The Growing Greatness of Muhammad (S+) In The Eyes of Much of The World

[InvestigateTruth]

In all due respect....
Perhaps you should read both the Bible and the Quoran before making these false assumptions.

I have quoted the verses of Bible for your reference.

You seem to interpret scripture from a bias point of view

Not really. I am showing you the scriptures.

, not as it is written or even interpreted by any Bible scholar.

It is as it was written. But I agree, not as most of the bible scholars. The bible scholars are gods?
Can you show me a verse, which says, Jesus asked you to believe whatever the Bible scholars said?
If you think about it, the Jewish scholars, interprete the torah differently than Christian scholars, and they do not see how Jesus is the Messiah.

Why don't you follow those scholars?
What I am asking you, why do you think, the Christian Scholars told you the truth?

You do the same with the Quoran, bend it to what suits you.

Only accusing me with no proofs?

No matter what verses we give you to support our defense you twist and bend them to your liking.

Please support your claim, with the verses of Bible and Quran.

I don't care, even to the extend of mustard grain, what your scholars told you.
I only care about what the Bible and Quran says. These Books are our proofs!

The Idea of trininty was added many years by some churches, AFTER the bible was written.

This does not prove your side, It proves you do not understand the word of God.

Support your claim based on Bible.
It is easy to accuse others.

I do not go to your books and attempt to change them to fit my beliefs, I do not go to the Quoran and change their meanings to fit my beliefs.

Are you claiming your scholars are Gods?
For many years, different Christian denominations couldn't agree on many things.

It is only appealing to you to believe, every prophet is a sinner, only Jesus is the sinless, and a part of God. Please refer to Bible. It has the truth in it. There was no such a thing in the Old Testament.

It is plainly obvious Islam differs from The Bible, or wouldn't we be all one religion? Your religion uses parts of ours and parts of Islam and I am not sure what else and sure you must need both of ours to agree to allow yours to fit in...It Just doesn't

Please prove they are different.

I do not mean to come across as angry but really you are insulting every Christian and every Muslim in your claim that our religion totally agrees with each other. Try researching, studying and leave alone these false claims you have.

You seem angry, and You are insaulting every prophet of God, and calling them sinners to fit that with what your dear scholars told you.

When someone gives you a verse from their scriptures, don't tell them they are wrong and you are right in your interpretation, that is absurd that you will know more then people who study and absorb their own religion.

I see all religions from the same God.

This is not how rational debates are done. Perhaps we are not 100% accurate on all God's word, you however dismiss every verse we give and interpret it your own way.and demand more proof because ours isn't good enough, well you simply haven't proven a thing to anyone I have seen you debate with, if it is your claim that Mohammad was not the last prophet, prove it. If it is your claim that prophets never sinned, prove it. Don't prove it twisting our scriptures, find your way rationally, knowledgeably and for God's sakes respectably.

Please keep your beliefs for yourself. I did not ask you change them!
Just like Moslem scholars, who claim Quran is the final revelation, with no proofs, and every time they discuss, they fail to stablish their claim from Quran. They only use the Tafseers and Hadithes. Similarly, the Christian scholars, cannot prove their Trinity claims based on Bible. They only cling to some man-made interpretations.

Peace!

 

[1robin]

Sorry I got carried away - My apology. But I couldn't help it seeing the repeated baseless falsehood and fabrication that you preach even after being shown the truth/proof.

Ok

On the contrary, we have our standards which are universally known - the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadith. It is a sign of extreme desperation on your part after failing to prove any of your fabrication/falsehood from Islam's primary scripture Qur'an and then even failing to show something from Sahih Hadith that you cry foul to allow you to use other sources. On the other hand, Muslims only stick to the Bible(the primary scripture) when discussing/debating Christian issues.

I regard reliable historical, relevant scientific, and applicable physics as well as commentators, scholars, and theologians as evidence that should be evaluated concerning either the Bible or the Quran. If the Bible says gravity does not exist I do not then conclude that science is wrong. I am interested in truth no matter what the source. Islam seems to have chosen to only regard that which is true based on what agrees with the Quran. Yes I am well aware they have systems by which that is made to appear logical and many case it actually is. I am not restrained by that determination. I will use whatever source I find credable. You are perfectly welcome to show it false, but I do not care if it is approved. You may do the same with the Bible. It is either reliable or not, whether we like it or not is not the issue.

I agree that when a student gets 95 out of 100, it is praiseworthy on his part to admit the shortcomings and I admire some of the Christian scholars for that. However, it is not right for that same student to blame the one who got 100 out of 100. In fact, it is reprehensible for that same student to go and attack the student who got 100 with baseless, false accusations.

If you are equating the Quran with the 100% you are woefully mistaken.

In your view, 5% margin of error might be acceptable from God Almighty. To us, it is not. God (Almighty) simply does not make mistakes.

The Quran is full of these mistakes regardless of desperate and unproffesional methods to cover that up. Some of the most respected textual critics in history have condemned the Quran as a complete literary mess. Respected theologians have pointed out it's endless errors and theological contradictions. It's false claims, and the gnostic and heretical sources for many of it's Biblical stories.

"So woe to those who write the "scripture" with their own hands, then say, "This is from Allah(God)," in order to exchange it for a small price. Woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn." (Al Qur'an 2:79)

I do not regard the Quran as a Holy book. I have many Muslim friends but reject the religion and it's claims do not rise to the level that I consider them meaningfull to me. I can quote endless scripture that condems the majority of Islam but as you do not believe them then I have not done so without further explenation and justification. Why would the Quran's claim that it is true mean anything to me. Islam is a dissadvantage the Quran says the Bible (book) is true, and so must consider it as possibly true. As a Christian I do not have the same issue with the Quran. I believe the Bible condems Islam. Keep in mind I am blunt and am not politically correct but I never say anything for effect or to anger. Too much that is not true is believed and too much that is true is denied on the basis that someone might be offended. I say things because I believe them but not to offend.

Finally, that is why it says in the Qur'an : "Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah(God), they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy." (Qur'an 4:82) That is the ultimate litmus test, if the whole book is from God, it shouldn't have any discrepancies.

I have found endless descrepencies. There are books on them, professional papers written on them, a thousand sites that list them. In no category by which the reliability of texts and theological manuscripts are evaluated does the Quran compare to the Bible. We will have to get to specifics to settle this, as I know you dissagree.

Regardless of what you claim - Bible's authors are unknown and written way after the actual events. You call that reliable ?

No I call it untrue. What you should have said is that the reliable information that indicates who the authors are is inconvenient for you and there fore must be denied. Even using the most critical scholars the Bible still has an advantage in that we have independant author's saying the same thing. The Quran has a single author which in every standard contained in the historical method makes it far less reliable.

On the other hand, we have the Qur'anic verses written down at the time of Prophet(pbuh) and not to mention the checks and balance of memorization + writing. You must be out of your mind to compare the historic authenticity of the Qur'an to the Bible. Let alone the original language they were written it.

Hebrew scribes invented textual translational methods. There is no group in antiquity that even came close to their standards. You have a single extremely questionable witness that can't even accurately describe simple Biblical doctrine concerning events 500 years previous. The Bible has multiple eye witness testimony and is contemporary to the events and an un belivable textual tradition greater by many many times over than any other work in ancient history. In no category can the Quran compare.

