If the Qur'an is wrong, why be Muslim?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
As John’s disciples were leaving, Jesus began to speak to the crowd about John:
"What did you go out into the desert to see? A reed swayed by the wind? If not, what did you go out to see? A man dressed in fine clothes? No, those who wear fine clothes are in kings’ palaces.
Then what did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written: “I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.” (Mathew 11:7-10)

Jesus say here that John the Baptist was “more than a prophet”, so if John was that great of a man, how much greater is Jesus then? John was sent to prepare the way for Jesus coming, someone greater than he. If you accept the Bible as truth as you have said multiple times, then how do you not understand that Jesus is more than a prophet? How can someone who is more than a prophet himself (John) prepare the way for someone who is any less than a prophet? He can’t.
Then let’s evaluate issue in light of Qur’an.

253- Those messengers – some of them We caused to exceed others. Among them were those to whom Allah spoke, and He raised some of them in degree. And We gave Jesus, the Son of Mary, clear proofs, and We supported him with the Pure Spirit. If Allah had willed, those [generations] succeeding them would not have fought each other after the clear proofs had come to them. But they differed, and some of them believed and some of them disbelieved. And if Allah had willed, they would not have fought each other, but Allah does what He intends. Al-Baqarah(2)

55- And your Lord is most knowing of whoever is in the heavens and the earth. And We have made some of the prophets exceed others [in various ways], and to David We gave the book [of Psalms]. Al-Isra(17)

So some prophets could be super than others. Here different comments from Christians for Matthew 11:9

(Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
A prophet? - He next asks whether they went to see a prophet. They had regarded him as such, and Jesus tells them that in this their apprehensions of him were correct.
More than a prophet - Sustaining a character more elevated and sacred than the most distinguished of the ancient prophets. Those had been regarded as the most eminent of the prophets who had most clearly predicted the Messiah. Isaiah had been distinguished above all others for the sublimity of his writings, and the clearness with which he had foretold the coming of Christ. Yet John surpassed even him. He lived in the time of the Messiah himself. He predicted his coming with still more clarity. He was the instrument of introducing him to the nation. He was, therefore, first among the prophets.

There should be some degrees among prophets. )

(Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
But what went ye out for to see?.. Since it was not any thing so mean as a shaking reed, or so grand as a man in gay clothing, pray what was it you went out to see?
A prophet? This was the truth of the matter, they expected to see a prophet, and they believed he was one; this was the common voice of the people; all held John to be a prophet. This made Herod afraid to put him to death, and the Pharisees to speak against his baptism: now, though this was giving him a great character, to believe and own him to be a prophet, yet it did not come up to his full character.

Yea, I say unto you, and more than a prophet; when they saw him, they saw not only a prophet, but one that was greater, and more excellent than any of the prophets that went before him: they prophesied of the Messiah at a distance, and in words not so clear, and easy to be understood; they spoke of him as to come, but he pointed him out with his finger, and declared that he was come; he saw him himself, and showed him to others; he saw the Spirit of God descending on him, and he himself baptized him; his office, as the harbinger of Christ, and the administrator of the ordinance of baptism to him, gave him a preference to all the prophets; and was such an one, as never any man was vested with but himself.)

Comments do not say John was more than a human but an eminent prophet.

And also Matthew 11:11 interpret that more evidently.

(Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers
(11) There hath not risen a greater.—The greatness of men is measured by a divine not a human standard. The prophet, who was more than a prophet, the herald or the forerunner of the kingdom, was greater in his work, his holiness, his intuition of the truth, than the far-off patriarchs, than David or Solomon, and, à fortiori, than the conquerors and the destroyers, such as Alexander, Pompey, Herod, on whom the world bestowed the title of “the great” ones.)

(Benson Commentary
Matthew 11:11. Among them that are born of women — That is, among the whole race of mankind in all former ages, there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist — As John, with regard to his religious and moral character, was the best of men, so he had some peculiar honours superior to any prophet of former generations. … )
 
hasantas,do you agree then that the OT and NT of the Christian Bible are revelation from God and** cannot be disputed **as truth? Just want to make sure this is what you are saying, so that we can move forward in the discussion effectively.
I think I believe in Bible more than you, I have no any doubt. But you (people of scrpiture) could not save your scriptures exactly.
 
Because someone struggle to refute Qur’an through Bible!
I think you have it backwards. It is your book that was written in opposition to the Bible and not the other way around. We Christians have no need to refute anything. It is the followers of the Koran who strive to prove that they are right. It is not working very well. Is it?
 
