Discussion on the Koran or Quran

[famdigy]

The koran does contradict the Bible and Torah, therefore since the koran contradicts both Holy Books, the koran then is false.

You presume both Holy books (NT and OT) are correct and contain no error. Yet many Christian Bible scholars pointed out discrepancies in the manuscripts. A discrepency is not the same as repetition.

John Mill, was the first person to print and publish the bible when the printing press was invented. “Mill’s work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts”

When people point out these discrepancies, the Christian answer is that they are insignificant and do not change the moral of the scripture. In other words, Christians agree there are discrepancies in historical accounts and details but these discrepencies don’t change the moral of the story.

However, we are not discussing the moral value of the Bible here, rather the accuracy of the bible that is in question. You can’t claim the Koran is false by comparing it to the Two holy books which you have not established the accuracy of. First show us the bible is historically accurate.

The koran was created by one man and one man alone.

I don’t see how this is relevant, however, the fact that the bible was written by many authors, only confirms our opinion that there is a higher likelihood of errors and mistakes occurring when a document is written by many people, Again John Mill found 30,000 discrepancies in the Bible.

God allah never once spoke to mohamad to “reveal” the koran.

This is not a necessary condition of prophethood, where does it say that for a prophet to be truly sent by God, God must speak to him directly otherwise he is not a true prophet?

The koran was written by many authors from Abu Bakr to Ali to whoemever many others and then finally Uthman and all previous koran books were destroyed.

Abu Bakr (the accursed) did not write the Quran, neither did Utham (the accursed). Uthan only authorized a compilation of the Quran. As Islam spread far and wide, non-arabs were begining to learn the Holy Book, the manuscripts of the Quran that existed at that time did not have accents and were difficult to read by non arabs. Uthman (the accursed) authorized a standardized reading, a single manuscript that is accented to follow the rules of Arabic grammar. The words themselves did not change, there were no omissions or additions of text. Imam Ali (as) also compiled a manuscript, the difference between Ali’s (as) manuscript and Uthmans was that Ali’s was compiled in order of revelation and contained commentary of the ambigious verses and the abrogated/abrogating verses. There were no additions or Omissions to the text of the Quran that was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh&hf).

The first “so called” revelation to mohamad is NOT even in the beginning of the book - it’s almost to the back of it.
The koran is not written in “revelation” order but all jumbled up and all over the place.

yes, that’s because it is not compiled in the order it was revealed in. I blame uthman for this, but still, out of order does not mean addition or omission of text.

The Biblical God does not send “angels” down to man to write new scriptures.

with over 30,000 differences between Bible manuscripts, its difficult for me to say what the Biblical God would and would not do.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Assalam,

Well if you had read the Quran with an open mind like myself two years ago then maybe you wouldn’t be going :hypno:

wasalam

Who wrote, “Don’t open your mind so much that your brains fall out.”

 

[jakasaki]

You presume both Holy books (NT and OT) are correct and contain no error. Yet many Christian Bible scholars pointed out discrepancies in the manuscripts. A discrepency is not the same as repetition.

John Mill, was the first person to print and publish the bible when the printing press was invented. “Mill’s work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts”

When people point out these discrepancies, the Christian answer is that they are insignificant and do not change the moral of the scripture. In other words, Christians agree there are discrepancies in historical accounts and details but these discrepencies don’t change the moral of the story.

However, we are not discussing the moral value of the Bible here, rather the accuracy of the bible that is in question. You can’t claim the Koran is false by comparing it to the Two holy books which you have not established the accuracy of. First show us the bible is historically accurate.

I don’t see how this is relevant, however, the fact that the bible was written by many authors, only confirms our opinion that there is a higher likelihood of errors and mistakes occurring when a document is written by many people, Again John Mill found 30,000 discrepancies in the Bible.

This is not a necessary condition of prophethood, where does it say that for a prophet to be truly sent by God, God must speak to him directly otherwise he is not a true prophet?

