Bible corruption/islamic point of view

  • Thread starter Thread starter inJESUS
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
inJESUS:
thank you for your last post…got something to add to this thread before we continue the other point? thx 🙂
You are asking me question but don’t want me answer? Amazing.

Keep in mind that always there will be some side issues in any debate which are unavoidable and you or your opponent sometimes will feel to address them even after knowing they are off topic.

But not all side issues are in fact off topic. They may appear off on the face but some may inherently/intrisincally/indirectly related to the topic of the debate and people will realise when they are cleared up.

God bless you.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
You are asking me question but don’t want me answer? Amazing.

Keep in mind that always there will be some side issues in any debate which are unavoidable and you or your opponent sometimes will feel to address them even after knowing they are off topic.

But not all side issues are in fact off topic. They may appear off on the face but some may inherently/intrisincally/indirectly related to the topic of the debate and people will realise when they are cleared up.

God bless you.
yes correct but these do not pertain to our original question…in most cases the original question will be lost and the moderator will close the thread…after finishing our discussion over the matter, we can agree to digress and make it a miscellanious thread…but it is very crucial to start a point and finish it when possible in order not to ask the same questions again…

regarding your question, i was talking about fiqh…that is doctrines taken from Bible or Quran and i was saying that in islam as well there is need to fiqh coz not all doctrines are clear otherwise there wouldnt have been different schools…am not saying it is wrong…am saying it is normal…

See you tomorrow God willing.
 
Dear inJESUS,

You are keep asking me about the differences in the variant readings of Arabic.

Do you read Arabic Newspapers? Are they all printed with 'Araab (vowel signs/diacritical marks)?

Do you write/use all the time or atleast your exam papers (which are ofcourse very important) in Arabic with 'Araab (vowel signs/diacritical marks) in order to convey exactly what you mean to the examiner, otherwise the examiner may not mean what you actually meant?

.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Dear inJESUS,

You are keep asking me about the differences in the variant readings of Arabic.

Do you read Arabic Newspapers? Are they all printed with 'Araab (vowel signs/diacritical marks)?

Do you write/use all the time or atleast your exam papers (which are ofcourse very important) in Arabic with 'Araab (vowel signs/diacritical marks) in order to convey exactly what you mean to the examiner, otherwise the examiner may not mean what you actually meant?

.
this is not what i meant…i meant this : ALL the quran was without marks…we are talking about millions of words…these marks were put LATER and muslim scholars agree that many verses could be read not only in 7 ways as mohammad said but dozens…how do you make sure that the scribes did absolutely no mistake? you cant since scholars themselves confess this fact…this might or might not affect a doctrine…thats not my point…my point is this : you cannot say the Biblical translations have variations ( that do not affect any doctrine) hence are corrupt when muslim scholars themselves have the same problem.

Enough for tonight sorry, see you tomorrow God willing.
 
btw, we are not talking about only marks but about vowels…the quran used the roots of a word which, when filled with vowels, can give different meanings and different grammatical classification. For example : katala, kutila,kaatala ,katalaa, kaatalaa are 5 different meanings for 1 verb. the quran used : ktl…got the point?
 
**حزقيال 4

1 وانت يا ابن آدم فخذ لنفسك لبنة وضعها امامك وارسم عليها مدينة اورشليم.

2 واجعل عليها حصار وابن عليها برجا واقم عليها مترسة واجعل عليها جيوشا واقم عليها مجانق حولها.

3 وخذ انت لنفسك صاجا من حديد وانصبه سورا من حديد بينك وبين المدينة وثبت وجهك عليها فتكون في حصار وتحاصرها. تلك آية لبيت اسرائيل

4 واتكئ انت على جنبك اليسار وضع عليه اثم بيت اسرائيل. على عدد الايام التي فيها تتكئ عليه تحمل اثمهم.

5 وانا قد جعلت لك سني اثمهم حسب عدد الايام ثلاث مئة يوم وتسعين يوما. فتحمل اثم بيت اسرائيل.

6 فاذا اتممتها فاتكئ على جنبك اليمين ايضا فتحمل اثم بيت يهوذا اربعين يوما. فقد جعلت لك كل يوم عوضا عن سنة.

7 فثبّت وجهك على حصار اورشليم وذراعك مكشوفة وتنبّا عليها.