Finally, you should talk about reliability and authenticity based on reality and not just theory. The fact that the companions of the Prophet(pbuh) (Allah be pleased with them all) spread out across the lands after his death – and hundreds of thousands entered Islam through them in different places and those people in turn propagated the Qur'an as they learned from the companions and yet anywhere in the world you go today, you still have the same exact Qur'an (in Arabic ofcourse) - that in itself is a strong proof of the preservation of the Qur'an. Can you say the same for the Bible ?

The reality is that Muhammad's wife said many verses were lost. The reality is many of the verses are easily traced to earlier foreign sources. The reality is that it makes countless mistakes concerning Biblical doctrine. The reality is many surah were lost by men who died in battles and before they were recorded. The reality is that Uthman burned all competing versions and we have no way to know the originals said or if his is accurate.

 

[loverOfTruth]

Ok

The Quran is full of these mistakes regardless of desperate and unproffesional methods to cover that up. Some of the most respected textual critics in history have condemned the Quran as a complete literary mess. Respected theologians have pointed out it's endless errors and theological contradictions. It's false claims, and the gnostic and heretical sources for many of it's Biblical stories.

I do not regard the Quran as a Holy book. I have many Muslim friends but reject the religion and it's claims do not rise to the level that I consider them meaningfull to me. I can quote endless scripture that condems the majority of Islam but as you do not believe them then I have not done so without further explenation and justification. Why would the Quran's claim that it is true mean anything to me. Islam is a dissadvantage the Quran says the Bible (book) is true, and so must consider it as possibly true. As a Christian I do not have the same issue with the Quran. I believe the Bible condems Islam. Keep in mind I am blunt and am not politically correct but I never say anything for effect or to anger. Too much that is not true is believed and too much that is true is denied on the basis that someone might be offended. I say things because I believe them but not to offend.

I have found endless descrepencies. There are books on them, professional papers written on them, a thousand sites that list them. In no category by which the reliability of texts and theological manuscripts are evaluated does the Quran compare to the Bible. We will have to get to specifics to settle this, as I know you dissagree.

No I call it untrue. What you should have said is that the reliable information that indicates who the authors are is inconvenient for you and there fore must be denied. Even using the most critical scholars the Bible still has an advantage in that we have independant author's saying the same thing. The Quran has a single author which in every standard contained in the historical method makes it far less reliable.

Hebrew scribes invented textual translational methods. There is no group in antiquity that even came close to their standards. You have a single extremely questionable witness that can't even accurately describe simple Biblical doctrine concerning events 500 years previous. The Bible has multiple eye witness testimony and is contemporary to the events and an un belivable textual tradition greater by many many times over than any other work in ancient history. In no category can the Quran compare.

The reality is that Muhammad's wife said many verses were lost. The reality is many of the verses are easily traced to earlier foreign sources. The reality is that it makes countless mistakes concerning Biblical doctrine. The reality is many surah were lost by men who died in battles and before they were recorded. The reality is that Uthman burned all competing versions and we have no way to know the originals said or if his is accurate.

Once again all that you claim against Islam and the Qur'an has been refuted by Muslims just like I have refuted every single one of the claims you brought forth earlier. There is no truth in any of them.

But I would make two points about your claim regarding eye witness accounts and multiple accounts in the Bible.

1) First of all it would have been good if it truly were multiple verifiable 'independant author's saying the same thing' as you claimed. First of all, you don't even know who the authors are so you cannot guarantee that they are really independent accounts of different people. And even if they were - they are full of inconsistencies and contradictions(both between different gospels and within the same gospel) as acknowledged by Christian scholars so it doesn't serve the purpose you were trying to use it for.

2)Secondly, I don't even know how you claim the 'Gospels' as an 'eyewitness account' while nobody really knows for sure who wrote them and where and also since the originals don't exist. So how can you trust an anonymous author to write an accurate account of events that happened centuries before ? That is not 'eye witness' account under any standard. Again, I'll show you that from plain old wikipedia not any Islamic apologetic sites.

From : Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[7] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][8][9][10] but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown.

From: Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."[4] On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."
They don't even know for sure which language Matthew was written in.

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[38] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[13] "

"Most modern scholars agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources.[29] The understanding that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke is foundational to modern critical scholarship."

Again the supposed Gospel of Luke is also a copy of a material with unknown source(Mark).

From: Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD."

And these are your eyewitness accounts ? Now compare that to the real 'eyewitness account' of the scriptures of Islam.
Qur'an - the eyewitnesses (companions of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)) wrote and memorized it as the Qur'an was being revealed over 23 years of Prophet's(pbuh) life and then passed down in the original language generations after generations.
Hadith - eyewitness account of events with unbroken chain of reporters going all the way back to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
That's what you call verifiable eyewitness account.

Now if you question the method of revelation from God to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) via angel Gabriel, the entire story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth in the Bible will come crushing down. Why ?
" 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus" (Luke 1:26-31)
Luke 1:26-38 NIV - The Birth of Jesus Foretold - In the - Bible Gateway

See the above verses ? It is no different than the story of how angel Gabriel came to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and how he was troubled by this unusual experience at first.

You want more stories of Angel Gabriel and prophets in the Bible ? Here it is :
"11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John." (Luke 1:11-13)
Luke 1 NIV - Introduction - Many have undertaken to - Bible Gateway

Again, you see that's how God sent messages to the Messengers. So in order for you to reject Prophet Muhammad's story of getting revelation via Angel Gabriel, you have to reject all those other stories in the Bible as well.

 

[FearGod]

Ok




I regard reliable historical, relevant scientific, and applicable physics as well as commentators, scholars, and theologians as evidence that should be evaluated concerning either the Bible or the Quran. If the Bible says gravity does not exist I do not then conclude that science is wrong. I am interested in truth no matter what the source. Islam seems to have chosen to only regard that which is true based on what agrees with the Quran. Yes I am well aware they have systems by which that is made to appear logical and many case it actually is. I am not restrained by that determination. I will use whatever source I find credable. You are perfectly welcome to show it false, but I do not care if it is approved. You may do the same with the Bible. It is either reliable or not, whether we like it or not is not the issue.


If you are equating the Quran with the 100% you are woefully mistaken.


The Quran is full of these mistakes regardless of desperate and unproffesional methods to cover that up. Some of the most respected textual critics in history have condemned the Quran as a complete literary mess. Respected theologians have pointed out it's endless errors and theological contradictions. It's false claims, and the gnostic and heretical sources for many of it's Biblical stories.

I do not regard the Quran as a Holy book. I have many Muslim friends but reject the religion and it's claims do not rise to the level that I consider them meaningfull to me. I can quote endless scripture that condems the majority of Islam but as you do not believe them then I have not done so without further explenation and justification. Why would the Quran's claim that it is true mean anything to me. Islam is a dissadvantage the Quran says the Bible (book) is true, and so must consider it as possibly true. As a Christian I do not have the same issue with the Quran. I believe the Bible condems Islam. Keep in mind I am blunt and am not politically correct but I never say anything for effect or to anger. Too much that is not true is believed and too much that is true is denied on the basis that someone might be offended. I say things because I believe them but not to offend.

I have found endless descrepencies. There are books on them, professional papers written on them, a thousand sites that list them. In no category by which the reliability of texts and theological manuscripts are evaluated does the Quran compare to the Bible. We will have to get to specifics to settle this, as I know you dissagree.



No I call it untrue. What you should have said is that the reliable information that indicates who the authors are is inconvenient for you and there fore must be denied. Even using the most critical scholars the Bible still has an advantage in that we have independant author's saying the same thing. The Quran has a single author which in every standard contained in the historical method makes it far less reliable.

