When was the Bible corrupted?

[جوري]

^^ salaamz akhi.. one of the brothers who founded Al-Ahram news paper, has contributed greatly to a book written on this bible's authenticity, with detailed research, but it was published in Arabic... just a note, that both brothers were Maronite Lebanese Christians.
I think to defend the position and authenticity of that bible of Barnbas would create an obvious clash between his duties as a journalist and his duties as a Christian.. but I and many others who have read it, appreciated his integrity..

 

[Grace Seeker]

^^ salaamz akhi.. one of the brothers who founded Al-Ahram news paper, has contributed greatly to a book written on this bible's authenticity, with detailed research, but it was published in Arabic... just a note, that both brothers were Maronite Lebanese Christians.
I think to defend the position and authenticity of that bible of Barnbas would create an obvious clash between his duties as a journalist and his duties as a Christian.. but I and many others who have read it, appreciated his integrity..

"ths bible's authenticity"?????


Do you mean "this book", rather than "this bible"? I'm confused as to what exactly it is that you are refering to.

 

[back_to_faith]

I
I even have one particular proposition that the Bible claims to have been true in the life of Jesus that I believe you claim is untrue. I would like you to prove, objectively and without reference to the Qur'an, that the Bible is in error with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified..)

I missed it,thank you for making me pay attention to it...

If you mean ,could we discuss the matter (with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified)
I think that such topic was discussed before lots in the fourms..

we need new one....What about a related ,important topic ?

Isaiah :53

it is related to the topic of crucifiction ,and I think no topic is more attractive for christians to discuss than (the Isaiah :53)

let me suggest a title for it:

How could be ( Isaiah :53) a prophecy fulfillment?

one could assert:

1-Jesus fulfilled it of all its items.

2-Israel fulfilled it.

3-none fulfilled it,cause it is not a prophecy at all.

PM with ok if,you ready to discuss it,or suggest another new topic.

 

[جوري]

It was a corroborative effort between two authors one of whom was a Christian Maronite , who have written a book, on the bible of barnbas' Authenticity!

peace!

 

[Grace Seeker]

It was a corroborative effort between two authors one of whom was a Christian Maronite , who have written a book, on the bible of barnbas' Authenticity!

peace!

I am confused by the term "bible". I am not familiar with it being used the way you are. I know of no "bible of Barnabas". I know of a "Gospel of Barnabas" and a "Letter of Barnabas" which are two completely different things. And I am aware that some people think of the Bible as a single book rather than as a collection of books.

But, if I may, can I try to restate what you are saying, then you can tell me if I understand you correctly:

You know of a book (published in Arabic) that defends the authenticity of the "Gospel of Barnabas". And one of the two authors of this book that researches the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a Maronite Lebanese Christian who with his brother founded the Al-Ahram newspaper.

Is that what you are saying?

 

[جوري]

You know of a book (published in Arabic) that defends the authenticity of the "Gospel of Barnabas". And one of the two authors of this book that researches the "Gospel of Barnabas" is a Maronite Lebanese Christian who with his brother founded the Al-Ahram newspaper.

Is that what you are saying?

Yup , that is correct! :smile:
.. I have the book here in my home library.. I'll take some pix at some point and upload it for you to see if you want... though I don't think it will make much of a difference.. but there is no ISBN number.. it is a very old book, at least over a century old...

peace!

 

[ummzayd]

Big difference

1-first no one ever claims that the hadith should be 100% inspired ,while the Gospel is said to be.

2- the tools available in the Hadith studying tools is far superior than those of the NT , eg:we have (al isnad science) which check the narraters and their origin,trustworthy,source etc.... while we have zero of the same tools while trying to study the NT.


(Well, as you don't throw out all of the Hadith because of a few doubtful stories, neither do we feel a need to throw out all of the Gospel narrative).



and no Quranic verse advise anyone to to throw out all of the Gospel narrative....

thank you brother for pointing out that even the hadiths have more integrity than the NT. this is an important point.

each hadith is a separate 'document' with its own sources, chain of narrators etc. if one is 'doubtful' then certainly it can be disregarded without casting doubt on any other, separately documented and sourced hadith.