Abu Bakr (the accursed) did not write the Quran, neither did Utham (the accursed). Uthan only authorized a compilation of the Quran. As Islam spread far and wide, non-arabs were begining to learn the Holy Book, the manuscripts of the Quran that existed at that time did not have accents and were difficult to read by non arabs. Uthman (the accursed) authorized a standardized reading, a single manuscript that is accented to follow the rules of Arabic grammar. The words themselves did not change, there were no omissions or additions of text. Imam Ali (as) also compiled a manuscript, the difference between Ali’s (as) manuscript and Uthmans was that Ali’s was compiled in order of revelation and contained commentary of the ambigious verses and the abrogated/abrogating verses. There were no additions or Omissions to the text of the Quran that was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh&hf).

yes, that’s because it is not compiled in the order it was revealed in. I blame uthman for this, but still, out of order does not mean addition or omission of text.

with over 30,000 differences between Bible manuscripts, its difficult for me to say what the Biblical God would and would not do.

Happy Friday my dear friend Fam,

This John Mill dude is one man’s opinion and frankly, I know nothing about him or his work.

There was a thread on CAF a while back for muslims to show us “the corruption” in our Bible, but no one took the challenge.

But…

What what intrigues me is that no matter how “corrupted” our Bible is, based on muslim claims, muslims will use passages from it on a daily basis. You my dear friend is one of them.

Be well…

 

[jakasaki]

QUOTE=famdigy;5344978

~ snip ~

Quote:
God allah never once spoke to mohamad to “reveal” the koran.

This is not a necessary condition of prophethood, where does it say that for a prophet to be truly sent by God, God must speak to him directly otherwise he is not a true prophet?

Yes, God must direct, speak and guide His prophets. We’ve been through this discussion already in previous threads.

In in mohamads case with the koran, the “angel” that appeared in the cave should have been tested.

I posted 1 John 4 because mohamad denied verse #2 and verse #3.

When mohamad was preaching the koran, the Jews were testing him for “true prophecy”.

Mohamad failed the Hebrew testing.

1 John 4

1 Dear friends, **do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. **

2 **This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, **

3 but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world.

Remember what God said:

**And a voice from heaven said,

“This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”**

Here we are told to test the spirits with specific instructions.

It does not tell us “not to question” them.

But in the koran, the god of islam states “ask not questions about things…may cause you trouble”

O ye who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble. But if ye ask about things when the Qur’an is being revealed, they will be made plain to you, Allah will forgive those: for Allah is Oft- forgiving, Most Forbearing.
( سورة المائدة , Al-Maeda, Chapter #5, Verse #101)

 

[Lapell]

Muslims can just as easily ask → How can the Bible be the Lord’s Final Revelation when the Qur’an was revealed some 600 years after the time of Jesus (pbuh)?

Once we start using circular logic such as stating that the Qur’an cannot be true because it contradicts the Bible or vice versa, then there would really be no end to such an argument.

How the Bible and the Ku’ran differ on a number of things and how quickly Muhammad stated that the Bible was corrupt would make me think again before becoming a Muslim… Just boldness isn’t a guarantee.

 

[SalomeBintullah]

That is what you think. And what do mean elevate Muhammed (pbuh) to the top? Both Jesus and Muhammed (peace be upon them) were prophets and great men.
…There is a reason why I don’t follow the bible because if I did then I would think that Jesus is god’s son when I don’t think that he is god’s son. God is God. Eternal and one. He has no sons and no daughters and nothing else!

wasalam

Zaki, here’s part of the problem: whenever the Qur’an says that God begets no sons, the word used for “son” is walad (ولد), which as you may know means “biological son.” Christians agree that God has no biological sons. Mary is not God’s wife, and they did not have intercourse and produce Jesus. When Christians say that Jesus is God’s son, they use the word son metaphorically, just like the Arabic word ibn, which also means son but not necessarily in a biological sense.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

John Mill, was the first person to print and publish the bible when the printing press was invented. “Mill’s work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts”

As jakasaki said, the opinion of one man is not necessarily infallible, however I have heard of the thousands of differences between the New Testament manuscripts…but have you looked into what those “discrepancies” really are? Do you know those accent marks in the Greek language? A vast majority of the errors are that - different accent marks. There are very, very few words in the Greek language, even Koine Greek, that change dramatically with accent marks. They are mostly there for pronunciation.

If you want to study the Greek manuscripts, I suggest acquiring the United Bible Studies’ Greek New Testament, which is used for most modern translations of the Bible. It’s a very scholarly and well studied work, and it gives details on how reliable each verse of the New Testament is, going into detail about the variances. I highly recommend it.