Hebrew scribes invented textual translational methods. There is no group in antiquity that even came close to their standards. You have a single extremely questionable witness that can't even accurately describe simple Biblical doctrine concerning events 500 years previous. The Bible has multiple eye witness testimony and is contemporary to the events and an un belivable textual tradition greater by many many times over than any other work in ancient history. In no category can the Quran compare.

Finally, you should talk about reliability and authenticity based on reality and not just theory. The fact that the companions of the Prophet(pbuh) (Allah be pleased with them all) spread out across the lands after his death – and hundreds of thousands entered Islam through them in different places and those people in turn propagated the Qur'an as they learned from the companions and yet anywhere in the world you go today, you still have the same exact Qur'an (in Arabic ofcourse) - that in itself is a strong proof of the preservation of the Qur'an. Can you say the same for the Bible ?
The reality is that Muhammad's wife said many verses were lost. The reality is many of the verses are easily traced to earlier foreign sources. The reality is that it makes countless mistakes concerning Biblical doctrine. The reality is many surah were lost by men who died in battles and before they were recorded. The reality is that Uthman burned all competing versions and we have no way to know the originals said or if his is accurate.

So you are insisting to say that the quran isn't god's words but just a man made verses authored around 1400 years ago.

For the second time i am offering you a challenge by giving you a quranic verse in english with it's exact meaning in full details
which is easy to be understood and i'll ask you to make a better verse which will give us the exact similar meaning.

of course as we are in the 21th century with better education than prophet Mohammed pbuh then you'll be able to compose
a much better verse which will give us the exact similar meaning in a few words similar to the verse.

No need for any judgement,everyone will judge himself and if he'll cheat then he'll cheat himself.

 

[1robin]

Once again all that you claim against Islam and the Qur'an has been refuted by Muslims just like I have refuted every single one of the claims you brought forth earlier. There is no truth in any of them.

The claims I brought up have never been refuted. Yelling about biased web sites. Telling someone what you have arbitrarily restricted them to which they have no reason agree with. Doing intellectual gymnastics and claiming that the Quran is true unless it is proven false. Then arbitrarily dismissing any proof to establish that very thing. Does not qualify as refutation. I do not remember ever debateing specifics with you. Recently I had a Muslin just dissapear from the thread where we were discussion Muhammad's revelations, another promise to debtae me and never show up, and the last one that said the foreign words in the Quran were actually Arabic regardless of the scholars that disaagree and the fact that the words predate Islam. Whoever that was that actually had the burden of proof but insisted I did said basically short of going back in time and finding the guy who invented the word he was not accepting anything. That was not you was it.

But I would make two points about your claim regarding eye witness accounts and multiple accounts in the Bible.

1) First of all, you don't even know who the authors are so you cannot guarantee that they are really independent accounts of different people.

The most respected on line biblical reference site dissagrees:



Narratives:

• The gospel according to Matthew was written by Matthew the tax collector.
• The gospel according to Mark was written by John-Mark.
• The gospel according to Luke was written by Luke the Physician.
• The gospel according to John was written by John the disciple that Jesus loved.
• The Acts of the Apostles was written by Luke the Physician.

Epistles (or letters):

• The Pauline Epistles are those written by Paul (Saul) of Tarsus: Romans 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1 Thessalonians 2 Thessalonians 1 Timothy 2 Timothy Titus Philemon
• The Peterine Epistles are those written by Peter of the Twelve: 1 Peter 2 Peter
• The Johanine Epistles are those written by John, the disciple that Jesus loved: 1 John 2 John 3 John
• And though sharing in three literary traditions — apocalyptic, prophetic, and epistolary — listing John's Apocalypse (also called Revelation) as an epistle will suit our purposes here. This was written by the same John as above.
• The book of James was written most likely by James the brother of Jesus.
• The book of Jude was written by Jude the brother of James.
• The epistle of Hebrews is written anonymously. Some people ascribe it to the Apostle Paul while others prefer Apollos

Another source would be that my NIV Bible states in no uncertain terms that the traditional authors are indeed the actuall author. I am not saying the NIV is a great Bible but it was worked on by over 100 extual scholars that would have known what they were doing. You bias will make you over estimate the uncertainty and mine will underestimate but I have something in my favor you do not. The fact that there exists no competitors. There is no one else that is even remotely consisdered the authors. Unless you can show these two sources plus the 30 or 40 I have used in the past wrong you will not change my mind. I know the issue of the authors is not absolute fact but you are grossly overestimating the uncertainty.

2)Secondly, I don't even know how you claim the 'Gospels' as an 'eyewitness account' while nobody really knows for sure who wrote them and where and also since the originals don't exist.

I guess you have never done any research into textual criticism. It is only necessary to have plentyfull, early, and numourus copies to reliably establish what the original said. By the way the issue is just as bad for Islam. In fact in many ways it is much worse. Do you think Wikipedia is the the most scholarly source. I have had Muslims reject it and suggest it was biased when it didn't agree with the. Let's see if we can do a little better.

1. The greatest expert on evidence in human history, Simon Greenleaf who literally wrote the book on evidence said the Gospels meet every standard of modern law and history.
2. Benjamin Warfield of Princeton expressed in his article, "The Resurrection of Christ an Historical Fact, Evinced by Eye-Witnesses":
3. J. N. D. Anderson is "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law" This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."
4. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
This represents about 30% of the true scholars that testify to the accuracy and adequacy of the witness testimony of the Bible in a single paper, of which I have 30 more. You can not out scholar me especially with Wiki. The historical accuracy and veracity of the Gospels are verified by many of the greatest experts to have ever lived.

And these are your eyewitness accounts ? Now compare that to the real That's what you call verifiable eyewitness account.

Is it? :
There has never been a definitive text of the Qur’an because of the problem of variant versions and variant readings. Muhammad did not know about his impending death. Therefore, he did not compile a complete manuscript of the Qur’an before his sudden death. An unanswered question that imposes itself is this: if the Qur’an were inspired, why did not the angel Gabriel or another angel order Muhammad to collect it before his death?
After Muhammad’s unexpected death in 632 AD, many of his followers attempted to gather the Qur’an and write it in a codex. As a result, different codices of several scholars emerged, such as those of ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ubay ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, and others. Eventually, Qur’anic codices appeared in the metropolitan centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. There were wide divergences between those codices. Significant parts of the Qur’an were obtained form its reciters and memorizers, not from manuscripts. The accuracy of those codices is questionable because many reciters and memorizers of the Qur’an had already been killed in the battles of the war of the apostasies (ridda), which raged for seven months in Arabia in 633 AD right after the death of Muhammad. In fact, portions of the Qur'an were irretrievably lost in the Battle of Yamama when many of the companions of Muhammad who had memorised the text had perished:
The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an
Since this site does not say what you would like I am sure it must be on the no no list. However I picked it at random. If it truly does make incorrect claims then you should be able to demontrate that easily enough and not have to appeal to bias. I will have to continue this it is too long.

