L
lukewarm
Guest
I don’t it’s the word of God because so many people memorize it, but I think it’s damn impressive.
- Status
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
The only group of alleged Christians that changed or added to the Gospels were the Gnostics and their books were rejected by the early Church. Even the Arians (precursors to Muhammadans) did not add or change the Scriptures to fit their whacked out belief system. There were not different churches at the time, but one holy catholic and apostolic church. There were people that were once part of the catholic church that became heretics such as Arians, or who held onto other heresies such as Monothelism, but not different sects. The first schism came from the Assyrians and the second was with Copts. We still fundamentally believe the same things, including the real presence, baptismal regeneration, apostolic succession etc.
If we look at documents of the early church fathers they use the same arguments we use today in apologetics for the one, holy catholic and apostolic church.
G
George_Waters
Guest
D
De_Maria
Guest
Huh? Please be logical.
No. The original was burnt.
Then why do you call yourselves, People of the Book?
Sorry to tell you, but I’ve seen plenty of books that claim to be the Quran. So, although many people MAY have memorized the Quran, the fact remains that it is a book.
In other words, it needed to be documented, on paper, in order to preserve it for future generations. That is what “documentary purposes” means. Or did you think it meant that someone wrote it down for fun? Why do you think they took great pains to make sure it contained what they wanted it to contain.
This is news to me. I thought that some people memorized parts of it. While others memorized other parts of it.
- If the book had not been compiled, but was written in bits and pieces laying here and there. Some in one person’s possession and some in another’s, how did anyone have a complete Quran to memorize?
- As far as I am aware, Mohammed never recited the entire Quran himself. So he couldn’t have taught anyone the entire Quran. So who had knowledge of the entire Quran BEFORE it was compiled? And how did they get this knowledge?
But we aren’t concerned with the state of the memorized Quran today. Although it might be fun to compare the memorized Quran in a Mosque in your sect to the memorized Quran to a Mosque in Paarsurrey’s.
That is truly awesome. Too bad they are exercizing blind faith in a book of errors.
My point is this. What good does it do to memorize a book full of lies and errors? I’d rather throw rocks at the wind.
Sincerely,
De Maria
D
De_Maria
Guest
No it isn’t. That is exactly what you said. You said, and I quote:
So, then Booklover’s question is not a straw man at all.
But they did disagree over it? Have you not read Usman’s account. The entire reason that the Quran was burnt is because there were so many variations.
Note the explanation in this website
islam101.com/quran/preservedQ.htm
which explains that the Quran is a book, never mentions memorization at all . Note how Usman conveniently claims to have reproduced the original, deems all other people’s Qurans invalid and orders them burnt.
Now read the hadith:
Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sha’m and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur’an, so he said to Uthman, ‘O Chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Qur’an) as Jews and the Christians did before’. So Uthman sent a message to Hafsa, saying, ‘Send us the manuscripts of the Qur’an so that we may compile the Qur’anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you’. Hafsa sent It to Uthman. Uthman then ordered Zaid ibn Thabit, Abdullah bin az-Zubair, Sa’id bin al-As, and Abdur-Rahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, ‘In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur’an, then write it in the dialect of the Quraish as the Qur’an was revealed in their tongue’. They did so, and when they had written many copies, Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa. Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they had copied, and ordered that all the other Qur’anic materials, whether written in fragmentary manuscripts or whole copies, be burnt. (Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 6, p.479).
Note how the hadith admits,
*differences in the recitation of the Qur’an
*thus contradicting your explanation that they did not differ at all.
So, what essentially happened here, is that all copies before Usman’s were declared null and void and destroyed. And all memorizations before Usman’s were declared null and void as well.
CONT’D
D
De_Maria
Guest
CONT’D
I guess this is just your way of changing the subject. I still see no explanation of how Islam can prove that the current book, called the Quran contains Mhammed’s words since the original was burned…
Note this hadith, which seems to imply that people were arguing over which reading had the “purer arabic” not over which had “Mohammed’s words.”
By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira’at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying ‘My reading is superior to your reading’. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, ‘What is your view (on this)?’ He answered, ‘My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement’. We replied, ‘What a wonderful idea!’ Someone from the gathering there asked, ‘Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?’ They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa’id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, ‘Let the one write and the other dictate’. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).
