Islam's Plagiarized Christian Origins

  • Thread starter Thread starter DeusVult09
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Byzantine_Wolf said:
I don’t think their beliefs (or more specifically, their Christology) are close to Arianism - I would say they are closer to Nestorianism. 🙂
Click to expand...
I think I remember from another thread, that what Muhammad got which is “similar” to Christianity believe, came from a Nestorian “Christian”. I don’t remember the name, but I’ll try to get it. Muhammad called that person as “Uncle”, and later one of his follower even declared that his “Uncle” was the true Christian.

Ups, somebody got that name. It was Waraqah.
 
How bizarre, to accuse the Muslim book of plagiarism ,when the bible itself takes the term to a whole new level…of course this is obvious to anyone who has read the Assyrian,Babylonian, Egyptian, and Sumerian texts and tablets …not only that, most of the bible stories are mere highlights of the original stories

How hard is it to take the main points of a story and tweak a few things??? Not very.
 
If you look hard enough you could also find many similarities between the bible and some ancient hindu texts, feel free to draw your own conclusions here but that’s besides the point.

Our position is that the author of the ***original ***OT and NT (figuratively speaking) is God, therefore it is expected that the Quran would contain some remnants of the original books prior to being corrupted through time, as all three books were revealed by the same God. This thread only proves the order of precedence which is obvious.

Muslims don’t deny the Bible is not the word of God, we acknowledge God revealed the bible (Torah and Gospels) but these were corrupted, not entirely but significant portions, like trinity, and the man-god concepts.

The Christian origin mentioned in the title of this thread is a misnomer as we don’t have the complete original words of the bible. By original I mean a manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic, instead what we have is Greek translated copies.
 
famdigy said:
If you look hard enough you could also find many similarities between the bible and some ancient hindu texts, feel free to draw your own conclusions here but that’s besides the point.

Our position is that the author of the ***original ***OT and NT (figuratively speaking) is God, therefore it is expected that the Quran would contain some remnants of the original books prior to being corrupted through time, as all three books were revealed by the same God. This thread only proves the order of precedence which is obvious.

Muslims don’t deny the Bible is not the word of God, we acknowledge God revealed the bible (Torah and Gospels) but these were corrupted, not entirely but significant portions, like trinity, and the man-god concepts.

The Christian origin mentioned in the title of this thread is a misnomer as we don’t have the complete original words of the bible. By original I mean a manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic, instead what we have is Greek translated copies.
Click to expand...
The problem is Muslim can only accuse the bible was corrupted not entirely but significantly. Which part is not corrupted, and which is corrupted? You can’t answer.

You also made a serious flaw by assuming that the bible must be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Please show us the written Aramaic language that is differ than written Hebrew.
 
swariffin said:
The problem is Muslim can only accuse the bible was corrupted not entirely but significantly. Which part is not corrupted, and which is corrupted? You can’t answer.

You also made a serious flaw by assuming that the bible must be written in Hebrew or Aramaic. Please show us the written Aramaic language that is differ than written Hebrew.
Click to expand...
The most corrupted one in my opinion is John’s gospel…many added/modified passages
 
famdigy said:
If you look hard enough you could also find many similarities between the bible and some ancient hindu texts, feel free to draw your own conclusions here but that’s besides the point.

Our position is that the author of the ***original ***OT and NT (figuratively speaking) is God, therefore it is expected that the Quran would contain some remnants of the original books prior to being corrupted through time, as all three books were revealed by the same God. This thread only proves the order of precedence which is obvious.

Muslims don’t deny the Bible is not the word of God, we acknowledge God revealed the bible (Torah and Gospels) but these were corrupted, not entirely but significant portions, like trinity, and the man-god concepts.

The Christian origin mentioned in the title of this thread is a misnomer as we don’t have the complete original words of the bible. By original I mean a manuscript in Hebrew or Aramaic, instead what we have is Greek translated copies.
Click to expand...
Ad hominem and tu quoque

sillyallah.com/2007/10/fallacies-and-dishonesty.html
 
swariffin said:
Which Chapter/Verses?
Click to expand...
He’s raising a side issue that detracts from the main issue, which is why I called him out on red herrng. Nevertheless, here are some handy links:

Greek Bible: codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx
Latin Bible: vatican.va/archive/bible/nova_vulgata/documents/nova-vulgata_index_lt.html

