Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodrigo_Bivar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes this is what it means unless muslims provide us with a quran verse that talks about TEXTUAL corruption of the bible. Until they do this, the bible’s text is not corrupted.
 
look at what mohammad says about Moses:

Arabic: kaloo ya kawmana inna sami’ina kitaban unzila ba’d Musa
English: they said O our people we have heard a book revealed after Moses

Arabic: Musadekan Lima Bayna Yadayehe
English: confirming what is between his hands

they know that the Bible that is at Muhammad’s hands, is the same as the Bible we have today, but Islamic pride forces them to ignore the facts.
 
The Quran makes a lot of claims. I think we should depend on evidence rather than mere claims. As I previously said, it is most likely that it will be impossible to prove the Bible is corrupted as the original will be exceedingly difficult to find, and there are no authoritative reliable historical documents evidencing corruption in the Bible. One feels any polemics can be easily reflected back to the Muslim side if they wish to go down the path of proving the Bible is corrupted.
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
The Quran makes a lot of claims. I think we should depend on evidence rather than mere claims. As I previously said, it is most likely that it will be impossible to prove the Bible is corrupted as the original will be exceedingly difficult to find, and there are no authoritative reliable historical documents evidencing corruption in the Bible. One feels any polemics can be easily reflected back to the Muslim side if they wish to go down the path of proving the Bible is corrupted.
Click to expand...
exactly…but NONE is about TEXTUAL corruption.am i mistaken?
 
40.png
inJesus:
exactly…but NONE is about TEXTUAL corruption.am i mistaken?
Click to expand...
It all depends on the interpretation. Ibn Abbas thinks there is no textual corruption but I’m sure some Muslims will disagree.
 
Is there any muslim interested to discuss about this parallelism with Bivar here?
 
Looks like r.gonzales is still reading up on the subject. Alas, he could not get his friends to continue this discussion. I will wait awhile and then if no Muslims turn up, just go ahead and have a discussion with the non-Muslims. Perhaps that might stimulate the Muslim response.

Now that I’ve established that it is impossible to prove the Bible is corrupted purely from translational and transcriptional variants, we might go on to discuss the parallelism between the Quran and the Judeo-Christian scriptures.

Foreshadowed topics:
  1. Logical analysis of parallelism – redux.
  2. What the Quran says about the sources of parallelism.
  3. Who are the potential sources – including those named in the sira.
  4. Errors in the Quran’s parallelism that clearly rule out a common source of the Quran and the Judeo-Christian scriptures.
  5. Parallelism of the Quran with the apocrypha and its implication.
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
Looks like r.gonzales is still reading up on the subject.
Click to expand...
actually, no i’m not. as i said i would, i’m observing. as for my friend, he’s quite preoccupied at the moment and hasn’t had a chance to write something up in reply to your initial post.

your logic regarding the bible’s corruption is shoddy at best. you can’t prove the bible’s corruption because the original is lost? let’s see… you have a number of extant manuscripts, manuscripts that differ from one another–some very drastically, manuscripts that serve as the source of christian learning and doctrine, as well as pretty much all the available translations one can find of “the bible”. yet despite all the, the bible hasn’t been corrupted. :hmmm: ok…

in anycase… i’d like to see where you take this “intellectual” discussion of yours. please proceed… 👍
 
40.png
r.gonzales:
40.png
Cid:
Looks like r.gonzales is still reading up on the subject.
Click to expand...
actually, no i’m not. as i said i would, i’m observing. as for my friend, he’s quite preoccupied at the moment and hasn’t had a chance to write something up in reply to your initial post.
Click to expand...
I welcome your friend’s participation and await his arrival.
40.png
r.gonzales:
your logic regarding the bible’s corruption is shoddy at best. you can’t prove the bible’s corruption because the original is lost?
Click to expand...
I’ve already told you there are only two ways to determine whether a scripture is corrupted or not:
  1. Comparison with the original.
    If you cannot do a comparison how do you know the later version is corrupted or not? For all you know the original version could be exactly the same as the later one.
  2. Reliable authoritative references that point to differences between the original manuscript (now lost) and later ones.
    For this to work you have to have reliable authoritative references like the sahih hadiths, for instance, that tell you something has been deleted or changed from the later version as compared to the original one.
Those are the only two logical ways to prove whether a scripture is corrupted. The Islamists methods of attempting to prove the Bible is corrupted are logically wrong.

A. They try to show translational variations between later versions of the Bible.
For instance, r.gonzales’s earlier reference tried to compare modern English Bibles to infer corruption. This is like comparing English translations of the Quran and lo and behold, they are all different from one another. Ergo, the Quran is corrupted. What say Muslims to that?