I think I believe in Bible more than you, I have no any doubt. But you (people of scrpiture) could not save your scriptures exactly.
A few questions for you to answer hasantas:

1)What are you talking about “you could not save your scriptures exactly”?

2)Please respond to my post #161

3)Before the disciples saw Jesus after the resurrection, would they expect Jesus to have wounds in his hands and feet, or do you think they would not expect to see any wounds?
 
I think you have it backwards. It is your book that was written in opposition to the Bible and not the other way around. We Christians have no need to refute anything. It is the followers of the Koran who strive to prove that they are right. It is not working very well. Is it?
The Bible is a product of the Church. The Church prayed and was given wisdom by God to put the writing together of its experiences. Thus whoever put the Quran together lacks this experience. We have to pray for them.

Amen.

MJ
 
I think I believe in Bible more than you, I have no any doubt. But you (people of scrpiture) could not save your scriptures exactly.
If we (people of Scripture) could not save our Bible/Scripture, what is it that you believe about the Bible/Scripture?
 
I understand the point of this forum is to discuss things, but this discussion seems pointless to me.

If I am a Muslim, I believe the Qur’an is the direct word of God. I believe that previous scriptures (the Old and New Testament) contain some truths, but that they have been corrupted. Therefore, if anyone quotes anything from the Old or New Testament that I disagree with, I–as a Muslim–can simply say “That passage has been corrupted” or “Muslims interpret it a different way.”

If I am a Christian, I believe Muhammad was simply an Arab war lord, who may or may not have believed he was a prophet. But I don’t believe the Qur’an is in any way the word of God–it is simply Muhammad’s sayings. Some more modern interpretations would even question that in many cases. So a Muslim (or Baha’i) who supports a statement by saying it’s in the Qur’an so it must be true is making a meaningless statement to a Christian. The Qur’an has no authority whatsoever to a Christian.

In light of the initial premises on both sides, this discussion seems futile. Anything anyone on one side can introduce as evidence is immediately dismissed as untrue by the other side. It’s not a case of logic, it’s a case of belief.
Sorry if I sound condescending, but it is good to have come this this realisation. There is a fundamental difference in how both sides see evidence. Christians expect Muslims to prove using independent corroborated sources that Quran supersedes the Bible. Muslims starting point is that the Quran is the only self-evident truth and everything else is measured against it.
If this thread is about the Koran, why is the entire discussion centered on the Bible?
Because Muslims are in a conundrum. In order to prove the the Quran is true, they have to prove that the Bible, or at least those parts that disagree with the Quran has to be false. As it is not possible to prove the Bible is false, they have resorted to proving that it has been falsified. But how to you prove that the something that came before (the Bible) falsified something that came after (the Quran)? So Muslims believe that the Gospel (note the singular) was given by Jesus to Christians who then altered the original Gospel. The Bible that Christians have today is partly authentic and partly falsified.

Muslims today then try to use the Bible to prove that the Quran is true. Most like hasantas has no previous exposure to Christians traditions of Biblical criticism and proceed to read the Bible like how Muslims read the Quran (ie., literally). Most (not all) only understand the Bible from the point of view that the Quran is the only self-evident truth and so the authenticity all other scriptures are measured against its consistency with the Quran. Making it more difficult, Muslims do not start with which verses in the Bible has been altered and which is a part of the original Gospel. So, that gets determined as they go along. Very very difficult to debate. That’s why I don’t bother if I meet up with someone like hasantas who is not asking out of a sincere desire for understanding but just to prove that he is right.

So I agree it is futile to argue but I hope Christians in this forum further understand the fundamental difference between Muslim and Christian sense of logic. I still believe Islam contains truth (after all it is the teaching of the Catechism and Vatican 2) but many Muslims seem to have digressed from it,
 
1)What are you talking about “you could not save your scriptures exactly”?
Muslims believe that we altered the scriptures that Jesus gave us. Whereas the Muslims preserved it exactly word for word from the the 7th century classical Arab.

It is not clear what the Muslims understand by us altering the Bible. Some hold that the fact that we translated the Bible from the original Greek/Hebrew means that we altered the Bible. Others expected a singular Gospel mentioned in the Quran sees the multiplicity of the books in the Bible as proof of the alterations. Still others the verses that contradict the Quran as the alterations.

So, while they all agree that we altered the Bible, they don’t seem to agree on how it was altered, what was altered and which verses of the original Gospel still remains in the current Bible.

Maybe it is better they sort themselves out and agree on their position then come back to us
 
Muslims believe that we altered the scriptures that Jesus gave us. Whereas the Muslims preserved it exactly word for word from the the 7th century classical Arab.