8 وهأنذا اجعل عليك ربطا فلا تقلب من جنب الى جنب حتى تتمم ايام حصارك

9 وخذ انت لنفسك قمحا وشعيرا وفولا وعدسا ودخنا وكرسنة وضعها في وعاء واحد واصنعها لنفسك خبزا كعدد الايام التي تتكئ فيها على جنبك. ثلاث مئة يوم وتسعين يوما تاكله.

10 وطعامك الذي تأكله يكون بالوزن. كل يوم عشرين شاقلا. من وقت الى وقت تاكله.

11 وتشرب الماء بالكيل. سدس الهين. من وقت الى وقت تشربه.

12 وتأكل كعكا من الشعير. على الخرء الذي يخرج من الانسان تخبزه امام عيونهم.

13 وقال الرب. هكذا ياكل بنو اسرائيل خبزهم النجس بين الامم الذين اطردهم اليهم.

14 فقلت آه يا سيد الرب ها نفسي لم تتنجس ومن صباي الى الآن لم آكل ميتة او فريسة ولا دخل فمي لحم نجس.

15 فقال لي انظر. قد جعلت لك خثي البقر بدل خرء الانسان فتصنع خبزك عليه.

16 وقال لي يا ابن آدم هانذا اكسر قوام الخبز في اورشليم فياكلون الخبز بالوزن وبالغم ويشربون الماء بالكيل وبالحيرة

17 لكي يعوزهم الخبز والماء ويتحيروا الرجل واخوه ويفنوا باثمهم.**

Dear inJESUS,

Please read the above Arabic Text carefully esepcially the last 8 verses and tell me what is being said here by God and please translate them in your usual eloquent English so that non-Arabic Catholic/Christian/Muslim brothers too can understand what they mean.

I am sure the above text is not with any 'Araab/vowel signs-diacritical marks. 🙂 ]

.
 
you are quoting a passage used by Ahmad Deedat to say that the Bible commands you to eat ****…for Christs’ sake 🙂 stop reading that joker…i’ll reply tomorrow God willing unless someone else explains it to you meanwhile 🙂

nighty and God bless all…
 
Hey all, this passage is from Ezekiel and people like ahmad Deedat use it out of context to prove that the Bible teaches you to eat sh**… 😃 if you want to answer it here go ahead but do not digress more please …tomorrow we’ll resume our initial thread.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
If you say I want to follow all the teachings of Jesus as recorded/reported in your gospels, then my question is do you want to remain unremarried for your whole life? Do you want to die/commit suicide if someone convict you on false charges, without bothering to defend and prove your innocence? Do you not like to ask God, if there are any other alternatives to save your life from persecution/crucifixion?
Jusice2006,

Please provide the teaching that shows we must remain “unremarried” (Do you mean unmarried or not remarry or both?) Please remember that while Jesus was not married that does not mean he taught against the institution of marriage. He attended a wedding feast at and we know that Peter was married so He was obviously not against marriage.

Please provide the teaching that shows we are not to defend ourselves. Contrary to what Islam teaches, Jesus came to die for our sins so He would not have defended Himself. As far as turning the other cheek that does not mean we must allow ourselves to be abused.

Sure we can ask God to spare us, just like Jesus did, but we should accept His will, just like Jesus did. So in this case you’d agree we are following Jesus teaching perfectly?

If you are thinking superficially than I would ask why all Muslim men do have beards, ride camels and live in tents as per Mohammed’s “teachings”?
 
وتأكل كعكا من الشعير. على الخرء الذي يخرج من الانسان تخبزه امام عيونهم.

This verse 12 is from an Arabic Bible but when you read this verse in Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible, it is all follows:

12 ** And thou shalt eat it as barley bread baked under the ashes: and thou shalt cover it, in their sight, with the dung that cometh out of a man. **

Not to meantion what an another Catholic Bible (the NAB) says. Just take a look.

.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
وتأكل كعكا من الشعير. على الخرء الذي يخرج من الانسان تخبزه امام عيونهم.

This verse 12 is from an Arabic Bible but when you read this verse in Catholics’ Douay Rheims Bible, it is all follows:

12 ** And thou shalt eat it as barley bread baked ** under the ashes: and thou shalt cover it, in their sight, with the dung that cometh out of a man.

Not to meantion what an another Catholic Bible (the NAB) says. Just take a look.