Let one write and the other dictate? But what were they dictating? That is the question?
Sincerely,
De Maria
That isn’t true. Please substantiate your accusation that the Gospels may be improvised.
Its not eloquent at all. It is the most boring form of literature I’ve ever read and even if it were eloquent, it would only elocute error and contradiction. Whats the point in eloquence if it is all rubbish?
I guess this is just your way of changing the subject. I still see no explanation of how Islam can prove that the current book, called the Quran contains Mhammed’s words since the original was burned…
And yet Usman felt it necessary to burn the original written record of the Quran? That doesn’t add up.
Note this hadith, which seems to imply that people were arguing over which reading had the “purer arabic” not over which had “Mohammed’s words.”
By Allah, he did not act or do anything in respect of the manuscripts (masahif) except in full consultation with us, for he said, 'What is your opinion in this matter of qira’at (reading)? It has been reported to me that some are saying ‘My reading is superior to your reading’. That is a perversion of the truth. We asked him, ‘What is your view (on this)?’ He answered, ‘My view is that we should unite the people on a single text (mushaf waahid), then there will be no further division or disagreement’. We replied, ‘What a wonderful idea!’ Someone from the gathering there asked, ‘Whose is the purest (Arabic) among the people and whose reading (is the best)?’ They said the purest (Arabic) among the people was that of Sa’id ibn al-'As and the (best) reader among them was Zaid ibn Thabit. He (Uthman) said, ‘Let the one write and the other dictate’. Thereafter they performed their task and he united the people on a (single) text. (Ibn Abi Dawud, Kitab al-Masahif, p.22).
Let one write and the other dictate? But what were they dictating? That is the question?
Sincerely,
De Maria
D
dolphinlove
Guest
How do you know they were consistent? All it would take is for one person to start reciting what they ‘remembered’, then another person would go ‘hang on, that is not the way i remember it’ and then the original person who started to recite it might start doubting their ability to recite what has NOT being written down. This can then open a can of worms with the remaining people there saying i agree with this person, and i agree with that person. This has the potential for major corruption.
And we all know how confused the human mind can be.
Even the most esteemed people get confused at times. Its human nature, and i dont think God would let important works get to the stage where confusion might enter the equation.
D
De_Maria
Guest
It sounds as though you’re the, “Ill take their word for it type of guy?” Lets go over the facts.
That is true, we don’t have originals either. But we have corroboration. “What is that?”, you ask. Glad you asked.
- We have Tradition. Tradition is the living out of our faith in accordance with Jesus Teachings from the time of Jesus.
- We have Scripture. New Testament Scripture springs from authentic Tradition. It is the witness of Jesus contemporaries on the lfie and miracles of Jesus Christ and on the immediate response of the Christian community to Jesus and the Apostles’ teachings.
- We have Magisterium. That is the interpretation of Tradition and Scripture by the Church.
In addition, we have Church history. We have the quotations of the Church Fathers which quote a verse here and a verse there in so many of their treatises and documents that we could reproduce the entire Bible from them alone. Note that all these are in various languages and they all say the same things.
In addition, we have human history. In human history, we find various copies and fragments of ancient Christian Scriptures, written in various languages which all say the same thing.
So, I make the claim that Islam has not even a shadow of what we have.
For one, no one witnessed Mohammed’s sole miracle, that of speaking to an angel. It is his word alone. Whoever believes that is exercising blind faith in Mohammed.
Two, Mohammed recited many Surahs but never codified them. After he died, no one knew which came first and which came last. That is why they are placed in order by length.
Three, Even these are worthless as evidence of Mohammed’s recitation because the originals were burned.
And finally, it seems to me that a man powerful enough to have all versions of the Quran burned, except his own, is powerful enough to have the scribes “remember” whatever he wants them to “remember”.
Essentially, Muslims have nothing. Just an old recitation of an old book which can be traced to Uthman. Not to Mohammed.
Show me how?
Ancient cultures were impressive in that respect. Since they had few of our conveniences for writing and what they had was hard to come by, they relied on memorization. Muslims are not unique in that respect.
theosophy-nw.org/theosnw/world/general/ge-kavi.htm
Memorization of the matter doesn’t make it true.
