Is the NT Bible corrupted as Moslems believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stephen0

Guest
Now isn’t it true that Mohammud said that he sanctioned and respected the New Testament Bible that he was familiar with and that Moslems could trust its words? I can understand how our Moslem brethern, can think that the New Testament HAD ot be corrupted. Since the later text dating from after the 7th century must have been corrupted for they proclaim Jesus to be God or that he himself says that he is God. In fact, if you were to cut out all the passages in the present New Testament Bible that allude to his relation to God then the New Testament, which can literally stand alone in its written book form would fall over and blow away, since it would become such a slinder volume as a result.
However, in this day and age with all the new scientific evidence from archaelogy, please explain how such corruption could sneak into a much examined text. I was looking at the list of many of the complete or nearly complete Christian Bibles and they read something like this by dates: Syriac Peshitta 150-250 AD, Bohairic Coptic 3rd or 4th Century, Codex Sinai 325 AD, Vaticanus 330 AD, Sinaiticus 340 AD, Bohairic Coptic 3rd or 4th Century, Alexandrinus 450 AD. (the codexes go on and on). None of these works refute anything that is in the present NT Bible and only reinforce all statements that are currently believed by a modern day Christian.
As expected, this means that these works would pre-date the codex that even Mohammud would have known about in his time. So, if I am to take the Prophet at his word and yet deal with this truth, then I would find myself in an awkward position, sort of like standing on a ball at the edge of an active volcano and trying to balance and not fall into its spastic opening. Please answer me how you deal with this quandry?
 
Stephen0 said:
Now isn’t it true that Mohammud said that he sanctioned and respected the New Testament Bible that he was familiar with and that Moslems could trust its words?
Click to expand...
sorry is there a proof for that?🙂
 
BelFarfalla said:
This proves nothing but the canonization of the Bible.

Do realize of course that these very same men would have considered your Qur’an a work of the worst kind of herasy.
Click to expand...
no comment 🙂 , just think and see what you wrote
 
Greetings Stephen.

Muhammad (saaw) never ‘sanctioned’ the New Testament, nor is there any evidence that he ever read the canonical gospels.

More to the main point, your follows the standard Christian response to the belief of Muslims that the New Testament is corrupt, basically asking when was it changed? Where? And by whom? Now, although the Gospels have went through textual alteration, John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7 for instance; this type of thing is not what is primarily meant by ‘corruption’ (some ignorant Muslims telling Christians that this is the case isn’t helpful for understanding either).

What is meant is that the initial process of the writing of the Gospels is flawed in itself if the objective was to give an accurate ‘biography’ so to speak on the ministry of Jesus (peace be upon him). There are numerous reasons for this, firstly what we have in the Gospels today are oral traditions passed by word of mouth for decades before they were written down, so gradual divergence by the time of their writing is inevitable (and this is what we see). Also, we have the problem that the Gospels are not biographies per se, they’re ‘lives’, which were popular in Eastern Mediterranean for telling stories as a form of entertainment, they were not meant to be objective or factual. It was perfectly acceptable for people to make up elaborate stories about the person from their own creative imaginations. You’ll find very a very similar process with other ‘lives’ from the time, Alexander the Great is an oft-quoted example; stories of him such as a giant eagle sitting above his house at the time of his birth, him being lost and dying of thirst, in the desert until a snake showed him the way to water; him untying the Gordian knot of King Midas fulfilling a prophecy of him being the man to rule Asia and other such legends were told in very much a similar fashion as the Gospels of Jesus (peace be upon him) were, but of course no serious historian considers them to have any factual value.

There are aswell other more minor problems, such as theologically motivated interpolations slipping into the Gospels where they really don’t belong, these things result in the four Gospels we have today not being a reliable record of Jesus’ deeds and sayings. This corruption is illustrated by the amount of inconsistencies we have between the Gospel authors. For example the author of the Gospel of Luke says in the Acts that Judas took the 30 silver pieces given to him by the Rabbis to buy a field, and that he later fell while inside the field and died with his bowels gushing out, and therefore the field was called ‘The Field of Blood’. But The Gospel of Matthew says that after Jesus (peace be upon him) was condemned, Judas went to see the Rabbis at the Temple and threw away the silver, and then went and hanged himself, and the Rabbis then took the money to buy a field, and for that reason the field was named ‘The Field of Blood’ because it was purchased with blood money’. Now, of course nobody went and changed these accounts after they were written to make them disagree with each other, they disagreed with each other *right from the beginning *due to them both coming from oral tradition which naturally diverged over time. Therein lies the problem, it’s very difficult to separate fact from fiction in cases such as this, and it doesn’t just apply to this particular incident, but to the entire four canonical Gospels.