.
I am more familiar with the KJV, so allow me to quote the same verse from that text:

Ezekiel 4:

12 And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it {i.e. cook it, not mix it!} with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.
In ancient times it was common practice to use dried animal dung as fuel for all kinds of purposes, and this practice is still common in Indian villages where cows are very plentiful. Cow dung is left to dry in the sun, and when dry it is used as fuel, among other purposes to heat the oven to make bread. It burns very well, and it makes excellent fuel. If you read Ezekiel 4 from verses 9 to 17, you will find that at first God commands Ezekiel to bake (cook) his bread using this type of common fuel, but unusually, made of human dung instead. Then, when the prophet complains about this, God allows him to use cow dung rather than human dung. The dung is used as fuel, not mixed with the bread! The object of the exercise is to show the Jews symbolically that because of their transgressions, they will be taken into exile by their enemies into foreign lands where they will eat “defiled bread,” meaning food that is not “clean” (i.e. Kosher) according to the Jewish dietary laws (which are similar to Islamic ones). This is done as a punishment for their transgressions. That is the idea that those verses of scripture are meant to convey.

amgid
 
ok…since we did not find so far any convincing verse about textual corruption, let us see what the Quran says about the Bible:

**And remember Jesus the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me…**61:6

And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah5:46

Quran 3:48 - 50

3:48. "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel.

3:49. "And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel (with this message): I have come to you with a sign from your Lord …

3:50. "(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.

these show that the Torah was truthful during Jesus’ time because Jesus came to “confirm”…one cannot confirm a corrupt book…so the claim that the Torah was corrupt even before Jesus is wrong. Jesus uttered no word of any corruption…and today we have the same jewish canon that existed in Jesus’ time…Hence the quran confirm that Torah in Jesus’ time was the truthful word of God.

Now let’s see if the Bible was considered corrupt at mohammad’s time:

**That which We have revealed to you of the Book is the Truth confirming what was (revealed) before it: for Allah is assuredly with respect to his servants well acquainted and fully-Observant.**35:31

**And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (then mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury); But say, "We believe in the Revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our God and your God is One…**29:46
**

This Qur’an is not such as can be produced by other than Allah; on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it and a fuller explanation of the Book wherein there is no doubt from the Lord of the Worlds**10:37

**

It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step) in truth the Book confirming what went before it; and He sent down Law (Of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this as a guide to mankind and He sent down the Criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).**3:3

**
5:46. After them we sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating what was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let those who follow the Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein. Evil doers are those who do not judge according to God’s revelations. And to you we have revealed the Book with the truth. It confirms the Scriptures which came before it and stands as a guardian over them**
**

If they observe the Torah and the Gospel and what is revealed to them from their Lord, they shall enjoy abundance from above and from beneath** 5:66

i think it is obvious that mohammad believed the Bible was not corrupt at his time coz over & over again, he “confirmed” the Bible… he did not talk of a “partial” confirmation… there is no verse saying , " i confirm only that which I agree with" .On the contrary…he confirmed its integrity & truthfulness… "If they observe the Torah and the Gospel and what is revealed to them from their Lord. “Therefore let those who follow the Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein”, are 2 verses that prove that both the Torah & Gospel that the people of the Book held were God’s word in muhammad’s point of view.

I will go on later but i have to give time for others to comment & share…
 
40.png
inJESUS:
you are quoting a passage used by Ahmad Deedat to say that the Bible commands you to eat **** …for Christs’ sake 🙂 stop reading that joker…i’ll reply tomorrow God willing unless someone else explains it to you meanwhile 🙂

nighty and God bless all…
Dear inJESUS,

By using just symbols such as " **** ", are you ashamed to use the word “dung” when God of the many versions of the Holy Bibles did not feel any shame to use it not just one-time but many times over?

Do you know how many times the word “dung” is used in the Holy Bibles, say your Catholic Douay Rheims Bible?

God bless you.
 
40.png
Justice2006:
Dear inJESUS,

By using just symbols such as " **** ", are you ashamed to use the word “dung” when God of the many versions of the Holy Bibles did not feel any shame to use it not just one-time but many times over?

Do you know how many times the word “dung” is used in the Holy Bibles, say your Catholic Douay Rheims Bible?

