Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
adiBOOM

Quran Question

Recommended Posts

"20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation 21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."  2 Peter 1:20-21

 

"16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." 2 Timoty 3:16-17

"8 The grass withers, the flower fades,

      But the word of our God stands forever.”  Isaiah 40:8

 

"35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away." Matthew 24:35

 

Ok so why do some Christians regard the book of Luke and Mark but others don't? Isn't what you said above contraditory then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
Which Christians disregard Luke and Mark? I know of none.

 

adiBOOM,

 

Do you know that there are two books of Mark? One is the shorter one the other is the longer one. The shorter one does not contain everything the long one contains. I would say this is an example of inconsistency in the Word of God. Wouldn't you?

 

Do you need examples from Luke as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

Now to begin, what does textual authentication mean anyway?

 

Before we examine the teachings of any alleged Prophet in history, we must be able to first make sure that the quotes that have reached us from them have been accurately transmitted to us, that his actual words have reached us.

 

Otherwise, we will unwittingly end up believing in something he never taught or said, but rather, was simply placed in his mouth by biographers. This dangerous trap would forever damn us into rejecting what he actually taught should it ever be known to us, because we would stubbornly cling to what we presumed he had said.

 

So textual authentication means ascertaining the reliability of the transmission of information.

 

How do we do that?

 

It is technically very complicated, but conceptually very simple. To prove that a text is pristine, we need to be able to show:

 

1. That it has been transmitted from the mouth of the source directly through people all the way to this day in a continuous fashion, without any broken links.

 

2. That these people are demonstratably upright to the highest calibre, never known to have lied, sinned publicly, or bore silent witness to corruption etc. through reliable biographies of them.

 

3. That the text is mass-transmitted through so many of such upright transmitters, and of various backgrounds and locations, that their ability to conspire is rationally impossible.

 

If ANY of the above parts are missing, it because impossible to prove that a text has been handled pristinely.

 

The burden of proof

 

As we know, the burden of proof rests on the claimant, insisting that a text informing us about God and His Messengers, has not been mishandled. It is not a presumption we concede to anyone.

 

God in the Qur'an informs us that while the Torah and the Gospel were revealed by Him to Moses and Jesus (pbut) respectively, these teachings were not properly recorded nor transmitted, those concerning Jesus (pbuh) being more severely distorted.

 

Thus according to the 3 main criteria for proving textual authentication, we find historians unable to prove that the teachings of Moses and Jesus (pbut) were demonstratably recorded perfectly. That is not to say that every single recorded quote is a fabrication, but rather, that falsehood has been mixed with Truth in the same way as a drop of urine corrupts a glass of water: we can no longer trust the entire text as a 100% accurate account about God nor can we remove a specific part of it by deeming that particular part false.

 

Contrarily, by God's grace the word of God in the Qur'an and those of the Prophet (pbuh) have been preserved as can be demonstrated very clearly using the above 3 criteria for textual authentication. The second link I pasted above gives such a proof.

Edited by Syriankid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the main problem here?

 

We'll briefly compare the Qur'an and Bible as texts. The differences between them as revealed texts will shed some light on why there are more difficulties proving textual authenticity with one over the other.

 

The Qur'an is a text which was uttered and recorded and recited completely during the life of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) as a unit. His companions learned it as a unit. Muslims since that first generation have learned it as a unit. It is word for word, a dictation from God to His Prophet, without permissible alteration.

 

On the other hand, Jesus (pbuh) never wrote the New Testament nor did he ever see a book called the NT nor were his teachings recorded by his companions in a book called the NT.

 

The NT was written years after he ascended to Heaven, years after he could ascertain what was said in his name. The NT contains many books written by various authors who wrote biographies of Jesus (pbuh).

 

So to answer your question, falsehood was recorded about Jesus (pbuh) and placed in his mouth from the very outset, contained in some of the initial biographies written about him which would later be selected to be part of the NT.

 

The early church fathers didn't choose the four gospels of today's NT because they were distinguished revelations from God, like the Torah revealed to Moses (pbuh) for example, they chose these gospels over the HUNDREDS of other Jesus biographies that existed and could have possibly been in the NT because they were the earliest they could find. So the NT itself is a compilation of the biographies that men, years after the ascension of Jesus (pbuh), decided accurately represented what Jesus taught.

 

They assumed earliest meant most Truthful, when in fact parts of the NT were written by some men who didn't even see or speak with Jesus, and NT scholars aren't even sure who all the authors of the NT are. Not only that, the NT wasn't preserved in writing or in memory to this day in a continuous fashion. For example, Muslims believe in Jesus' (pbuh) apostles, but there is zero evidence that the NT was written by the men Jesus (pbuh) considered Apostles nor transmitted by them to other upright men. There is a complete question mark on the biographies of every single person who ever copied or authored the books of the NT.