 

[1robin]

Now if you question the method of revelation from God to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) via angel Gabriel, the entire story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth in the Bible will come crushing down. Why ?
" 26 In the sixth month of Elizabeth’s pregnancy, God sent the angel Gabriel to Nazareth, a town in Galilee, 27 to a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph, a descendant of David. The virgin’s name was Mary. 28 The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
29 Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. 30 But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. 31 You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus" (Luke 1:26-31)
Luke 1:26-38 NIV - The Birth of Jesus Foretold - In the - Bible Gateway

This is funny. You are attempting to equate Mary being troubled for a moment by the fact that an Angel is telling her that she (a virgin) will bear the son of God, with foaming at the mouth, making animal noises, being squeezed tightly, epileptic type trembling that Muhammad experienced to which he conluded a Jinn had possed him. He even considered suicide. Plus the fact that exactly as I said that every time Gabriel shows up in the Bible he imediately says who he is and who sent him. He comforts any fear or trepedation (which is expected). In Muhammad's case that does not happen he stays shaken up, confused, and fearfull.

See the above verses ? It is no different than the story of how angel Gabriel came to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and how he was troubled by this unusual experience at first.

It is practically the opposite.

You want more stories of Angel Gabriel and prophets in the Bible ? Here it is :
"11 Then an angel of the Lord appeared to him, standing at the right side of the altar of incense. 12 When Zechariah saw him, he was startled and was gripped with fear. 13 But the angel said to him: “Do not be afraid, Zechariah; your prayer has been heard. Your wife Elizabeth will bear you a son, and you are to call him John." (Luke 1:11-13)
Luke 1 NIV - Introduction - Many have undertaken to - Bible Gateway

Again you are making my point. I would not have been concerned if Muhhamad was momentarily confused or startled by these visits. What he instead experienced is an exact match for demon possesion in the bible. In receiving the Qur’an, the Islamic tradition tells us that Muhammad used to go into convulsions similar to epileptic seizures, break out in cold sweat, and his mouth used to foam. This indicates that Muhammad was either afflicted with epilepsy or another neurological illness, or he was demon possessed. In fact, Jesus exorcized demons that had tormented the possessed persons in this very same way: "Suddenly a man from the multitude cried out, saying, "Teacher, I implore You, look on my son, for he is my only child. And behold, a spirit seizes him, and he suddenly cries out; it convulses him so that he foams at the mouth; and it departs from him with great difficulty, bruising him. So I implored Your disciples to cast it out, but they could not." Then Jesus answered and said, "O faithless and perverse generation, how long shall I be with you and bear with you? Bring your son here." And as he was still coming, the demon threw him down and convulsed him. Then Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the child, and gave him back to his father. And they were all amazed at the majesty of God …" (Luke 9: 38-43). There are striking similarities between the symptoms that boy suffered from and what used to happen to Muhammad when he claimed divine revelation. Instead, was it a satanic inspiration all along?
The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an

"I cannot read," Muhammad answered, because he was illiterate. The spirit squeezed him again so tightly he that thought he would die, and commanded him again, "Read." "I cannot read," he answered. The The spirit tightened his grasp and squeezed him more and said for the third time, "Read." Afraid that he might die, Muhammad said, "What shall I read?" After his encounter with the spirit, Muhammad was afraid that what happened to him was from a Jinni. Then later, Muhammad declared in the Quran that the spirit who squeezed him was the angel Gabriel. We read in Surat Al-Baqarah 2:97:
Chapter 2: Muhammad's Call
Whatever was in the cave is something I hope never to meet. There is no paralel in the bible where spirits call prophets with violence. The opposite is the case and should be.

Again, you see that's how God sent messages to the Messengers. So in order for you to reject Prophet Muhammad's story of getting revelation via Angel Gabriel, you have to reject all those other stories in the Bible as well.

This makes no sence no matter how inconvenient it might be for you the stories of Gabriel in the Quran and the Bible are drastically different. It is obvious that both you and I are too knowledgable and committed to settle anything quickly. I suggest we start with this last issue. I have never had a Muslim even offer a reasonable explenation for this. Your was the best and it is rediculous. There is a thread where a competant Muslim attempted to begin debateing this issue with me but then dissapeared. If you would like you can go there and actuall address it in detail. To get anywhere we would have to chose a single issue and cover it well. I suggest that one. Deal? This is the thread. F0uad and 1robin Koran and Bible

 

[Ciko]

http://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blank

The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an

http://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blankhttp://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blankhttp://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blankhttp://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blankhttp://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blankhttp://3lotus.com/en/Islam/Quran-Not-a-Miracle.htm/t_blank

robin, my dear christian brother , how can you say something like this

you say satanic inspiriation, shall we test you if you lie to us here or not, let test you right now

let see if quran is inspiriation from satan, can you imagine satan saying this


[The Noble Quran 35:6] The devil is your enemy, so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be the dwellers of Hell.

When thou dost read the Quran, seek God’s protection from Satan the rejected one. No authority has he over those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. His authority is over those only, who take him as patron and who join partners with God. (16: 98–100)

[The Noble Quran 17:53] Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man's most ardent enemy.

can you imagine Satan saying this???? ​

 

[loverOfTruth]

The claims I brought up have never been refuted. Yelling about biased web sites. Telling someone what you have arbitrarily restricted them to which they have no reason agree with. Doing intellectual gymnastics and claiming that the Quran is true unless it is proven false. Then arbitrarily dismissing any proof to establish that very thing. Does not qualify as refutation. I do not remember ever debateing specifics with you. Recently I had a Muslin just dissapear from the thread where we were discussion Muhammad's revelations, another promise to debtae me and never show up, and the last one that said the foreign words in the Quran were actually Arabic regardless of the scholars that disaagree and the fact that the words predate Islam. Whoever that was that actually had the burden of proof but insisted I did said basically short of going back in time and finding the guy who invented the word he was not accepting anything. That was not you was it.

...

Another source would be that my NIV Bible states in no uncertain terms that the traditional authors are indeed the actuall author. I am not saying the NIV is a great Bible but it was worked on by over 100 extual scholars that would have known what they were doing. You bias will make you over estimate the uncertainty and mine will underestimate but I have something in my favor you do not. The fact that there exists no competitors. There is no one else that is even remotely consisdered the authors. Unless you can show these two sources plus the 30 or 40 I have used in the past wrong you will not change my mind. I know the issue of the authors is not absolute fact but you are grossly overestimating the uncertainty.


I guess you have never done any research into textual criticism. It is only necessary to have plentyfull, early, and numourus copies to reliably establish what the original said. By the way the issue is just as bad for Islam. In fact in many ways it is much worse. Do you think Wikipedia is the the most scholarly source. I have had Muslims reject it and suggest it was biased when it didn't agree with the. Let's see if we can do a little better.

1. The greatest expert on evidence in human history, Simon Greenleaf who literally wrote the book on evidence said the Gospels meet every standard of modern law and history.
2. Benjamin Warfield of Princeton expressed in his article, "The Resurrection of Christ an Historical Fact, Evinced by Eye-Witnesses":
3. J. N. D. Anderson is "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law" This outstanding British scholar who is today influential in the field of international jurisprudence says: "The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."
4. Wilbur Smith writes of a great legal authority of the last century. He refers to John Singleton Copley, better known as Lord Lyndhurst (1772-1863), recognized as one of the greatest legal minds in British history, the Solicitor-General of the British government in 1819, attorney-general of Great Britain in 1824, three times High Chancellor of England, and elected in 1846, High Steward of the University of Cambridge, thus holding in one lifetime the highest offices which a judge in Great Britain could ever have conferred upon him. When Chancellor Lyndhurst died, a document was found in his desk, among his private papers, giving an extended account of his own Christian faith, and in this precious, previously-unknown record, he wrote: "I know pretty well what evidence is; and I tell you, such evidence as that for the REsurrection has never broken down yet."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
This represents about 30% of the true scholars that testify to the accuracy and adequacy of the witness testimony of the Bible in a single paper, of which I have 30 more. You can not out scholar me especially with Wiki. The historical accuracy and veracity of the Gospels are verified by many of the greatest experts to have ever lived.