Old Testament Canon: catholic.com/library/Old_Testament_Canon.asp
Evolution of the Gospels: catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9403fea1.asp
John and His Gospel: catholic.com/thisrock/2007/0711fea3.asp
Canon of the Scriptures: catholic.com/thisrock/2000/0011fea4.asp
Catholics and the Bible: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709clas.asp
Divine Inspiration: catholic.com/library/Proving_Inspiration.asp
Scripture and Tradition: catholic.com/library/Scripture_and_Tradition.asp
Apostolic Tradition: catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Tradition.asp
Tradition with a Captial “T”: catholic.com/thisrock/1991/9112chap.asp
Explaining Tradition: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9709disp.asp
 
Hadi said:
The most corrupted one in my opinion is John’s gospel…many added/modified passages
Click to expand...
there are textual variants of the new testament in different manuscripts
but the vast majority of them are relatively minor and only Only like 1 -3% of the variants actually change the meaning of the text in any significant way. Scholars agree nearly all of these errors were the result of copyist errors and not 1 single Christian doctrine is undermined by these variants. There are also added verses like the end of mark, the Johanine coma and john 7:53-8:11 but these are by far exceptions.

But Muslims are not ones to complain about corruption of the bible as the Koran is far more corrupted! Yes, you heard me right. The Sana manuscripts the earliest manuscript of the Koran in existence sufficiently disprove the Muslim myth about not 1 word of the Koran ever having been changed. These manuscripts were discovered in the 70’s and scholars found that the original text had been washed off and that it had been re-written and when the documents were examined forensically they discovered the original text had been sufficiently altered, re-edited and corrupted with entire surah’s possessing different forms. This has led some scholars to conclude that the Koran had a very fluid form even after Mohammad’s death. On top of these alterations of the quranic text the later text also used a quffic script without vowel markings giving each word up to 30 different meanings. No one manuscript of the NT is anywhere as dubious and as damning as the Sana Manuscripts. No one manuscript of the NT has ever been found with it entire text washed off and re-written.

This is a fact. It is also a fact that there are some 1300 textual variations between the other two early Koran manuscripts, the Samarqand and Topkapi codices so you aren’t one to complain about the corruption of the bible and I suggest you research the corruption of your own holy book before doing so.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sana’a_manuscripts

Here is a video from National Geographic which features the Sana Manuscripts and features notable Islamic scholars talking about these manuscripts and their shocking revelations.

youtube.com/watch?v=-x1JsyFrpKg&feature=related
 
by the way Hadi I suggest you formulate an adequate response to my argument rather than going off on these tangents.
 
swariffin said:
That is the problem that Muhammad could not understand Christianity. He simply said it is wrong. It is the same thing as a man does not understand the law of relativity, he simply said that Einstein was wrong.
Click to expand...
the website has nothing to do with Islam…just my response to your question…

please answer me ,why is that several passages were not found in the original manuscripts (as stated in that website)
 
DeusVult09 said:
by the way Hadi I suggest you formulate an adequate response to my argument rather than going off on these tangents.
Click to expand...
I am not a scholar ,nor eloquent in English

but the Sanna ms is very interesting,has any scholar recovered the underneath text ??
 
Hadi said:
the website has nothing to do with Islam…just my response to your question…

please answer me ,why is that several passages were not found in the original manuscripts (as stated in that website)
Click to expand...
One can ask the same about the Qu’ran. Why are verses different? It’s suppose to be the Verbatium of God, yet there are three different versions of the Qu’ran in Arabic.
 
Eucharisted said:
One can ask the same about the Qu’ran. Why are verses different? It’s suppose to be the Verbatium of God, yet there are three different versions of the Qu’ran in Arabic.
Click to expand...
I am really interested…please show me a sample of these three versions so I can compare them…
 
Hadi said:
I am really interested…please show me a sample of these three versions so I can compare them…
Click to expand...
YUSUFALI: Say: Whoever is an enemy to Gabriel-for he brings down the (revelation) to thy heart by Allah’s will, a confirmation of what went before, and guidance and glad tidings for those who believe,-
PICKTHAL: Say (O Muhammad, to mankind): Who is an enemy to Gabriel! For he it is who hath revealed (this Scripture) to thy heart by Allah’s leave, confirming that which was (revealed) before it, and a guidance and glad tidings to believers;
SHAKIR: Say: Whoever is the enemy of Jibreel-- for surely he revealed it to your heart by Allah’s command, verifying that which is before it and guidance and good news for the believers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top