That's not true. Many Christian writings are dated to the First Century:
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Koran v. Bible
- Thread starter Desfox
- Start date
That's not true. Many Christian writings are dated to the First Century:
Early Christian Writings: New Testament, Apocrypha, Gnostics, Church Fathers
Well, you posted quite a lot, some of it was a bit confusing so I will answer some, and ask clarification on others.
"A false statement he reported that some companions died in battle"
So you are just saying that Zuhri simply lied. I am understanding this point correctly?
The Gospels vs. Gospel is an interesting perspective that I never really considered, but the answer to me was also pretty apparent which comes simply from what gospel means.
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness
among the people.
Mark 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Luke 9:6
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
International Standard Version (©2008)
So they left and went from village to village, spreading the good news and healing diseases everywhere.
This is just demonstrating that Bible translations interchange gospel and "good news"
The reason for this is that gospel literally means "good news"
So, Jesus preached the good news to everyone. The gospel when used in the Bible does not mean written codified book. It is a concept. It is good news
Surah 5:46:
And in there footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel[good news]: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
A better way to understand are Gospels would be "The Gospel according to Luke" "The good news according to Mark" "the Gospel according to John" "the good news according to Matthew"
"Gospel" does not unequivocally in every situation denote a codified written book.
Surah 3:78:
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
So this says that some distort Allah's words and this:
Sura 10:64 "Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph. "
Says that his words are not changed. So now we just have two verses that apparently contradict, or at the very least create tension. Is their a reason why my surah is less valid then the one you posted?
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"
Ok, that is good evidence, but does the Koran make this same statement? This, in its current form, does not mean as much to me because I was arguing that the Koran supports the previous revelations (Old and New Testament), and not that a Muslim scholar does.
I challenge You to show me where the Quran says we revealed The old-testament
Well, this is a stab in the dark but,
Surah 5:46:
And in there 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 that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
I could be wrong, but the Torah is "the law" and this comes before Jesus.
Also,
Holy Quran 3:65-67
O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?Here you are - those who have argued about that of which you have [some] knowledge, but why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows, while you know not.Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists.
The Torah is definitely mentioned here.
I would have to do more search for the entire Old Testament being mentioned due to the aspect that it has different sections with different names, and Christians call it Old Testament now, but the Hebrew name is different and more closely translates to "covenant"
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14
I will admit this does not mention names, but notice some key points.
"Said the Disciples, 'We are Allah's helper's!" -this refers to the disciple of Jesus.
"a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion believed" Just showing the two groups
"But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED"
This is extremely important. The disciple who believed in Jesus prevailed. If this is true, the what does this mean for the writings (such as the gsopels) and other New Testament books?
The writers of these books prevailed because they believed in Jesus and Allah made them successful.
Lots of points I know, but you certainly threw a lot at me
And yes, I am guilty of copying and pasting the direct quotes, but what do you expect? They are quotes, so I copied them to retain accuracy.
And inspired by God as in these books are the words of God and contain "The" Truth.
Edit: Thanks for the back up
"A false statement he reported that some companions died in battle"
So you are just saying that Zuhri simply lied. I am understanding this point correctly?
The Gospels vs. Gospel is an interesting perspective that I never really considered, but the answer to me was also pretty apparent which comes simply from what gospel means.
Matthew 4:23
Jesus went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the good news of the kingdom, and healing every disease and sickness
among the people.
Mark 16:15
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.
Luke 9:6
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
Departing, they began going throughout the villages, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere.
International Standard Version (©2008)
So they left and went from village to village, spreading the good news and healing diseases everywhere.
This is just demonstrating that Bible translations interchange gospel and "good news"
The reason for this is that gospel literally means "good news"
So, Jesus preached the good news to everyone. The gospel when used in the Bible does not mean written codified book. It is a concept. It is good news
Surah 5:46:
And in there footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel[good news]: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
A better way to understand are Gospels would be "The Gospel according to Luke" "The good news according to Mark" "the Gospel according to John" "the good news according to Matthew"
"Gospel" does not unequivocally in every situation denote a codified written book.
Surah 3:78:
There is among them a section who distort the Book with their tongues: (As they read) you would think it is a part of the Book, but it is no part of the Book; and they say, "That is from Allah," but it is not from Allah: It is they who tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it!
So this says that some distort Allah's words and this:
Sura 10:64 "Theirs are good tidings in the life of the world and in the Hereafter - There is no changing the Words of Allah - that is the Supreme Triumph. "
Says that his words are not changed. So now we just have two verses that apparently contradict, or at the very least create tension. Is their a reason why my surah is less valid then the one you posted?
