Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodrigo_Bivar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rodrigo Bivar:
However, in the interest of adding to the discussion I must note that the Bismika allahuma article by Halil Ibrahimi (edited by Menj) is quite disappointing in that they failed to realize that they were only attacking the English translations of the Bible in their attempt to prove it is corrupted. This is like me attacking the English translations of the Quran to conclude that the Quran is corrupted. After all, every translation of the Quran is different from all others. Just like every English translation of the Bible is different from all others. It might be that the Bible is indeed corrupted – but one cannot conclude corruption based solely on English translations. Thus, the Muslim proposition has not been proven. I wonder how Menj failed to see the obvious mistake in logic he allowed Ibrahimi to make.

Cheers to Gonzales: I wonder how you didn’t spot this obvious mistake either.
Click to expand...
what i’m trying to figure out here is whether you missed what was explicitly stated in footnote #4 of that pdf or are purposely ignoring it. the footnote clearly states, “A NOTE TO READER: Whenever we mention in this paper about versions or cite something in that regard, we do not mean the differences in translations. The term “versions” is used for different Bible manuscripts.”

all the tables displaying the various discrepancies found in the bible as well as all the quotes presented in the article all refer to the various discrepancies found in the extant manuscripts, the sources which the english translations were translated from and not the translations themselves. this is where the relevance of the links i provided concerning the fact that it’s generally agreed that NT manusripts were originally composed in greek comes in.

the pdf article by ibrahimi also compares the manuscripts from the OT and shows numerous differences and variants. he also brings a number of quotes that affirm corruption to these texts all of which refer to the manuscripts and not the translations that are based on them.

in your first post you said to prove an older scripture’s been corrupted you need to bring an extant copy of an uncorrupted manuscript… well, the article prepared by ibrahimi shows how all the available manuscripts differ and contain numerous variants and alterations and what that shows is that it’s certain is that corruption has taken place.

in any case, if you really want to get anywhere with this discussion, you’re first going to have to prove the underlying assumptions contained in your original post; 1) that prophet muhammad composed the Quran himself, and 2) that the portions of the Quran that share “parallels” with the bible were borrowed from judaeo-christian traditions.
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
40.png
Rodrigo:
However, in the interest of adding to the discussion I must note that the Bismika allahuma article by Halil Ibrahimi (edited by Menj) is quite disappointing in that they failed to realize that they were only attacking the English translations of the Bible in their attempt to prove it is corrupted. This is like me attacking the English translations of the Quran to conclude that the Quran is corrupted. After all, every translation of the Quran is different from all others. Just like every English translation of the Bible is different from all others. It might be that the Bible is indeed corrupted – but one cannot conclude corruption based solely on English translations. Thus, the Muslim proposition has not been proven. I wonder how Menj failed to see the obvious mistake in logic he allowed Ibrahimi to make.

Cheers to Gonzales: I wonder how you didn’t spot this obvious mistake either.
Click to expand...
what i’m trying to figure out here is whether you missed what was explicitly stated in footnote #4 of that pdf or are purposely ignoring it. the footnote clearly states, “A NOTE TO READER: Whenever we mention in this paper about versions or cite something in that regard, we do not mean the differences in translations. The term “versions” is used for different Bible manuscripts.”
Click to expand...
Actually I missed nothing. It really doesn’t matter what the authors claim. It is what they do that concerns me. All these ‘manuscripts’ are essentially translations of the same text. It really doesn’t make any difference whether one compares the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic or whether one compares the Codex Sinaiticus (4th century) and the Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (12th century). You don’t seem to get the point. Each of these manuscripts is only a translation of some long-lost original.

