32 replies to this topic

[RAHIMI]

You have a line of reciters that have faithfully preserved the Quran. We have a line of bishops that date back to the time of the apostles that have faithfully preserved the Bible. Why doubt them? What’s the difference?
God bless,

I'm sure that you are aware that as far as historians and scholars, Muslims and Non-Muslims are concerned, there was never really any argument and uncertainty with regard to the preservations of the Quran, both in recitation and writing. I can provide references and sources if you like..
Your claim above, however, is bogus. Here are some quotes from third party sources based on what the Bible scholar themselves stated, please check them:

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"

"Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"

"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"

"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"
snip to brevity..

Unknown authors, unknown places, unknown writings assigned to different authors, writing not in earlier manuscripts and added by unknown people/scribes etc etc..Where is that list of bishops that can be traced back to the authors? Would it matter given the above quotes??

[Kai Thaabit]

Salam

Luke and Mark were students of Paul. I know what edited the Pauline scriptures.

[John Paul]

I'm sure that you are aware that as far as historians and scholars, Muslims and Non-Muslims are concerned, there was never really any argument and uncertainty with regard to the preservations of the Quran, both in recitation and writing. I can provide references and sources if you like..
Your claim above, however, is bogus. Here are some quotes from third party sources based on what the Bible scholar themselves stated, please check them:

"The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew no only up the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mk that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1008)"

"As for the place where the gospel was composed, a plausible suggestion is that it was Antioch, the capital of the Roman province of Syria. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1009)"

"Although the book is anonymous, apart from the ancient heading "According to Mark" in manuscripts, it has traditionally been assigned to John Mark, in whose mother's house (at Jerusalem) Christians assembled. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Although there is no direct internal evidence of authorship, it was the unanimous testimony of the early church that this Gospel was written by John Mark. (From the NIV Bible Commentary [1], page 1488)"

"Traditionally, the gospel is said to have been written shortly before A.D. 70 in Rome, at a time of impending persecution and when destruction loomed over Jerusalem. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1064)"

"Serious doubts exists as to whether these verses belong to the Gospel of Mark. They are absent from important early manuscripts and display certain peculiarities of vocabulary, style and theological content that are unlike the rest of Mark. His Gospel probably ended at 16:8, or its original ending has been lost. (From the NIV Bible Foot Notes [1], page 1528)"

"This verse, which reads, "But if you do not forgive, neither will your heavenly Father forgive your transgressions," is omitted in the best manuscripts. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1081)"

"This passage, termed the Longer Ending to the Marcan gospel by comparison with a much briefer conclusion found in some less important manuscripts, has traditionally been accepted as a canonical part of the gospel and was defined as such by the Council of Trent. Early citations of it by the Fathers indicate that it was composed by the second century, although vocabulary and style indicate that it was written by someone other than Mark. (The New American Bible, ISBN: 978-0-529-06484-4, Page 1088)"
snip to brevity..

Unknown authors, unknown places, unknown writings assigned to different authors, writing not in earlier manuscripts and added by unknown people/scribes etc etc..Where is that list of bishops that can be traced back to the authors? Would it matter given the above quotes??

These speculations do not prove the Bible has been tampered for the purpose of deliberately changing the original message.

Many bishops were killed because they refused to give up their faith. I seriously doubt that would hold onto lies even till the point of death…

I can give you the list of popes from the present day that go back to St Peter himself.

God bless,

[RAHIMI]

These speculations do not prove the Bible has been tampered for the purpose of deliberately changing the original message.

Speculations?
-All quotes from Christianity own Bible group, are you saying there is no basis whatsoever for their statements?
-Check out RJV first edition, where 32 highest eminent Bible scholars from over 50 different denominations of Christianity unanimously agreed that certain part of the Bible was indeed corruptions/additions/alterations and purged out these verses based on clear cut evidence they hand in hand. Are those speculations too? Wow you must have known more that those scholars..
A day at your local church library is probably all you need to prove to yourself how the Bible changed over time..compare your current version to the one say from 50years ago and see for yourself, margin notes into main text, words switvhed around..etc etc.. gotta to go..

Edited by RAHIMI, 08 January 2011 - 11:59 AM.

[Younes]

You have a line of reciters that have faithfully preserved the Quran. We have a line of bishops that date back to the time of the apostles that have faithfully preserved the Bible. Why doubt them? What’s the difference?

God bless,

Hello, Augustine

That's actually a good question. What is the difference indeed? The answer is that the line of Apostolic Succession is a fabrication. In fact, I brought up this subject with another Catholic who goes by the forum name LUX IN TENEBRIS here on gawaher.