Is it? :
There has never been a definitive text of the Qur’an because of the problem of variant versions and variant readings. Muhammad did not know about his impending death. Therefore, he did not compile a complete manuscript of the Qur’an before his sudden death. An unanswered question that imposes itself is this: if the Qur’an were inspired, why did not the angel Gabriel or another angel order Muhammad to collect it before his death?
After Muhammad’s unexpected death in 632 AD, many of his followers attempted to gather the Qur’an and write it in a codex. As a result, different codices of several scholars emerged, such as those of ibn Mas’ud, ‘Ubay ibn Ka’b, ‘Ali, Abu Bakr, Abu Musa al-Ash’ari, Miqdad ibn al-Aswad, and others. Eventually, Qur’anic codices appeared in the metropolitan centers of Mecca, Medina, Damascus, Kufa, and Basra. There were wide divergences between those codices. Significant parts of the Qur’an were obtained form its reciters and memorizers, not from manuscripts. The accuracy of those codices is questionable because many reciters and memorizers of the Qur’an had already been killed in the battles of the war of the apostasies (ridda), which raged for seven months in Arabia in 633 AD right after the death of Muhammad. In fact, portions of the Qur'an were irretrievably lost in the Battle of Yamama when many of the companions of Muhammad who had memorised the text had perished:
The Qur'an is not a miracle; linguistic, scientific and historical problems, contradictions, abrogation, and satanic inspiration in the Qur'an
Since this site does not say what you would like I am sure it must be on the no no list. However I picked it at random. If it truly does make incorrect claims then you should be able to demontrate that easily enough and not have to appeal to bias. I will have to continue this it is too long.

It is funny how you ignore all that is in wikipedia and quote all evangelical professors titling them as the greatest authority and most respected etc. Just FYI : http://news.cnet.com/2100-1038_3-5997332.html
I can show you from Christian sources that they do not agree on the authors of these Gospels at best they are just guesses. And wikipedia is well respected and gives you a varied opinions not a final judgement. If the Christian scholars thought wikipedia is wrong they could easily provide the correct information to update the entries. Quit playing games, man.

Again I quote from Proof of The Preservation of the Quran : "The complete Quran was written down in front of the Prophet by several of his scribes and the companions possess their own copies of the Quran in the Prophet's lifetime. However the written material of the Quran in the Prophet's possession were not bounded between the two covers in the form of a book, because the period of revelation of the Qur'an continued up until just a few days before the Prophet's death. The task of collecting the Qur'an as a book was therefore undertaken by Abu Bakr, the first successor to the Prophet."

Essentially, what they are saying is that every single verse (i.e complete Qur'an) that is in the Qur'an today existed in written form but not necessarily the whole Qur'an as a book form. And during the book compilation for any verse to be included as part of the compiled Qur'an they verified 2 witnesses (written, memorized).
"And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization". (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa'il Al Qur'aan, Bab: Jami' Al Qur'aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603, Source)
That's how they had checks and balance to make sure it was preserved. Not to mention the promise from God Almighty : "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (Al Qur'an 15:9)

So no matter how much you keep repeating it wasn't preserved - we got the proof. You don't.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I suggest we start with this last issue. I have never had a Muslim even offer a reasonable explenation for this. Your was the best and it is rediculous. There is a thread where a competant Muslim attempted to begin debateing this issue with me but then dissapeared. If you would like you can go there and actuall address it in detail. To get anywhere we would have to chose a single issue and cover it well. I suggest that one. Deal? This is the thread. F0uad and 1robin Koran and Bible

I have checked out the thread that you have mentioned and also the thread 'Koran v. Bible' and think FOuad has replied well. So I have no intention of repeating the same thing wasting my time researching your false accusations. But thanks. I'll refute your claims as I see them.

 

[1robin]

robin, my dear christian brother , how can you say something like this

Well my Islamic or otherwise friend. If you wil notice I did not say that. That is a shortcut to a web site where scholars say it. For some reason shortcusts appear as addresses and sometimes they convert to statements (I do not know why). Also please note that what that statement that I didn't say actually says is that there are or were according to many competant men satanic verses in the Quran. It is a very few verses they are talking about and they were made famous by Rushdi I think. I even think some Imam's declared a fatwah on him for saying what is widely known to be very likely true, that Muhammad slipped up and said something he didn't mean to gain something and then later was questioned about it and as is his want he blamed the verses on Satan and took them out. I do not know for sure if it's true but there are very good reasons to say that.

you say satanic inspiriation, shall we test you if you lie to us here or not, let test you right now

let see if quran is inspiriation from satan, can you imagine satan saying this


[The Noble Quran 35:6] The devil is your enemy, so treat him as an enemy. He only invites his party to be the dwellers of Hell.

When thou dost read the Quran, seek God’s protection from Satan the rejected one. No authority has he over those who believe and put their trust in their Lord. His authority is over those only, who take him as patron and who join partners with God. (16: 98–100)

[The Noble Quran 17:53] Tell My servants to treat each other in the best possible manner, for the devil will always try to drive a wedge among them. Surely, the devil is man's most ardent enemy.

can you imagine Satan saying this???? ​

Oh yes that is exactly what I can hear him saying. There is a silly but true traditional saying in Christianity that says that the greatest lie Satan ever told is that he does not exist, that would apply to hiding where he exists. If he did (and I do not claim to believe it as a fact) that Islam is a false religion it would make a very good tactic to make it appear to be from God. Satan is said to come as an angel of light. I am not saying I know that is true or that it is provable. I am just saying nothing you said here makes it less believable. The fact Muhammad acted exactly the same as demon possesed people in the bible is not a good sign. The fact that he claimed exactly what the Bible said the anti Christ would claim, coupled with the many well known issues in the Quran that make his divine inspiration a highly suspicious claim, and there is something rotten in Denmark. I would think, though I do not claim it a fact that the greatest lie Satan could pull off is to imitate God and his religion but leave out that specific parts that make all the difference, ie... the ressurection. This is all theory and not what I was saying in my post. I would rather debate specifics than any kind of general is the Quran Satanic issue. Pick a specific subject if you want more debate.

 

[1robin]

I have checked out the thread that you have mentioned and also the thread 'Koran v. Bible' and think FOuad has replied well. So I have no intention of repeating the same thing wasting my time researching your false accusations. But thanks. I'll refute your claims as I see them.

F0uad did reply with competence to many of the earlier issues but not in a convincing manner but he never really did anything with this issue and apparently I will never find a Muslim who can or will. Very well it is completely up to you.

 

[1robin]

It is funny how you ignore all that is in wikipedia and quote all evangelical professors titling them as the greatest authority and most respected etc. Just FYI : Study: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica - CNET News
I can show you from Christian sources that they do not agree on the authors of these Gospels at best they are just guesses. And wikipedia is well respected and gives you a varied opinions not a final judgement. If the Christian scholars thought wikipedia is wrong they could easily provide the correct information to update the entries. Quit playing games, man.

