelations given by Allah. They would have felt no difficulty in following the Holy Prophet, as there would have been no question of changing their religion: this would have been a continuation of the same way that they were following before.

Peace.

 

[Hiroshi]

you neither believe nor are you righteous you're in fact corrupt and following your own whims and don't at all follow any laws of God..

all the best

I don't dish out this kind of abuse and I don't expect it from others. Can't we just have a sensible discussion?

 

[Hiroshi]

And it is not telling them to do so. It is telling them that they should have abided by the injeel and taurat, not man made teachings. And that they should have followed all the revelations from their Lord, and so when the Qur'an was revealed, followed that.

And had they followed the unchanged revelations of Allah, at the time when Prophet Muhammad (Allah's peace and blessings be upon him) was sent as a Messenger, they would have readily recognised that the Qur'an contained the same Message that was contained in the former revelations given by Allah. They would have felt no difficulty in following the Holy Prophet, as there would have been no question of changing their religion: this would have been a continuation of the same way that they were following before.

Peace.

If you mean to say that it is the man made teachings that are corrupt and not the Injeel and Taurat then I entirely agree. Is that what you meant?

 

[جوري]

I don't dish out this kind of abuse and I don't expect it from others. Can't we just have a sensible discussion?

That isn't abuse, it is clarification of terms!
you neither believe in what God has revealed nor are your following the path of the righteous. If in your mind you believe you do, then what concern have you of the interpretation of others of your beliefs?

all the best

 

[Insaanah]

If you mean to say that it is the man made teachings that are corrupt and not the Injeel and Taurat then I entirely agree. Is that what you meant?

I was referring to the injeel and taurat as revealed by Allah. Not books with writings of humans interspersed, giving rise to extraneous ideas such as God begetting a son, etc, that were never revealed by Allah.

Peace.