B. They try to show transcriptional variations between the scriptures of different sects of Christianity or Judaism.
For instance, r.gonzales’s earlier reference tried to compare the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. This is like comparing different hadiths narrating the same event. r.gonzales will remember the 3 different Bukhari hadith and the 2 different Muslim hadith of the signing of the Hudaibiyyah. Hey, they’re all different. Ergo, the hadiths are corrupted. What say Muslims to that?
40.png
r.gonzales:
let’s see… you have a number of extant manuscripts, manuscripts that differ from one another–some very drastically, manuscripts that serve as the source of christian learning and doctrine, as well as pretty much all the available translations one can find of “the bible”. yet despite all the, the bible hasn’t been corrupted. ok…
Click to expand...
Not ok – because you have merely shown translational variations (ala English translations of the Quran) and transcriptional variations (ala different hadiths of the same event).
40.png
r.gonzales:
in anycase… i’d like to see where you take this “intellectual” discussion of yours. please proceed…
Click to expand...
I will wait for your friend awhile. Hope he hurries up. I do my best work when I have a Muslim opponent or several.
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
A. They try to show translational variations between later versions of the Bible.
For instance, r.gonzales’s earlier reference tried to compare modern English Bibles to infer corruption. This is like comparing English translations of the Quran and lo and behold, they are all different from one another. Ergo, the Quran is corrupted. What say Muslims to that?

B. They try to show transcriptional variations between the scriptures of different sects of Christianity or Judaism.
For instance, r.gonzales’s earlier reference tried to compare the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint. This is like comparing different hadiths narrating the same event. r.gonzales will remember the 3 different Bukhari hadith and the 2 different Muslim hadith of the signing of the Hudaibiyyah. Hey, they’re all different. Ergo, the hadiths are corrupted. What say Muslims to that?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’ve seen the double standard as well. Munawar (who moderates the whyislam.com forums, I think) posted here a long time ago that one reason they believe the Bible to be corrupted is that we don’t have any of the original manuscripts of the books. When I asked how this same logic doesn’t apply to the Quran as well (since all the known manuscripts collected at the time of the Caliph Uthman were destroyed) he didn’t give an answer, but another Muslim came on and said that the difference was Munawar was arguing from a position where it’s already a given that the Quran is unquestionably the word of God, and I’m free to believe as I wish too. Scholarship at its finest.

EDIT: Here’s that specific thread, if anyone was curious.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=58216
 
Rodrigo Bivar:
I’ve already told you there are only two ways to determine whether a scripture is corrupted or not:
  1. Comparison with the original.
    If you cannot do a comparison how do you know the later version is corrupted or not? For all you know the original version could be exactly the same as the later one.
  2. Reliable authoritative references that point to differences between the original manuscript (now lost) and later ones.
    For this to work you have to have reliable authoritative references like the sahih hadiths, for instance, that tell you something has been deleted or changed from the later version as compared to the original one.
Those are the only two logical ways to prove whether a scripture is corrupted. The Islamists methods of attempting to prove the Bible is corrupted are logically wrong.
Click to expand...
Salaam Brother Rodrigo;
I think there is another logical way to determine whether a scripture has been corrupted or not, that way is to look at the content of the said scripture and ask questions about that content.

Looking only at the similarities is not sufficient and can misleading. To our Christian brethren, and since Jesus came before Muhammad peace be upon them both, it is normal they conclude, whenever there are similarities, that the Qur’an borrowed from the previous scriptures; to Muslims however, the similarities are only a proof that both similar accounts in both scriptures have the same originator.

To do some study on parallelism betwee the Qur’an and the previous scriptures, I think it is more appropriate to look at the differences rathet than the similarities.

Brother Rodrigo;
One big difference is to be found in the account surrounding the birth of Jesus (PBUH).
If you don’t mind, I would like to start from that account to make some parallelism between the Qur’an and the Bible.

I would like to begin with one simple question to you: according to the Bible, and apart from Mary his mother and Joseph his mother’s husband and during his lifetime on earth, who knew about the supernatural birth of Jesus (PBUH) and how? For instance, did the attendance Jesus addressed during his ministry knew about that supernatural birth and if so, how? Thanks.

PS: Jesus is reported to have said: "And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form” (JN 5:37)

Salaam.
Joseph.
 
40.png
Joseph_Alison:
Salaam Brother Rodrigo;
I think there is another logical way to determine whether a scripture has been corrupted or not, that way is to look at the content of the said scripture and ask questions about that content.

Looking only at the similarities is not sufficient and can misleading. To our Christian brethren, and since Jesus came before Muhammad peace be upon them both, it is normal they conclude, whenever there are similarities, that the Qur’an borrowed from the previous scriptures; to Muslims however, the similarities are only a proof that both similar accounts in both scriptures have the same originator.

To do some study on parallelism betwee the Qur’an and the previous scriptures, I think it is more appropriate to look at the differences rathet than the similarities.

Brother Rodrigo;
One big difference is to be found in the account surrounding the birth of Jesus (PBUH).
If you don’t mind, I would like to start from that account to make some parallelism between the Qur’an and the Bible.

I would like to begin with one simple question to you: according to the Bible, and apart from Mary his mother and Joseph his mother’s husband and during his lifetime on earth, who knew about the supernatural birth of Jesus (PBUH) and how? For instance, did the attendance Jesus addressed during his ministry knew about that supernatural birth and if so, how? Thanks.

