Is the NT Bible corrupted as Moslems believe?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen0
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ahmadhassan said:
no i didnt bec i still believe in part of bible but you dont believe at all in qur`an :extrahappy:
Click to expand...
I note the use of the phrase “part of the Bible.”

Findings at Qumran and other places gives us a fairly comprehensive secularly-held scientific means to state that copies of the Scripture were passed on inerrantly. They provide a benchmark against which we can do comparative analysis.

Recent finds of Qur’an remnants (Syria, elsewhere) poke a huge hole in the Muslem-held contention of an unaltered Qur’an.

Further, there is historical record by which to view the Qur’an as an instrument of Muhammed, and not of God. Indeed, Muhammed’s first impression was that a demon had visited him in the cave. His wife (who had economic and other reasons to convince him otherwise) convinced him it was the angel Gabriel.

Muhammed should have held to his first impression: they are often the most accurate.
 
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...
Please Daniel… don’t study a religion by reading polemics. This really is the cheapest Christian missionary tactic to convert Muslims there is: that the Qur’an commands its followers to believe in the Bible, that the Qur’an and the Bible contradict each other and therefore the Bible must be true and the Qur’an false because the Bible came first. Of course following this by giving dozens of verse references that nobody is going to have the time to look up and refute each and every single one individually.

Do they seriously think that Muslims are the biggest idiots the world has ever seen and their holy book which they believe to be the word of God tells them to believe in the Bible, but they don’t??? Seriously, if showing Muslims the Bible was true was *that *easy we’d all be Christians by now.

The Qur’an NEVER declares the Bible to be a true revelation nor does it demand Muslims have faith in it. There is not a single verse in the Qur’an that says this. To give the general theory instead of going through all those verses, when the Qur’an refers to ‘the book’ or even specific books, it is referring to the teachings of those Prophets given to them by God, not the writings we have today. If this were true then why in 53:67 does the Qur’an mock the Meccans for not following what is in the scrolls of Abraham (as)? Did any scrolls of Abraham (as) still exist for the Meccans to go reference? Obviously not, yet these hypocritical Christian polemicists decide to ignore this verse since it totally destroys the notion that the Torah and Injil refered to in the Qur’an must mean the modern day Bible.

And yes the Qur’an does say we must believe in all the Prophets and the revelation given to them, that has nothing to do with believing in the Bible!

I really don’t wish to participate in such puerile debates, so I’m leaving this at that.
 
So my question is this do they or dont they believe in (or part of) the bible?
I am getting confused here…:hmmm:
And if they do what books and why?
And if they dont then can any account for Moses be taken seriously by them?
 
Muslims don’t *believe *in any part of the Bible, we treat it as a wholly uninspired text like any other.
 
Kadaveri said:
Muslims don’t *believe *in any part of the Bible, we treat it as a wholly uninspired text like any other.
Click to expand...
We have a rather similar view of Muhammed’s Qur’an: That its motivations were greed and avarice, and justification of a means to secure wealth and power. The only difference today is that the scimitar has been replaced with the ubiquitous AK47.

Jesus at least named Peter successor. And while that has sparked debate among some Christians, we at least have it recorded. Muhammed did no such thing, which leads us to today and the whole Shiia-Sunni rift.

Now back to the topic at hand. The NT is often understood by Muslims as having many many “versions” and is thus errant because they do not understand the nature of translations; with the only authorized version of the Qur’an being in Arabic.

In translating the Bible, two approaches can be taken: literal equivalence or dynamic equivalence. This wasn’t really a problem when there was only the Catholic Church, who could oversee and ensure that translation into other languages was inerrant (that is, a true literal equivalent).

With the Protestant Reformation came a plethora of differing translations. King James, NIV, etc., etc. Some were held to higher translational standards than others. None had the full resources of the Catholic Church and used only partial assemblages of original manuscripts and autographs.

This has been compounded in recent times with dynamic equivalencies – the Bible in vernacular. Not my cup of tea for theologic scholarship, but nice for a quick read as long as the translation holds to the correct idea of the original Scipture. Unfortunately, many don’t.

All these translations give Muslims the wrong impression about Christian Scripture, of course. And it gives rise to absurd threads such as this (and this is by far not the first time I’ve seen such a post). So forgive me if I sound brusque, but it becomes redundant and stale to answer the same absurdity ad infinitum, ad naseum.
 