To truly compare hadiths with NT on this point, Grace Seeker would have to agree that any book of the bible (or just NT if preferred) that contained a glaring mistake/contradiction etc would have to be jettisoned in its entirety from the canon. I wonder how many books would be left if we did this!

 

[ummzayd]

I think this is off topic, but I am willing to give it one go round before asking such discussions be moved to another thread. So... NOT referring to the Qur'an, or any other group's faith documents, what are the reasons that you believe the Bible to be in error?

Greetings of peace to you

one doesn't have to read far into the bible to find errors. Genesis states that God created light and divided the light from the darkness and called the light 'day' and the darkness 'night'.

And a few days later He created the sun.

well ahem. kind of a glaring error right there.

as for the NT (most Christians want to wash their hands of the OT while also keeping it in their 'bible') how about the Sign of Jonah, Matthew 12:40, where Jesus (pbuh) supposedly prophesies his death and resurrection:

'for as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so the Son of Man shall be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth'.

unfortunately according to the NT Jesus (pbuh) was placed in the tomb on Friday and raised some time before Sunday morning.

so that is glaringly inaccurate. Either Jesus pbuh was wrong, or the writer who is supposedly reporting his words is wrong. my own theory is that Jesus pbuh may have mentioned 'the sign of Jonah', and either the writer of that book, or a later copyist, decided to add the explanation - and put the words about 3 days & 3 nights in Jesus' mouth. highly risky, highly unethical and untrustworthy - which for me sums up the attitude of the writers/copyists/care-takers of NT scripture. Not people to be relied upon at all.

Those are two reasons why I regard the bible as full of error, unreliable, corrupted...etc. etc. I have many more, if you would like to hear them?

peace

I hope Grace Seeker will address my points as I am actually interested in how the Christians deal with this (I can't be the first person to bring up the contradiction of these scriptures).

 

[Grace Seeker]

thank you brother for pointing out that even the hadiths have more integrity than the NT. this is an important point.

each hadith is a separate 'document' with its own sources, chain of narrators etc. if one is 'doubtful' then certainly it can be disregarded without casting doubt on any other, separately documented and sourced hadith.

To truly compare hadiths with NT on this point, Grace Seeker would have to agree that any book of the bible (or just NT if preferred) that contained a glaring mistake/contradiction etc would have to be jettisoned in its entirety from the canon. I wonder how many books would be left if we did this!

There is a science of textual criticism. In it each separate document is considered a unique source, given an identifying tag, and then compared with every other document. None are thrown out. Rather, when there is any discrepancy each discrepancy is noted and the reader is informed of all of the variant readings, the sources of each one, how many and which documents support each reading.

I wonder how one can know with certainty that you are throwing out the mistake and not the correct version. One would have to have the ability to compare to the authenticated original to make the choice. And as I understand it the original in the case of the Qur'an and Hadith were all oral. Simply writing it down means that you are working from a copy.


Quickly, because I'm already running late at the moment, the Genesis passage has mutliple explanations depending on one's view of the literalness of scripture. I myself take the opening as poetry and not science, so the issues you raise are not ones that I have. Though I can address them as others might if you want more on it.

As to the crucifixion on Friday, you have to count like a first-century Jew: Friday afternoon till sunset = first day. Friday at sunset till Saturday at sunset = second day. Saturday at sunset till Jesus' resurrection sometime before sunrise on Sunday = third day. So call Jesus wrong if you wish because he was only in the ground for 2 nights, but he was communicating in the vernacular of his day. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to us today, but the as you said, you aren't the first to have noticed this, indeed it would have been of note to the very first believers. And what they would have known, that we today often don't, is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

 

[back_to_faith]

is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

That topic, has been discussed before

It is true according to Jewish tradition part of the day is equivalent to a full day...
but, does such concept, clears up the (3 days and 3 NIGHTS)problem?

I discussed that before here....

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparative-religion/40313-did-jesus-die-rise-dead-11.html

still waiting for your pm

peace

 

[ummzayd]

There is a science of textual criticism. In it each separate document is considered a unique source, given an identifying tag, and then compared with every other document. None are thrown out. Rather, when there is any discrepancy each discrepancy is noted and the reader is informed of all of the variant readings, the sources of each one, how many and which documents support each reading.
I wonder how one can know with certainty that you are throwing out the mistake and not the correct version. One would have to have the ability to compare to the authenticated original to make the choice. And as I understand it the original in the case of the Qur'an and Hadith were all oral. Simply writing it down means that you are working from a copy.