What are you talking about? Those men were not theologians they were some of the greatest Law experts in history. You know, the guys who specialize in ways to examine evidence and seperate the good from the bad. Greenleaf wrote the 3 volume text on evidence that is used in every federal court room in the US and most others. It is the definative work. He made Harvard Law the premier legal school in the world. One of the others is a world leading expert in Islamic law. Is there no scholar so credentialed that if he says something you don't like he will not be accused of bias. I have a couple of advantages over you whether you would agree or not is irrelevant. Christianity has a very big difference with Islam. The Bible offers and even demands a spritual experience that serves as both proof of God and Christ and confirmation of the Gospel. Every single true Christian who has ever lived according to the Bible became one by recieving confirmation of the roadmap contained in the Gospel. What ever spiritual offer Islam may makes it is not universally offered, experienced, or demanded of every single believer. Do you actually think that after experiencing God in person after using the Gospels as a map of sorts that I would care what Wiki says. Now I am not saying that would convince you, it is a subjective experience, but I was explaining why whatever wiki says especially considering that credentials do not get any higher than the guys I supplied really has no effect on my faith. If you can think of a group of people more able in a certain secular field to be able to evaluate the evidence of the Bible contained in witness testimony then let me know and we can use people from that field of study.

Again I quote from Proof of The Preservation of the Quran : "The complete Quran was written down in front of the Prophet by several of his scribes and the companions possess their own copies of the Quran in the Prophet's lifetime. However the written material of the Quran in the Prophet's possession were not bounded between the two covers in the form of a book, because the period of revelation of the Qur'an continued up until just a few days before the Prophet's death. The task of collecting the Qur'an as a book was therefore undertaken by Abu Bakr, the first successor to the Prophet."

Essentially, what they are saying is that every single verse (i.e complete Qur'an) that is in the Qur'an today existed in written form but not necessarily the whole Qur'an as a book form. And during the book compilation for any verse to be included as part of the compiled Qur'an they verified 2 witnesses (written, memorized).
"And it was their way that nothing was written down except that they receive what was written down during the time of the Prophet peace be upon him and not just from memorization". (Ibn Hajar Al Asqalani, Fathul Bari, Kitab: Fadaa'il Al Qur'aan, Bab: Jami' Al Qur'aan, Commentary on Hadith no. 4603, Source)
That's how they had checks and balance to make sure it was preserved. Not to mention the promise from God Almighty : "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)." (Al Qur'an 15:9)

So no matter how much you keep repeating it wasn't preserved - we got the proof. You don't.

I guess the all knowing oracle of wikipedia must be consulted so you may not dismiss whatever I post..

Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike disagree on whether the Prophet compiled the Qur'an during his lifetime or if this task began with the first caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (632-634). Upon the canonization of the Qur'an, Uthman had the other codices that existed at the time destroyed and burnt. Due to this, it has become difficult for scholars to look at the different codices from before the canonization because no manuscripts remain and all that is left is varying accounts from different historians. Even though Uthman canonized the Qur'an during his reign in 653-656, variations still remained in the Qur'an, which can be seen in the early manuscripts of the Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties.[2] His version of the Qur'an is said to have included two short sūras not in the ʿUt̲h̲mānic and Ibn Masʿūd texts: Sūrat al-Khal, with three verses, and Sūrat al-Ḥafd, with six. The order of sūras in Ubayy's codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman's and Ibn Masʿūd's as well.[3]
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are only two possabilities with Uthman. 1. He burned all tHe other manuscripts because they had different surahs in them. 2. He burned all other Quran's that were exactly the same. Number two makes no sence and no 1 makes perfect sence, and it seems the almighty Wiki agrees. I can't really get into any of these in the detail they deserve. It requires time to seperate the bias stuff from what is known. That can't be done for 3 or 4 subjects in a single post. If you want to get into it make a thread and we can handle one at a time. Nothing is accomplished in these drive by scholar wars. I will give you some advice that you will probably not take. It is virtually a death sentence to insist anything as flawed as the Quran is 100% perfect. It can't be defended. Your choice.

 

[Lady B]

In all due respect... wikipedia is not a group of religious scholors and should never be the end all in debates. a online encyclopedia starting in 2001 and having daily corrections by pretty much anyone is not proof of anything. here is what wiki says about itself.
Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is good for reference not scriptural authority IMHO

 

[Lady B]

I have quoted the verses of Bible for your reference.



Not really. I am showing you the scriptures.


It is as it was written. But I agree, not as most of the bible scholars. The bible scholars are gods?
Can you show me a verse, which says, Jesus asked you to believe whatever the Bible scholars said?
If you think about it, the Jewish scholars, interprete the torah differently than Christian scholars, and they do not see how Jesus is the Messiah.

Why don't you follow those scholars?
What I am asking you, why do you think, the Christian Scholars told you the truth?


Only accusing me with no proofs?


Please support your claim, with the verses of Bible and Quran.

I don't care, even to the extend of mustard grain, what your scholars told you.
I only care about what the Bible and Quran says. These Books are our proofs!

The Idea of trininty was added many years by some churches, AFTER the bible was written.


Support your claim based on Bible.
It is easy to accuse others.


Are you claiming your scholars are Gods?
For many years, different Christian denominations couldn't agree on many things.

It is only appealing to you to believe, every prophet is a sinner, only Jesus is the sinless, and a part of God. Please refer to Bible. It has the truth in it. There was no such a thing in the Old Testament.



Please prove they are different.



You seem angry, and You are insaulting every prophet of God, and calling them sinners to fit that with what your dear scholars told you.



I see all religions from the same God.



Please keep your beliefs for yourself. I did not ask you change them!
Just like Moslem scholars, who claim Quran is the final revelation, with no proofs, and every time they discuss, they fail to stablish their claim from Quran. They only use the Tafseers and Hadithes. Similarly, the Christian scholars, cannot prove their Trinity claims based on Bible. They only cling to some man-made interpretations.

Peace!

Please forgive me, I do not quite get the quoting method.

Let me start out by apologizing to you for my impatience with you and your debating methods.It is not personnel and I rather enjoy you now let me try to answer you the best I can.

It is as it was written. But I agree, not as most of the bible scholars. The bible scholars are gods?

So you argue my interpretations and most Bible scholars? Are you God? Did I ever attempt to go to bahilala's writings and change them to befit my needs and say hey are the bahai scholars gods? I know more then them?
If I cannot really interpret a verse in my bible and need insight, I do go to Scholars that study and know more then I, yes I do.If many scholars agree or even most, of course I will take this as accurate. Do you not? Is their no one that can teach you or expound things for you?
In the verses that we have Given you regarding all men have sinned. Not one accredited bible scholar sees your view, that it was for that time in history. Not even one real Christian will support you in this, I challenge you to find one, this is your work not mine.

As for your claims about the trinity? You perhaps are thinking of someone else. The trinity as a word is not mentioned once in the Bible, not once. This is a term Christians use to try to understand and explain the oneness of God in 3 distinct persons. This is not my debate and I don't appreciate you attacking me on it.
As for the deity of Christ, you only need read the Bible to know it is there.many prophecy's foretell of him God himself was a voice clear to all who can hear at the river Jordan, "this is my son, in whom I am well pleased". After this we have Christ himself declaring himself . This is a debate in of itself and if you are prudent you can find all you need in the bible.

God does not give us scripture that says "As it is writtenThere is none righteous, no, not one;" and mean only in the time period . If this is how you view the Bible, then I understand how you cannot comprehend or interpret correctly any verse that I or Robin have given you and how you can be stuck in your own presupposing views. That is
between you and God, we have given you plenty to support our claim and dispute yours.
You must see the way you see, to justify your own religion. I do not need this, My religion is said and done and I believe every word.
"God gives them ears to hear and eyes to see"
without this you will not understand or interpret his word correctly, no matter how many
verses we show you.