However, we are not discussing the moral value of the Bible here, rather the accuracy of the bible that is in question. You can’t claim the Koran is false by comparing it to the Two holy books which you have not established the accuracy of. First show us the bible is historically accurate.

And the discrepancies in Koranic copies, either here or another thread, have been discussed, and it’s been shown that there were various versions of the Koran and that, in fact, there are many discrepancies as well. While I am willing to admit myself that some of these discrepancies do not affect Muslim theology (although Muslims who argued at the time of the Koran’s collection might disagree), I cannot help but feel frustrated by the double standards presented by some Muslim apologists. To lambaste the Bible for manuscript differences while feigning ignorance of the differences between Koranic manuscripts is yet another double standard I find so often.

Likewise, one has to wonder if the Muslim understanding of God is that He is a fatalist - is God really so incompetent that He has to try three times to preserve a holy book? I hold a higher opinion of our Lord.

I don’t see how [one man writing the Koran] is relevant

It boils back down to subjective revelation: the Koran is true because Mohammad says it is, as opposed to the gospels which were taken from direct eyewitnesses and written while many of those eyewitnesses were around, eyewitnesses who went on to set up and preserve the Church.

I’m sorry to say, but the revelation of the Koran is no different than the revelation of the Book of Mormon - the only difference is Joseph Smith got it all out of the way at once, while Mohammad revealed it whenever it was convenient.

As Islam spread far and wide, non-arabs were begining to learn the Holy Book, the manuscripts of the Quran that existed at that time did not have accents and were difficult to read by non arabs. Uthman (the accursed) authorized a standardized reading, a single manuscript that is accented to follow the rules of Arabic grammar. The words themselves did not change, there were no omissions or additions of text. Imam Ali (as) also compiled a manuscript, the difference between Ali’s (as) manuscript and Uthmans was that Ali’s was compiled in order of revelation and contained commentary of the ambigious verses and the abrogated/abrogating verses. There were no additions or Omissions to the text of the Quran that was revealed to Muhammad (pbuh&hf).

Ibn Mas’ud would disagree that the Koran Uthman presented was perfect, with no additions or omissions. So would the Shi’a Muslims.

 

[famdigy]

Happy Friday my dear friend Fam,

This John Mill dude is one man’s opinion and frankly, I know nothing about him or his work.

There was a thread on CAF a while back for muslims to show us “the corruption” in our Bible, but no one took the challenge.

But…

What what intrigues me is that no matter how “corrupted” our Bible is, based on muslim claims, muslims will use passages from it on a daily basis. You my dear friend is one of them.

Be well…

Hi Jakasaki,
happy Friday to you as well, the discrepancies in the bible is not one man’s opinion, it’s a fact. John Mill was the first to publish a greek translation of the bible in print, “Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707).” The problem he faced was that he came across many manuscripts with differences among them and didn’t know which one to include in his translation, so he decided to include them all, he placed footnotes under every section where there was a discrepancy between the manuscripts

This is what Wikipedia quotes:
“Mill’s work noted over 30,000 discrepancies between some 100 extant New Testament manuscripts. His work was attacked by Daniel Whitby and Anthony Collins. Whitby’s Examen claimed that Mill had destroyed the validity of the text; Collins received a reply from Bentley (Phileleutherus lipsiensis). Bentley defended Mill noting essentially that Mill was not responsible for the differences between the various MSS, he only pointed them out. Bentley further noted that Christendom had indeed survived despite the errors, essentially asserting that Whitby’s attacks were unfounded.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Mill

I’m not trying to put down the bible, but pointing out what bible scholars themselves admitted, that the bible has errors, for this reason many Christian and non-Christians alike agree the bible is not historically accurate.

Here are some examples of what I mean by discrepancies

Manuscripts also differ. Usually the differences are minor - matters of spelling and the like - but occasionally they are significant, as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John which bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221), where it is shown as a marginal note.[14] A similar example from the Old Testament is the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic descriptions of the battle of David and Goliath: the Septuagint version is shorter and avoids the narrative inconsistencies of the familiar Masoretic story, notably the famous incident of Saul asking who David is as though he does not know his own harpist and shield-bearer.