 

The Bible does contain portions of the word of God, the true revelations that God sent to Jesus (pbuh) and Moses (pbuh), but they are not in tact nor fully distinguishable from added conjecture. However, we know that the revelations were true and from God. They confirm God, His Prophets, Heaven and Hell, and manifest themselves in how righteous Jews and Christians live their lives.

 

Obviously such a topic is too brief to handle in a single thread, which is why I highly recommend any sincere person to read the books I've recommended in the begining.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

Why do Muslims no longer use the "Torah" and "Bible"?

 

Because of a lack of textual authentication of both the Old and New Testaments (= the inability to trace them back to Moses or Jesus (pbuh) in continuous and perfect transmission), Muslims only acknowledge those parts of the texts which confirm what the Qur'an says, and nothing more.

 

The people of the Book (Jews) used to recite the Torah in Hebrew and they used to explain it in Arabic to the Muslims. On that, the Messenger of God said: 'Do not believe the people of the Book or disbelieve them, but say: "We believe in God and what is revealed to us" (Qur'an 2:136)'.

 

In short,

 

Muslims use the Qur'an because it is the Final Testament, revealed by God to the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), the last of the Messengers in the line of Prophets that began with Adam (pbuh).

 

While Muslims know that Prophets such as Moses and Jesus (pbut) received revelations from God, they do not directly quote the current texts because Muslims say things about God and the Prophets only when they can be proven to have been spoken by Prophets in an unbroken chain of narration.

 

If there is any chance that forgery or doctrinal corruption has occurred, Muslims do not even quote an alleged saying of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) or his companions let alone Prophets Moses or Jesus (pbut). This is because God has forbidden that people allege things about Him or His Prophets without knowledge or complete proof. This guards against the innovations that have led previous religions astray in the past.

 

So because God has revealed in the Qur'an that the revelations of Moses and Jesus (pbuh) have not been perfectly preserved, and because God clearly outlines examples of some serous doctrinal corruptions that have occurred, and because we find in historical reality that the same rigours of textual preservation that maintained the Qur'anic revelation were not used for the revelations of Moses and Jesus, Muslims abstain from directly using either text except in what the Qur'an already confirms to be true in them.

 

Moses and Jesus (pbut) are Prophets of Islam, and it is imperative (a pillar of faith) that Muslims believe in their Prophecy and in the books that God revealed to them, despite the fact that these texts were not handled with the utmost care by men that followed them.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree... the burden of proof is on the claimant. Innocent until proven guilty. You are claiming that it is corrupted. Prove it.

 

When? Where? How?

 

For your conscience' sake...

 

1. Scholars agree that The New Testament was written by Jewish male eye-witnesses circa 50AD-100AD. Jesus' apostles who lived with Him during His three-year ministry. A disciples job is to learn from his Master. Disciples were boasted to have memorized their Masters every single word. Also Jesus promised that He Himself would remind them of all that had happened. Doesnt get any better than multiple eye-witnesses.

 

2. Where they trust-worthy? The New Testament shows that they were morally upright in every regard. They were honest to the point where they even admitted their faults when not admitting them would have made them look better. People die for their beliefs if they truly believe them, just look at Muslim suicide bombers.

But who dies for something they KNOW to be a lie? Would those suicide bombers be willing to die if they KNEW for a fact that Muhammad was a false prophet? NO!!!

Well the apostles and other early Christians knew for a fact whether Jesus had really risen or not. They saw Him risen, and were willing to suffer horrible torture for it! Some were crucified, fed to lions, beheaded, burnt alive etc. They died these horrible deaths willingly while singing praises to the living God.

 

3. Over 24,000 manuscripts going back to the early 2nd century from all over the world prove that it hasnt been corrupted. The manuscripts found from different regions all agree with 99.5% accuracy. Remember, some of these were churches which interpreted certain details differently(do we baptize kids? etc). They each believed they were right. They would have jumped all over other churches had they found them with altered text. But it didnt happen. They all had the same Bibles.

 

As far as Khamosh's question regarding the ending of Mark. The verses in question are the last 10 verses. Two manuscripts out of thousands were found to not have them. They had lost the ending to the last chapter. All other manuscripts from around the world were found to have them. This actually goes to prove the authenticity of the Bible. We have enough manuscripts from around the world that had any discrepancies surfaced, even small ones, we would discover them. We notice discrepancies if they surface! Thats how in-depth and intricate textual criticism is. With that said, textual criticism proves 99.5% accuracy.