It is not clear what the Muslims understand by us altering the Bible. Some hold that the fact that we translated the Bible from the original Greek/Hebrew means that we altered the Bible. Others expected a singular Gospel mentioned in the Quran sees the multiplicity of the books in the Bible as proof of the alterations. Still others the verses that contradict the Quran as the alterations.

So, while they all agree that we altered the Bible, they don’t seem to agree on how it was altered, what was altered and which verses of the original Gospel still remains in the current Bible.

Maybe it is better they sort themselves out and agree on their position then come back to us
Yes, that’s always a good place to start.
 
Muslims believe that we altered the scriptures that Jesus gave us. Whereas the Muslims preserved it exactly word for word from the the 7th century classical Arab.

It is not clear what the Muslims understand by us altering the Bible. Some hold that the fact that we translated the Bible from the original Greek/Hebrew means that we altered the Bible. Others expected a singular Gospel mentioned in the Quran sees the multiplicity of the books in the Bible as proof of the alterations. Still others the verses that contradict the Quran as the alterations.

So, while they all agree that we altered the Bible, they don’t seem to agree on how it was altered, what was altered and which verses of the original Gospel still remains in the current Bible.

Maybe it is better they sort themselves out and agree on their position then come back to us
In any case, these sort of arguments only ‘work’ against low-church protestants, since they don’t have an understanding of the place of the Church. Against Catholic, Orthodox and high-church protestants, the furthest they can get is “that’s your misinterpretation, the Church says XYZ and you say PQR - clearly you are wrong”
 
It is not clear what the Muslims understand by us altering the Bible. Some hold that the fact that we translated the Bible from the original Greek/Hebrew means that we altered the Bible. Others expected a singular Gospel mentioned in the Quran sees the multiplicity of the books in the Bible as proof of the alterations. Still others the verses that contradict the Quran as the alterations.
If you’re interested in alterations in the Bible, you should read the book by Bart Ehrman (the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperOne, 2007). Here’s what Amazon says about this book:
For almost 1,500 years, the New Testament manuscripts were copied by hand––and mistakes and intentional changes abound in the competing manuscript versions. Religious and biblical scholar Bart Ehrman makes the provocative case that many of our widely held beliefs concerning the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, and the divine origins of the Bible itself are the results of both intentional and accidental alterations by scribes.
In this compelling and fascinating book, Ehrman shows where and why changes were made in our earliest surviving manuscripts, explaining for the first time how the many variations of our cherished biblical stories came to be, and why only certain versions of the stories qualify for publication in the Bibles we read today. Ehrman frames his account with personal reflections on how his study of the Greek manuscripts made him abandon his once ultra–conservative views of the Bible.
amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1473717330&sr=8-3&keywords=bart+ehrman
 
Muslims believe that we altered the scriptures that Jesus gave us. Whereas the Muslims preserved it exactly word for word from the the 7th century classical Arab.

It is not clear what the Muslims understand by us altering the Bible. Some hold that the fact that we translated the Bible from the original Greek/Hebrew means that we altered the Bible. Others expected a singular Gospel mentioned in the Quran sees the multiplicity of the books in the Bible as proof of the alterations. Still others the verses that contradict the Quran as the alterations.

So, while they all agree that we altered the Bible, they don’t seem to agree on how it was altered, what was altered and which verses of the original Gospel still remains in the current Bible.

Maybe it is better they sort themselves out and agree on their position then come back to us
👍

This is a good point. They so far haven’t sorted it out, and perhaps just given up on it.

MJ
 
If you’re interested in alterations in the Bible, you should read the book by Bart Ehrman (the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (HarperOne, 2007). Here’s what Amazon says about this book:

amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1473717330&sr=8-3&keywords=bart+ehrman
Haha, there are plenty of books on the alterations to the Bible, starting with the Quran and Dan Brown. In the end it would be unsurprising in the era of handwritten books and translations and no strong centralised supervisory body, to have differences creeping in, whether unintentional or wilful alterations.

Other than the supernatural assistance that the Church gets, there is also the concept of the wisdom of crowds and the open-source nature of Biblical research. Somehow with the large number of people independent of each other looking into it, any discrepancies will be quickly highlighted. While I am sure some of these people have personal agendas, I am quite sure there is sufficiency sincerity in people to uncover the truth.

I am not a subscriber in conspiracy theories: whether it is by a God who wilfully misled his followers, or by some agents so clever to have hidden the truth from all of us (and arranged the evidence in such a way to mislead all of us) except for the clever people who uncovered the conspiracy. The reality is normally a lot more boring and predictable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top