Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Corruption of sacred texts
-
07-04-2011 04:50PM#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Let me first clear you basic concepts.
1. We muslim believe all Prophet preached Islam.
2. All prophet were muslims
3. Islam is not only religion but complete way to lead a happy life
4. Islam started with arrival of Adam (Pbuh). He was first Prophet. Islam completed on Prophet Muhammad (pbuh)
5. All previous revelations and Prophets were limited in their authority to special region or nation but Quran is universal and for whole mankind.
Keeping above points in mind
That's great but why do you believe in these things? Why should we assume them.
No. No. No.If you read bible, that's what exactly what bible claim
GOD Almighty Said:See Also Deuteronomy 31:25-29where Moses peace be upon him predicted the corruption/tampering of the Law (Bible) after his death.The Book of Moses predicted that the Law (Bible) will get corrupted. The Book of Jeremiah which came approximately 826 years after did indeed confirm this corruption.
That refers very clearly to the corruption of the people of Israel rather than the book referring to the Torah law. This is a very clear example of why you need to read the Bible for yourself rather than trusting men to do it for you. Read the whole chapter before quoting it.
Let's read this again:For I know that after my (Moses) death you (people of Israel) are sure to become utterly corrupt and to turn from the way I have commanded you. In days to come, disaster will fall on you because you will do evil in the sight of the LORD and arouse his anger by what your hands have made.”
It talks about the people of Israel, not the Torah manuscripts. Indeed if you actually read from 1 Samuel through to 2 Chronicles you will see that God eventually punished the people of Israel and Judah for turning to foreign gods. Indeed, read the prophets from Isaiah to Malachi and you'll see exactly what happened.
This is simply a very bad reading of the Bible.No one can answer this question, Because no one know what happens to original bible.
True but we can show very clearly what existed in the 40,000 copies. The fact is that they are at the very least 99.6% the same.Just for example
What makes you think that Thomas Paine had a more favourable view of the Qur'an? He was a deist.
It's obvious that when the Bible is a book spanning over thousands of years that it will have to be compiled. This does not mean that the actual texts that are there are garbled. The evidence stands very clearly against this view, the evidence also stands very clearly as to Jesus being crucified.No one can answer this question only God can answer, because it needs a gap of 1800 centuries to answer this question. That's why God send his last revelation to show what is real message of Jesus Pbuh? I hope you will understand sooner or later.
So how can we know the Qur'an is not corrupted? If the Qur'an is the basis for how we can tell something is not corrupted we must have good reason to believe that it itself is not corrupted?0 -
-
1- Their evidence is the qur'aan - God last testamny.partyatmygaff wrote: »What is their evidence for this? To be quite frank I do not care for the opinions of a few random Muslim scholars. I care for the careful analysis of historians who worked on analysing the Codex Sinaiticus. They determined the terminus post quem of the codex to be 325 AD and the terminus ad quem to be 360 AD. This is the work of historians and is respected as such. This is one of the few surviving complete manuscripts and even so there is evidence to suggest it itself had been copied from earlier written sources.
I believe the correct word is translated, not changed. The Codex Sinaiticus and similar early manuscripts do not differ in any great deal to modern Bibles.
.
2- This is just for you . you may refer to shaikh Ahmed Deedat debates if the bible is the word of God and Bart Ehrman books and he has a video on youtube that most US biblical scholars and professors are certain of that.
Have a read of that
Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03
A textcritical complaint
"Fool and knave, can't you leave the old reading alone and not alter it!" On page 1512, the beginning of Hebrews, an curious note appears, which is mentioned by Bruce M. Metzger in his NTTC book. A later (minuscule aera) scribe complains about a change of the text of Heb 1:3:
0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Have you any thing made you see the reverse. Read it then state your reason. For the torah we beleive it's the the book revealed to Moses, so anything added and it's ok !We still have no evidence that the Torah is corrupted. You need to back up this claim. Your standard for saying that things are corrupt is the Qur'an, but why should we believe the Qur'an to be true?
Because we beleive that Muhammad- peace and blessings be upon him- that was known before within his people as -trustworthy- is the messanger of God !Why is the Qur'an evidence? It comes 600 years after the event described.
Note that he was illiterate and didn't study any previous scripture. Note that a christian boy used to serve the prophet, he said testamony of faith later he returned to his previous religion then claimed he teached him qur'aan . He died then the earth rejected his body.they couldn't bury him.( This happened during prophet's life).