Other texts examined by Ibrahimi:
Codex Alexandrinus (called by Ibrahimi Codex Bizae) – 5th century
Origen – 4th century
Chrysostom – 5th century

These are the English translations I was referring to:
Elzevir 1624
Griesbach 1805
Lachmann 1842
Tischendorf 1869
Tregelles 1857
Alford 1849 as revised in 1871
Wordsworth 1856 as revised in 1870
Westcott & Hort 1881
Nestle-Aland 1979 (Aland et al. 1979)
Hodges & Farstad 1982 as corrected in 1985
Clementine Vulgate, third edition (Clement 1592)
Complutensian Polyglot (Stunica 1522)
Erasmus 1527
Bezae1598
Elzevir 1624

Concluding corruption of the Bible by comparing these texts is akin to me concluding the Quran is corrupted by comparing the textual differences between the translations of Yusuf Ali and Pickthall.
40.png
r.gonzales:
all the tables displaying the various discrepancies found in the bible as well as all the quotes presented in the article all refer to the various discrepancies found in the extant manuscripts, the sources which the english translations were translated from and not the translations themselves. this is where the relevance of the links i provided concerning the fact that it’s generally agreed that NT manusripts were originally composed in greek comes in.

the pdf article by ibrahimi also compares the manuscripts from the OT and shows numerous differences and variants. he also brings a number of quotes that affirm corruption to these texts all of which refer to the manuscripts and not the translations that are based on them.
Click to expand...
Same thing. All the manuscripts compared, whether Greek or English, are mere translations of some long-lost original.
40.png
r.gonzales:
in your first post you said to prove an older scripture’s been corrupted you need to bring an extant copy of an uncorrupted manuscript… well, the article prepared by ibrahimi shows how all the available manuscripts differ and contain numerous variants and alterations and what that shows is that it’s certain is that corruption has taken place.
Click to expand...
None of these available manuscripts presented by Ibrahimi are originals – they are translations of some originals. Note the estimated dating of each of the major codices examined by Ibrahami – they were all well past the time of writing of the Old and New Testaments.

To prove corruption you have to go back to the original text, not some translations.
40.png
r.gonzales:
in any case, if you really want to get anywhere with this discussion, you’re first going to have to prove the underlying assumptions contained in your original post; 1) that prophet muhammad composed the Quran himself,
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. It doesn’t matter who composed the Quran. I know it wasn’t some all-powerful deity because of the ‘mistakes’ it carries.
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
and 2) that the portions of the Quran that share “parallels” with the bible were borrowed from judaeo-christian traditions.
Click to expand...
I deal with logic. My evidence is on balance of probability. My proof is on balance of evidence. I think this is the way with all historical research.

I will re-iterate:
If there is parallelism between the Quran and previous scriptures then there are three possibilities:
  1. The source of all these paralleled scriptures was the same.
  2. The author(s) of the Quran borrowed from previous scriptures.
If it is not 1. then it must be 2. There is not possibility of independent origin due to the extensive parallelism involved.

However, if there are ‘differences or errors’ in the Quran compared to previous scriptures, then:
  1. The source of the Quran is not the same as the source of the previous scriptures.
  2. The source is the same but made a mistake with the Quran.
  3. The source is the same but made a correction of mistakes made with previous scriptures.
Since all-powerful deities do not make mistakes it stands to reason that any difference/errors in the parallelism must be due to 1.

We are trying to discover which of these possibilities are logical and backed by the facts. I have not yet begun to dissect the Quran’s parallelism yet: it is early days and I’m merely trying to lay the ground rules for the discussion. I note you have started to attack the Bible’s credibility as a pre-emptive strike. What I have shown is that your pre-emptive strike on the Bible is off the mark because:
  1. None of your claimed corrupted verses have the slightest to do with the parallelism on issue.
  2. Your source article is logically flawed as it compared translations, without even the slightest examination of the original source material.
Ciubate,
Cid
 
I agree with Rodrigo. This thread is talking about similarity of Quran and previous Scriptures, not about the corruption of Bible. Even if Bible is corrupted, in my opinion, it doesn’t negate the fact that Bible is older than Quran, and we have to see closely if there’s any borrowing in it. We can start by the same verses, I believe, to progress with something valuable.
 
I dont think muslims would claim the discrepancies in the quran compare to bible story as an error in their side. However muslims claim to have the correct scripture than previous ones. And like Bivar request, it need us to check to the original source before we make any credible claim over another.
 
“Those who follow the Messenger (Mohammed), the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them…”
(Sura 7:157)

“And when there cometh unto them (Jews) a Scripture (the Qur’an) from Allah, confirming that in their possession…” (Sura 2:89)

Does the Quran clearly say that the Bible is corrupt? If so, where?
 
