Is the bible today the true word of God?

[pandora]

Quote

Again pandora, I am not concerned with how these changes came, what I am concerned with is that there are changes and that the Bible we have now cannot be considered as a reliable evidence from God due to several reasons as listed in my site. I am not interested to know who changed it and how and why because I actually see that there are changes, and that's all I am concerned with.

But really you should be concerned... Because if what you say is true it implies that God cannot be trusted to protect His message from change. That may be an acceptable scenario for you but it is not so for me. I refuses to see God that way. What are these changes you speak of? Before or after Mohammed? Because if you believe these changes occurred before Mohammed then we have the issue of The Quran claiming to confirm the scriptures.. I believe the sura states.. " in your hands".. This implies that it was confirming what was there and present in the hands of the Jews and Christians. So does Allah confirm something he knows to be corrupt? Would Mohammed tell the Jews and Christians to judge by "their" books if they were known to be corrupt? The manuscript evidence and the Bible canon we have now was set before Mohammed and the Quran.. So we know the Bible then as now is pretty much the same, and certainly in regards to the core message.. There is no change to that. So on that basis we know that it can't have been corrupted after the Quran as we could easily check when and even pinpoint where and what was changed.
Are these "changes" you speak of textual variants or errors in regards to spelling or translation issues?
I truly do not believe your Prophet Mohammed ever believed the Bible to be corrupt, he respected the scriptures. This leads me to suppose the idea of the corruption came much later long after Mohammed's death.. When Muslim scholars came to realise the the message in the Quran is for the most part diametrically opposed to that of the Bible.. Is it possible for them both to be the word of God? So obviously in order for the Quran to be right the Bible must be wrong.. This has plunged muslims into a life long quest to disprove the Bible... Sometimes coming up with the unlikeliness of scenarios. Hey.. I realise this may be pushing the boundary here and truly I mean know disrespect.. But unless one pushes boundaries in search of truth.. Then one sometimes ends up settling for something less than one should. I don't know about Islam per se but Christianity encourages us to always seek the truth.. Always question...

Quote

Ok, was God not able to protect His people from murder or persecution? This life is a test.

Here again applying human standards to a Holy God. Of course God is quite capable of protecting His people from persecution and murder... Weather it would be right and just for God to do such a thing is a different matter. By saying God is not able to protect His word from His creation is an affront to God..
This life is a test?? A test for what? What reason for the test if the examiner already knows the outcome?

Quote

So because there is a manuscript referring to five verses in John you assume that this is an evidence that the whole NT with its canon were present the same way it is present now as 27 books? To have some verses doesn't mean that this is the whole Bible, what is the proof that these verses were in another book other than Gospel of John and the writer of John took it from the source of this fragment whom we don't know who wrote it or which book did it refer to. Even if it really represented the whole NT, there is still a gap of about 70 years, even 1 year gap is not enough to prove that every thing was ok and no changes occurred.

Maybe not.. But it doesn't prove your position either does it... ;)

Quote

So why did God order His people not to add or omit from the Torah if they cannot do so?Would God forbid something that cannot be done? Actually the verses you quoted concerning God's words are not related to the books sent to Jews or Christians, but to His will and promises which is something else.

Is adding or omitting the same as changing the message to and extent that it becomes completely different in meaning? Would God allow that? Just to be clear Christians have never made the claim that the Bible is word of God verbatim as you claim for the Quran. The Bible contains historical accounts, poetry etc. though inspired by God men penned the words.. But I feel we have been down this road already so will leave it there. I guess I find it easy to put my trust in God.. :)

Quote

And you are supposed to have known Jesus from the Gospels, so your guidance is actually from the Gospels.

Yes, that is our first point of reference. Yet, when one accepts Jesus as their saviour and opens ones heart to Him the understanding of what Jesus meant by His mission it is truly inspiring.

Quote

Well, I am not replacing huria. I just wanted to add my thoughts.

your thoughts are very welcome.. And I am pleased to hear them. It's a shame Huria seems to have given up. :( I accept my wordiness may irritate some people.. But I am as the good Lord made me.. :)

peace

[M.Khaled]

Quote

What are these changes you speak of? Before or after Mohammed? Because if you believe these changes occurred before Mohammed then we have the issue of The Quran claiming to confirm the scriptures.. I believe the sura states.. " in your hands".. This implies that it was confirming what was there and present in the hands of the Jews and Christians. So does Allah confirm something he knows to be corrupt? Would Mohammed tell the Jews and Christians to judge by "their" books if they were known to be corrupt? The manuscript evidence and the Bible canon we have now was set before Mohammed and the Quran.. So we know the Bible then as now is pretty much the same, and certainly in regards to the core message.. There is no change to that. So on that basis we know that it can't have been corrupted after the Quran as we could easily check when and even pinpoint where and what was changed.

