Quran and New Testament, are they the same in authorship, manuscript evidence, textual reliability?

[firedragon]

Ok, if the historical evidences tells us with 100 percent certainty, that the authors could not possibly have met Jesus, we accept that. What about the possibility that, the Author(s) of the Bible have met the apostles who have been with Jesus. Could it be the case? Does the historical evidences reject this possibility with absolute certainty?

Okay. So what you are now stating is that there is a possibility that the writers of the NT has a possibility that they met the disciples of Jesus. Earlier you stated that it was "written by disciples".

You have basically destroyed your own position.

Peace.

 

[firedragon]

Author of Mathew, rightly named that book Injil.

No he didnt. Sorry sis. This is not true.

 

[blü 2]

Nope. I am not talking from a faith perspective. I am not giving you belief stamens. Its simple language.

I'm not talking about whether the Qur'an contains ambiguous or opaque passages.

I'm talking about whether sura 3:7 says it does.

Holland says 3.7 says that.

ALL the translators agree with Holland,

Accordingly, so do I.

Which is why I suggest your contrary view is from your faith, not your powers as an objective historian approaching an ancient document.

Nevertheless, whats the point of this? Why did you bring this Muthashabih verses matter up?

I first mentioned it in outlining to you what chapter 6 of Holland's book relevantly says about the Qur'an.

You disagreed with Holland on the point so we discussed it further, as we've been doing. I trust we're done with it now.

 

[firedragon]

I'm not talking about whether the Qur'an contains ambiguous or opaque passages.

I'm talking about whether sura 3:7 says it does.

Holland says 3.7 says that.

ALL the translators agree with Holland,

Accordingly, so do I.

Which is why I suggest your contrary view is from your faith, not your powers as an objective historian approaching an ancient document.

If you read my post properly you would note that it was not a contrary view.

I first mentioned it in outlining to you what chapter 6 of Holland's book relevantly says about the Qur'an.

You disagreed with Holland on the point so we discussed it further, as we've been doing. I trust we're done with it now.

Okay okay. All good. Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

If you read my post properly you would note that it was not a contrary view.



Okay okay. All good. Cheers.

Cheers.