Hivizman:Bruce Metzger has also said from his research that the Bible can be shown to be at least 99.6% authentic. Where there are minor alterations in some manuscripts, we look to the consensus in the other 39,999.
Namely, the sheer number of manuscripts we have for the Bible in the world make the Bible more likely to be authentic, as we can check to see what is the case in the vast majority.
To Muslims, the Jewish scripture is the Taurah (Torah), the book revealed to Moses, and the Christian scripture is the Injeel (Evangelion = Gospel), the book revealed to Jesus. For Christians, there is the Bible, consisting of the Old Testament (the Hebrew Bible) and the New Testament (including not just the four Gospels but also the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of Paul and others, and the book of Revelation).
Can any one say that the letters of Paul are Injeel.No it's not . there are 4 gospels w beleive in 1
A STATEMENT REGARDING THE MUSLIM PERSPECTIVE ON THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL :
http://www.harunyahya.com/books/faith/pleasant_words_from_gospel/pleasant_words_01.phpI note that no Muslim on this thread so far has answered my questions on the Qur'an. It seems that you are going on the offensive so that you won't have to go on the defensive, and even when you do go on the offensive it simply fails in comparison to the facts.
Are we attacking each other here. :eek:
Note that i am not the best to answer any of your Q.English is not my main language.!
you may ask an imam or a muslim scholar face to face if you have a nearby mosque !
0 -
-
-
-
Have you any thing made you see the reverse. Read it then state your reason. For the torah we beleive it's the the book revealed to Moses, so anything added and it's ok !
You are the one claiming it is corrupt, therefore it is acceptable to ask why you believe this. It is also acceptable to ask why the Qur'an is more authentic than the Bible, or indeed acceptable to ask why the Qur'an is somehow a better guide of truth than the Bible.
If you are making these claims, you need to back them up surely?
I've given you evidence that the texts in the Bible are at least 99.6% as it was when it was first writtenBecause we beleive that Muhammad- peace and blessings be upon him- that was known before within his people as -trustworthy- is the messanger of God !
Note that he was illiterate and didn't study any previous scripture. Note that a christian boy used to serve the prophet, he said testamony of faith later he returned to his previous religion then claimed he teached him qur'aan . He died then the earth rejected his body.they couldn't bury him.( This happened during prophet's life).
This isn't evidence to someone like me who doesn't believe in the Qur'an or in Islam, but believes and trusts in God as revealed in the Bible.
Why should I believe this stuff? This is your problem. Unless you can prove the Qur'an more reliable than the Bible this isn't evidence. By the by, if you quote from websites this is lazy as I can look on answeringislam.com and find as much as I want but it is better if we have an honest discussion.Can any one say that the letters of Paul are Injeel.No it's not . there are 4 gospels w beleive in 1
Yes, Paul's letters are a part of the New Testament, and He did have a relationship with Christ albeit after he died. Peter also has letters in the New Testament and he did meet and experience Jesus as did John.
Where is this "Injeel" you speak of?Are we attacking each other here. :eek:
Note that i am not the best to answer any of your Q.English is not my main language.!
you may ask an imam or a muslim scholar face to face if you have a nearby mosque !
I'm asking you to answer my questions on the Qur'an instead of ignoring them and riling against the Bible using false and inaccurate information.
If you aren't willing to answer on the Qur'an, how can you be any more reliable in respect to the Bible which isn't your holy book?0 -
@ Jakkass
I think that the thread is titled Corruption of sacred texts.
THe Q was
What evidence supports the Muslim argument for corruption of previous scriptures, and how far does the argument make sense?
What's called evidence is:
1- For muslims: Qur'aan
2- For non-muslims: What have been proved that:
-Most bible writers are anonymous ( Not as a level of the "weak" hadith.)
- No one ever claimed that 2 similar manuscripts ever exist
-Torah was proved to be corrupted by what's added after Moses death.
- Current bible scholars confirmed they are corrupted. for the corrupted part to be 6% or 90% that doesn't matter.
Note i here explained my view as a muslim. I am NOT trying to force anyone to tell me that his beleif is false.
Scribes Who Altered Sripture DR..BART D. EHRMAN PART 1 OF 10
Still can't beleive they are corrupted ?
Not my problem at all.0 -
Yes, I still don't.
I'm going to ask this again but could you please answer my questions about the Qur'an.
Much of the criteria that Ehrman is bringing up also fail in respect to the Qur'an. It seems like you are happy to ignore this. The Qur'an is also not a contemporary source, but don't let that stop you.