Quickly, because I'm already running late at the moment, the Genesis passage has mutliple explanations depending on one's view of the literalness of scripture. I myself take the opening as poetry and not science, so the issues you raise are not ones that I have. Though I can address them as others might if you want more on it.

As to the crucifixion on Friday, you have to count like a first-century Jew: Friday afternoon till sunset = first day. Friday at sunset till Saturday at sunset = second day. Saturday at sunset till Jesus' resurrection sometime before sunrise on Sunday = third day. So call Jesus wrong if you wish because he was only in the ground for 2 nights, but he was communicating in the vernacular of his day. Sometimes it just doesn't make sense to us today, but the as you said, you aren't the first to have noticed this, indeed it would have been of note to the very first believers. And what they would have known, that we today often don't, is that in rabbinical thought a day and a night make an "onah" and part of an onah is as the whole. Thus, according to Jewish tradition, "three days and three nights" need mean no more than "three days" or the combination of any part of three separate days.

it would not be acceptable for a hadith to contain a glaring error and still be classified as sound or reliable - in this way alone the hadiths (all of them) are superior to the NT. however it is not only an obvious error that is looked for, each and every person in the chain of narration must be known to be reliable and honest, and of course if anything in the hadith contradicts the qur'an then it is dismissed.

I maintain that if a document is known to contain errors, contradictions (whether internal contradictions or contradictions with another, reliable document) and so on then the document no longer has any integrity. bible scholars do not agree obviously - well fine for them, but don't come and tell me how reliable and authentic the bible is and how free of errors and contradictions. (sorry that was not addressed to you but those people who do say that sort of thing).

as for the '3 days and 3 nights' well according to your explanation you could possibly get away with the 3 days but NOT the 3 nights. I realise that the Jewish 'day' (like the Muslim day) is counted from sunset to sunset but night time is still that period of the 24 hour day when the sun is on the opposite side of the earth. and there were only 2 nights, not even 'part' of a third night, between Friday afternoon and daybreak on Sunday.

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

peace and thanks for raising some really interesting topics

peace

 

[MustafaMc]

it would not be acceptable for a hadith to contain a glaring error and still be classified as sound or reliable - in this way alone the hadiths (all of them) are superior to the NT. however it is not only an obvious error that is looked for, each and every person in the chain of narration must be known to be reliable and honest, and of course if anything in the hadith contradicts the qur'an then it is dismissed.

In this manner we have multiple ahadith that are recorded as being narrated through different chains of people, yet there is an amazing consistency between them. A very important point is that except for the very few Hadith Qudsi, the actual ahadith are not considered to be inspired by Allah (swt).

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

Yes, there is a major difference between the preservation of what was revealed through Prophet Muhammad (saaws) and what was revealed through Prophet Jesus (as). We have every word of the Quranic revelation preserved intact; whereas, we have only fragments of the Injeel as marked by red letter font in some Bibles.

There is more similarity between the 4 NT gospels and our ahadith. Note that what Jesus (as) is quoted as having said in a particular situation varies between the 4 NT gospels. Even the Lord's Prayer is not the same word-for-word between the gospels that record it.

Christians believe that the various writers of the NT (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James) were all separately inspired by God to write what they did. Even though Bukhari went to great lengths to ensure the accuracy of hadith that he recorded, we Muslims don't believe that he was inspired by Allah (swt) to write what he did.

Yes, they have some of the words that Jesus (as) spoke, but the message that Jesus (as) spoke is less important to them than his being the Son of God and dying on the cross for their sins.

 

[rav]

I missed it,thank you for making me pay attention to it...

If you mean ,could we discuss the matter (with regard to the assertions of all 4 Gospel writers and the recorded testimony of Peter and Paul that Jesus was crucified)
I think that such topic was discussed before lots in the fourms..

we need new one....What about a related ,important topic ?

Isaiah :53

it is related to the topic of crucifiction ,and I think no topic is more attractive for christians to discuss than (the Isaiah :53)

let me suggest a title for it:

How could be ( Isaiah :53) a prophecy fulfillment?

one could assert:

1-Jesus fulfilled it of all its items.