It’s a matter of interpretation. Some claim these verses refer to specific Jews and Christians who corrupted their texts and is not a general case. Others claim the general case that the Judeo-Christian scriptures are corrupted. Translations from Qaribullah & Darwish.

[5.41] O Messenger, do not grieve for those who race into disbelief; those who say with their mouth: 'We believe, ’ yet their hearts did not believe, and the Jews who listen to lies and listen to other nations who have not come to you. They pervert the words in their places and say: 'If you are given this, accept it; if not, then beware! ’ Whomsoever Allah wishes to try, you will not own anything with Allah concerning him. For those whose hearts Allah does not will to purify shall be disgrace in this world and a grievous punishment in the Everlasting Life. Then they turn away after that; those are not believers.

[5.44] We have sent down the Torah in which there is guidance and light by which the submissive prophets judged the Jews, as did the rabbis and those of their Lord, guarding what they were required to of the Book of Allah, and for which they were witness. Do not fear people, but fear Me. And, do not take a small price for My verses. Those who do not judge with what Allah has sent down are the unbelievers. [5.45] We have written for them a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a nose for a nose, an ear for an ear, a tooth for a tooth, and for wounds equal retaliation, but whosoever forgoes it as a freewill offering, it will be an expiation for him. Whoever does not judge according to what Allah has sent down are the harmdoers. [5.46] And We sent, following in their footsteps (Prophet) Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming that which was before him in the Torah, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, confirming that which was before him in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the cautious. [5.47] Therefore, let the people of Gospel judge in accordance with that which Allah has sent in it. Those who do not judge according to that which Allah has sent down are the evildoers.

[3.78] And there is a sect among them who twist their tongues with the Book, so you will think it is from the Book, whereas it is not from the Book. They say: 'This is from Allah, ’ whereas it is not from Allah. And they knowingly tell lies against Allah.

[2.79] Woe to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say: 'This is from Allah, ’ in order to gain a small price for it. So woe to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for their earnings.

[4.46] Some Jews tampered with the words (altering) their places saying: 'We have heard and we disobey, ’ and 'Hear, without hearing, ’ and 'Observe us (Ra’ina, in Hebrew means evil) ', twisting with their tongues traducing religion. But if they had said: 'We have heard and obey, ’ and 'Hear, ’ and 'Regard us, ’ it would have been better for them, and more upright; but Allah has cursed them for their disbelief, so they do not believe, except a few.

[5.12] Allah made a covenant with the Children of Israel and raised among them twelve chieftains. He said: 'I shall be with you and if you establish the prayers and pay the obligatory charity; if you believe in My Messengers and assist them and give Allah a generous loan, I shall forgive you your sins and admit you to Gardens underneath which rivers flow. Whosoever amongst you disbelieves after that, he indeed has strayed from the Straight Path. ’ [5.13] But because they broke their covenant, We cursed them and hardened their hearts. They changed the Words from their places and have forgotten a portion of what they were reminded. Except for a few, you will always find treachery from them, yet pardon them, and forgive; indeed Allah loves the gooddoers. [5.14] With those who said they were Nazarenes, We made a Covenant, but they have forgotten much of what they were reminded. Therefore, We stirred among them enmity and hatred till the Day of Resurrection when Allah will inform them of all that they have done. [5.15] People of the Book! Our Messenger (Muhammad) has come to clarify to you much of what you have hidden of the Book, and to forgive you much. A light has come to you from Allah and a Clear Book,

On the one hand, the Quran tells Muslims to believe in the previous scriptures. On the other, it says they are corrupted. Truly the Quran is miraculous.
 
truthnet.org/islam/Qurangil4.html
Read all the article, very interesting .