God bless you.
Justice, when you have nothing to say, you start babbling…no, i feel no shame …i used the *** coz i had a different word in mind, dung did not come to my mind…and i was not sure if it were appropriate to use it…
besides, it was NOT God who wrote this word but a human being in a human language with humam idioms that pertain to that time…we look for meaning, you focus on words…
 
Dear inJESUS,

But why you are deleting my post(s)? Why did you delete my post which was about Human “dung” in your Holy Bibles"?

You even deleted your own post in which you used the symbol: " ********* ", to describe the word “dung”. And then when I asked you:

Are you ashamed to use the word “dung” when the Holy Bibles’ God have used it many times?

you deleted my and your post in which you had used the symbol: " ********* ", to describe the word “dung”

Very good…

But i will ask you with all due respect again:

** Are you really ashamed to use the word “dung” when the God of Holy Bibles have used it many times?
Are you holier than the God of your Holy Bibles?

Can you read all verses of Psalms and Isaiah and Ezekiel and Genesis and plus all those verses related to human dung and cow’s dung, in the presence of your family members, to discuss and preach them the Holy words of your Holy Bibles? **

BTW, do you know, in your Catholic Bible (DRV), how many times the word “dung” is used? And what cow’s dung has to do with children of Israel?​

God bless you, dear inJESUS.

.
 
40.png
inJESUS:
I will go on later but i have to give time for others to comment & share…
Dear inJESUS,

When you failed miserably to answer questions, “you have to go” or “it is late here” or “you need to sleep” or “you will give time for others” to see how the issue of “dung” in the Holy Bibles is dealt/faced by them.

I hope by now you must have realised or seen from your very eyes how many times human and cow’s “dung” is used in the Holy Bibles

If not, do you know atleast, in your Catholic Bible (DRV), how many times the word “dung” is used? And what cow’s dung has to do with children of Israel?

God bless you.
 
Salaam inJESUS.
40.png
inJESUS:
And remember **Jesus **the son of Mary said: "O Children of Israel! I am the apostle of Allah (sent) to you confirming the Law (which came) before me…61:6
By confirming the Law which came before him, Jesus confirmed that God is not a trinity.
And in their footsteps We sent **Jesus **the son of Mary confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him: a guidance and
an admonition to those who fear Allah 5:46
Again, Jesus confirmed the Law that came before him; he then confirmed that God is not a trinity.
3:50. "(I have come to you) to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was (before) forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.
Same as above. Plus, Jesus came to the Jews to change some of the law, to make LAWFUL some of the things which were fordiden, he did not come to add restrictions on the Jews who were already heavily burdened by complicated regulations they imposed on themselves.

Since it is claimed that Jesus forbade divorce except for cause of adultery, I conclude that the Bible is corrupt because Jesus came to CONFIRM the previous Law and make LAWFUL some of the things which were forbiden. Divorce did not have the condition “save for adultery” in the Law which Jesus came to confirm.

The Qur’an confirms and supersedes the books which came before it, the Torah and the Injeel.
It confirmed what Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both) received, and not what Paul, the Apostles or the Rabbis wrote. Moses (PBUH) did not receive the WHOLE OT as it is known today, and Jesus (PBUH) did not receive the WHOLE NT as it is known today. Obviously, people wrote books and attributed them (or others attributed them in their stead) to God; this is corruption.

You said also that “MUHAMMAD believed the Bible was not corrupt at his time coz over & over again, he “confirmed” the Bible” You should have known by now that the “speaker” in the above verses is not MUHAMMAD, it is Allah (SWT) and the Bible is not the Injeel.

It should be obvious to you that the Holy Qur’an cannot confirm a teaching and then charge it as false.
The Gospel (NT) did not confirm the Torah (OT) for the teaching of trinity, or the Holy Qur’an says that Jesus came to confirm the Torah but the Torah did not teach trinity! You can’t use the holy Qur’an to make your point. Look to what the Qur’an confirmed and in which books.

Salaam.
Joseph.
 