2-Israel fulfilled it.

3-none fulfilled it,cause it is not a prophecy at all.

PM with ok if,you ready to discuss it,or suggest another new topic.

Shalom,

The passage in question (Isaiah 53) is quoted often by unknowledgable missionaries, targeting Jews for conversion. The 'suffering servant' is suppose to be Jesus according to these missionaries, however, that is obviously wrong. Let us look at a verse I will quote for you in Isaiah:

"And he said to me,'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"
Isaiah 49:3 (NRS)

Isaiah says in chapter 49, verse 3 that Israel (the collective people) are the suffering servants of G-d. Now has this prophecy come true? Well, it seems that the Jews throughout history, from being expeled from Spain and England, to the Holocaust have always suffered to keep their religion. The easy way would be to leave Judaism for either Christianity or Islam, a huge powerful religion, however, that is not the correct path. The people of Israel (children on Israel) will always be the 'suffering servants'.

Many more times are the people of Israel revealed to be the 'servants':

Numerous times throughout the Book of Isaiah the servant is called by name. The following is a sampling:

Isaiah 41:8 But thou, Israel, [art] my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, the seed of Abraham my friend. [9] [Thou] whom I have taken from the ends of the earth, and called thee from the chief men thereof, and said unto thee, Thou [art] my servant; I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away. (KJV)

[44:1] Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: [2] Thus saith the LORD that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, [which] will help thee; Fear not, O Jacob, my servant; and thou, Jesurun, whom I have chosen. (KJV)

[44:21] Remember these, O Jacob and Israel; for thou [art] my servant: I have formed thee; thou [art] my servant: O Israel, thou shalt not be forgotten of me. (KJV)

[45:4] For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me. (KJV)​

Peace.

 

[back_to_faith]

Shalom,

The passage in question (Isaiah 53) is quoted often by unknowledgable missionaries, targeting Jews for conversion. The 'suffering servant' is suppose to be Jesus according to these missionaries, however, that is obviously wrong. Let us look at a verse I will quote for you in Isaiah:

"And he said to me,'You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified.'"
Isaiah 49:3 (NRS)

Isaiah says in chapter 49, verse 3 that Israel (the collective people) are the suffering servants of G-d. (KJV)[/indent]

Peace.

Greetings,Rav

I'm aware of the (Isaiah 53) misuse by christian missionaries,and appreciate the Jewish efforts of providing academic work to expose the NT misuse,distortion of the OT...

(Isaiah 53) is as exactly as (Isaiah 7)and many others
both reflect a very weak argument for prophecy fulfillment,cause they're simply not prophecies.

one could argue that(Isaiah 53) is fulfilled by Jesus,or by Israel,
but my approach is different.
I believe that neither Jesus nor Israel as a whole nation reflects
the (Isaiah 53) description.

that is offtopic subject...hope you let the discussion here and later we discuss it in the right place
I invited Seeker to discuss it.
still waiting for his reply,and you will be welcomed ,Rav

to share us

peace

 

[Grace Seeker]

I'm not sure what you mean about qur'an being oral and therefore when it was written down they were working from a copy. the qur'an was written down during the time of the Prophet pbuh, although not (as I understand) collected together into one bound book. He did have scribes who wrote down the revelation. however, it was certainly memorised by very many of the early Muslims also. I don't think we have to fret about an 'original' qur'an. the 'original' qur'an is with God and if you want to downgrade the one on earth as a mere copy uncheckable against the original.....!! I think 'hairs' and 'splitting' comes to mind. sorry if I've misunderstood your point. I guess we're all busy people here scribbling down whatever points occur to us before rushing back to our real lives....

peace and thanks for raising some really interesting topics

peace

Well, let me illustrate the problem with "oral tradition" with something that came across my desk today.

We had a meeting on Monday looking at 2008 budgets. As part of that discussion we discussed giving some money from the church to another ministry in town that assists people in various stages of need. All agreed on the goal, but we debate the means, how much, and when.