Ibn 'Abbas said, "Why do you ask the people of the scripture about anything while your Book (Quran) which has been revealed to Allah's Apostle is newer and the latest? You read it pure, undistorted and unchanged, and Allah has told you that the people of the scripture (Jews and Christians) changed their scripture and distorted it, and wrote the scripture with their own hands and said, 'It is from Allah,' to sell it for a little gain. Does not the knowledge which has come to you prevent you from asking them about anything? No, by Allah, we have never seen any man from them asking you regarding what has been revealed to you!"
Ok, that is good evidence, but does the Koran make this same statement? This, in its current form, does not mean as much to me because I was arguing that the Koran supports the previous revelations (Old and New Testament), and not that a Muslim scholar does.
I challenge You to show me where the Quran says we revealed The old-testament
Well, this is a stab in the dark but,
Surah 5:46:
And in there 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 that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
I could be wrong, but the Torah is "the law" and this comes before Jesus.
Also,
Holy Quran 3:65-67
O People of the Scripture, why do you argue about Abraham while the Torah and the Gospel were not revealed until after him? Then will you not reason?Here you are - those who have argued about that of which you have [some] knowledge, but why do you argue about that of which you have no knowledge? And Allah knows, while you know not.Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allah ]. And he was not of the polytheists.
The Torah is definitely mentioned here.
I would have to do more search for the entire Old Testament being mentioned due to the aspect that it has different sections with different names, and Christians call it Old Testament now, but the Hebrew name is different and more closely translates to "covenant"
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of Allah: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) Allah?" Said the Disciples, "We are Allah's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED. S. 61:14
I will admit this does not mention names, but notice some key points.
"Said the Disciples, 'We are Allah's helper's!" -this refers to the disciple of Jesus.
"a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion believed" Just showing the two groups
"But We gave power to those who believed against their enemies, AND THEY BECAME THE ONES THAT PREVAILED"
This is extremely important. The disciple who believed in Jesus prevailed. If this is true, the what does this mean for the writings (such as the gsopels) and other New Testament books?
The writers of these books prevailed because they believed in Jesus and Allah made them successful.
Lots of points I know, but you certainly threw a lot at me
And yes, I am guilty of copying and pasting the direct quotes, but what do you expect? They are quotes, so I copied them to retain accuracy.
And inspired by God as in these books are the words of God and contain "The" Truth.
Edit: Thanks for the back up
Last edited:
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Thank you for the clarification.
Verse please.
I mean the verse(s) from the Koran that support your above claim.
Ah.
I understand now.
And the Bible does not contain theological unity as defined by you in the above quote.
So you are basically saying that the Koran has the same problems as the Bible and any claims of superiority of either book is nothing but wishful think on the claimers part?
I posted this in my first long-winded argument, and added some further points in my second lengthy argument
Debate for another time
Yep, thats basically what my argument it about.
I want to argue with Muslims with the Koran and Bible basically on even ground, or not have them tell me for every successful point that the Bible is involved in that it doesn't matter because my book is hopelessly corrupted and inaccurate.
As a Christian, I do believe that the Bible is the truth while the Koran is not. However, the fastest way to demonstrate this is to show the inconsistencies between these two books that are both supposed to be written by God. Once I establish this point, the book that came first (the Bible) wins as the Koran comes afterwards and contradicts the first book, therefore demonstrating itself not to be consistent with previous revelations from God, therefore invalidating it.
So, by arguing the Koran is equal in the categories I'm arguing a point that once established, leads to facing the simple fact that the Bible preceding the Koran gives it the clear winning edge as you cannot reconcile the teachings of the Bible and Koran together.
This is why Muslims cannot treat the Bible as equal and claim that it has been corrupted.
Last edited:
sumaidi
ashabul yamin
all muslims believe bible was right and comes from god.
as muslim i have both bible and qur'an here at my home. unfortunately, as you say we believe that bible today has been corrupted. since the first bible in ibrani language ( if i'm not wrong) then translate into many languages. some contradicts it self found there.
as muslim i have both bible and qur'an here at my home. unfortunately, as you say we believe that bible today has been corrupted. since the first bible in ibrani language ( if i'm not wrong) then translate into many languages. some contradicts it self found there.
Yep, that would be what I am exactly what I am discussing.
Yeah there are a lot of internet source and books for this on both the Koran(by Christian authors) and for the Bible (by Muslim authors)
I plan to one day go and sort through it all, but it will take a long time.
The list of accusations for the Bible and the Koran are both extremely long and require serious text study, knowing the context of the verses, and general knowledge on the theology of both religions.
Some claim one thing is a contradiction, then others explain it away, with proof, or they support the view that it just creates a fine line between multiple points and does not contradict.