Joseph_Alison said:
Salaam inJESUS.
Salaam Joseph 🙂
By confirming the Law which came before him, Jesus confirmed that God is not a trinity.
irrelevant…it has nothing to do with our topic of corruption. Furthermore, trinity is the nature of God, not His number.
Again, Jesus confirmed the Law that came before him; he then confirmed that God is not a trinity.
irrelevant…it has nothing to do with our topic of corruption.
Same as above. Plus, Jesus came to the Jews to change some of the law, to make LAWFUL some of the things which were fordiden, he did not come to add restrictions on the Jews who were already heavily burdened by complicated regulations they imposed on themselves
. irrelevant…it has nothing to do with our topic of corruption.
Since it is claimed that Jesus forbade divorce except for cause of adultery
, I conclude that the Bible is corrupt because Jesus came to CONFIRM the previous Law and make LAWFUL some of the things which were forbiden. Divorce did not have the condition “save for adultery” in the Law which Jesus came to confirm. irrelevant…it has nothing to do with our topic of corruption.
besised, Jesus did not He came to COMFIRM but to FULFILL…
The Qur’an confirms and supersedes
the books which came before it, the Torah and the Injeel.
It confirmed what Moses and Jesus (peace be upon them both) received, and not what Paul, the Apostles or the Rabbis wrote. Moses (PBUH) did not receive the WHOLE OT as it is known today, and Jesus (PBUH) did not receive the WHOLE NT as it is known today. Obviously, people wrote books and attributed them (or others attributed them in their stead) to God; this is corruption. baseless without proof…i can claim as well that Uthman burnt the correct quran and what you have is not the correct teachings…i’ll show later the fallacy of this reasoning.
You said also that “MUHAMMAD believed the Bible was not corrupt at his time coz over & over again, he “confirmed” the Bible” You should have known by now that the “speaker” in the above verses is not MUHAMMAD, it is Allah (SWT)
so allah confirmed the Bible at mohammads time…thx
and the Bible is not the Injeel.
later on this…but maybe you can tell me or prove to me there existed an injil?
It should be obvious to you that the Holy Qur’an cannot confirm a teaching and then charge it as false.
perfect, so the quran confirms the Bible at mohammads time but the question is: which Bible? a Bible that no one has now? why?didn’t God say He will preserve the Bible in the quran? where is that “preserved” Bible that muslims believe in?
The Gospel (NT) did not confirm the Torah (OT) for the teaching of trinity, or the Holy Qur’an says that Jesus came to confirm the Torah but the Torah did not teach trinity! You can’t use the holy Qur’an to make your point. Look to what the Qur’an confirmed and in which books.
am not interested here in what the quran teaches coz Jesus did not say this…am interested in corruption…

to conclude, you believe that quran/mohammad confirmed a Bible that disappeared from this planet or at least for the last 1406 years? so it was truthful but was corrupt only after allah confirmed it?? and Jesus confirmed a book that disappeared as well? am sure you can provide no proof…claiming is easy…as long as there is no proof, your belief relies on a truth that was not discovered for thousands of years…don’t you find it strange that nobody neither jew or Christian can show any different Bible since the second century?
Code:
       cont..
 
The “Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible”, [12] pages 529 - , states that the early church father Origen traveled to different countries and visited the various churches [during the early 200s]. It records:
Code:
        "Origen had traveled widely - to Rome, and in Greece and Asia Minor as well as in Egypt and Palestine - and had observed both the agreements and the differences among churches of different regions in their attitude toward the several New Testament writings; he was well aware that the views of his own church were not identical with those of other churches everywhere.  Without attempting to lay down a judgment of his own, he makes note of the practice of the church, classifying the books as "acknowledged" or "disputed"; besides these, there are a number which are simply "false".  Among the "acknowledged" he includes the four gospels, the Pauline letters, (fourteen, including Hebrews, even though he knows that it is not by Paul and is not accepted everywhere), Acts, 1 John, 1 Peter, and Revelation.  ... The books which he most rigorously excludes are the numerous un-canonical gospels, which he adjudges heretical; in this area he finds no disagreement among the churches.  "The church has four gospels; the heretics have many [here he gives the titles of some of them].  Four gospels only are approved, out of which he must bring forth points of teaching under the person of our Lord and Savior ....  We approve nothing else but that which the Church approves, that is, four gospels only as proper to be received".  (Hom. In Luc. 1).  And again he speaks of "the four gospels which alone are uncontroverted in the  church of God which is spread under heaven."  (Euseb. Hist. VI.xxv.4).
What Origen found during the early 200s was the canon of the New Testament was already becoming fixed. It was later that different churches formally approved their official canons. Origen found that all of them included the four gospels and Paul’s letters.