Sample:
There is another legend which cannot be traced to any particular source. The disciples of Jesus are recorded as saying to him:

O Jesus son of Mary! Can your Lord send down to us a table set from heaven? Surah 5.115

After Jesus had prayed for such a miracle Allah is said to have sent one down with dire warnings against any unbelief on their part thereafter. It is interesting to discover that the word used here for table, maidah maÿidah, is derived from a similar Ethiopic word used by the Abyssinian Christians for the Lord’s Table, the main sacrament of the Christian Church. The story is probably derived from a perversion of the story of the Last Supper and the challenge of the disciples for a table to be sent down from heaven is also most likely derived from these words of the Israelites during the exodus which are recorded in very similar terms:

They spoke against God, saying, “Can God spread a table in the wilderness?” Psalm 78.19

Just as Mary, the mother of Jesus, has been confused with Miriam, the sister of Moses in the quran QurŸan, so here likewise we find Jesus confused with Moses to whom the words were originally addressed.

Clearly Muhammad obtained much of his material for the quran QurŸan from apocryphal Christian sources even though these were obviously secondary and unreliable. Right from the start of his mission he had discoursed with Christians. Even his first wife Khadija had a Christian cousin and this record about him is most informative:

Waraqa had been converted to Christianity in the pre-Islamic period and used to write Arabic and write of the Gospel in Arabic as much as Allah wished him to write.
(Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol.6, p.452).

It is far more probable that much of what he wrote was not the New Testament but mythical records retained in apocryphal Christian works circulating around Arabia. Muhammad shows only too often that his materials were identical to those floating around Arabia at his time, a coincidence which shows that the quran QurŸan is not the composition of the omniscient God but rather of a man who was restricted to the limited sources of information available to him.

you can all take passages from this article and lets see the muslim answer.
 
Hola Rodrigo 🙂
there is a very crucial point to understand. The quran NEVER adresses us as Christians. The term mohamad used is NASARA. Nasara are the jews who accepted Jesus but at the same time applied the Torah. Mohamad claimed to continue the nasara, which are heretical christians, refuted by Peter and Paul and many eyewitnesses of Jesus. Mohammad called us : those who exaggerate Jesus, and he cursed the jews who rejected Jesus, so he landed with oummat al wasat, the nation of the middle, that is he agreed with the nasara who both applied the Torah and believed in Jesus. But if you read any history book about the nasara, you will notice how they became heretical about Jesus. So mohammad claimed to “continue” the religion of the “nasara”, so the quran is nothing but christian heretical teachings ( about Jesus), fable and jewish Interpretation, and apocryphal books, in addition to some pepper mohamad added to gain power, money, and above all women. The people of the book are NOT true christians, but the christians who followed the Torah, the book, and which are heretical christians called “nasara”. Nasara comes from the word Nasira, which is Nazareth in arabic and the nasara used to call themselves by this name to denote nationality coz Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth. So these nasara called themselves nasara to point a national superiority agaisnt the christians who were not circumcized ( coz they were not jews). These heretical christians remained with the name Nasara , and where spread in Arabia at mohamad’s time, whereas true christians who followed the true teachings of the apostles were called Christians. Hence mohamad encountered heretic christians and thats how he took wrong ideas about christianity and Jesus as shown in his book. allah should have known that neither the apostles nor ourselves worship 3 gods, or Mary , dont u think? :rolleyes:
 
40.png
inJESUS:
Hola Rodrigo 🙂
there is a very crucial point to understand. The quran NEVER adresses us as Christians. The term mohamad used is NASARA. Nasara are the jews who accepted Jesus but at the same time applied the Torah. Mohamad claimed to continue the nasara, which are heretical christians, refuted by Peter and Paul and many eyewitnesses of Jesus. Mohammad called us : those who exaggerate Jesus, and he cursed the jews who rejected Jesus, so he landed with oummat al wasat, the nation of the middle, that is he agreed with the nasara who both applied the Torah and believed in Jesus. But if you read any history book about the nasara, you will notice how they became heretical about Jesus. So mohammad claimed to “continue” the religion of the “nasara”, so the quran is nothing but christian heretical teachings ( about Jesus), fable and jewish Interpretation, and apocryphal books, in addition to some pepper mohamad added to gain power, money, and above all women. The people of the book are NOT true christians, but the christians who followed the Torah, the book, and which are heretical christians called “nasara”. Nasara comes from the word Nasira, which is Nazareth in arabic and the nasara used to call themselves by this name to denote nationality coz Jesus is called Jesus of Nazareth. So these nasara called themselves nasara to point a national superiority agaisnt the christians who were not circumcized ( coz they were not jews). These heretical christians remained with the name Nasara , and where spread in Arabia at mohamad’s time, whereas true christians who followed the true teachings of the apostles were called Christians. Hence mohamad encountered heretic christians and thats how he took wrong ideas about christianity and Jesus as shown in his book. allah should have known that neither the apostles nor ourselves worship 3 gods, or Mary , dont u think? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is completely correct. Muhammad’s teachings are different to what the Nazarenes believed.