This is a common misconception that Islam acknowledges the Bible the same way you acknowledge it, which is not true. First of all, the misconception is in the definition in the word corruption, you think that I am saying the Bible as a whole is false, which is not true. Our Muslim belief in the Bible is that God sent the Torah to Moses(Peace be upon him), and the Gospel to Jesus (Peace be upon him), but this doesn’t mean that the Pentateuch or the four Gospels present now are the real Torah and Gospel sent to Moses and Jesus (Peace be upon them). The case is that the Torah and Gospel and other prophets’ books have been subjected to a lot of corruption and interpolations that the true verses are mixed with the false ones, that’s why God sent the Quran to Muhammad (Peace be upon him) who is the final prophet, where it was saved from corruption as it is the final book, and contains the absolute truth. So we consider the Quran as a judge on the Bible, we accept the Bible verses which agree with the Quran, and reject the Bible verses which disagree with the Quran, as for the verses the Quran didn’t talk about, we neither agree nor disagree.God said in the Quran in the context of talking about Jews:
79. Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, `This is from ALLAH,’ That they may take it for a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.( Holy Quran 2:79)
Ibn Abbas, the Prophet’s disciple said:
“O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur’an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,’ so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn’t the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.”
And Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) said in Bukhari:
Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.”
And said in Abu Dawood:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it.
Also there was another Hadith in Bukhari that that Humayd bin `Abdur-Rahman heard Mu`awiyah talking to a group of Quraysh in Al-Madinah. He mentioned Ka`b Al-Ahbar, and said: “He was one of the most truthful of those who narrated from the People of the Book, even though we found that some of what he said might be lies.’
This means that Ka’b didn’t intend to lie, but he was telling what was interpolated by the People of the book.
The verses you are quoting that the Jews and Christians to judge by "their" books were in a certain context like stoning the adulterer and foretelling about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), but there is no full endorsement of the Quran to the Bible you have now but actually the Quran tells that it's a judge over the previous books.

Quote

Here again applying human standards to a Holy God. Of course God is quite capable of protecting His people from persecution and murder... Weather it would be right and just for God to do such a thing is a different matter. By saying God is not able to protect His word from His creation is an affront to God..
This life is a test?? A test for what? What reason for the test if the examiner already knows the outcome?

I am not sure where I said that God is not able to protect His word, all what I am saying is that God ordered the people of the book to keep His words neither add nor diminish as He ordered them nor to murder or steal, if they murdered or stole, that doesn't mean that God cannot protect His people, same as keeping God's words. If they didn't keep it, this doesn't mean that God cannot protect His word. God tests us on our deeds to see who shall obey Him and who shall not. I am not sure what's unclear in that.

Quote

Maybe not.. But it doesn't prove your position either does it... ;)

So at least we can agree that you don't have an evidence to prove that no change occurred in the Bible during these 150 years, which I see a good step. ;)

Quote

Is adding or omitting the same as changing the message to and extent that it becomes completely different in meaning? Would God allow that? Just to be clear Christians have never made the claim that the Bible is word of God verbatim as you claim for the Quran. The Bible contains historical accounts, poetry etc. though inspired by God men penned the words.. But I feel we have been down this road already so will leave it there. I guess I find it easy to put my trust in God.. :)

Well, I am not talking here about superficial changes, I am talking about major changes.

Quote

Yes, that is our first point of reference. Yet, when one accepts Jesus as their saviour and opens ones heart to Him the understanding of what Jesus meant by His mission it is truly inspiring.

Well, if each one claims he is inspired by Jesus or the Holy Spirit, then it is supposed that there should be no diversity among Christians, should there be?

[pandora]

Quote

This is a common misconception that Islam acknowledges the Bible the same way you acknowledge it, which is not true. First of all, the misconception is in the definition in the word corruption, you think that I am saying the Bible as a whole is false, which is not true. Our Muslim belief in the Bible is that God sent the Torah to Moses(Peace be upon him), and the Gospel to Jesus (Peace be upon him), but this doesn’t mean that the Pentateuch or the four Gospels present now are the real Torah and Gospel sent to Moses and Jesus (Peace be upon them). The case is that the Torah and Gospel and other prophets’ books have been subjected to a lot of corruption and interpolations that the true verses are mixed with the false ones, that’s why God sent the Quran to Muhammad (Peace be upon him) who is the final prophet, where it was saved from corruption as it is the final book, and contains the absolute truth. So we consider the Quran as a judge on the Bible, we accept the Bible verses which agree with the Quran, and reject the Bible verses which disagree with the Quran, as for the verses the Quran didn’t talk about, we neither agree nor disagree.