For every sin I have shown Muslims of our prophets recorded in the bible and Koran, they can and will say well that was just a mistake or that was forgetfulness, so you see we can't even agree on what is sin.
The bible says:
Romans 5:12
"Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death
passed upon all men, for that all have sinned " this is Adam,Islam sees he was a prophet, well he obviously sinned,no one will agree that was just forgetfulness , he was punished by God and so are we all.
Sin of Moses
"Because you did not trust Me enough to sanctify Me in the eyes of the children of Israel,
therefore you will not lead them into the land." (Num 20:12)
Moses did not follow God's orders to the 't' when he was ordered to talk to the rock and
bring forth water for the people. He struck the rock 2 times with his staff.
While you and I may think well that seems harmless and in the end God's will was done,water came from the rock. God chose to punish Moses for this, so Obviously it was a sin that was punishable in God's eyes.
You and I cannot judge for ourselves what God alone can judge, We have his words only,the bible is very clear in that no man is without sin but Christ alone.Even Mohammad sought God's forgiveness and God instructed him to seek it. So did Elijah, and Abraham.
You asked How then can we trust an imperfect prophet? That is easy, we trust God used his own methods of bringing us his word and not our own Ideas of what he should have done.Who are you to say God can or can't do this? I do not question God's means or methods, I believe God's word entirely even if it doesn't suit my own interests.
I fully realize you will interpret or disregard any evidence contrary to your beliefs.We
cannot possibly agree if we do not share the very foundations of our belief system.You have argued much against the sin in prophets and asked for proof the sin exists. We have given our proof from God's words. You choose how to interpret our scripture, that is your problem not ours.
Now I will challenge you, show me in my scriptures where God says his prophets are sinless.do not use the term righteous for I have already translated the term for you, and Bible scholars are in absolute agreement. For all men are found righteous by the blood of christ.blameless also is not excepted as sinless, for I have shown you scripture in how the church was set up and How God instructed pastors ,deacons,elders to be blameless among their flock.
You are making a claim that adds to scripture what is not there. You need to find support for your claim,you have shown nothing to support your theory.

Also but not least important is How do you view the Bible? I have seen your debate with others and claim the bible has been corrupted/changed throughout history. If you do not hold to the inerrancy of scripture you have no right to use any verse to support your own claims. Think about this as I have seen you do the same to Hadiths in the Islam Faith.Does your religion adhere to the bible or not? If yes, then you can't pick and choose what works for you. If not, well you have no business using it at all.
Peace

 

[loverOfTruth]

In all due respect... wikipedia is not a group of religious scholors and should never be the end all in debates. a online encyclopedia starting in 2001 and having daily corrections by pretty much anyone is not proof of anything. here is what wiki says about itself.
Wikipedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is good for reference not scriptural authority IMHO

Fair enough. I do not take wikipedia as the final truth either. For example, I wouldn't write a scholarly paper counting on wikipedia. However, it is fairly accurate (as it provides a variety of opinion including alleged opinions and not just final judgement) to serve as a first stop for reference. Now if you do not agree with some of those references, you have to bring proof from established authentic sources (and not just self proclaimed greatest/well respected sources) to counter it.

 

[Lady B]

Fair enough. I do not take wikipedia as the final truth either. For example, I wouldn't write a scholarly paper counting on wikipedia. However, it is fairly accurate (as it provides a variety of opinion including alleged opinions and not just final judgement) to serve as a first stop for reference. Now if you do not agree with some of those references, you have to bring proof from established authentic sources (and not just self proclaimed greatest/well respected sources) to counter it.

I myself have never used wiki in any debate, If I need to reference something I will try to choose the most unbiased source.

However...........

This is extremely hard to do and I don't agree 2 sides can ever find an unbiased source to support a claim.

If I am arguing a topic with a Muslim such as yourself and of course I am not skilled in reading or even interpreting the Quoran in it's original language, so I will go to a translation I can understand. This will be refuted many times by my opponent. If I go to a source I trust to give me a Hadith to support my claim, This can be refuted two ways, One I used a bias source and two, the Hadith is not reliable.

As you can imagine finding Hadiths that all Islam agree in is exceptionally challenging these days. I have been told to consider a certain trusted Imam who has gathered all reliable Hadiths and avoid others. But this Imam is not trusted by all Islam, only the ones I seem to debate....uuuugh

I personally love Dr.. James White, he is an exceptional apologist and has a very respectful debate history with many of the top Islamic Scholars of our time. Yet If I choose to use him as a source for argument, Muslims will refute him as well.

Even using the Bible to refute the Quoran is futile because Muslims will say it has been corrupted. That one is deemed completely useless and yet it is the most important weapon in any Christians arsenal.

I am not saying it is just pointless to try to debate rationally, It is just very difficult to agree in the rules.

I am not in any way singling out Islam as the problematic, I see this in all debates. The source is deemed invalid therefore game over...really?

 

[loverOfTruth]

What are you talking about? Those men were not theologians they were some of the greatest Law experts in history. You know, the guys who specialize in ways to examine evidence and seperate the good from the bad. Greenleaf wrote the 3 volume text on evidence that is used in every federal court room in the US and most others. It is the definative work. He made Harvard Law the premier legal school in the world. One of the others is a world leading expert in Islamic law. Is there no scholar so credentialed that if he says something you don't like he will not be accused of bias. I have a couple of advantages over you whether you would agree or not is irrelevant.

Seriously ? Here's some info on some of your sources you have provided and even which didn't prove anything ...

Greenleaf is an important figure in the development of that Christian school of thought known as legal or juridical apologetics. The Simon Greenleaf School of Law. This school was founded by the Evangelical theologian-lawyer John Warwick Montgomery.

Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield (November 5, 1851 – February 16, 1921) was professor of theology at Princeton Seminary from 1887 to 1921.

Sir (James) Norman Dalrymple Anderson OBE, QC (1908–1994) was an English missionary and academic Arabist. A non-muslim missionary expert of Islamic Law ?

Wilbur Smith is a fiction writer.

I don't think I need to add anymore.

Christianity has a very big difference with Islam. The Bible offers and even demands a spritual experience that serves as both proof of God and Christ and confirmation of the Gospel. Every single true Christian who has ever lived according to the Bible became one by recieving confirmation of the roadmap contained in the Gospel. What ever spiritual offer Islam may makes it is not universally offered, experienced, or demanded of every single believer. Do you actually think that after experiencing God in person after using the Gospels as a map of sorts that I would care what Wiki says. Now I am not saying that would convince you, it is a subjective experience, but I was explaining why whatever wiki says especially considering that credentials do not get any higher than the guys I supplied really has no effect on my faith. If you can think of a group of people more able in a certain secular field to be able to evaluate the evidence of the Bible contained in witness testimony then let me know and we can use people from that field of study.

Here comes the trump card - the Holy Ghost . No offense but Muslims have a very strong spiritual connection with God but they just don't brag about it. But if you wanna get a glimpse of that, may be you should look at how the many converts to Islam feel when they accept Islam. I guess for them at least the spiritual power/feeling of the God Almighty overwhelmed the feeling of any other diety/spirit/material experience. Hear their accounts and see it for yourself. The Deen Show

I guess the all knowing oracle of wikipedia must be consulted so you may not dismiss whatever I post..