PS: Jesus is reported to have said: "And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form” (JN 5:37)

Salaam.
Joseph.
Click to expand...
I think that if you want to know about this, you’ll have to start a separate thread. But I’m surprised you speak as if Jesus and Mary must have never related it to anyone about the nativity account. With Luke, for instance, it’s very likely he got the details from visiting Mary herself. Like I said, though, you’ll have to start another thread.

(End of rabbit trail, turn back onto main road… 😉 )
 
Salaam Exoflare;
40.png
exoflare:
I think that if you want to know about this, you’ll have to start a separate thread.
Click to expand...
I would like to discuss parallelism between the Qur’an and the previous scriptures. My question was only a beginning, please be patient.
40.png
exoflare:
But I’m surprised you speak as if Jesus and Mary must have never related it to anyone about the nativity account.
Click to expand...
In the Bible I could not find any details showing that the larger audience Jesus was addressing knew about his supernatural birth; that is why I asked in case I missed something. If you have the answer I would be grateful to you if you post it. Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.
 
Rodrigo, if you think this is deviating from the main topic and want me to force this side discussion into a new thread just let me know…

Okay, Joseph, here’s what you asked:
40.png
Joseph_Alison:
I would like to begin with one simple question to you: according to the Bible, and apart from Mary his mother and Joseph his mother’s husband and during his lifetime on earth, who knew about the supernatural birth of Jesus (PBUH) and how? For instance, did the attendance Jesus addressed during his ministry knew about that supernatural birth and if so, how? Thanks.

PS: Jesus is reported to have said: "And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form” (JN 5:37)
Click to expand...
I’m only going to deal with the part before the “PS” for now, because you seem to be asking two different questions at the same time. Don’t do that.

Now, you say you want to know “according to the Bible” everyone who knew about the supernatural birth of Jesus, and only during his lifetime on earth. The simple answer is, nothing in the Bible answers this question explicitly. So how is this important at all?
 
Joseph_Alison,
I will be pleased to discuss the parallelism topic with you. ut first, do you agree with what I have written so far? If not, let us examine the the points of disagreement. If you’re satisfied then we’ll move on.

exoflare,
I do think the miraculous birth of Jesus should be in a separate thread.

Thanks,
Rodrigo
 
40.png
Joseph_Alison:
PS: Jesus is reported to have said: "And the Father that sent me, he hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form” (JN 5:37)
Click to expand...
I am not sure what is the point of quoting John 5:37? What are you trying to say?

Anyway, I thought I’d quote the following
Jesus Christ’s words in John 5:37 are part of a long discussion/dispute between Jesus and some Jews who were against him (John 5:16-47). The passage says, “Therefore the Jews started persecuting Jesus… But Jesus answered them… For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him… Jesus said to them… You have never heard his voice or seen his form…” The words, “you have never heard his voice or seen his form” were addressed to these Jews and were not spoken to all people, so they cannot be regarded as meaning that not a single person has heard or can hear God. On the contrary, at least John the Baptist heard God the Father speaking at the baptism of Jesus (Matthew 3:13-17, Mark 1:9-11, and Luke 3:21-22). The Apostles Peter, James and John heard God the Father speaking at Jesus’ transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, and Luke 9:28-36).
Click to expand...
Taken from ‘Response to a Muslim Article titled Is Jesus Really God?’ By Anthony Wales (bold and underline emphasis mine)
answering-islam.org/Wales/really_god.htm
 
Salaam everyone;
What I try to do here is some parallelism between the Qur’an and the NT. I took the miraculous birth of Jesus (PBUH) as an example because both books give an account of the event but with sticking differences.

The Holy Qur’an states that the Jews knew about the miraculous birth of Jesus because he spoke in defense of his mother who has been accused of an evil act, in the Bible however -and according to the answer I got from exoflare- they did not. My question is: why is it that in the Bible the Jews did not know that Jesus was born miraculously from a virgin mother? Or did they?

The holy Qur’an states that the people accused Mary to have done an evil act when she brought the baby Jesus in her arms, in the NT I found nowhere such an accusation. Why? Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.
 
40.png
Joseph_Alison:
Salaam everyone;
What I try to do here is some parallelism between the Qur’an and the NT. I took the miraculous birth of Jesus (PBUH) as an example because both books give an account of the event but with sticking differences.

The Holy Qur’an states that the Jews knew about the miraculous birth of Jesus because he spoke in defense of his mother who has been accused of an evil act, in the Bible however -and according to the answer I got from exoflare- they did not. My question is: why is it that in the Bible the Jews did not know that Jesus was born miraculously from a virgin mother? Or did they?

The holy Qur’an states that the people accused Mary to have done an evil act when she brought the baby Jesus in her arms, in the NT I found nowhere such an accusation. Why? Thanks.

Salaam.
Joseph.
Click to expand...
I’ve started another thread about this. Click HERE
 
The holy Qur’an states that the people accused Mary to have done an evil act when she brought the baby Jesus in her arms, in the NT I found nowhere such an accusation. Why? Thanks.
Click to expand...
because mohammad took this idea from an apocryphal bible.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top