Muslims today do not acknowledge the Bible as we do but I don't see this was always the way of things. You believe you say some of the Bible is corrupt whilst still contains some truth.. Conveniently for yourselves the "truthful" bits happen to coincide with the Quran. However, you have no proof of what if anything at all was corrupted.. Other than what you believe the Quran says on the subject, yet even those suras are not definitive on this wholesale corruption issue. This is circular reasoning as well as faulty.. If you believe any part of the Bible was corrupted then you cannot trust anything at all.. Not even the bits you like. Because unless you can proof where the actual changes took place and what EXACTLY has been changed then everything is suspect. Indeed if I thought the Bible was as corrupt as you believe it to be I wouldn't trust anything in it at all... Would I then become a Muslim and put my trust in the Quran? No.. I would not.. Because I could not have faith in a God that would allow His message sent for guidance to mankind to be corrupted by His lowly creation. That's tantamount to saying man is as powerful as God that man can change Gods message and God cannot prevent it. What nonsense!!!!
May one ask where is this real Torah sent to Moses and the real Gospel sent to Jesus? This seems like a misunderstanding of the nature of the scriptures, maybe Mohammed believed the Torah and the Gospel was sent down as the Quran was sent down. However.. We know this was not the case. Moses received the Torah from God Himself not an Angel. Jesus never received any Gospel.. Jesus was the Gospel. Gospel meaning good news and that's what Jesus is the Good news of our redemption? Jesus never wrote any Book.. The Word does not write itself but others were inspired to write about it.

~ And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law.
Surat-ul Maida (5):46 ~


Please explain this sura to me? Because it appears to me that here Jesus was sent confirming the law that had come before Him... That must have been the Torah since the Gospel ... As the recording of His Birth, mission, earthly death and resurrection... did not come into being until after His ascension to God. So was Jesus telling a lie here? If He was sent to confirm the Torah would He not have had the knowledge to realise it had been corrupted? Surely.. Jesus, who even the Quran regards as sinless would not deceive His followers by confirming something that was not truth.

Quote

God said in the Quran in the context of talking about Jews:

Quote

79. Woe, therefore, to those who write the Book with their own hands and then say, `This is from ALLAH,’ That they may take it for a paltry price. Woe, then, to them for what their hands have written, and woe to them for what they earn.( Holy Quran 2:79)
Ibn Abbas, the Prophet’s disciple said:
“O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur’an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,’ so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn’t the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.”
And Prophet Muhammad(Peace be upon him) said in Bukhari:
Do not believe the People of the Book and do not deny them. Say: “We believe in Allah and what has been revealed to us and what has been revealed to you. Our God and your God is One, and to Him we have submitted.”
And said in Abu Dawood:
The Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) said: Whatever the people of the Book tell you, do not verify them, nor falsify them, but say: We believe in Allah and His Apostle. If it is false, do not confirm it, and if it is right, do not falsify it.
Also there was another Hadith in Bukhari that that Humayd bin `Abdur-Rahman heard Mu`awiyah talking to a group of Quraysh in Al-Madinah. He mentioned Ka`b Al-Ahbar, and said: “He was one of the most truthful of those who narrated from the People of the Book, even though we found that some of what he said might be lies.’
This means that Ka’b didn’t intend to lie, but he was telling what was interpolated by the People of the book.
The verses you are quoting that the Jews and Christians to judge by "their" books were in a certain context like stoning the adulterer and foretelling about Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him), but there is no full endorsement of the Quran to the Bible you have now but actually the Quran tells that it's a judge over the previous books.

if this is to be taken as proof it seems rather ambiguous to say the least.. It does not say all Jews. It seems to refer to some scribes.. It does not directly claim that it was the Torah they were changing. It implies they were interpreting the laws of the Torah for their own gain.. This is not the same as changing the word of God or the whole Torah. In fact maybe this admonishment stems from the Bible itself because I believe the Prophet Isaiah warned the very same thing. I'm sure I mentioned this on another thread here.

Quote

I am not sure where I said that God is not able to protect His word, all what I am saying is that God ordered the people of the book to keep His words neither add nor diminish as He ordered them nor to murder or steal, if they murdered or stole, that doesn't mean that God cannot protect His people, same as keeping God's words. If they didn't keep it, this doesn't mean that God cannot protect His word. God tests us on our deeds to see who shall obey Him and who shall not. I am not sure what's unclear in that.