Among the possibilities was designating money from an ongoing aluminum can drive be dedicated to that purpose, in our case this would amount to $600-$800 dollars a year. However, we didn't know how much was presently in the fund. So, my understanding was that we decided to specify that all money received in 2008 be dedicated to assist this other ministry. And we also wanted to constribute some money this year, but we would make that decision when we met again in September. However, this morning my treasurer told me that the chair of the committee had asked for $500 to be taken out of the present fund (which I have since learned has $1000 in it) and given to this other assisting ministry.

Obviously my chairperson and I have to talk, but the problem is that he also served as the taker of minutes for this particular meeting last Monday. So, do I trust the minutes? Do I trust my memory of the discussion? I don't know what he actually has written down, but even if he has written down something about giving this other group $500 now, I at the same time know that we put off making any decision regarding 2007 spending till our September meeting. Both of us are in truth working from our memory of the oral tradition and we are likely to have to call a couple of other members to see what their memory of it is.

When we apply this to the Bible and the Qur'an, we have similar issues involved.

With the Bible we have several people each writing down years later their memory of what Jesus said and did. Their memory has probably been colored by repeated telling and hearing of these stories, conversations with others, and in some cases they were not even present themselves so the information is at best second hand or perhaps taken from other now lost writings by others before them. But we do have multiple witnesses so that we can compare and see what they agree and what they disagree on as a way of determininig what actually occurred.

With the Qur'an we have one person who received a message in pieces from one of God's angel. Then that person memorizes it at the time and recites it back to others who in turn remember it and then write it down. For the Hadith, you have something more akin to what I just described above with regard to the stories of Jesus. When we say we trust the Qur'an we are saying that not only do all of the written records of it agree with each other, but that we trust Muhammad (pbuh) to have properly memorized the message when it was given him. This is where I am talking about oral tradition. Muhammad received it as an oral message that no one else heard and delivered it as an oral message to others. One can compare the writings from the oral message the Muhammad gave with each other to see if they are all the same like we will do in our meeting. But one cannot compare the oral message Muhammad gave the Muslims with the oral message that Gabriel gave Muhammad. There is no other witness to it except Muhammad and Gabriel and only Muhammad hears from Gabriel, so we simply have to take Muhammad's word for it that he didn't make any mistakes in what he passed on to those who listened to him recite it. You say that this is splitting hairs, but to me it is a significant issue. Especially when what Muhammad has to say contradicts so much of what was reportedly revealed before, some of it reported by eye-witnesses and confirmed by people who had no stake in the matter. (Here I speak of the crucifixion which we are to believe never occurred on Muhammad's report alone, despite the testimony of multiple persons in the early church, some who claim to have been eye-witnesses to at least part of it, and the testimony of contemporaries both Roman and Jewish that accepted this event as an historical truth.)

Now, with the Hadith, you admit that you have some stories that have been rejected? On what grounds? That scholars don't accept them? Scholars who weren't there. Scholars who say they disagree with what they understand to be true about Islam.

You've read my testimony about my meeting. How would you resolve our differences? Can someone who was not in it resolve it based on what each of us might write about it? What if all you had was my story and my chairperson's minutes, are you going to decide that he is wrong because I said so, or that I am wrong because he said so? He's the chair of the committee; I'm the pastor of the church. Which one of us should be viewed as less credible? My personal view is that the best way for an outsider to make any such determination is to get as much information and as many reports of the meeting as possible. If my treasurer becomes the filter for all others, and she discards all subsequent accounts as inaccurate except that which she is willing to accept, what we have remaining isn't anything more than her opinion on the matter passing as authenticated history. The science of authenticating hadiths seems to me to ultimately boil down to this. The process is probably the best one can do, but if that which is not accepted is destroyed, you have said you don't trust the future to come to the same conclusion that the "authenticator" has. You seem to be comfortable in putting all of that power in the hands of a few. I am glad that for the most part even the disputed passages in the Bible have been preserved.

Now, I expect that someone will point out that there have been times in Christian history that church leaders have destroyed collections that they felt were not in agreement with the "true" teachings of the church. I think they were wrong to have done so, but I would not expect Muslims who do that with their own "false" hadiths to object to those practices.

 

[Grace Seeker]

still waiting for your pm

It sounds like you want to debate the interpretation of Isaiah 53. I am not interesting in debating interpretation. I already gave you a suggestion, if you don't want to accept that, then you don't want to accept it. I guess that's the end of that then. We'll move on to other things.