That is why I focus on what the Koran says about the Bible, because it is a lot clearer that way and there is less ambiguity.
I have looked at one for the Koran and one for the Bible and the questions and rebuttals stretch on for pages, and pages, etc. Going to take a long time to sort through it all.
Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an (for the Koran)
A List Of Biblical Contradictions (for the Bible)
I plan to one day go and sort through it all, but it will take a long time.
The list of accusations for the Bible and the Koran are both extremely long and require serious text study, knowing the context of the verses, and general knowledge on the theology of both religions.
Some claim one thing is a contradiction, then others explain it away, with proof, or they support the view that it just creates a fine line between multiple points and does not contradict.
That is why I focus on what the Koran says about the Bible, because it is a lot clearer that way and there is less ambiguity.
I have looked at one for the Koran and one for the Bible and the questions and rebuttals stretch on for pages, and pages, etc. Going to take a long time to sort through it all.
Contradictions / Difficulties in the Qur'an (for the Koran)
A List Of Biblical Contradictions (for the Bible)
Me Myself
Back to my username
because they trac eJesus´father since Adam and it goes around that age. It shouldn´t be an exact date though, but yes, if you take the bible literaly, the earth would be very young.
And we all know dinosaurs were alive more than 5-6 days alive before their extinction and that they didn´t co-exist with humans.
It is true that if you don't do any fancy theological dancing, this is what you end up with, in terms of time.
Now, if you go for the whole "a day is thousand year" approach, Christians use this to expand the time of creation, making it fit more with evolution (it still doesn't really work out though, it doesn't say a day is like 100 billion years, so I don't know why they bother trying).
Me personally, I am not absolutely sure, but I lean more towards the young earth.
This is becuase if you intrepet the Bible literally you end up here.
Also, seeing a large degree of scientific evidence concerning this topic also makes it a lost more comfortable :beach: Hey, I'm human too
gnostic
The Lost One
Desfox said:
What Christians called "Bible", is actually 2 different collections of scriptures - Hebrew and Christian - which Christians referred to as the Old Testament and New Testament.
Comparisons can't be made between the Hebrew scriptures and Christian scriptures.
And comparison can't really be made between the Bible and the Qur'an since everything about the two are so different: languages, style of writing, the perspective of the narrators, the details in the contents, etc.
Comparisons can be made. Theological ones and what they say about common history (discussed by both)
I'm not sure why they can't be compared. Differences are exactly what you would find when you compare them.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Because the Hadith studies show that some Hadiths are not Authentic and therefore not can be trusted you should have read my reply though i didn't even say they were Unauthentic but it was miss-translated by the article he copied/pasted.
A hadith consists of two parts: its text, called matn, and its chain of narrators, called isnad. Comprehensive and strict criteria were separately developed for the evaluation of matn and isnad. The former is regarded as the internal test of ahadith, and the latter is considered the external test. A hadith was accepted as authentic and recorded into text only when it met both of these criteria independently.
Some little criteria's for the Isnad:
The unblemished and undisputed character of the narrator, called rawi, was the most important consideration for the acceptance of a hadith. As stated earlier, a new branch of 'ilm al-hadith known as asma' ar-rijal was developed to evaluate the credibility of narrators. The following are a few of the criteria utilized for this purpose:
1. The name, nickname, title, parentage and occupation of the narrator should be known.
2. The original narrator should have stated that he heard the hadith directly from the Prophet.
3. If a narrator referred his hadith to another narrator, the two should have lived in the same period and have had the possibility of meeting each other.
4. At the time of hearing and transmitting the hadith, the narrator should have been physically and mentally capable of understanding and remembering it.
5. The narrator should have been known as a pious and virtuous person.
6. The narrator should not have been accused of having lied, given false evidence or committed a crime.
7. The narrator should not have spoken against other reliable people.
8. The narrator's religious beliefs and practices should have been known to be correct.
9. The narrator should not have carried out and practised peculiar religious beliefs of his own.
Some little criteria's for the matn:
1. The text should have been stated in plain and simple language.
2. A text in non-Arabic or couched in indecent language was rejected.
3. A text prescribing heavy punishment for minor sins or exceptionally large reward for small virtues was rejected.
4. A text which referred to actions that should have been commonly known and practised by others but were not known and practised was rejected.
5. A text contrary to the basic teachings of the Qur'an was rejected.
6. A text contrary to other ahadith was rejected.
7. A text contrary to basic reason, logic and the known principles of human society was rejected.
8. A text inconsistent with historical facts was rejected.
9. Extreme care was taken to ensure the text was the original narration of the Prophet and not the sense of what the narrator heard. The meaning of the hadith was accepted only when the narrator was well known for his piety and integrity of character.