My point which Ehrman hasn't referred to is about corruption. It is about external sources which backs up the Gospel. The fact still remains though, there are 40,000 manuscripts which very largely agree with each other. Meaning, the accounts aren't corrupted.
As far as I remember the Qur'an wasn't written until 100 years after it was revealed to Muhammad, and you are seriously complaining because the first accounts of the Resurrection come 20 years after Jesus?
Also, Peter does name himself in his writing, as does Luke, as do many other Biblical books.
As for the Resurrection accounts differing, I'm not surprised. People often interpret the same event differently. If I we both went somewhere for the day, and we were both asked to write down what happened we would notice different things more prominently. This isn't a good argument either.
Come on now you know and I know that this is inadequate!
Torah was proved to be corrupted by what's added after Moses death.
Nonsense. The Torah wasn't written by Moses but by a scribe. This is why it accounts for his death.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sure inadequate at allYes, I still don't.
I'm going to ask this again but could you please answer my questions about the Qur'an.
Much of the criteria that Ehrman is bringing up also fail in respect to the Qur'an. It seems like you are happy to ignore this. The Qur'an is also not a contemporary source, but don't let that stop you.
My point which Ehrman hasn't referred to is about corruption. It is about external sources which backs up the Gospel. The fact still remains though, there are 40,000 manuscripts which very largely agree with each other. Meaning, the accounts aren't corrupted.
As far as I remember the Qur'an wasn't written until 100 years after it was revealed to Muhammad, and you are seriously complaining because the first accounts of the Resurrection come 20 years after Jesus?
Also, Peter does name himself in his writing, as does Luke, as do many other Biblical books.
Come on now you know and I know that this is inadequate! 0 -
-
I've explained exactly why. Would you or another Muslim please answer my questions about the Qur'an? Or is this just bash the Bible thread? Hardly reasonable if you ask me :pac:
Perhaps, as a non-Muslim, I may be permitted to summarise what I think the Muslim position on the authenticity of the Bible is.
The key starting point is that the Qur'an is believed to be the actual Word of God, revealed through the Angel Jibril to Muhammad bit-by-bit over a period of about 21 years. As God is "al-Haqq", the Truth, this means that the Qur'an is a manifestation of the Truth, and anything stated in the Qur'an is necessarily true. The Qur'an is self-reflexive, in that it makes various statements about itself, for example that it is the last revelation from God, that it conveys basically the same message as previous revelations, in particular the Tawrah and the Injeel, that it is free from contradiction, that it is inimitable, and that God will work to preserve it.
The Qur'an, in various verses, refers to the "People of the Book" (basically, Jews and Christians) distorting the revelations that they had received. This isn't just the accidental distortion that could arise through mistakes in copying, but deliberate distortion to represent meanings that are not in the original revelations and indeed may be contradictory to the original revelations.
Although the Qur'an was not written down systematically at the time it was revealed, the large number of people who had memorised the Qur'an, in part or in whole, meant that the recitation was preserved. However, within a generation of Muhammad's death, recitations were beginning to deviate in different parts of the Muslim world, so the then Khalifa, Uthman, in consultation with Muhammad's secretaries and family members, and other Companions of the Prophet, prepared a definitive edition of the Qur'an. Any existing texts were destroyed, and several copies of the "Uthmanic recension" were distributed to major cities in the Muslim world. Since then, the existence of millions of Muslims who have memorised the whole text of the Qur'an has ensured that clerical transcription errors have not been allowed to creep into subsequent manuscripts, so the Qur'an as we know it today is completely unchanged from the "Uthmanic recension".
To a non-Muslim, this story has two key weaknesses. First, it relies on accepting the truth of the Qur'an. But as soon as we deny that the Qur'an is necessarily true in all particulars, we can no longer rely on verses of the Qur'an to support the argument against other scriptures. We can't even take for granted the existence of earlier revelations in the form suggested by the Qur'an, so in particular we can't assume that there was an "Injeel".
Secondly, the narrative of the "Uthmanic recension" itself depends on oral testimonies that were not collected in a surviving written form until several years (indeed, centuries) after the events that they narrate. Archaeologists and palaeographers differ over the reliability, and indeed the dating, of the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Qur'an.
Muslim arguments for the "corruption" of the Tawrah and the Injeel depend on acceptance of the truth of the Qur'an. Given the premise that these revelations were basically the same as the Qur'an, then any differences between the existing scriptures and the Qur'an "must" be the result of corruption. The fact that there is evidence of clerical transcription errors and indeed of interpolations, such as the "Johannine comma" (1 John 5:7-8 - the inclusion of words testifying to the Trinity), provides support for the "corruption" argument. However, Christian scholars discuss these issues of transmission openly, and consider that the various manuscripts, taken as a whole, are sufficient to identify a "textus receptus" with a limited number of variant readings.