 

With that said, Khamosh, how do you feel about the remaining entirety of the whole book of Mark when we know that it is verse by verse exactly as was written by the original authors?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How Paul corrupted Christianity

 

(www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=18725"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.gawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=18725[/url]

Edited by Mansoor Ansari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heres something to consider.

 

The Jewish Scritpures prophecied a Messiah. Jesus was that Messiah. Everything in Jesus' life was prophecied hundreds of years before Him.

His nature was prophecied, His birth, His miracles, His mission, His message, His death, His resurrection... Everything. His apostles were instructed by Him, the promised Messiah, to declare Him to the world. They did.

 

600 years later an ''angel'' reveals to Muhammad something contradictory to the Messiah's message.

 

You guys are choosing to believe some ''angel'' rather than the promised Messiah foretold in Scripture.

 

You are making bogus claims that are undeniably erroneous. Ha! You claim that Jesus never died when that was the Messiahs whole mission. His death was recorded 800 years before He even stepped a foot on earth! Jesus' death and resurrection are the most well attested facts about Him. His death is the whole point. His resurrection is the reason there is a Christian faith. The only reason Christianity started WAS BECAUSE OF HIS DEATH AND RESURRECTION.

 

You believe Muhammad who ''claimed'' to be a prophet of God but ignore Mark, John, Peter, Paul who also claim to be God's messengers. God verified their ministries through the Holy Spirit, prophecy, healings etc. Paul who was a persecutor of Christians and was more against them than even Muslims are, BECAME a Christian after encountering the risen Christ. He couldnt deny God. This same persecutor and hater of Christians is the one quoted in Scripture as saying, "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain."

 

If you really rely on supposed angels for revelation then why dont you become Mormons? Their 'prophet' also received a revelation from an ''angel.'' You have to test the spirits man! You cant just believe demons disguised in light! The way you test the spirits is by putting them up against known revelation from God. The Word of God, the Bible, is what you use to see if its a message from God. Does the ''angel's'' revelation go against the Word of God or not? Jesus prophecied about false prophets, demons disguised as messengers of God, and false christs all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as Khamosh's question regarding the ending of Mark. The verses in question are the last 10 verses. Two manuscripts out of thousands were found to not have them. They had lost the ending to the last chapter. All other manuscripts from around the world were found to have them.

 

This is what is written in the online copy of Mark.

 

((The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.))

 

((One Old Ending to Mark's Gospel: Verses 9-20 are not in some manuscripts. ))

 

((Another Old Ending to Mark's Gospel: Some manuscripts and early translations have both this shorter ending and the longer one (verses 9-20). ))

 

If these were lost in two manuscripts, why is it necessary to mention that they don't exist in the most reliable early manuscripts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some people disagree as to whether those are the most reliable. Nevertheless, the fact that a statement such as that one would be included in the Bible shows the honesty of textual criticism. The records are there. You can look at them. If you believe them when they tell you up front about something like that, why dont you believe them when they tell you that EVERYTHING ELSE, over 99% of the New Testament IS reliable?

 

Wheres the disclaimer in Matthew, Luke, John, Romans ??? There is none!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree... the burden of proof is on the claimant. Innocent until proven guilty. You are claiming that it is corrupted. Prove it.

 

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu,

 

Wrong, YOU'RE claiming it is the words and teachings of Jesus (pbuh) so the burden is on YOU to provide proof that the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) have been perfectly preserved since he uttered them and reached us through an unbroken chain of transmitters to this day. That's called isnad, without it you're just believing in lies placed in the mouth of people.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some people disagree as to whether those are the most reliable. Nevertheless, the fact that a statement such as that one would be included in the Bible shows the honesty of textual criticism. The records are there. You can look at them. If you believe them when they tell you up front about something like that, why dont you believe them when they tell you that EVERYTHING ELSE, over 99% of the New Testament IS reliable?

 

Wheres the disclaimer in Matthew, Luke, John, Romans ??? There is none!!

 

adiBOOM,

 

Please make up your mind about this. The bible itself is saying the most reliable manuscripts and you are saying some people disagree. Yes this fact should show you that (regardless of who is admitting to faults in the bible) the Bible is not preserved as you say it is. Just one book that you believe in has missing verses and you continue to write 99% statistics. I do not need to believe the Bible on anything. It is your book, you believe what you choose to believe from it. That just shows that you filter what you like from it and filter out what you don't like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu,

 

Wrong, YOU'RE claiming it is the words and teachings of Jesus (pbuh) so the burden is on YOU to provide proof that the teachings of Jesus (pbuh) have been perfectly preserved since he uttered them and reached us through an unbroken chain of transmitters to this day.  That's called isnad, without it you're just believing in lies placed in the mouth of people.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

WRONG. Who am I? Who cares what I claim? Im just a nobody.