You are assuming that people of the book paid no heed to Gods orders, because you have to believe in this corruption stuff. Why do you see it so difficult for Jews and Christians to disregard Gods orders? Do you think we hold God in less esteem and respect than a Muslim does? Regards to God testing you on your deeds I accept that is how you as a Muslim sees things... We agree to disagree on this point. In all honesty, do you think it matters to God if we choose to obey Him or not? God does not need our obedience His power and majesty is eternal. If God has to test us to ensure our obedience then does He value us so little? This does not fit my Christian concept of God at all, who I believe loves us unconditionally and through His divine grace we are saved. I know I cannot save myself.. That why I know I need God and that's why I will endeavour to the best of my ability to serve Him in obedience as a measure of my gratitude for all the blessings bestowed upon me in this life.

Quote

So at least we can agree that you don't have an evidence to prove that no change occurred in the Bible during these 150 years, which I see a good step. ;)

Neither do you... Which is also a good step.. Of sorts. ;)

Quote

[/B]

Quote

[/FONT][/COLOR]
Well, I am not talking here about superficial changes, I am talking about major changes.

Such as? Examples?

Quote

Well, if each one claims he is inspired by Jesus or the Holy Spirit, then it is supposed that there should be no diversity among Christians, should there be?

As we are all different, we all see things and interpret things differently? However, Christians of whatever denomination do not differ in the main. Except for maybe some more recent sects.. Like Mormons, J Ws etc. ;) how do you account for the different denominations within Islam? There is one Quran .. Yet not all muslims interpret it the same. Except for maybe the central message. So on this point... I don't see there's much of a point to answer. :)

Peace and Gods Blessings to you M.khaled

[pandora]

Please accept my apologies.. It was not Isaiah as I mentioned in my post above but Jeremiah.. :) this from the other thread..it's not falsifying the scriptures but interpreting them differently.. i:e to suit themselves. The Original remains unchanged and uncorrupted.

Jeremiah 8:8: Is the Bible corrupted?


Many Muslims claim that the Bible is corrupted and some refer to the following verse:


"'How can you say, "We are wise, for we have the law of the Lord," when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely? (Jeremiah 8:8)


1. Wise men who are not so wise
"We are wise” is connected with educated people, the learned elite, who made their own explanation of the written Law of Moses instead of following the written Law of Moses in the book Deuteronomy. The wise people who are not so wise had therefore a false possession of their interpretation of the Law of Moses [1]. Jeremiah is addressing the priests and false prophets. He accused them many times that they were destroying the country with their actions (Jeremiah 2:8, 26; Jeremiah 4:9; Jeremiah 5:31; Jeremiah 8:10).


2. False interpretation of the Scriptures
"The lying pen of the scribes" refers to the writers who tried to describe the Law of Moses in international acceptable wisdom. In fact the scribes tried to change the faith in the Most High into a human tradition [2]. “Scribes” is in Hebrew Soferim, it are all those who practiced the art of writing. They are therefore, if not all, of the priests and false prophets of whom Jeremiah speaks. The interpreters of the Scriptures called scribes have, by their false comments and inferences, made the Scriptures, including the Law of Moses into a lie, so that it has ceased to represent the divine will and teaching [3].
Next verse, Jeremiah 8:9 shows that the wise men will be very ashamed.
The contrast is between the written and oral Law of Moses. The oral explanation of the Law of Moses was done by scribes and educated and intelligent men, who changed the written Law of Moses according to the book Deuteronomy. Jeremiah attacks the false wisdom [4].


3. Conclusion
After a review of the Gospel verse the conclusion can be drawn that Jeremiah 8:8 does not say that the Bible was corrupted, but that false written commentaries were distributed about the Scriptures. The prophet Jeremiah warned not to follow false teachings.
http://www.ibnzura.com/answer.php?la...ble_corrupted?

[pandora]

@ Huria.. In continuation of your many questions... :)

Quote

Then we have the New Testament that raises loads of other questions

• The early Church Fathers. (they didn't consider New Testament as inspired scripture!)
• who are the gospels writers? We have first names but nobody is sure who are they?
• Who is John in particular? chapter 21 assumed by another author by that particular chapter at least
• Do you have any original manuscripts left??? None, apart from one fragment small with couple line in it !!! Just one out of thousands!
• “Of the approximately 5,000 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament that are known today, no two agree So all the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century.

exactly in all particulars. Confronted by a mass of conflicting readings, editors and translators had to decide which variants deserve to be included in the text and which should be relegated to textual notes”

With regards to the topic of manuscript evidence, I feel there is enough said already on this and other recent threads. So I don't feel there is anything to be gained by travelling old ground on that one. Case in point, the Bible still holds greater manuscript evidence than any other work of its kind and antiquity ... Including the Quran. So maybe it would be more productive to look at what we do have rather than what you assume to be missing.

With regards to the Early Church Fathers, I confess it is not a topic I know a great deal about... So on this occasion I beg your leave to resort to a copy and paste job and attach an article which I feel explains the role of the Early Church Fathers in a fairly clear and concise way.