 

[Grace Seeker]

It is true according to Jewish tradition part of the day is equivalent to a full day...
but, does such concept, clears up the (3 days and 3 NIGHTS)problem?

I think it does if you accept this part of what I said, " 'three days and three nights' need mean no more than 'three days' or the combination of any part of three separate days."

Agreed, by our way of counting you only had 2 nights. But our way of counting doesn't count (pun intended:-[ ) for understanding this passage.

When my kids go to school they go to school from Monday through Friday (5 days), but I still call it a week even though it is less than 7 days.

Is next week the last week of July or the first week of August? Answer: technically neither as it isn't a full week, but people will commonly talk about it that way.

How about if I asked you if you liked vegetables? For instance do you like tomatoes? I don't know about other langauges or other countries on this, but in the USA we speak of the tomato as a vegetable, but it isn't. Botanically it is a fruit. That doesn't mean that people who serve tomatoes as a vegetable are lying, or even wrong by our venacular standard, but who knows what someone 2000 years will think of my grandmother's vegetable soup recipe that doesn't have any vegetables in it.

So, Jesus speaking in the venacular speaks of 3 days and 3 nights and is only in the ground 2 nights, that doesn't make him wrong, because parts of 2 days and all of the 1 day and 2 nights between those two partial daytime periods is (to his way of speaking) one of the things one can mean by saying 3 days and 3 nights. But I agree, it just makes it sound wrong to our ears.

 

[Grace Seeker]

Gospel of Barnabas 10

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

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

The above quote actually comes from the "Are Muslims obligated to read the Bible?" thread.

And though I know we wish to avoid redundancy, I hope it makes sense that I might post similar comment here that I did there.


I think this really helps answer my question: "When was the Bible corrupted?" If Muslims believe that such a book actually at one time existed (whether the Gospel of Barnabas is authentic or not doesn't change the reality of Muslims holding such a belief), then anything that purports to testify to the same matter as would have been in that book, but does not do so accurately would be a corruption of the message of that book.[/QUOTE]

I would like to show some of the reasons that I don't view the Bible to be corrupted, but will wait till others have tired of the present focus of the discussion.

 

[ummzayd]

I think it does if you accept this part of what I said, " 'three days and three nights' need mean no more than 'three days' or the combination of any part of three separate days."

Agreed, by our way of counting you only had 2 nights. But our way of counting doesn't count (pun intended:-[ ) for understanding this passage.

So, Jesus speaking in the venacular speaks of 3 days and 3 nights and is only in the ground 2 nights, that doesn't make him wrong, because parts of 2 days and all of the 1 day and 2 nights between those two partial daytime periods is (to his way of speaking) one of the things one can mean by saying 3 days and 3 nights. But I agree, it just makes it sound wrong to our ears.

I really sorry but I don't think an impartial referee would let you away with that. I'm afraid it has to stand as an error. If the scripture said 3 days in the heart of the earth then I would let you have it. but it says 3 days and 3 nights and despite your persuasive talk of vegetables and 5-day-weeks Friday pm to Sunday am can never be 3 days and 3 nights. although Rav is hardly an impartial referee he could perhaps enlighten us as to the linguistics, although it feels like flogging a dead horse.

peace

 

[thirdwatch512]

Well, according to this link,(in arabic) this "Jewish leader" in Yemen found the "original Torah Scrolls" and they point towards mohammad LOL. Yet they only go back to 500 years.

http://www.almotamar.net/news/44511.htm
كشف كبير حاخامات يهود اليمن عن احتفاظه بكتاب للتوراة يعود إلى ما قبل 500سنة تقريبا .ويعتقد يحيى بن يعيش بن يحيى " 38 عاما " ان كتاب التوراة الذي ورثه عن أبيه كتاب صحيح لم يتعرض للتحريف كبقية كتب اليهود .

ويدلل يحيى يعيش الذي خلف الزعامة الدينية بعد والده على اليهود اليمنيين على اعتقاده بعدم تعرض التوراة التي يحتفظ بها للتحريف بالقول ان ذلك الكتاب التوراتي يحوي على بشارة النبي محمد عليه الصلاة والسلام والمطابقة لماورد في القرآن الكريم.
ويضيف كبير حاخامات اليهود بان كتاب التوراة الذي لديه كتب على الجلد والورق في الوقت ذاته بالحبر المصنوع من مادة العصف والزعفران ويتكون من 54 جزءا كل جزء مكون من إصحاح وآيات .