There are also important differences between the Masoretic and the Samaritan version (i.e. Samaritan Pentateuch) of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences. Some of the distinctions seem to be motivated by (or reflect) the actual philosophical differences between Judaism and Samaritanism. Some of these are glaringly obvious, like the inclusion of a passage in the Samaritan version of the Ten Commandments restating the command to build of an altar on Mt. Gerizim, and stating plainly that Mt. Gerizim is the site at which all future sacrifices are to be offered. Since the location of God’s holy site is probably the central original difference between Judaism and Samaritanism, it makes sense that this passage should be in one version and not the other.[15]
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible#Manuscript

I don’t claim to know anything about the bible, but from reading what other bible scholars have said, I understand there are discrepancies between the manuscripts. for example the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John which bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221). It begs the question, where did the addition of Comma Johanneum originate from, since it is not found in manuscripts earlier than codex 221?

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m not trying to put down the bible, but pointing out what bible scholars themselves admitted, that the bible has errors, for this reason many Christian and non-Christians alike agree the bible is not historically accurate.

1. …as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John which bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221), where it is shown as a marginal note.
2. A similar example from the Old Testament is the difference between the Septuagint and Masoretic descriptions of the battle of David and Goliath…
3. There are also important differences between the Masoretic and the Samaritan version (i.e. Samaritan Pentateuch) of the Pentateuch in the readings of many sentences…

I’ve shortened your quote then numbered and put in italics the “discrepancies” you used as examples, just to shorten our time and discussion.

#1 is no big revelation - Christian scholars and historians have known this for literally hundreds, if not almost thousands, of years. Protestant apologist James White spoke on this once in response to Yusuf Estes: the Comma Johanneum is a well known variant, and when Muslims bring this up as if Christians have never heard of this before, it only serves as entertainment for serious Christian scholars.

#2 and #3 deal with translations. To cite them as discrepancies would be like citing how the NIV translates something and the KJV translates something as discrepancies - or to put it in a better perspective, how a discrepancy exists between the bible in Thai and the bible in German.

I don’t claim to know anything about the bible, but from reading what other bible scholars have said, I understand there are discrepancies between the manuscripts. for example the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John which bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221). It begs the question, where did the addition of Comma Johanneum originate from, since it is not found in manuscripts earlier than codex 221?

You just quoted where it was sourced, and where most scholars sourced it to. Nevertheless, even with it taken out, early Christians believed in the Trinity (as shown in the writings of Ignatius, Clement I, and others) and one can see the Trinity throughout the New Testament, such as at the baptism and Transfiguration of Christ. The removal of the Comma Johanneum presents no big shift in theological understanding.

EDIT: Also, not to sound picky, but there are plenty of scholarly sources out there - could you please not quote wikipedia. At least look to where the references cited in wikipedia are and go to them.

 

[jakasaki]

Hi Jakasaki,
happy Friday to you as well, the discrepancies in the bible is not one man’s opinion, it’s a fact.

John Mill was the first to publish a greek translation of the bible in print, “Novum Testamentum Graecum, cum lectionibus variantibus MSS (Oxford 1707).” The problem he faced was that he came across many manuscripts with differences among them and didn’t know which one to include in his translation, so he decided to include them all, he placed footnotes under every section where there was a discrepancy between the manuscripts

~ snip ~

Too bad Mr Mill died before it ever got printed/published.

Anyway my dear, the rest that I snipped, if you want, find the thread we had a while back about “Bible Corruption” and post that there so we may discuss it.

Sending :hug3: your way!

 

[famdigy]

I’ve shortened your quote then numbered and put in italics the “discrepancies” you used as examples, just to shorten our time and discussion.

#1 is no big revelation - Christian scholars and historians have known this for literally hundreds, if not almost thousands, of years. Protestant apologist James White spoke on this once in response to Yusuf Estes: the Comma Johanneum is a well known variant, and when Muslims bring this up as if Christians have never heard of this before, it only serves as entertainment for serious Christian scholars.

Thank you for clarifying wolf, how did this variant come about?

You just quoted where it was sourced, and where most scholars sourced it to. Nevertheless, even with it taken out, early Christians believed in the Trinity (as shown in the writings of Ignatius, Clement I, and others) and one can see the Trinity throughout the New Testament, such as at the baptism and Transfiguration of Christ. The removal of the Comma Johanneum presents no big shift in theological understanding.

I can understand that the trinity still holds true for you despite the Comma Johanneum variant. But Christians shouldn’t tell us the bible hasn’t changed in 2000 years when we know that’s not the case.