Question: "Who were the early church fathers?"


Answer: The early church fathers fall into three basic categories: apostolic fathers, ante-Nicene church fathers, and post-Nicene church fathers. The apostolic church fathers were the ones like Clement of Rome who were contemporaries of the apostles and were probably taught by them, carrying on the tradition and teaching of the apostles themselves. Linus, mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, became the bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, and Clement took over from Linus. Both Linus and Clement of Rome, therefore, are considered apostolic fathers. However, there appear to be no writings of Linus that have survived, while many of the writings of Clement of Rome survived. The apostolic fathers would have largely passed from the scene by the beginning of the second century, except for those few who might have been disciples of John, such as Polycarp. The tradition is that the apostle John died in Ephesus around A.D. 98.


The ante-Nicene fathers were those who came after the apostolic fathers and before the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. Such individuals as Iraenus, Ignatius, and Justin Martyr are ante-Nicene fathers.


The post-Nicene church fathers are those who came after the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325. These are such noted men as Augustine, bishop of Hippo, who is often called the father of the [Roman Catholic] Church because of his great work in Church doctrine; Chrysostom, called the “golden-mouthed” for his excellent oratorical skills; and Eusebius, who wrote a history of the church from the birth of Jesus to A.D. 324, one year before the Council of Nicea. He is included in the post-Nicene era since he did not write his history until after the Council of Nicea was held. Other post-Nicene fathers were Jerome, who translated the Greek New Testament into the Latin Vulgate, and Ambrose, who was largely responsible for Augustine’s conversion to Christianity.


So, what did the early church fathers believe? The apostolic fathers were very concerned about the proclamation of the gospel being just as the apostles themselves proclaimed it. They were not interested in formulating theological doctrine, for the gospel they had learned from the apostles was quite sufficient for them. The apostolic fathers were as zealous as the apostles themselves in rooting out and exposing any false doctrine that cropped up in the early church. The orthodoxy of the message was preserved by the apostolic fathers' desire to stay true to the gospel taught to them by the apostles.


The ante-Nicene fathers also tried to stay true to the gospel, but they had an additional worry. Now there were several spurious writings claiming to have the same weight as the established writings of Paul, Peter, and Luke. The reason for these spurious documents was evident. If the body of Christ could be persuaded to receive a false document, then error would creep into the church. So the ante-Nicene fathers spent a lot of their time defending the Christian faith from false doctrine, and this led to the beginnings of the formation of accepted church doctrine.


The post-Nicene fathers carried out the mission of defending the gospel against all kinds of heresies, so more and more the post-Nicene fathers grew interested in methods of defending the gospel and less interested in transmitting the gospel in a true and pure form. Thus, they began to fall away from the orthodoxy which was the hallmark of the apostolic fathers. This was the age of the theologian and endless discussion on arcane topics such as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”


The early church fathers are an example to us of what it means to follow Christ and defend the truth. None of the early church fathers were perfect, just as none of us are perfect. Some of the early church fathers held beliefs that most Christians today consider to be incorrect. What eventually developed into Roman Catholic theology had its roots in the writings of the post-Nicene fathers. While we can gain knowledge and insight by studying the early church fathers, ultimately our faith must be in the Word of God, not in the writings of early Christian leaders. Only God’s Word is the infallible guide for faith and practice.


Read more: http://www.gotquestions.org/early-ch...#ixzz32NxGCrix

There is a wealth of agreement that the evidence points to the accuracy of the Church’s tradition that John published his Gospel in Ephesus in the second half of the first century. Could you maybe pinpoint what you are aiming at? Do you mean because this Gospel claims to be an eye witness account.. Believed to be .. The Disciple whom Jesus loved... Well, the Bible does claim the Jesus was probably closest to John. We may never know for certain but many theologians throughout the ages maintain that John should be attributed to John the Disciple of Jesus.




If we're going to dispute the position that the Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John we need to provide credible evidence to the contrary. Simply accusing our existing evidence in support of their authorship of being insufficient is hardly conclusive. If they weren't the authors then where is the historical evidence to the contrary? Where is there a credible statement from that time period that disputes the genuineness of their authorship? Sometimes one just has to have faith that if something seems right.. Then chances are it is probably right.. In the absence of any concrete evidence to the contrary.

To to be continued.....