Hope this helped you understand Islam’s position on this.
 
Kadaveri said:
What is meant is that the initial process of the writing of the Gospels is flawed in itself if the objective was to give an accurate ‘biography’ so to speak on the ministry of Jesus (peace be upon him). There are numerous reasons for this, firstly what we have in the Gospels today are oral traditions passed by word of mouth for decades before they were written down, so gradual divergence by the time of their writing is inevitable (and this is what we see). Also, we have the problem that the Gospels are not biographies per se, they’re ‘lives’, which were popular in Eastern Mediterranean for telling stories as a form of entertainment, they were not meant to be objective or factual. It was perfectly acceptable for people to make up elaborate stories about the person from their own creative imaginations. You’ll find very a very similar process with other ‘lives’ from the time, Alexander the Great is an oft-quoted example; stories of him such as a giant eagle sitting above his house at the time of his birth, him being lost and dying of thirst, in the desert until a snake showed him the way to water; him untying the Gordian knot of King Midas fulfilling a prophecy of him being the man to rule Asia and other such legends were told in very much a similar fashion as the Gospels of Jesus (peace be upon him) were, but of course no serious historian considers them to have any factual value.

There are aswell other more minor problems, such as theologically motivated interpolations slipping into the Gospels where they really don’t belong, these things result in the four Gospels we have today not being a reliable record of Jesus’ deeds and sayings. This corruption is illustrated by the amount of inconsistencies we have between the Gospel authors. For example the author of the Gospel of Luke says in the Acts that Judas took the 30 silver pieces given to him by the Rabbis to buy a field, and that he later fell while inside the field and died with his bowels gushing out, and therefore the field was called ‘The Field of Blood’. But The Gospel of Matthew says that after Jesus (peace be upon him) was condemned, Judas went to see the Rabbis at the Temple and threw away the silver, and then went and hanged himself, and the Rabbis then took the money to buy a field, and for that reason the field was named ‘The Field of Blood’ because it was purchased with blood money’. Now, of course nobody went and changed these accounts after they were written to make them disagree with each other, they disagreed with each other *right from the beginning *due to them both coming from oral tradition which naturally diverged over time. Therein lies the problem, it’s very difficult to separate fact from fiction in cases such as this, and it doesn’t just apply to this particular incident, but to the entire four canonical Gospels.

Hope this helped you understand Islam’s position on this.
Click to expand...
Thanks for telling us Muslim belief of the method of the corruption of scripture. I was never clear on this before.

But the Church has been well aware of these differences. It wasn’t pointed out by Muslims a couple of hundred years later. The Church never claimed that the old testament was corrupt to gain Jewish converts or soldiers, as I believe was Muhammed’s motive.

Many Christian fundamentalists make this same mistake, taking a library assembled by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and telling us what it means, or that Catholic interpretation is wrong.

The kicker is, of course, is the martyred apostles. They all preached that Jesus is God. They gained nothing earthly, no territory, no tax base. They willingly gave their lives preaching the love of God.
 
Kadaveri said:
Greetings Stephen.
Muhammad (saaw) never ‘sanctioned’ the New Testament, nor is there any evidence that he ever read the canonical gospels.
More to the main point, your follows the standard Christian response to the belief of Muslims that the New Testament is corrupt, basically asking when was it changed? Where? And by whom? Now, although the Gospels have went through textual alteration, John 7:53-8:11 and 1 John 5:7 for instance; this type of thing is not what is primarily meant by ‘corruption’ (some ignorant Muslims telling Christians that this is the case isn’t helpful for understanding either).
,.
Click to expand...
To me the most amusing part of all this is that the Qur’an was first an oral tradition which was not recorded for some time after the death of Muhammad. At the time of the 3rd Caliphate there were many versions of the Qur’an. So the 3rd Caliphate had a copy made to his liking then had all other copies destroyed on pain of death to anyone who did not give up their differing copy.

Then Muslims made up a fantastic story that the Qur’an is in heaven and only one original exists. Unfortunately for Muslims some of those varying original copies still exit. They were discovered by Muslims but are being studied by the international community. The archeological find shows not one Qur’an but an evolving Qur’an that changed over time.
 