The following seems to be true regarding the Nazarenes:
  1. **They used the Old and New Testaments. **
  2. They knew Hebrew and at least one gospel written in Hebrew.
  3. They accepted resurrection from the dead.
  4. **They believed in one God, the creator, and his Son Jesus Christ. **
  5. They observed the law.
  6. They originated among the Christians who fled from Jerusalem and were located in Pella, Cochaba, and Coele-Syria.
  7. They were hated and cursed by the jews for their messianic beliefs.
  8. **They held an orthodox Christology (by Jerome’s standards), including virgin birth and divine sonship. **
  9. They disputed the value of Jewish ‘tradition’ (halakah)
  10. **They endorsed Paul and his Gentile mission. **
  11. They called for reconciliation with and repentance from the Jews.
  12. They believed in Jesus’ death (by crucifixion) and bodily resurrection.
  13. In most aspects the Nazarenes seem to look like a mainstream Christian group.
The Nazarenes seem to have been orthodox in most aspects and only seem to have been considered heretical for their adherence to the Law of Moses.
 
40.png
discipleofJesus:
I don’t think this is completely correct. Muhammad’s teachings are different to what the Nazarenes believed.

The following seems to be true regarding the Nazarenes:
  1. **They used the Old and New Testaments. **
  2. They knew Hebrew and at least one gospel written in Hebrew.
  3. They accepted resurrection from the dead.
  4. **They believed in one God, the creator, and his Son Jesus Christ. **
  5. They observed the law.
  6. They originated among the Christians who fled from Jerusalem and were located in Pella, Cochaba, and Coele-Syria.
  7. They were hated and cursed by the jews for their messianic beliefs.
  8. **They held an orthodox Christology (by Jerome’s standards), including virgin birth and divine sonship. **
  9. They disputed the value of Jewish ‘tradition’ (halakah)
  10. **They endorsed Paul and his Gentile mission. **
  11. They called for reconciliation with and repentance from the Jews.
  12. They believed in Jesus’ death (by crucifixion) and bodily resurrection.
  13. In most aspects the Nazarenes seem to look like a mainstream Christian group.
The Nazarenes seem to have been orthodox in most aspects and only seem to have been considered heretical for their adherence to the Law of Moses.
Click to expand...
the nazarene deviated later. They fought Paul and Peter …they wanted to apply jewish rituals to christians. read Gal 12: 11-14).
and read Gal 4: 1-8…and Gal 4: 28- 5: 1…all these are Pauls letters agaisnt these heretics. Look what he says also in Phil 3: 2-3…

at theapostes time, christians were divided between true christians ( acts 11: 26) and nazarene ( acts 24: 5).
So first, they divided because of the Mosaic law. Second, because of the doctrine about Jesus. When Paul was in prison, they took the opportunity to preach gnosticism + helnesicm+ judaism, thus saying Jesus is metaphorically God’s son, coz he is a created human not God. From this point on, there heretic teachings were agnostic. Thats why Paul answered them in his letters to the people Philippy , then Col., then Efesos ( sorry about the translation of names into english)
 
After the 70’s war, the Essenic teachings were added to the nazarene teachings which made them even worse… so they turned from “sect” to “heresy”…look waht Judas wrote to them: i was found obliged to write to you to strive for the faith given to the saints because among you are liars and hypocrits who turn our Lords grace to prostitution and they deny our Lord and God Jesus Christ. ( the word prostitution is used to mean heresy : the nazarene believe Jesus is the messiah, the grear prophet Like Moses, but denied him being God and claimed that angels are better than Jesus.
Judas continues saying how liars and hypocrites they are, forgetting what Jesus’ apostles taught them and fulfilling the saying : there will be mocking people who live according to their heresies…

so after the 70’s war, the nazaren turned from being a sect to being called : liars, hypocrits, heretics because " they forgot what our Lord Jesus said about himself being Our Lord and God.
 