[Burninglight]

Well said. The Point is that even though there are differences in the 5000 Greek copies; the differences are insignificant to the central gospel message. At least we have the copies to compare and contrast. We didn't have a Christian Uthman who burned all original copies so we could check and get the gist of the doctrine intended. But keep in mind none of the differences a significant. They all agree Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and is the only way of salvation.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

[/FONT][/COLOR]
~ And in their footsteps we sent Jesus the son of Mary confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law.
Surat-ul Maida (5):46 ~

Please explain this sura to me? Because it appears to me that here Jesus was sent confirming the law that had come before Him... That must have been the Torah since the Gospel ... As the recording of His Birth, mission, earthly death and resurrection... did not come into being until after His ascension to God. So was Jesus telling a lie here? If He was sent to confirm the Torah would He not have had the knowledge to realise it had been corrupted? Surely.. Jesus, who even the Quran regards as sinless would not deceive His followers by confirming something that was not truth.

This has nothing to do with deceit nor did Jesus lie. The case is that Jesus confirmed the Torah that was sent to Moses, I have no evidence that the Torah that was sent to Moses is the same as your Pentateuch. The case is that you project the Torah the Quran was talking about on your Pentateuch and assume that I also think so, which is not true.

Quote

May one ask where is this real Torah sent to Moses and the real Gospel sent to Jesus?

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. For me the Quran and Sunna are enough as they are overwhelming the previous books and by examining the Bible you have, I find that it doesn't have a solid evidence that it is continuously connected to Jesus or previous prophets, besides I find many difficulties and evidence that manipulations occurred in it. So I can't rely on it when already I have a pure evidence from God.

Quote

if this is to be taken as proof it seems rather ambiguous to say the least.. It does not say all Jews. It seems to refer to some scribes.. It does not directly claim that it was the Torah they were changing. It implies they were interpreting the laws of the Torah for their own gain.. This is not the same as changing the word of God or the whole Torah. In fact maybe this admonishment stems from the Bible itself because I believe the Prophet Isaiah warned the very same thing. I'm sure I mentioned this on another thread here.

Well, actually it's clear talking that the sources of the people of the book are not pure that's why we should neither deny them nor believe them. Besides, I am sure if you have seen the quotes of Islamic sources regarding the prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) in the Torah and Gospel, you'll see that many quotes they have are not related to the Bible, so either you believe them that these were the sources they had at their time or that you know that the Bible you have is not the one they knew.

Quote

You are assuming that people of the book paid no heed to Gods orders, because you have to believe in this corruption stuff. Why do you see it so difficult for Jews and Christians to disregard Gods orders? Do you think we hold God in less esteem and respect than a Muslim does?

In all Jews, Christians and Muslims, there are many people who disobey God. But the difference is that in case of the Bible is that it was left to people's honesty other than the Quran where Allah promised that He will keep it as it is the final message from God.

Quote

Neither do you... Which is also a good step.. Of sorts. ;)

Well, you are the one who is supposed to give evidence not me, suppose I brought you a book and said it refers to a prophet, but actually all the evidence you gave is much late, why shall I believe you? You are the one who believe that the Gospels refer to the disciples f Jesus, so you are the one who should support your belief by solid evidence for me to believe you.

Quote

Such as? Examples?

Well, lets's see what some early church fathers said about Jewish corruption in the Old Testament:
The first example is Justin Martyr(an early church father who died at about 150 AD) says in his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew:
Chap. LXXII. — Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah.
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and….. thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’…… And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
So Justin Martyr here is explicitly accusing the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament by hiding some verses talking about salvation. But is it that easy that verses are removed from the Bible? Let’s see what John Chrysostom (church father who lived in the fourth century) says in his Homilies on Gospel Matthew when he came to the verse quoting the Old Testament” which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”:
And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much 56 more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene. ”
So simply John Chrysostom is not just accusing the Jews of being negligent who are not caring for their books, but also of destroying their own books. If these are accusations made by Christians, who are supposed to share the Jews their belief in the Old Testament, how could Muslims trust the Jews and consider that they were really honest and followed God’s commandment to keep Hi s books, not to add or remove or replace?

Quote

As we are all different, we all see things and interpret things differently? However, Christians of whatever denomination do not differ in the main. Except for maybe some more recent sects.. Like Mormons, J Ws etc. ;) how do you account for the different denominations within Islam? There is one Quran .. Yet not all muslims interpret it the same. Except for maybe the central message. So on this point... I don't see there's much of a point to answer. :)

Quote

Well, Muslims don't have Holy Spirit or Jesus who guides them, but just interpret Islamic scriptures. As for Christianity, you have no excuse, either the holy Spirit guides you that immaculate conception or sola scriptura or any other diversity is ok so the other team is blaspheming on the Holy Spirit and rejecting the inspiration of Jesus. There should be no room for accpetable diversity among Christians as long as they believe they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

[M.Khaled]

Quote

@ Huria.. In continuation of your many questions... :)


With regards to the topic of manuscript evidence, I feel there is enough said already on this and other recent threads. So I don't feel there is anything to be gained by travelling old ground on that one. Case in point, the Bible still holds greater manuscript evidence than any other work of its kind and antiquity