I use wikipedia because I haven’t done the research and don’t have the sources myself, but just wanted to get the idea across so that we are on the same page.

 

[jakasaki]

Alright, now back to the koran:

This speaks about **one angel **speaking to Mary about the “birth” of Christ.

Chapter 19:

16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18 She said: “I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.”

19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.

But reading chapter 3 there are multiple angels…:

42 Behold! **the angels **said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.

45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

So which is it? Again, if this is the word of god allah recited from Gabriel to mohamad what’s with the number of angels discrepancy?

Did mohamad make the mistake, did the scribes make the mistake, did Uthman make the mistake?

 

[hamba2han]

How the Bible and the Ku’ran differ on a number of things and how quickly Muhammad stated that the Bible was corrupt would make me think again before becoming a Muslim… Just boldness isn’t a guarantee.

In general, the Qur’an really does not contradict the Bible… and the only instances where there are discrepancies between them are found where the Bible contradicts itself.

For example, let us look at the following verses:

Say (O Muhammad): People! I am the Messenger of Allah sent to you all… … (Al-Qur’an, 7:158)

And We have not sent you (O Muhammad) but to the whole of mankind as a giver of glad tidings and a warner, but most people have no knowledge. … (Al-Qur’an, 34:28)

"I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel" … (Matthew 15:24)

"These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel." (Matthew 10:5-6)

Muslims see absolutely no contradictions whatsoever between the Qur’an and the Bible in the above verses.

Christians, on the other hand, when attempting to show that Jesus (pbuh) was sent to all of humankind, will point to another verse in the Bible which directly contradicts the above Biblical verses in Matthew.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Thank you for clarifying wolf, how did this variant come about?

Good question. Actually, the article you mentioned before gives the explanation:

…as in the case of the Comma Johanneum, a clause in the First Epistle of John which bears explicit witness to the doctrine of the Christian Trinity, but is not found in any manuscript earlier than the 10th century (codex 221), where it is shown as a marginal note. [emphasis mine]

It was believed to have originated in the margins of a Latin manuscript some time later.

Although the book is written in the context of King James Onlyism, a very good explanation of the Comma Johanneum is in James White’s The King James Only Controversy:

When the first edition of Erasmus’ work [the Greek New Testament] came out in 1516 this phrase, dubbed today the “Johannine comma,” or in Latin, the Comma Johanneum, was not in the text for a very simple reason: it was not found in any Greek manuscript of 1 John that Erasmus had examined. Instead, the phrase was found only in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus rightly did not include it in the first or second editions…

The Comma Johanneum is extremely important. Here we have a phrase that everyone will admit is manifestly orthodox. What it says is obviously true. Yet, we are in no way dependent upon the phrase for our knowledge of the Trinity or the unity of the three Persons: Father, Son, and Spirit. The doctrine of the Trinity does not stand or fall upon the inclusion of the Comma. Beyond this, however, we have a phrase that is simply not a part of the ancient Greek manuscripts of John’s first epistle. The few manuscripts that contain the phrase are very recent, and half of these have the reading written in the margin. The phrase appears only in certain of the Latin versions. [pg 60-61]

Even though I know I’ll get castrated around here for quoting James White, I would suggest this book as good reading, since he goes into detail about the manuscripts, their history, and how they’re studied.

I can understand that the trinity still holds true for you despite the Comma Johanneum variant. But Christians shouldn’t tell us the bible hasn’t changed in 2000 years when we know that’s not the case.

I think you may have encountered “solo scriptura” fellows - ie. people who follow a distorted version of sola scriptura - who often exaggerate the bible to the point where they idolize it.

I would agree that doctrinally the Bible has not changed. Minor changes are present due to the system of manuscript writing, but this must be expected. However, never was there a theological shift found either in the Old Testament or the New Testament. The similarities, for example, between the Old Testament writings that we used to have and those found in the Dead Sea Scrolls are simply astounding.

The differences between manuscripts, as I stated earlier, were often grammatical and not doctrinal. Many more were different, but had no major affect on how a passage was to be understood. One example is Luke 13:35 - I’ll quote the two variances below:

#1) See! Your house is left to you desolate; and assuredly, I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’"

#2) See! Your house is left to you desolate; and I say to you, you shall not see Me until the time comes when you say, ‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’"

Notice the difference? Maybe just barely - “assuredly” is left out in one variance. Nevertheless, the point of the statement is still strong

I use wikipedia because I haven’t done the research and don’t have the sources myself, but just wanted to get the idea across so that we are on the same page.