Sincerely,
De Maria
D
De_Maria
Guest
Excellent point and precisely why Usman burned the variants and probably ensured that the memories (recitations) were standardized.
Sincerely,
De Maria
D
dolphinlove
Guest
Thank you
And they say the bible is corrupt, maybe they should research their own home before casting stones!
D
De_Maria
Guest
Really, who?
Bart Ehrman? The atheist? Is the what you call the “leading experts?”
Anytime you’re ready we can go point by point on Bart Ehrman’s errors and misunderstandings of the Bible.
Really? What do you mean by unreliable? The Church burned copies of Bibles with just one error or false teaching in them? So, please show me what you consider unreliable. Is 99% correct unrelaible?
Sincerely,
De Maria
L
lukewarm
Guest
Bart Ehrman is an expert in the field of textual criticism whether you acknowledge it or not his credentials speak for themselves and I’m sure are much more widely accepted than yours.
Even if we take your 99% number, if we say there are 500,000 words in the Bible, that would mean 5,000 words of it are corrupted so even by your own numbers the Bible translations are completely unreliable.
Start with the the Johannine Comma and we’ll go from there.
M
Montalban
Guest
Then that would be the original!
Man that was simple!You guys say the original message was written on bits of bark, leaves, tidy bags, or whatever it is you had lying around the kitchen.
M
Montalban
Guest
Have you read this (The Gospel according to Bart by Daniel B. Wallace) It’s a criticism of Bart Ehrman
M
Montalban
Guest
Well then if he says it, it must be true. End of discussion, I suppose?
S
swariffin
Guest
That is why the Roman Catholic Church did not burn the original codices. Yes, the bible were translated to many languages (including arabic), but the original codices, which the bible came from, are still there. All people who want to study in depth about the scriptures, first will have to learn either the Greek and/or the Ibranian/Jewish language (the original language of the codices), and also its literature. Interpretations can not be made just by direct translation, without regards the literature and the culture of the language behind. You may see the oldest codices preserved in the Vatican Library, I believe.
The codices were hand rewritten from the original writing, because there was no other way of making copies. There was no Xerox machine at that time. That is also why until the 4th century, all of those codices were canonized into the bible we know today. It took about 300 years for the experts to verify all those codices to make sure no variations, and more importantly, no refutals. During that time frame, it was demonstrated that the teaching contained in those codices yield fruits, in a form of changing behavior from more and more early christians into better humanity and moral standard.
Yes, the earliest gospel were written about 30 years after Jesus died, risen, and ascended into heaven. But, the audience in which the gospel were addressed to were definitely the persons who may experienced and had close encounters to Jesus himself. Any wrong saying, would be refuted far before the gospel ever been canonized.
I do not believe that De Maria ever meant that only 99% of the wording of the bible is correct. If he did, then he is wrong. You may have misunderstood his point. (By the way, I know that De Maria is not female, am I correct sir?
)
M
Montalban
Guest
Lukewarm’s missed the point anyway. The basis of the Church (Orthodox or Catholic) is not Scripture. It’s Jesus. Jesus appointed his Apostles and they taught with authority.
Whether they taught by written or spoken word, they still had authority.
When it came time to compile the Bible they tested the various books against what was already taught as the truth.
S
Semper_Fi_1
Guest
Amen, brother. Our bishops are that authority today.
M
Montalban
Guest
Indeed. And they were a check against error before the Bible was compiled
D
De_Maria
Guest
An expert is as an expert does. Bart Ehrman is such an expert in textual criticism that it lead him to deny the Resurrection of Jesus Christ and eventually to atheism. If we’re talking about the same guy.
Here’s what he said in one of his debates:
Thank you, Bill, for that impressive refutation! I do have to tell you that* if you think I’m going to change my mind because you have mathematical proof for the existence of God, I’m sorry, but it ain’t gonna happen! **So I’m sorry I have only twelve minutes for refutation; I need about three hours, as I imagine Bill does, too.
*forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2775064
This isn’t a popularity contest. Its about whether he knows what he’s talking about and he doesn’t.
What do you mean by corrupted words. Do y nderstnd ths? Words can be corrupted and still understood.
Certainly. What about it?
Sincerely,
De Maria
- Status