This is how the discussion went:

I said that Christians don't have an Isnad (chain of transmission).

LUX IN TENEBRIS:

"Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection."

My response:

"There exists confusion regarding the chronological order of the Popes and their actual indentities.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety.

This information is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there is one word that can summarize this Apostolic succession, it is - confusion. For any Muslim or anybody who really isn't familiar with this information, this talk is regarding the first Popes that came after Peter the Apostle who is said to have been the disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the chronological order and even identities are put into question.

I'll give an analogy from the Islamic succession of the Khilafah. It indeed would be a sad state of affairs if Muslims were not certain who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon). What would it sound like to you if people were saying that Abu Bakr was the first, others were saying Umar was actually the first and then others that Uthman was the first. And to make matters even more laughable people wouldn't even be sure regarding the identity of Uthman, some would be saying that he was actually Ali and some saying that he was Arab and others that he was actually Persian. And to top it off, people would have varying lists with some having Umar first followed by Abu Bakr and others with Uthman followed by Umar. Obviously this analogy is not really all that great because everybody unanimously agrees that Abu Bakr was the Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him), followed by Umar, followed by Uthman, followed by Ali and their biographies are well known(may God be pleased with them all), but it does show how obviously ridiculous it is when the order of Popes and their identities are disputed . And Lux, don't try to pull out the Shia card and say that there is confusion since their error deals with theology and who ought to have been Caliph, not with actual history.

So you see, this is why I really don't give Apostolic Succession much credit because obviously there exists a great amount of confusion."

Moreover, I brought up this topic several times in my discussions with him and he didn't even respond once to the criticism that was raised regarding Apostolic Succession, although he was otherwise very keen on responding to other criticism regarding Christianity, i.e. the tranmission of the Gospels and the crufixion narrative among others.

[John Paul]

Bible scholars from over 50 different denominations of Christianity unanimously agreed that certain part of the Bible was indeed corruptions/additions/alterations and purged out these verses based on clear cut evidence they hand in hand.

lol - That's why I'm not a Protestant because they can't agree with each other

God bless,

[John Paul]

Hello, Augustine

That's actually a good question. What is the difference indeed? The answer is that the line of Apostolic Succession is a fabrication. In fact, I brought up this subject with another Catholic who goes by the forum name LUX IN TENEBRIS here on gawaher.

This is how the discussion went:

I said that Christians don't have an Isnad (chain of transmission).

LUX IN TENEBRIS:

"Now Christians do have a detailed isnad, but not of what you would expect. We have a detailed isnad for Apostolic succession, i.e. the Bishops that succeeded the Apostles. This isnad was used to combat early gnostic heresies, which claimed a secret knowledge from the apostles. The importance is that it does show a connnection to the past. Christ promised He would be with His church till the end of time, and that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect her, so we know the Church that is built on the Apostles is free from error, and this is by Divine protection."

My response:

"There exists confusion regarding the chronological order of the Popes and their actual indentities.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority.

The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

According to Tertullian, writing c. 199, the Roman Church claimed that Clement was ordained by St. Peter (De Praescript., xxxii), and St. Jerome tells us that in his time "most of the Latins" held that Clement was the immediate successor of the Apostle (Illustrious Men 15). St. Jerome himself in several other places follows this opinion, but here he correctly states that Clement was the fourth pope. The early evidence shows great variety.

This information is from the Catholic Encyclopedia. If there is one word that can summarize this Apostolic succession, it is - confusion. For any Muslim or anybody who really isn't familiar with this information, this talk is regarding the first Popes that came after Peter the Apostle who is said to have been the disciple of Jesus (peace be upon him). It is indeed a sad state of affairs when the chronological order and even identities are put into question.

I'll give an analogy from the Islamic succession of the Khilafah. It indeed would be a sad state of affairs if Muslims were not certain who succeeded the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon). What would it sound like to you if people were saying that Abu Bakr was the first, others were saying Umar was actually the first and then others that Uthman was the first. And to make matters even more laughable people wouldn't even be sure regarding the identity of Uthman, some would be saying that he was actually Ali and some saying that he was Arab and others that he was actually Persian. And to top it off, people would have varying lists with some having Umar first followed by Abu Bakr and others with Uthman followed by Umar. Obviously this analogy is not really all that great because everybody unanimously agrees that Abu Bakr was the Caliph after the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of God be upon him), followed by Umar, followed by Uthman, followed by Ali and their biographies are well known(may God be pleased with them all), but it does show how obviously ridiculous it is when the order of Popes and their identities are disputed . And Lux, don't try to pull out the Shia card and say that there is confusion since their error deals with theology and who ought to have been Caliph, not with actual history.