 

God Himself says the Scriptures are His Word.

 

You're saying it isnt. Prove it.

 

O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE SPOKEN! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?

 

"Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me." Isaiah 48:16 (written 700+ years before Christ)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adiBOOM

 

Here's one more disclaimer for your satisfaction:)

 

((The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.))

 

((John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts))

 

I think this should be enough for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All of them.                                                                                                            .

 

Good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
WRONG. Who am I? Who cares what I claim? Im just a nobody.

 

God Himself says the Scriptures are His Word.

 

You're saying it isnt. Prove it.

 

O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE SPOKEN! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?

 

"Come near to Me, hear this: I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, I was there. And now the Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me." Isaiah 48:16  (written 700+ years before Christ)

 

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

A book claiming to be true and "preserved" doesn't make that so.

 

Anyone who claims to have the Word of God, or even the words of a Prophet, must be able to provide two pieces of evidence.

 

1. Proof that God revealed that text.

 

2. Proof that it has been preserved to this day through a reliable chain of narrators from the mouth of the Prophet through upright transmitters.

 

Burden of proof is on the CLAIMANT. I can tell you right now that Bible scholars can't even figure out who contributed to each book of the NT, why books were chosen over others in the council of Nicaea, and how information was transmitted from Jesus (pbuh) to the original authors if at all. That's a big hole.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10% of the words in the New Testament are the words of Christ but 100% of the Bible is the word of God.

 

As-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

 

Actually, ZERO PERCENT of any book are the words of anyone until you are able to produce reason to believe otherwise.

 

When someone claims a book is the word of God or Jesus, the burden of proof is on THEM to show why. They can only do that in two ways.

 

1. Show why the text is miraculous and can only have been revealed by God.

 

2. Show that it has been preserved, word for word, as an entire bundle, since the day it was spoken by a Prophet, by producing its continuous chain of transmission of upright narrators at every step in history.

 

Otherwise, people should have no reason to honor every other contradictory claim about revelation or about what a historical figure said.

 

You are simply ASSUMING #1 and #2, which means your entire belief system is based on blind faith in men transmitting someone else's teachings to you.

 

W'as-Salaamu aleikum wa rahmat Allah wa barakatahu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

adiBoom I think you are mistaken , most of the bible is compiled by historians and no by god or the prophets .

 

Like many verses you will read example only " and the lord said utno moses and moses said unto the lord " .

 

So this is not moses nor the lord talking but the story narrator .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're telling God the conditions on how you will believe Him.

 

If you dont believe all that the prophets spoke...then how can you believe Jesus?

 

The whole Old Testament speaks of Jesus. All the prophets pointed to Him. If you dont believe Gods words thru them, how can you believe Jesus?

 

You are limiting God. You are calling Him a liar. Thru all the prophets God said that His Word will not pass away. But you dont believe Him. He sent you prophet, after prophet, after prophet. But you dont believe them. They each told you about the coming Messiah. About His mission. About His identity. But you wont believe them. how then can you believe the culmination of Gods revelation?

 

You believe that Moses was a prophet? Why dont you believe the Torah? You believe that David was a prophet? Why dont you believe the Psalms? You believe that Isaiah was a prophet? Why dont you believe him then?

 

All the prophets said one thing in unison. But you dont believe them.

 

One single man said something contradictory to all the prophets, and him you believe.

 

"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE SPOKEN! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're telling God the conditions on how you will believe Him.

 

If you dont believe all that the prophets spoke...then how can you believe Jesus?

 

The whole Old Testament speaks of Jesus. All the prophets pointed to Him. If you dont believe Gods words thru them, how can you believe Jesus?e the culmination of Gods revelation?

 

You believe that Moses was a prophet? Why dont you believe the Torah? You believe that David was a prophet? Why dont you believe the Psalms? You believe that Isaiah was a prophet? Why dont you believe him then?

 

All the prophets said one thing in unison. But you dont believe them.

 

One single man said something contradictory to all the prophets, and him you believe.

 

"O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in ALL THAT THE PROPHETS HAVE SPOKEN! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?"

 

ok let me ask you clearly..what did the prophets call to...

what did Adam call to ?

What did Noah call to ?

What did Abraham call to ?

What did Joseph call to ?

What did All the prophets call to :?

 

To worship God Alone and none but him and to shun man made idols and gods and ...this is the message of Islam...this is what all the prophets spoke with out doubt.....

 

We believe in All of the prophets and their message and their revalation ..ie to worship God alone and not associate the creation with him or make the creation equal to him in any of his attributes...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×