Oh sure, fully understand - I do that too.

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

“I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel” … (Matthew 15:24)

“These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: 'Do NOT go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel.”(Matthew 10:5-6)

That was during Christ’s earthly ministry…you forgot to quote one of the greatest parts of Matthew’s gospel:

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen. [Matt 28:18-20]

This passage is rather significant for two reasons. First, Christ expands His ministry to all nations, not just the lost sheep of Israel. Second, Christ promises to be with His followers always, even to the end of the age. According to Islam, Christ broke His promise, because He didn’t guide His followers and they became tainted so bad God had to send down a prophet to set things right. This is like the question I asked earlier: is God a victim of fatalism?

You also forget what Christ told the Pharisees:

Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you and given to a people, producing the fruit of it. [Matt 21:43]

The “people” He was referring to were the Gentiles, as confirmed in the Great Commission and in Acts. This is the significance of the parable of the fig tree, as well as Christ’s rotting of the fig tree in Jerusalem - the fig tree represented the old Israel, whose time was rotting away and would be replaced by the spiritual Israel of God’s church. This is not contradicting, this is looking at the texts in their full context.

 

[famdigy]

Alright, now back to the koran:

This speaks about **one angel **speaking to Mary about the “birth” of Christ.

Chapter 19:

16 Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East.

17 She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them; then We sent her our angel, and he appeared before her as a man in all respects.

18 She said: “I seek refuge from thee to ((Allah)) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear Allah.”

19 He said: "Nay, I am only a messenger from thy Lord, (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.

But reading chapter 3 there are multiple angels…:

42 Behold! **the angels **said: "O Mary! Allah hath chosen thee and purified thee- chosen thee above the women of all nations.

45 Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

So which is it? Again, if this is the word of god allah recited from Gabriel to mohamad what’s with the number of angels discrepancy?

Did mohamad make the mistake, did the scribes make the mistake, did Uthman make the mistake?

They are two separate incidents. In the first case the angels gave her the glad tidings of a son and then left. the evidence for this is Surah 19:47, her reply was to God directly no to the angels.

[Yusufali 3:45] Behold! the angels said: "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus, the son of Mary, held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

[Yusufali 3:46] “He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity. And he shall be (of the company) of the righteous.”

Sometime after this message she asked God, in question. Perhaps it was in thinking back to what the angels said to her.

[Yusufali 3:47] She said: “O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?” He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, ‘Be,’ and it is!

The second incident is when it was time for her be pregnant, this time a single Angel was sent and this time she had a conversation with the Angel.

Surah 19: 16-19.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Having read and compared different online koran’s, their interpretation/translations are also different.

That’s OK with me - no problem. But, since this is the case, why are muslims complaining about the different interpretation/translations of the Bible when it exists within the koran?

Also, one of the posters claimed the Bible repeats verses. Maybe I’ve missed them, but I haven’t seen any like the ones in the koran.

They exist - for instance:​

• Psalm 14 = Psalm 53 (they are almost identical)
• Psalm 136 has the refrain “for His mercy endures for ever” after every other line
• There are two accounts of the Temptation;
• Two very similar versons of the Beatitudes
• Two very similar versions of the Lord’s Prayer (These three NT duplicates are all in Matthew & Luke )
• And there are the doublets in Genesis…
• And the duplicate genealogies of Moses in Exodus
• 1 Chronicles 10 onwards re-works much of Samuel & Kings
• The beginning of Ezra 1 = the end of 2 Chronicles
• Part of Isaiah 2 is present in the Book of Micah
• The Synoptic gospels have a lot in common - they are three versions of what is essentially the same narrative.
• …and so on…

I don’t find this a problem - on the contrary, I think it is an advantage that the Bible repeats itself so much. The fact that there variant versions of an episode or document or incident makes the Bible all the more interesting, & all the more Divine for being so completely human.

And since the koran can only be understood in Arabic, well then it isn’t a book for all man kind since not everyone speaks and understands Arabic.

Since their was no original koran at mohamads time and there were many different koran books written, how can muslims claim that it is identical to this day as it was from the beginning…?? Which koran tablet is in heaven with allah?

That last question is probably easy enough to answer.​