if you read Paul’s second letter, he is adressing the nazarene whose faith in Jesus started as our, but who became mockers ( 3: 3) and liars ( 7:3 )…a clear proof that they started in believing the salvation of our Lord, but deviated from the “true path” ( the true path word is used By Jacob’s letter to them: Jacob God’s brother - that was his title coz he was Jesus cousin)…this deviated path is taken by mohammad.
 
And that was where muhammad got the idea of the apocrypha stories? Muslim claim the parallelism the Quran from previous scriptures YET their stories in Quran were different fm what we have in our Bible now. So which one is right? Bivar put 3 posibilities. And must be one of them as the answer…
 
40.png
inJESUS:
the nazarene deviated later. They fought Paul and Peter …they wanted to apply jewish rituals to christians. read Gal 12: 11-14).
and read Gal 4: 1-8…and Gal 4: 28- 5: 1…all these are Pauls letters agaisnt these heretics. Look what he says also in Phil 3: 2-3…

at theapostes time, christians were divided between true christians ( acts 11: 26) and nazarene ( acts 24: 5).
So first, they divided because of the Mosaic law. Second, because of the doctrine about Jesus. When Paul was in prison, they took the opportunity to preach gnosticism + helnesicm+ judaism, thus saying Jesus is metaphorically God’s son, coz he is a created human not God. From this point on, there heretic teachings were agnostic. Thats why Paul answered them in his letters to the people Philippy , then Col., then Efesos ( sorry about the translation of names into english)
Click to expand...
Again, I don’t think these Biblical passages refer the Nazarenes.

St. Jerome’s commentary on Isaiah states

“The Nazarenes, whose opinion I have set forth above, try to explain this passage in the following way: When Christ came and this preaching shone out, the land of Zebulon and Naphtali first of all were freed from the errors of the Scribes and Pharisees and he shook off their shoulders the very heavy yoke of the Jewish traditions. Later, however, the preaching became more dominant, that means the preaching was multiplied, through the Gospel of the apostle Paul who was the last of all the apostles. And the Gospel of Christ shone to the most distant tribes and the way of the whole sea. Finally the whole world, which earlier walked or sat in darkness and was imprisoned in the bonds of idolatry and death, has seen the clear light of the Gospel.”
(on Isaiah 9.1-4)

The two most significant things about this excerpt from the Nazarene work are its positive view of Paul, and the refusal to bind Gentile Christians to keeping the Law.

For more on the Nazarenes, see mainly
christian-thinktank.com/qnazonly.html

For further reading, see also

christian-thinktank.com/rnazo1.html

catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9405hotm.asp
 
Cyber Knight:
And that was where muhammad got the idea of the apocrypha stories? Muslim claim the parallelism the Quran from previous scriptures YET their stories in Quran were different fm what we have in our Bible now. So which one is right? Bivar put 3 posibilities. And must be one of them as the answer…
Click to expand...
mohammad did not copy from one source…its a mixture,why do you think it took him all these years 😉 read the link i gave to see where he stole his fables from.
 
when Jesus ascended to heaven and the Holy Spirit descended on the apostles, they started preaching. The preaching limited to palestine, its followers were called Nasara. but when it spread to Syria , they were called christians. The term nasara here was alright. It was used by the Jews to denote nationality nothing more. Those non-jews were called christians. So in the jewish culture, they were called nasara, bani israil ( israelite). Then the teachings spread outside Palestine by theapostles themselves. These christians were jews who lived in Greek culture. because of the greek culture, they were courageous peope in spreading the gospel,even in Jerusalem, when the jews killed their leader Estephan… and where thrown out from palestine so the went to cyprus, antakia,and Phonecia. Here Acts 11: 27 says : in Antioch they were called Christians. Since then, this name was spread in the roman empire. Hence, the christians of Palestine were called nasara, and the christians of the other nations were called Christians. This division of name cause the other divisions that i talked about.
 