So you see, this is why I really don't give Apostolic Succession much credit because obviously there exists a great amount of confusion."

Moreover, I brought up this topic several times in my discussions with him and he didn't even respond once to the criticism that was raised regarding Apostolic Succession, although he was otherwise very keen on responding to other criticism regarding Christianity, i.e. the tranmission of the Gospels and the crufixion narrative among others.

Unfortunately, many records and documents were burnt during the early persecutions of the Christians. Others simply have deteriorated over time which leaves us with fragments of information to address your concern.

Although the chronological line may not be clear, we do have a brief biography of each pope. This subject is of little importance to us because we do not base our faith solely on this point. We also have sacred tradition (writings of the early church fathers) which gives further testimony to the Bible’s authenticity. Many popes and bishops have given testimony through their martyrdom some have even preformed miracles all in the name of Jesus Christ.

I understand this may not a satisfying answer for you but actions speak louder than words or documents for that matter.

God bless,

[tanker]

If the Qu'ran is the speech of Allah, that must mean that Arabic is perfect? But it cannot be perfect as its a human construct and in any case also borrows words from other imperfect languages so it cannot be the speech of Allah?

[Redeem]

If the Qu'ran is the speech of Allah, that must mean that Arabic is perfect? But it cannot be perfect as its a human construct and in any case also borrows words from other imperfect languages so it cannot be the speech of Allah?

You're forgetting that Allah is our Creator and has given us the capacity to create a language fitting for His revelation. Just because man is imperfect doesn't mean that language is insufficient.

Salam.

[Rand00]

Who Wrote the Holy Qur'an?

By Method of Elimination

Qur'an, in Arabic, could only have been written by ONE of 3 possible sources:
1 The Arabs

2 Mohammad (Peace Be Upon Him)

3 Allah (GOD)
Besides the above mentioned sources, Qur'an couldn't possibly have been written by ANYONE else. No other source is possible, because Qur'an is written in pure, rich, and poetic Arabic, which was not known to anyone other than the above mentioned sources, at that time. The Arabic language was at its peak in expression, richness, vocabulary, artistic, and poetic value during the time the Qur'an was being revealed. Anyone speaking the classical Arabic ( the Arabic of Qur'an at the time it was revealed) would argue that a non-Arab entity couldn't possibly have written such an extensive and brilliant piece ...

Your logic is inescapable. I feel as if I am in an airtight box. I have to find an Islamic center right now to convert!

NOT!

Rand00

[Rand00]

You're forgetting that Allah is our Creator and has given us the capacity to create a language fitting for His revelation. Just because man is imperfect doesn't mean that language is insufficient.

Salam.

Unless you can prove that Allah is your creator WITH EVIDENCE you must accept that Arabic was created by men and therefore flawed.

Rand00

P.S. The Quran is not evidence.

[Sayang]

I have read that seven Qurans were collected and Umar chose the one he wanted and had the variants destroyed.

[Redeem]

I have read that seven Qurans were collected and Umar chose the one he wanted and had the variants destroyed.

The Qur'an was revealed by prophet Muhammad in 7 ahruf, which matched the dialects of the people. The first dialect of the Qur'an was the Quraysh. Then it was revealed in the other 6 ahruf (Hudhayl, Thaqîf, Hawâzin, Kinânah, Tamîm and Yemen) to make it easier for people with different dialects to memorize the Qur'an, and also as a challenge to people to produce a book like the Qur'an even in their own dialects. It wasn't Umar Bin Khattab who selected one out of the seven. It was Uthman Bin Affan. And he didn't choose the one he "wanted". He chose the first dialect of the Qur'an.

What happened is this:

The Qur'an continued to be read according to the seven ahruf until midway through Caliph 'Uthman's rule when some confusion arose in the outlying provinces concerning the Qur'an's recitation. Some Arab tribes had began to boast about the superiority of their ahruf and a rivalry began to develop. At the same time, some new Muslims also began mixing the various forms of recitation out of ignorance. Caliph 'Uthman decided to make official copies of the Qur'an according to the dialect of the Quraysh and send them along with the Qur'anic reciters to the major centres of Islam. This decision was approved by the companions and all unofficial copies of the Qur'an were destroyed. Following the distribution of the official copies, all the other ahruf were dropped and the Qur'an began to be read in only one harf. Thus, the Qur'an which is available through out the world today is written and recited only according to the harf of Quraysh.

For more information about the subject, please read:

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=735991&st=0"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=735991&st=0[/url]

Salam.