Well you already admitted in my conversation above that you have no evidence that the Bible was kept pure within the 150 years gap between manuscripts we have now and the time of Jesus, how come you are say again that the Bible holds great manuscript evidence?
As for the early church fathers, you'd better read this article which tells that they had many unorthodoxy opinions:
http://jesus-is-muslim.net/church-fathers-bible/

[M.Khaled]

Quote

Well said. The Point is that even though there are differences in the 5000 Greek copies; the differences are insignificant to the central gospel message. At least we have the copies to compare and contrast. We didn't have a Christian Uthman who burned all original copies so we could check and get the gist of the doctrine intended. But keep in mind none of the differences a significant. They all agree Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and is the only way of salvation.

I am not sure where you got the claim that Uthman burnt all original Quran copies, and for sure you don't have a single original manuscript for the Bible as all manuscripts are too late.

[pandora]

Quote

This has nothing to do with deceit nor did Jesus lie. The case is that Jesus confirmed the Torah that was sent to Moses, I have no evidence that the Torah that was sent to Moses is the same as your Pentateuch. The case is that you project the Torah the Quran was talking about on your Pentateuch and assume that I also think so, which is not true.

M.Khaled if you have no evidence then what pray are we talking about! Jesus confirmed the Torah ..Pentateuch if you wish.. Jesus did not confirm anything in the Quran. On this point as I have chosen on proof and faith to take Jesus as my saviour over Mohammed and the Quran. Reason being I find much inconsistency in the Quran, I have doubts of Mohammed credentials as a prophet.. And I mean do offence by that and honestly I have looked long and hard at Islam and it raises more questions than it has answers for. But that's for me. Then.. On this point I will take on faith that Jesus did indeed confirm the previous scriptures, He taught from the previous scriptures, He upheld the previous scriptures and He fulfilled the previous scriptures.
You could try proving that the Torah you see in the Quran bears any resemblance to the Torah given to Moses. Or you don't think you need to? Because you maybe take on proof and faith that it is correct.

Quote

I don't know, and it doesn't matter. For me the Quran and Sunna are enough as they are overwhelming the previous books and by examining the Bible you have, I find that it doesn't have a solid evidence that it is continuously connected to Jesus or previous prophets, besides I find many difficulties and evidence that manipulations occurred in it. So I can't rely on it when already I have a pure evidence from God.

You mean you have faith and believe you have pure evidence from God in the Quran and Sunna. That in itself is not proof that the Quran is what it claims to be. Just as my faith in the Bibles message which has remained unchanged for over two thousand years and will remain so until all eternity.. Despite all efforts to tear it down.. It will never happen because Gods message cannot be changed. Mans words will come and go but none can change the message. So you feel the same faith in your Quran. It may be a case that no evidence on either side will ever be enough.. :)

Quote

Well, actually it's clear talking that the sources of the people of the book are not pure that's why we should neither deny them nor believe them. Besides, I am sure if you have seen the quotes of Islamic sources regarding the prophecies of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) in the Torah and Gospel, you'll see that many quotes they have are not related to the Bible, so either you believe them that these were the sources they had at their time or that you know that the Bible you have is not the one they knew.

If not related to the Bible then they have there foundation in the Gnostics. There are many references to the Gnostics in relation to Mohammed and in the Quran. This is not a mystery the Gnostics were in wide circulation as was the Bible canon that is in Arabia at that time. It is naive to think Mohammed never heard about them. There is reason why the Gnostics were not considered to be part of the Bible canon.. Generally they were not considered to be the inspired word of God. That died not mean they have no importance and because they are not in the Bible canon does not mean they are either lost or hidden away.

Quote

In all Jews, Christians and Muslims, there are many people who disobey God. But the difference is that in case of the Bible is that it was left to people's honesty other than the Quran where Allah promised that He will keep it as it is the final message from God.

What better way than to put the onus on the person and their honesty. :) maybe God had faith in some more than others. Are we to think God had more reason to suppose His message would not be safe in the hands of muslims and so needed that extra safeguard.. ? I don't think so.. As you say there are many people of all religions who disobey God. That is a freedom of choice God blessed us with. Some choose wrongly some don't but either way we all answer for our actions at the judgement.

Quote

Well, you are the one who is supposed to give evidence not me, suppose I brought you a book and said it refers to a prophet, but actually all the evidence you gave is much late, why shall I believe you? You are the one who believe that the Gospels refer to the disciples f Jesus, so you are the one who should support your belief by solid evidence for me to believe you.

