N
Neithan
Guest
As far as I know, Moslems believe that Mohammed–who was illiterate–had a revelation from the Archangel Gabriel (Jibreel) who dictated to him the Quran, who in turn dictated it to a scribe. Correct?
Here is a passage from the New Testament, taken from the letter written by St. Paul to the Galatian Christians around A.D. 50, about 600 years before the advent of the Quran. Paul was reproaching them for believing false doctrines from pagan religions and even Judaism:
This is Christian Holy Scripture, believed to be divinely revealed directly from the influence of God into the mind of the Apostle and inspiring him to write. Christians believe it to be the inerrant Word of God as much as Moslems do the Quran. Given the fact that Islam is based on angelic revelation of the Quran, this makes it impossible for any orthodox Christian to accept it, even if we accept that it is the Archangel Gabriel himself who dictated the words to Mohammed!
Now, Moslems can easily say, “the Bible is corrupted, it is no longer the Word of God. This is an error of Paul\later addition\copy error [etc.] and nothing more. The Quran is the true, authentic, corrected Word of Allah.”
Sure, you can say that, although isn’t it difficult to defend the argument that the Bible has been corrupted, when this exact same thing could just as easily be said about the Quran? How do we know the scribes didn’t misinterpret something, write something incorrect? Mohammed couldn’t read, so he could not personally verify anything. Numerous possibilites, including the standard copyist errors, or even deliberate alterations by later scribes. This all creates a “My Book is true.”
“No, *my *Book is true” endless tug-of-war.
It also creates all kinds of problems such as: if the Bible is corrupted, who’s to say that the Archangel Gabriel is not actually a demon of Hell, since we can’t trust anything recorded about him in the Bible? This would make his ‘revelation’ somewhat suspect (I’m playing Devil’s Advocate a little here). Who’s to say the Archangel Gabriel even exists?
If we admit that at least what is written about the angels in the Bible is something true then Paul’s statement above makes it especially difficult to reconcile with the basis of Mohammed’s authority: an angel from Heaven. Since one Word of God says not to believe the revelations of angels where they differ from the Gospel of the Apostles and another is based on this very revelation… we run into a confusing conundrum. Is it not agreed among us that God does not contradict Himself and He does not deceive?
Again if a Moslem argues that the Gospels are not to be trusted, he undermines in the same way the authenticity of the Quran. If he says that only some things, such as what is written about angels is trustworthy, he falls under Paul’s condemnation. It’s a vicious cycle.
Basically my point is that a Christian could technically believe that BOTH the Quran and the Bible are wholly revealed books! One from an Angel, the other from the Holy Spirit, respectively, and yet still not be compelled–in fact explicitly admonished *not *to–accept the teachings of Islam. A Moslem, however, must believe that the Bible is a corrupted book, but this casts the same problematic doubts on his own holy book.
I just thought I’d point out the difficulty here (as I see it) and invite comment\criticism\correction
Here is a passage from the New Testament, taken from the letter written by St. Paul to the Galatian Christians around A.D. 50, about 600 years before the advent of the Quran. Paul was reproaching them for believing false doctrines from pagan religions and even Judaism:
Galatians 1:6-9 said:
This is Christian Holy Scripture, believed to be divinely revealed directly from the influence of God into the mind of the Apostle and inspiring him to write. Christians believe it to be the inerrant Word of God as much as Moslems do the Quran. Given the fact that Islam is based on angelic revelation of the Quran, this makes it impossible for any orthodox Christian to accept it, even if we accept that it is the Archangel Gabriel himself who dictated the words to Mohammed!
Now, Moslems can easily say, “the Bible is corrupted, it is no longer the Word of God. This is an error of Paul\later addition\copy error [etc.] and nothing more. The Quran is the true, authentic, corrected Word of Allah.”
Sure, you can say that, although isn’t it difficult to defend the argument that the Bible has been corrupted, when this exact same thing could just as easily be said about the Quran? How do we know the scribes didn’t misinterpret something, write something incorrect? Mohammed couldn’t read, so he could not personally verify anything. Numerous possibilites, including the standard copyist errors, or even deliberate alterations by later scribes. This all creates a “My Book is true.”
“No, *my *Book is true” endless tug-of-war.
It also creates all kinds of problems such as: if the Bible is corrupted, who’s to say that the Archangel Gabriel is not actually a demon of Hell, since we can’t trust anything recorded about him in the Bible? This would make his ‘revelation’ somewhat suspect (I’m playing Devil’s Advocate a little here). Who’s to say the Archangel Gabriel even exists?
If we admit that at least what is written about the angels in the Bible is something true then Paul’s statement above makes it especially difficult to reconcile with the basis of Mohammed’s authority: an angel from Heaven. Since one Word of God says not to believe the revelations of angels where they differ from the Gospel of the Apostles and another is based on this very revelation… we run into a confusing conundrum. Is it not agreed among us that God does not contradict Himself and He does not deceive?
Again if a Moslem argues that the Gospels are not to be trusted, he undermines in the same way the authenticity of the Quran. If he says that only some things, such as what is written about angels is trustworthy, he falls under Paul’s condemnation. It’s a vicious cycle.
Basically my point is that a Christian could technically believe that BOTH the Quran and the Bible are wholly revealed books! One from an Angel, the other from the Holy Spirit, respectively, and yet still not be compelled–in fact explicitly admonished *not *to–accept the teachings of Islam. A Moslem, however, must believe that the Bible is a corrupted book, but this casts the same problematic doubts on his own holy book.
I just thought I’d point out the difficulty here (as I see it) and invite comment\criticism\correction
lol. Alright. Well I prefer to choose#1 as well. 
