People of the Book for Muslims

[discipleofJesus]

There is evidence for missing passages from the Qur’an (whole surahs missing from the Qur’an and verses Missing from the Qur’an) though

see what is written under the heading
1.4 Missing Passages from the Qur’an, which contains the subheadings ‘Whole Surahs Missing from the Qur’an’ and ‘Verses Missing from the Qur’an’

in “Facing the Muslim Challenge
A Handbook of Christian-Muslim Apologetics”
by John Gilchrist answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap1.html

 

[Booklover]

discipleofJesus:

There is evidence for missing passages from the Qur’an (whole surahs missing from the Qur’an and verses Missing from the Qur’an) though

see what is written under the heading
1.4 Missing Passages from the Qur’an, which contains the subheadings ‘Whole Surahs Missing from the Qur’an’ and ‘Verses Missing from the Qur’an’

in “Facing the Muslim Challenge
A Handbook of Christian-Muslim Apologetics”
by John Gilchrist answering-islam.org/Gilchrist/Challenge/chap1.html

Keep up the good work! Thanks! :clapping:

 

[George_Waters]

Shenango,

With all due respect if the Bible is indeed corrupt than I find it impossible to believe a Muslim scholar has not done a detailed work showing each and every corruption in the Bible and the correct corresponding verse or proof of the addition of any verses.

The Bible was canonized almost 200 years before the birth of Mohammed so Muslims have always had access to the Bible and have had over 1400 years to produce such a work that would offer sufficient evidence to Jews and Christians alike that we too would embrace Islam, yet this has not happened.

Does it not seem logical that a Muslim Scholar would have completed such a work for the glory of God if indeed the accretion of corruption were true?

 

[CollegeCatholic]

George Waters:

Shenango,

With all due respect if the Bible is indeed corrupt than I find it impossible to believe a Muslim scholar has not done a detailed work showing each and every corruption in the Bible and the correct corresponding verse or proof of the addition of any verses.

The Bible was canonized almost 200 years before the birth of Mohammed so Muslims have always had access to the Bible and have had over 1400 years to produce such a work that would offer sufficient evidence to Jews and Christians alike that we too would embrace Islam, yet this has not happened.

Does it not seem logical that a Muslim Scholar would have completed such a work for the glory of God if indeed the accretion of corruption were true?

The primary problem that Islam faces when attempting to discount the Bible is that it is the most highly regarded work of antiquity in the modern world. Not due to its religious significance but because the ancient texts match up so incredibly well. If you look at the footnotes of any good modern translation of the bible you will see occasional messages regarding “some ancient texts use the word ‘bread’ as apposed to ‘loaf’ or ‘dirt’ instead of ‘clay.’” The consistency is without parallel and the actual surviving documents that we have were only written 2-3 hundred years after the original written documents. The second most highly regarded work of antiquity is Homer’s Illiad and we only have a few copies of it and they are actually copies written several hundred years after the original Illiad was composed. With this said, Islam must simply argue in the face of scholarship and attempt to invent their own ruleset as to how the Qu’ran can be more reliable than the Bible. The important thing to note is that while we “prove” the Bible using postmodern, rationalistic thought, they are stuck in the seventh century where simply stating that the texts are inspired by God is a perfectly acceptable reason for saying that one’s text is correct and any other texts that differ/contradict it are false.

 

[Booklover]

CollegeCatholic:

The primary problem that Islam faces when attempting to discount the Bible is that it is the most highly regarded work of antiquity in the modern world. Not due to its religious significance but because the ancient texts match up so incredibly well. If you look at the footnotes of any good modern translation of the bible you will see occasional messages regarding “some ancient texts use the word ‘bread’ as apposed to ‘loaf’ or ‘dirt’ instead of ‘clay.’” The consistency is without parallel and the actual surviving documents that we have were only written 2-3 hundred years after the original written documents. The second most highly regarded work of antiquity is Homer’s Illiad and we only have a few copies of it and they are actually copies written several hundred years after the original Illiad was composed. With this said, Islam must simply argue in the face of scholarship and attempt to invent their own ruleset as to how the Qu’ran can be more reliable than the Bible. The important thing to note is that while we “prove” the Bible using postmodern, rationalistic thought, they are stuck in the seventh century where simply stating that the texts are inspired by God is a perfectly acceptable reason for saying that one’s text is correct and any other texts that differ/contradict it are false.

Excellent post!

Vickie

 

[inJESUS]

i dont get it; mohammad clearly approved of the Bible in his time ( thank him ); and we all know it is the same one from even before mohammad till now…many muslim scholars admitted its uncorruptness and explained that it was not textually changed but just misinterpreted…any elaboration?

 

[Cyber_Knight]

Shenango… that is why you have to join on the Parallelism tread by Rodrigo. You may give your best defence about it.