Hola inJesus and discipleofJesus,
Thanks for the discussion on the Nazarenes. I will examine this further. It is true that the Quran refers to nasara when it talks about the non-Jewish members of the People of the Book (eg. 5:14 and 2:140) so nasara is very central to the issue of parallelism.

I have also looked at inJesus’s reference. William Campbell has made some valid points, some of which will undoubtedly come up in this discussion. But first, I want to settle the subtopic r.gonzales brought up – which is the purported corruption of the Bible.

There really is only two ways to prove an extant scripture has been corrupted:
  1. Comparison with the uncorrupted original.
  2. Authoritative historical documents referring to the original manuscript, and in so doing point out textual distortions in the later copies.
These are the only two logical ways to prove an extant scripture has been corrupted. Anything else is mere polemics or unsubstantiated claims. It is easy to claim; proof is another matter.

I don’t think point 1 applies with the Bible as the original will most likely never be found. I don’t think point 2 applies either. So, I’m very much afraid one can never prove corruption in the Bible.

Translational and transcriptional variations are no evidence of textual corruption as we can use these same arguments on the Muslim scriptures themselves.

Lastly, even if we prove the Bible has been corrupted, it would constitute the logical fallacy of ‘generalization’ or ‘composition’ and the ‘red herring’ if we do not prove the corruption extends to the parallelism verses, for it is the topic of parallelism that we are here concerned about.

When I have settled the issue of how it is impossible to prove the Bible has been corrupted, I will move on to examine the sources of Muhammad’s parallelism. Several of these are in fact named in the sahih hadiths and the sira. Even the Quran alludes to some human source from whom Muhammad obtained his parallelism stories, fobbing these charges with the counter-claim of divine origin.

After that, I will examine several interesting cases of parallelism. Time and space will not permit a full examination of every single case of parallelism. I have already referred r.gonzales to Dr Saifullah of Islamic-awareness.com and freethoughtMecca and answering-islam.com. Interested readers can refer to the above sources.

Ciubate,
Cid
 
it would be interesting as well to note that many of the great Muslim thinkers have, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Their testimony proves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by the allegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem ( the one who started the claim of the corruption ). Two great historians, Al-Mas’udi (died 956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text. Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasim al-Khasani (died 860), 'Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, the famous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111).14 Their view is shared by Abu Ali Husain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari (died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions, quoted the Qur’an itself (Sura 3:72,7 to prove that the text of the Bible was not falsified.15 Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, a religious and social reformer of modem times (died 1905), accepted the findings of modern science. He said:

As far as the text of the Bible is concerned. it has not been altered … No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.16

not to mention that the qumran scriptures proved the OT true.
 
Like I said, whether the Quran states the Judeo-Christian scriptures have been corrupted or not depends on the interpretation. Some claim the Judeo-Christian scriptures were not corrupted.

Ibn Abbas, Muhammad’s own cousin did not believe the Jews and Christians corrupted their scripture.
"From Kitaab (the book of) Al-Tawheed, Baab (chapter) Qawlu Allah Ta’ala, “Bal Huwa Qur’aanun Majeed, fi lawhin Mahfooth - Or, the Book of the Oneness of God, the Chapter of Surat Al-Borooj (no. 85), Verses 21, 22 which says, Nay this is a Glorious Qur'an, (Inscribed) in a Tablet Preserved': They corrupt the word’ means `they alter or change its meaning,’ Yet no one is able to change even a single word from any Book of God. The meaning is that they interpret the word wrongly.’” [Arabic]
Click to expand...
And,
“The Imam Muhammad Isma’il al-Bukhari (p. 1127, line 7), records that Ibn Abbas said that the word Tahrif (corruption) signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and that there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeded from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meaning of the words of God.’” (T. P. Hughes, Dictionary of Islam [Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West Belmont Avenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994], p. 62)
Click to expand...
bahai-library.com/?file=shamoun_quranic_witness_bible

Corruption here is taken to mean ‘misrepresentation of the meaning’ of the otherwise incorruptible words of God, thus ruling out textual variations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top