10. A text derogatory to the Prophet, members of his family or his companions was rejected.
11. A text by an obscure narrator which was not known during the age of sahabah [the Prophet's companions] or the tabi'een [those who inherited the knowledge of the sahabah] was rejected.
Along with these generally accepted criteria, each scholar then developed and practiced his own set of specific criteria to further ensure the authenticity of each hadith. For instance, Imam al-Bukhari would not accept a hadith unless it clearly stated that narrator A had heard it from narrator B. He would not accept the general statement that A narrated through B. On this basis he did not accept a single hadith narrated through 'Uthman, even though Hasan al-Basri always stayed very close to 'Ali. Additionally, it is stated that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal practiced each hadith before recording it in his Musnad [book or collection of hadith].
More information can be found here
F0uad
Well-Known Member
Have you actually read what the Hadith says? Also can you give me the refrence so i can see if its Authentic or not.
Everyone knows what ''Gospel'' means you are going off the subject, since the Quran only refers to ONE GOSPEL and not Four of them then the New-testament isn't authentic or from God according to the Quran.
The Quran says that this ''Good-News'' have been lost in time as the verses themselves mention Jesus(p) preached the ''gospel'' and not the gospels according to Matthew,Mark, Matthew and John what came 60 till 200 years later.
We are asking for a Gospel according to Jesus nothing else, nowhere in the Quran does those four name appear..
It was speaking about the Quran read 61 till 64 surley you could have read the context before mentioning this?.
He was a companion and one of the most understandable person of Islam as i mentioned before so hes understanding of the Quran supersedes mine or yours now read Verses from the Quran to see that not only the hadiths tell us so: 5:13, 5:15, 5:41, 2:159, 2:174, 3:75, 3:187, 4:46, 7:162,
I challenged you to show me anything about a Old-testament not the Torah. The Law is the Torah but the Torah is also corrupted according to the Quran read:
Surah 5:13:
"But on account of their breaking their covenant We cursed them (Jews and Christians) and made their hearts hard; they ALTERED THE WORDS FROM THEIR PLACES and THEY NEGLECTED A PORTION OF WHAT THEY WERE REMINDED OF; and you shall always discover treachery in them excepting a few of them; so pardon them and turn away; surely Allah loves those who do good (to others)."
and there are more verses.
So? No old-testament...
Again the only revelations mentioned by Allah(swt) is the Torah to Moses(p), Zabur(Psalms) to David(p), and THE INJEEL to Jesus(p). There is no other revelation so we can throw the Old-testament away now instead of making our own stories behind them. My conclusion with all respect is that you cannot meet the challenge, it is a impossible one trust me.
First of all the disciples are not named in the Quran so we do not even know if they were called Mark, Matthew, John and Luke hence the Gospels ''according to'' Mark, Matthew, John and Luke are around 60Years till 200years After Jesus(p) so they are not even from the disciples according facts.
Secondly we belief that the Injeel wasn't fully preserved in a single manuscript but it was a oral revelation that had to past from people to people that's why the Quran also says portions of the revelation they forgot and some distorted. Yes some wrote 60 years after Jesus(p) things down but we can clearly see that the Bible had many authors in many different times.
Why didn't you look for the refutation of those arguments and articles before even posting them i mean there are allot of them, why didn't you actually took some time to read what we say about the preservation of the Quran before starting to talk about it?Lots of points I know, but you certainly threw a lot at me
And yes, I am guilty of copying and pasting the direct quotes, but what do you expect? They are quotes, so I copied them to retain accuracy.
Edit: Thanks for the back up
You have to paste the link of the articles you post here its the rules of RF with all respect.
So how did god inspire the ''Books'' did he inspire some random writers or eye-witnesses can you clarify?
Last edited:
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
Seems to me a waste of time if you contend that the originals are the perfect word of god...
McBell
Resident Sourpuss
and yet it is compared with all manner of writings...
And it even fails in some of them.
really?
Then you should have no problems providing a few examples, right?
this is nothing more than puffery.
F0uad
Well-Known Member
There are two different kind of people Historians and Hadith scholars, the main purpose of a Historian was collecting all the Hadiths he could this can be (unauthentic or authentic) an Hadith Scholar made the decision with a committee and approval of other Scholars what was Authentic or what wasn't by following the criterias i mentioned.
There are different interpretations of this verse but i belief it was indeed a literally one. It was a crack in the moon not a whole splitting between two sides it was a miracle to the unbelievers in that time i know you don't belief in mircales or god so there is no discussion here?
Actually the Moon has a crack from its whole length so its certainly believable?