This thread is about the New Testament, not the Qur’an. If you want to discuss that then open a new thread, as I’m not going to respond here and disrupt this one.
 
Stephen0 said:
Now isn’t it true that Mohammud said that he sanctioned and respected the New Testament Bible that he was familiar with and that Moslems could trust its words?
Click to expand...
Hi
Please give a quotation from Quran in your support.
Thanks

Muhammad had a marvelous record of a peace loving person for 40+13+2=55 years, he joined in welfare activities if there was any in Mecca, he helped the needy and in distress, he stood for the human cause, he never harmed any person. His record in these 55 years is clean by any standards.
 
  1. The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of
    God and demands faith in the Bible.

    Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51,
    69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

    a. All these above texts presuppose the availability of the
    true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad’s day.
    Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
    b. A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the
    revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46
    c. The Quran makes no distinction between God’s revelations
    Sura 2:136
  2. The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God.
    Sura 6:34; 10:34
answering-islam.de/Main/Bible/jrwhy.html

answering-islam.de/Main/Bible/index.html

👍
 
Daniel_Marsh said:
  1. The Quran declares the Bible to be a true revelation of
    God and demands faith in the Bible.

    Sura 2:40-42,126,136,285; 3:3,71,93; 4:47,136; 5:47-51,
    69,71-72; 6:91; 10:37,94; 21:7; 29:45,46; 35:31; 46:11

    a. All these above texts presuppose the availability of the
    true revelation of God to the people of Muhammad’s day.
    Sura 3:71,93; 10:94; 21:71
    b. A true Muslim is obliged to believe in all the
    revelations of God. Sura 2:136; 4:136; 29:46
    c. The Quran makes no distinction between God’s revelations
    Sura 2:136
  2. The Quran claims that NO ONE can change the Word of God.
    Sura 6:34; 10:34
answering-islam.de/Main/Bible/jrwhy.html

answering-islam.de/Main/Bible/index.html

👍
Click to expand...
funny ,you wanna use what you believe to be completley lie to prove uncorruption of your bible ,can we use one verse and explain it and after we finish one turn into other?🙂
 
ahmadhassan said:
funny ,you wanna use what you believe to be completley lie to prove uncorruption of your bible ,can we use one verse and explain it and after we finish one turn into other?🙂
Click to expand...
funny this is exactly what you tend to do also…🤷
 
ahmadhassan said:
funny ,you wanna use what you believe to be completley lie to prove uncorruption of your bible ,can we use one verse and explain it and after we finish one turn into other?🙂
Click to expand...
He is showing that what you are professing is blasphemy against the Qur’an as you do not follow what the Qur’an states… that the Bible is correct, that God’s revelations cannot be corrupted.
It does not matter if he believes the Qur’an. What matters is that you say that you do and yet you contradict the Qur’an.
 
Hmmm thats strange I find the whole thing very strange…:hmmm:
You believe in part of the bible but what I see you believe, you use to try contradict it.:rolleyes:
 
Hi Kadaveri, I enjoy reading your post. Now, having read the new posts let me make these general comments. First, I can readily understand how some sections of the NT sure seem like contradictions, but the marvel is that put together, these 4 human authors have a rather consistant story to tell. The main features were that from their observations this Jesus proclaimed himself the Son of Man and began an educational process that took 3 years for their later mission work. Along the way, he kept their interest and attracted other followers with his miracles and wisdom. Only gradually did he let them know the deeper levels of his being and hint to them that he was the Word of God made flesh. Along the way, he revealed that God was Love in human form, actually a community of three. The Father whose word was so strong that it exsisted as a person in the Son, and their love so overpowering that its spirit could create a third with it’s own personhood. Finally, when all was fulfilled, the example set, and the time was ready, he showed them what they feared most to face. Death. But this death was the giving of a life that God required to undue what Adam had done. As Adam had brought death and sin into the world, now it also required a just man and sinless being like unto God to free us from an eternal curse. Remember like heals like. The results of Jesus’s death in human terms were 11 freightened men cowering in a room. It was only in the Resurrection that the disciples realized the full impact of this Jesus of Nazerth. It was only by the Resurrection that they too would be willing to die a martyr’s death proclaiming this seeming absurdity. So these 6 or so NT authors, had enough influence to cause the Prophet centuries later to ponder their story and its fruit and declare in Sarah 5:43; “And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which we (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light confirming that which we (revealed) before it in the Torah that the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top