Posted by Illuminati on 5/15/2009, 7:05 pm, in reply to "Re: The Koran"
64.6.35.162
Amir said:]
The Quran supersedes merely because of the timeline.It is the most recent edition of the divine book, the final update. The scripture before it was around 600 years earlier.
It supersedes because the older scriptures did not claim to be the last communication.Their purity was not guaranteed.God made this promise only for the Quran.
What we find here is a statement of faith. There is no rational reason to think that the teachings in the Koran are more pure than the Bible. All the holy books came from people. Who is to say that your prophet somehow produced something more pure than what the Jewish and Christian prophets produced?
I don't know what would happen if people followed the Koran. The sad state of modern Islam either means that the Koran is defective, or else that modern Muslims don't do a good job demonstrating what the Koran is capable of accpmplishing. In either case, I would say that your claims are far from objective proof.
Amir said:
It is true that the Qur'an calls the Tawrat, Zabur and Injil as Allah's books and messages given to prophets Moses, Dawud and Jesus, peace be upon all of them, respectively, but the Qur'an also says that these books as they exist today are not in their authentic and complete form. Allah says, "They (i.e. Jews and Christians) changed words from their contexts and forgot a good part of the message given to them, and you will continue to find them -except a few among them- bent on new deceits…" (al-Ma'idah: 13) And He further says, "O People of the Book, now has come to you Our Messenger, clarifying to you much of that you used to conceal of the Book and passing over much (that is now unnecessary)." (al-Ma'idah 5:15) So our Islamic position is that the Bible has some true and authentic words of Allah, but it is not totally authentic. Some of its passages were lost and it had many additions and alterations
I certainly don't want to put words into the mouth of your prophet. Perhaps he did intend to trash the Bible as you say. If it were my holy book, I'd question whether he was actually trashing the Bible or if he was trashing Christians' and Jews' misuse of the Bible. However, what Mohammad actually meant is not for me to say.
While I do not intend to tell you what Mohammad meant, I'm curious, if Mohammad were alive today, would he make the same statements about modern Muslims? What about people who commit crimes against humanity in the name of Islam, are they doing the same thing that Mohammad accussed Christians and Jews in his day of doing?
Amir said:
U believe the Bible was not altered but which Bible is not alterd? Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, Latin Bible, English Bible, Jewish Bible, Catholics’ Bible, Protestants’ Bible, Eastern Orthodox Church's Bible, which Bible are u talking about? All these Bibles individually and collectively have been changed and some are still being changed. The Bible contains two main sections: the Old Testament and the New Testament. The Old Testament is recognized by Jews and Christians both. Jews calls it the Hebrew Bible or TANAK. But their Bible has 24 books and some books have two parts thus a total of 39 books. Protestants also have 39 books but in a different order. The same Old Testament of Catholics has 46 books, while Eastern Orthodox Christians have 51 books in their Old Testament. Jewish version of the Bible is based on the Hebrew Masoretic text while Christians generally use the Greek (Septuagint) and Latin (Vulgate) versions as the basis of their Old Testaments. Each group also has variations in the texts of their books as well as in the number of verses.
I believe that God's truth can be found in any of the major translations of the Bible. In latin, Greek, Syrian, English, all those wonderful versions we find God's truth. The Masoretic text and the Septuagent both teach us about the same good God.
Amir said:
As far as the ancient manuscripts of the Bible are concerned, it is known to the Biblical scholars that most of the manuscripts came from the fourth century CE down. The manuscripts that are discovered are mostly partial and their texts differ from each other considerably. M. M. Parvis in the Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible (vol. 4, pp. 594-595) says, "The New Testament is now known, in whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek manuscripts alone. Every one of these handwritten copies differ from the other one… It has been estimated that these manuscripts and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek manuscripts of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings… It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the New Testament in which the manuscripts' tradition is wholly uniform."
As you have acknowledged, there is an embarrassment of riches when it comes to ancient Biblical manuscripts. Obviously, the majority of these many ancient manuscripts come from a later period since there was less time for them to be destroyed. However, there is tremendous uniformity among these manuscripts.
When a manuscrpt has been copied hundreds or thousands of times, scribal errors are to be expected. Fortunately, the majority of these scribal errors are trivial.
Because of the thousands of manuscripts and translations we have of the Bible, we know that the message in the New Testament has not been changed significantly since the first century. Not only do we have the Bible itself, but we also have quotations in the early church fathers, including some who knew the apostles. It is easy to compare their quotations with the Bible to see if there has been any significant change. I've done it myself. I'm satisfied that the Bible we have today is essentially the same one they had almost 2000 years ago.
We know that Jesus honored the Jewish scriptures. Not once did He trash the Old Testament writings the way modern Muslims trash both the Old and the New Testaments. Jesus supported His teachings by quoting the Old Testament. We have received no teachings from Jesus which would indicate that someone deliberately changed the Old Testament.
Amir said:
Any one can get hold of the Good News Bible and can see for oneself that in the 1300 pages of this modern English version there are almost as many footnotes pointing to phrases, sentences and passages that are omitted or added by various ancient manuscripts or versions. Many of these alterations are not unintentional scribal errors such as are expected in handwritten copies of a book. A careful study of ancient texts has convinced scholars that the variations found in them were very often intentional tampering with the texts. This tampering is still going on for various political or ideological reasons. Under the pressure of the Jewish organizations, many churches in America and Europe have begun rephrasing Jesus' criticism of the Jews in the Gospels. Feminists groups are urging the use of unisex language in the new versions. Homosexual groups have their own versions. All these changes are taking place before our own eyes.
From the beginning, the Christian church had to reject altered versions of the New Testament. Even though they were severely persecuted, the early church did a remarkable job preserving the Bible.
There are false gospels out there. For example, you have quoted one of the Gnostic gospels which the early church rejected. Before ancient copies of the Gnostic gospels were discovered, Christians knew that they existed because the early church fathers described the Gnostic teachings and then described why they were wrong.
You mention that we can see the Bible changing before our very eyes. The Bible itself is not changing, but people who wish to destroy Christianity are again making spurious copies in order to deceive people. Those books which they are passing around as "Bibles" are fakes, and all true Christians recognize them for what they are.
Incidentally, I'm sure you realize that a similar process occurred in early Islam. As I understand the story, there were originally a number of different versions of the Koran until an early ruler gathered the variants up and burned them. He then made a uniform version for all Muslims and sent it around his kingdom.
Amir said:
"If you read it with faith, then you will perhaps understand it, and better yet, perhaps you can be saved."
Christians think that in Christianity,one is saved by faith ,whereas in Islam one must earn their salvation through good deeds.The concept of salvation is not based upon good deeds, but is based primarily upon faith.Allah states in the Quran :"Those who believe and do good deeds."As can be seen belief is mentionned first.
I do recognize that Islam requires faith. I'm not sure that the difference between Muslims like you and Christians are as stark as we sometimes are led to believe. The difference is probably the emphasis placed on faith vs works. Christians who understand the gospel believe that works are the product of faith, not a step towards salvation. In other words, we believe that we are already saved by our faith, and that the works we do are a natural product of our new relationship with God. Here is the goal set forth by Jesus. We are supposed to love other people as much as we love ourselves. Any good works which are not motivated by unselfish love are useless. Any good works which we do in order to gain something for ourselves (salvation) are useless since they are motivated by selfishness, not by love. Any good works which are done to avoid hell are also unworthy since they are also based on selfishness.
This is getting long, so I will discuss Isaiah in a separate post.
Message Thread:
« Back to thread