وفي جانب اخر يقول يحيى يعيش انه يؤمن بالرسول محمد كإيمانه بموسى وببقية أنبياء الله ورسله وأنه يصلي على النبي محمد وليس في نفسه أي اعتراض على ذلك،لكن ايمانه بما ورد في القران الكريم لايعني تحوله من اليهودية الى الاسلام حيث يقول : لاتهدي من أحببت ولكن الله يهدي من يشاء " فمتى أراد الله ذلك سيكون وان لم يرد فلن يكون.

ونقل يحي يعيش عن والده الذي توفي في احد مستشفيات العاصمة البريطانية لندن في السادس من أبريل الماضي وصيته له بالوطن والدين والعمل الصالح والصلاة والصيام وعدم الكذب وعدم الدجل على خلق الله وانه لم يترك بعده وصية مكتوبة .

وارجع سبب دفن والده في لندن وليس في اليمن إلى معتقد ديني لديهم بأن من يدفن في المكان الذي توفي فيه يكون له خير وصادفت وفاته يوم جمعة يوم عيد الفصح كما أن إكرام الميت دفنه .
ورفض يعيش نقل جثمان والده من لندن إلى ريده بمحافظة عمران شمال مسقط رأسه وقال : ذلك لايجوز في شريعتنا .

ويعالج يحيى يعيش الذي يعرف لدى أبناء الطائفة اليهودية بـ" العيلوم " حالات المس والقرين والجنون والأسحار والربط بالتوراة والقرآن والانجيل .
ويؤكد أنه لايعالج أية أمراض أخرى تخضع للمختبرات والفحص بالأشعة ويقول انه يعالج الناس حسب حالة المريض ومقدرته ولايشترط عليهم دفع مبالغ بعينها .
*26سبتمبرنت
Google translation -
A large Jewish rabbis Yemen reserving the biblical Book of goes back to what nearly 500 years ago. It is believed Ben Yahia Ben Yahia live "38 years" that book by the heirs of the Torah from his father's book has not been true perverting the other books of the Jews. He argues Yahya who live behind the religious leadership after his father Yemeni Jews on the belief that the Torah was kept for distortion to say that this book contains the Torah Bishara Prophet Muhammad, peace and reconciliation for the contents of the Koran. He adds a large Jewish rabbis that the Torah book, which has books on the skin and paper at the same time, ink tiles article disrespected, saffron, consists of 54 part, each part consisting of sanitation and mandates. On the other hand, says he believes Yahya live Prophet Muhammad Kaymanh Moses and the rest of the prophets and messengers of God and pray to the Prophet Mohammed and is not in itself any objection to that, but his faith contained in the Koran does not mean the abandonment of Judaism to Islam says : for Attahdi from loved, but God guides whom "If Allah wants it will be contained and will not be. transfer Yahya live from his father, who died in a hospital in the British capital of London on the 6th of last April and his religion and his nation, and good works, prayer and fasting, not lying, not the hypocrisy God created and that has left several dead and writing. He attributed the reason for the burial of his father in London and not in Yemen to the religious belief that they have buried in the place where it died be best met his death on Friday and Easter also Akram Dead burial. He refused to live transport the body his father, from London to Redah Amran Governorate north of his birthplace and said : That may not be the tolerant. Yahya live and addresses known to the sons of the Jewish community to "Alailom" cases of offending spouse and insanity and Bewitchments linking the Torah and the Koran and the Bible. He confirms that the address of any other diseases subject to the laboratory and radiological examination and says it addresses people as the patient's condition and its ability to pay Eichtert specific .

I do not fall for it though, because 1. 500 years ago is much later then the time of mohammad. It could easily be a forgery.
2. If it was real, people would not hide it. They would have revealed it a long time ago, because their love for G-d is that great and they would not lie about those types of things.
3. If it was an authentic Torah, then there would be no need for quran, since the original book is preserved and in its original, uncorrupted form.