This evidence exchange is not a two way thing then? Is that why my questions go unanswered? As the Quran is the latest in the line of scriptures that claim to be revealed by God.. As the Quran claims to confirm the aforesaid scriptures.. Is it therefore not reasonable for me to ask for some evidence that the Quran is correct, because if it is then it would appear that God made a huge error with His previous revelations? Because whatever you say or think the Quran does not confirm the message of the Bible. It's not important to me weather you believe the Bible or it's message or not because I believe it to be truth. What is important to me is if you claim that man came along and changed the word of God or that God somehow sent the wrong message the first time sending billions of souls awry.. Then I would wish to see proof of such claims. It's not enough to just say on the basis of a few ambiguous verses in the Quran and hadiths that some Jews changed some verses.. We need to know ..what was changed? When it was changed? Why it was changed? A bonus would be who did the deed.. But that would be impossible to ascertain.

Quote

Well, lets's see what some early church fathers said about Jewish corruption in the Old Testament:
The first example is Justin Martyr(an early church father who died at about 150 AD) says in his dialogue with Trypho, a Jew:
Chap. LXXII. — Passages Have Been Removed by the Jews from Esdras and Jeremiah.
And I said, “I shall do as you please. From the statements, then, which Esdras made in reference to the law of the passover, they have taken away the following: ‘And Esdras said to the people, This passover is our Saviour and our refuge. And if you have understood, and your heart has taken it in, that we shall humble Him on a standard, and….. thereafter hope in Him, then this place shall not be forsaken for ever, says the God of hosts. But if you will not believe Him, and will not listen to His declaration, you shall be a laughing-stock to the nations.’…… And again, from the sayings of the same Jeremiah these have been cut out: ‘The Lord God remembered His dead people of Israel who lay in the graves; and He descended to preach to them His own salvation.’
So Justin Martyr here is explicitly accusing the Jews of corrupting the Old Testament by hiding some verses talking about salvation. But is it that easy that verses are removed from the Bible? Let’s see what John Chrysostom (church father who lived in the fourth century) says in his Homilies on Gospel Matthew when he came to the verse quoting the Old Testament” which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.”:
And what manner of prophet said this? Be not curious, nor overbusy. For many of the prophetic writings have been lost; and this one may see from the history of the Chronicles. For being negligent, and continually falling into ungodliness, some they suffered to perish, others they themselves burnt up and cut to pieces. The latter fact Jeremiah relates; the former, he who composed the fourth book of Kings, saying, that after a long time the book of Deuteronomy was hardly found, buried somewhere and lost. But if, when there was no barbarian there, they so betrayed their books, much 56 more when the barbarians had overrun them. For as to the fact, that the prophet had foretold it, the apostles themselves in many places call Him a Nazarene. ”
[COLOR=#141412][FONT=Source Sans Pro][B][B][B]So simply John Chrysostom is not just accusing the Jews of being negligent who are not caring for their books, but also of destroying their own books. If these are accusations made by Christians, who are supposed to share the Jews their belief in the Old Testament, how could Muslims trust the Jews and consider that they were really honest and followed God’s commandment to keep His books, not to add or remove or replace?

if Jesus confirmed the scriptures that is all I need. You are taking the words and opinions of men over Jesus.. Who even for you is a prophet.. Thing with articles written to prove a point.. They are most often written with some degree of author bias.. I mean your own article.. Well written as it is as I have read so far. :) is written from your personal Islamic bias as to be expected and as such it will appeal to your target audience.. Muslims. The early church fathers were at times known to be anti Semitic.. Shameful to say so but it was so. The two ECF you quote above were of this opinion. If you read the nature of there articles that is fairly clear. On that basis one has to take that into account when judging their opinions. Which are likely to be negative towards the Jews. Jesus never said or had reason to doubt the scriptures He had with Him were not as God had meant them to be. The New Testament confirms this fact. At the end of the day who's opinion carries more weight Jesus or the ECF?

Quote

Well, Muslims don't have Holy Spirit or Jesus who guides them, but just interpret Islamic scriptures. As for Christianity, you have no excuse, either the holy Spirit guides you that immaculate conception or sola scriptura or any other diversity is ok so the other team is blaspheming on the Holy Spirit and rejecting the inspiration of Jesus. There should be no room for accpetable diversity among Christians as long as they believe they are inspired by the Holy Spirit and Jesus.

No you don't have the Holy Spirit or Jesus to guide you... That is a cause of sadness but your choice which I respect. There is great degree of diversity between Christian denominations. We all take it as read that blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin, and we accept the teachings of Jesus. The core message is the same Jesus is our given means to salvation it is by His work that we are saved.. The Holy Spirit enforces this message. However, as we are all free to personal choice some may interpret it differently.. As is what importance does one place on the words of theologians in interpreting the word of God.

Peace to you.

I think I have one more question of Hurias to address then maybe I can expect answers to mine three little questions.. :)