I don’t mean to be rude here, but if you had indeed read this thread you’d learn that the Muslim criticism of the New Testament has nothing to do with the fact that there are numerous translations.
 
Kadaveri said:
I don’t mean to be rude here, but if you had indeed read this thread you’d learn that the Muslim criticism of the New Testament has nothing to do with the fact that there are numerous translations.
Click to expand...
I have read the thread, and many others like it. Translations help reinforce the general premise Muslims invoke. So the previous post was to nip that aspect in the bud.

Insofar as questioning the NT itself, they do – as I have said previously – what many choose to do: look at an individual verse and give it context not intended in the chapter or book of the NT as a whole.

I love the double-sword aspect of this context argument, because it is the one thrown up in Christian’s faces when discussing verses in various Surrah. What is important is that 1.6 billion Christians, the vast majority of them Catholics and Orthodox, do believe the inerrancy of all scriptural canon, NT and OT.

So an uneducated man from Mecca, 600 years after the fact, is going to say that Christian and Judaic texts are errant? By the by, he didn’t say this initially; he saved that until he had a political power base in Medina to hide behind. The same man whose initial impression was that it was a demon in the cave?
 
Hi
I would like to submit my views on the issue:-
Firstly, JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave anything revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of written stone tablets as was in case of Moses, Secondly or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel.
Jesus left nothing behind anything authenticated by him, in possession of the Church.
We do respect the NTGospels which (perhaps stand at a lower stage Thirdly) have account of Jesus life, but it does not have any strong value for us more than a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each event for truth on merit.
There are about 120+ writers who wrote a sort of history books about the time of Jesus, that could be logically accepted as a historical source and truth could be searched out of it like we do from other sources of history on merit of each event unbiased. All these 120+ books must be treated at par but unfortunately some have been selected by the clergy and are known as NTBible while others have been discarded. The historians should come forward and sift the material for truth, if found, on equal footing from all of these 120+ books, with reason, rationality and valid arguments acceptable to the whole world, as these are claimed to be Universal.
I respect your religion but I think I could form my own opinion freely. My Catholic friends may remain steadfast on what they believe, no compulsion, and that is their right.
Thanks
 
Hi
I would like to submit my views on the issue:-
Firstly, JesusYeshuaIssa did not leave anything revealed on him from GodAllahYHWH in the form of written stone tablets as was in case of Moses, Secondly or anything written by JesusYeshuaIssa himself when he left from Galilee, after the incident of Crucifixion, alongwith his mother Mary in search of the lost ten tribes of the house of Israel.
Jesus left nothing behind anything authenticated by him, in possession of the Church.
We do respect the NTGospels which (perhaps stand at a lower stage Thirdly) have account of Jesus life, but it does not have any strong value for us more than a book of history subject to scrutiny, internal as well as external, for each event for truth on merit.
There are about 120+ writers who wrote a sort of history books about the time of Jesus, that could be logically accepted as a historical source and truth could be searched out of it like we do from other sources of history on merit of each event unbiased. All these 120+ books must be treated at par but unfortunately some have been selected by the clergy and are known as NTBible while others have been discarded. The historians should come forward and sift the material for truth, if found, on equal footing from all of these 120+ books, with reason, rationality and valid arguments acceptable to the whole world, as these are claimed to be Universal.
I respect your religion but I think I could form my own opinion freely. My Catholic friends may remain steadfast on what they believe, no compulsion, and that is their right.
Thanks
 
And we give the uninspired writing of Mo even less credence. He was a self-professed illiterate. His first impression was that it was a demon in the cave. His wife, shrewd in many ways, convinced him otherwise. She saw not a prophet, but a profit.

We know from the Qur’an that Mo borrowed from the Jews and Christians their Scriptures and tales. He even paid for them. He really should have had a digital recorder – because he got the translations wrong; either that, or the ones who sold him the information really yanked his chain. Knowing human nature, I suspect the later.

Being illiterate, he didn’t know any better. He wouldn’t have known an (name removed by moderator)sired, divine text if it fell on his head. So he invented one. But as power grew, motivations changed. So we have the Medina surah, which contradicts earlier Meccan surah. What? The perfect book that exists in Paradise needed abrogation? How so? Because it suited Mo’s needs as he invented a religion on the fly.

Got to hand it to Mo, though. He puts modern TV evangelicals to shame, he is the epitome of the snake-oil charlatan salesmen of religion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top