throughout the Church in the world, East and West the acknowledged canons all contained the four gospels, Acts, the four large Catholic letters, Hebrews, and the Pauline letters. This all occurred by 425 A.D. This precedes Muhammad’s work by almost 200 years. Muhammad was born in 570 and he began preaching his religion around 610 A.D.
 
now lets see what bible did mohammad have at his time:

NORTH OF MUHAMMAD

North of Muhammad lay Syria. These states were also bordered on the South by the minor Arab states of the Ghassan and Hira tribes. Bernard Lewis writes in "The Arabs in History, [17] page 32:

“The two states of Ghassan and Hira were both Christian, the former Monophysite, the latter Nestorian. Both had a tincture of Aramaic and Hellenistic culture…The Ghassanids resided in the neighborhood of the Yarmuk river and were recognized rather than appointed by Byzantium…Though a vassal of the Persians, it (the Hira state) drew its culture mainly from the West, from the Christian and Hellenistic civilization of Syria. At first pagan, it was converted to Nestorian Christianity brought by captives.”

Bell writes on pages 18, 1 “Within the bounds of the Roman Empire in Syria we may assume that in the course of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries Christianity had become fairly general, and must have extended to the more or less settled Arabs who dwelt under the protection of the Roman power. … In all these ways, from the settled land of Syria, growing ever more Christian, the knowledge of Christianity must have been continually percolation to the inhabitants of the desert.”

From Ibn Ishaq, page 79, - 81 we read that when Muhammad was a boy, he traveled with his uncle Abu Talib to Syria as part of a caravan

"… When the caravan reached Busra in Syria, there was a monk there in his cell by the name of Bahira, who was well versed in the knowledge of Christians…There he (Bahira) gained his knowledge from a book that was in the cell, so they allege, handed on from generation to generation.

From the above we see two things:
  1. Muhammad conversed with a Christian who had Christian books with him. Of course he could have learned Christian teachings from Bahira.
  2. These books though not in the Hijaz, existed, and the people of the caravans had opportunity to learn of Christianity from the Christians in Syria. They too would have disseminated their knowledge back in Mecca.
By Muhammad’s time, the Syrian church was using the Peshitta because the Diatesseron had been destroyed and removed from use.

Consequently, if Muhammad were to have encountered Scriptures from the Syrian church, he would encounter what we basically have today.

NORTHEAST OF MUHAMMAD
To the Northeast was Mesopotamia and Persia. Persia was generally not Christian, but there were Christian communities living under Persian rule. In Mesopotamia, there was a strong Christian church.
Bell writes on page 24:
“Be we can safely say that by the end of the third century there was a flourishing Church at Edessa and that Christianity had already crossed the Tigris.”

As has been already shown, the canon used by the church offshoots in Mesopotamia and Persia was equivalent to what the Syrian church used.

If Muhammad encountered the Scriptures of the Persian churches, he would encounter what we basically have today.

SOUTH OF MUHAMMAD

From “The Life of Muhammad”, pages 14 - 18 the story is told how Christianity began in Najran. Najran is about 350 miles south east of Mecca. The story describes how a Christian preached in Najran, healed the sick, and performed miracles. The whole city converted to Christianity…

“The people of Najran accepted the religion of Abdullah al Thamir according to the Gospel and the law which Isa b. Maryam brought.”

Later on, the story states that some 20,000 Najran Christians were killed by a king who wanted them to become Jews.
On pages 270, 271 of Ibn Ishaq, Christians from Najran visit Muhammad. Ibn Ishaq notes that they were affiliated with the Christians of Byzantium:

"A deputation from the Christians of Najran came to the apostle. There were sixty riders, fourteen of them from their nobles of whom three were in control of affairs…

Abu Haritha occupied a position of honor among them and was a great student, so that he had an excellent knowledge of their religion, and the Christian kings of Byzantium had honored him and paid him a subsidy and gave him servants, built churches for him and lavished honors on him, because of his knowledge and zeal for their religion."…

The relevant point here is that there was a Christian city in the Saudi peninsula south of Mecca and they were affiliated with the Byzantines. Certainly there would be cultural exchanges between the cities since Mecca was a center of commerce and religions, and many people traveled to and from there. The Byzantines were primarily Greeks. Hence, it is logical to believe that they used the Greek canon of Scripture. That means they were using what we basically have today as our Bible.

If Muhammad were to encounter the Najran Scriptures, or Byzantine Scriptures, he would basically encounter what we have today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top