Another argument relates to "contradictions" in the Bible. Again, normatively, the Qur'an is taken to be free from contradictions (the convenient doctrine of "abrogation" is sometimes used to explain away apparent inconsistencies). There are many well-known differences in the Bible, for example between the four Gospels in the passion and resurrection narratives, but to most Christians differences of detail do not matter (indeed they can lend greater authenticity, as it is argued that, if the four Gospels agreed in every detail, this would be evidence of collusion in writing - on the other hand, Christian apologists often point to agreement among the evangelists as evidence for the truth of what is being narrated). One important reason for this is that scripture, at least to most Christians, has a somewhat different status from the Qur'an to Muslims. Whereas the Qur'an is regarded by Muslims as the Word of God, to most Christians, the Bible is inspired by God, working through the Holy Spirit, but is the work of human authors. Hence, to say that the New Testament is not the Injeel is really beside the point: the Gospels are, if anything, more like the various Lives of Muhammad that were compiled from oral transmission in the couple of centuries after Muhammad's death.
My overall conclusion is, I think, basically the same as Jakkass is arguing: Muslims giving da'wah cannot pick and choose which bits of the Bible are considered authentic and which are considered corrupted, as the criterion for whether a passage is corrupted is basically that it does not agree with the Qur'an. This means that the Bible cannot be an independent source of evidence for the truth of Islam.Edit: Post 15,000
Congratulations! 0 -
-
-
-
-
SureTo a non-Muslim, this story has two key weaknesses. First, it relies on accepting the truth of the Qur'an. But as soon as we deny that the Qur'an is necessarily true in all particulars, we can no longer rely on verses of the Qur'an to support the argument against other scriptures. We can't even take for granted the existence of earlier revelations in the form suggested by the Qur'an, so in particular we can't assume that there was an "Injeel".
PLease Read this article.Secondly, the narrative of the "Uthmanic recension" itself depends on oral testimonies that were not collected in a surviving written form until several years (indeed, centuries) after the events that they narrate. Archaeologists and palaeographers differ over the reliability, and indeed the dating, of the earliest surviving manuscripts of the Qur'an.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Thanks for posting the link to this article on the preservation of the Qur'an. It sets out the Muslim case for the preservation of the Qur'an that I summarised in my earlier post in more detail, and supports my comment that the evidence for the narrative is indeed "oral testimonies that were not collected in a surviving written form until several years (indeed centuries) after the events that they narrate." Most of the references to primary sources are to Sahih al-Bukhari, which is dated to around 232AH/846CE, about two centuries after the events being discussed.
You were refering to hadith...uhh. You are mostly right.
To be a source or authority of Islamic law, a hadith must be from the categories of sahih (authentic) or hasan (good). In order for a hadith to be authentic or good it must meet the following criteria:
1) The chain of narration must be unbroken. In other words, each source must have received the hadith directly from the one whose authority he is relating it all the way back to the Prophet peace be upon him. If there is any missing authority, the chain would be considered broken and unacceptable.
2) Every narrator in the chain must be of acceptable righteousness and character; in other words, each narrator must be morally fit. Impious people are not accepted, for their impiety is a sign that they don’t fear Allah and, hence, they can’t be trusted to take extreme care in narrating the statements of the Prophet peace be upon him. If just one narrator in the chain does not meet these criteria the hadith will have to be rejected.
3) Moral characteristics are not sufficient. Each narrator must be proficient and exact when it comes to narrating hadith. If a person is known to make lots of mistakes when narrating hadith either from his memory or from his writing, his hadith will not be acceptable.
4) Both the chain and the text of the hadith must be such that they don’t contradict what has been narrated through stronger means.
5) Upon inspection of the different ways a hadith is narrated, it must be the case that no mistake or defect is spotted in either the chain or the text of the hadith
If any of these conditions are not met, the hadith will be rejected as weak or very weak depending on the magnitude of the weakness.
Hadith which are graded weak or very weak are not considered authorities in Islamic law.
For further details about hadiths ( This articles 1, 2 , 3 ) from muslims perspective.
So, At least for us, It's an austhenic testamony not an ordinary one.
0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHRP0I2SrVs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUek0aXdDMI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TS37yrBwx2Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=If_U01UebsY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9DFOo7DIVg
Advertisement