Muslim and non-Muslim scholars alike disagree on whether the Prophet compiled the Qur'an during his lifetime or if this task began with the first caliph Abu Bakr as-Siddiq (632-634). Upon the canonization of the Qur'an, Uthman had the other codices that existed at the time destroyed and burnt. Due to this, it has become difficult for scholars to look at the different codices from before the canonization because no manuscripts remain and all that is left is varying accounts from different historians. Even though Uthman canonized the Qur'an during his reign in 653-656, variations still remained in the Qur'an, which can be seen in the early manuscripts of the Umayyad and Abbasid Dynasties.[2] His version of the Qur'an is said to have included two short sūras not in the ʿUt̲h̲mānic and Ibn Masʿūd texts: Sūrat al-Khal, with three verses, and Sūrat al-Ḥafd, with six. The order of sūras in Ubayy's codex is said to have differed from that of Uthman's and Ibn Masʿūd's as well.[3]
History of the Quran - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are only two possabilities with Uthman. 1. He burned all tHe other manuscripts because they had different surahs in them. 2. He burned all other Quran's that were exactly the same. Number two makes no sence and no 1 makes perfect sence, and it seems the almighty Wiki agrees. I can't really get into any of these in the detail they deserve. It requires time to seperate the bias stuff from what is known. That can't be done for 3 or 4 subjects in a single post. If you want to get into it make a thread and we can handle one at a time. Nothing is accomplished in these drive by scholar wars. I will give you some advice that you will probably not take. It is virtually a death sentence to insist anything as flawed as the Quran is 100% perfect. It can't be defended. Your choice.

I congratulate you. At least for once you have avoided using an anti-muslim hate filled biased source. Again, I do not consider wikipedia to be a know-all but it definitely is a reliable first stop for reference and it actually agrees(in the portions you quoted) with everything we believe. Let me break these down for you. I'll use the same site as reference as I have sited before for the Proof of the Preservation of the Qur'an.

* The written material of the Quran in the Prophet's possession were not bounded between the two covers in the form of a book, because the period of revelation of the Qur'an continued up until just a few days before the Prophet's death. The task of collecting the Qur'an as a book was therefore undertaken by Abu Bakr, the first successor to the Prophet.

Essentially, what it means is every single verse (i.e complete Qur'an) that is in the Qur'an today existed in written form but not necessarily the whole Qur'an as a book form. And during the book compilation for any verse to be included as part of the compiled Qur'an they verified 2 witnesses (written, memorized).

* So why the burning of the Qur'an ? Hudhaifa was afraid of their differences in the recitation of the Quran, so he said to Uthman, 'O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and Christians did before'.
So Uthman orderered to standardize the Qur'an in Quraishi dialect to avoid later alteration and differences.

During the period of Caliph Uthman (second successor to the Prophet) differences in reading the Quran among the various tribes became obvious, due to the various dialectical recitations. Dispute was arising, with each tribe calling its recitation as the correct one. This alarmed Uthman, who made a official copy in the Quraishi dialect, the dialect in which the Quran was revealed to the Prophet and was memorized by his companions. Thus this compilation by Uthman's Committee is not a different version of the Quran (like the Biblical versions) but the same original revelation given to the Prophet by One God, Allah.

* Why different manuscripts ?
Because of the nature of the Arabic script, in which short vowels were not indicated and consonants of similar form were only sometimes distinguished by pointing. Even today people who know good arabic can read without the vowels but many people from the indian sub-continent can't. So if you don't know arabic it might look different to you given the missing symbols on the words, but that doesn't mean they read a different Qur'an. Also, some differences are due to permissible different pronunciations. For example, al-baqira in place of al-baqara etc.
It doesn't change the Qur'an at all like the Bible. Every Qur'an has the same number of verses and same meaning regardless of these differences.

Now unlike your biased sources, I will give you statements from non-muslim unbiased source :
Sir Williams Muir states, " There is otherwise every security, internal and external, that we possess the text which Muhammad himself gave forth and used".
Sir William Muir continues, "There is probably no other book in the world which has remained twelve centuries (now fourteen) with so pure a text".

Sir William Muir was an Orientalist specialising in the history of the time of Muhammad and the early caliphate and have no reason to favor the muslims.
That should rest this topic, I hope.

 

[InvestigateTruth]

Please forgive me, I do not quite get the quoting method.

Let me start out by apologizing to you for my impatience with you and your debating methods.It is not personnel and I rather enjoy you now let me try to answer you the best I can.

Not a problem. My quoting style, is as follows:
If someone make an statement, that to me does not seem to be biblical, I quote a verse from the bible to repudiate. This is the only way truth of Bible can be seen.
For example, if someone claims that from a divine point of view, X is equal to Y, and If I remember from the Bible, that this is not true, I quote a verse from the Bible, which says: X is not equal to Y.
Also, It is important to see things within the context.
If someone claims X is equal to Y, this might be true in its own context, but not generally.
If someone told you, he is sick. Does it mean, he is sick forever? Not necessarily.
So, if we disuss things in order to see the truth, we need to be fair in our judgement.

So you argue my interpretations and most Bible scholars?

Well, You said, that my view is different than most Christian scholars. Then I asked you, how do you know their view is the truth? Moreover, according to your approach, a Jew needs to refer to His own scholars in order to understand the Torah. With this Method, how would he be able to recognize Jesus as the Messiah in Torah? Do you think the Jewish scholar help him recognize the truth of Jesus, or distort it?
If we rely on the sayings of the scholars, is their a garauntee they would tell us the truth? or they even know the truth?

So, I am questioning the method of finding the truth, by relying "completely" on scholars.
Moreover, even if your schollars say the truth, you must be able to stablish their claim, and prove it what they say is true, IF You are discussing, and claiming you know the truth. Otherwise, you can believe whatever you want.

Are you God?

No, did I ask you to believe in Me?
But you ask me, your sccholars are saying so and so, so they are the truth.

Did I ever attempt to go to bahilala's writings and change them to befit my needs and say hey are the bahai scholars gods?

I am not sure how familiar you are with Baha'i Scriptures. In the Baha'i Faith "infallibility" is the most important concept. We do not rely on the openions of schollars.

The Baha'i Faith, has a new world order and a new way which is called "covenant of Baha'u'llah".
The Founder of the Faith, 'Baha'u'llah' has revealed about 100 volumes of Scriptures.

In His Will, He appointed 'Abdulbaha', as the infallibile interpreter of the verses of God.
So, for Baha'is the ONLY official interpretation which is considered infallible is Abdulbaha's. Abdulbaha, in His life time wrote a greate amount of Scriptures, explaining and interpreting the verses of Baha'u'llah. So, we only need to refer to His Writings to know the interpretations of our Scriptures.

I will reply to the rest of your comments later. I am at work, and my break is over.

 

[Lady B]

Not a problem. My quoting style, is as follows:
If someone make an statement, that to me does not seem to be biblical, I quote a verse from the bible to repudiate. This is the only way truth of Bible can be seen.
For example, if someone claims that from a divine point of view, X is equal to Y, and If I remember from the Bible, that this is not true, I quote a verse from the Bible, which says: X is not equal to Y.
Also, It is important to see things within the context.
If someone claims X is equal to Y, this might be true in its own context, but not generally.
If someone told you, he is sick. Does it mean, he is sick forever? Not necessarily.
So, if we disuss things in order to see the truth, we need to be fair in our judgement.

Actually I meant the technical way to quote, meaning using quoting boxes and inserting text....I got it now though weeeeeeeeeee

 

[loverOfTruth]

I myself have never used wiki in any debate, If I need to reference something I will try to choose the most unbiased source.

However...........

This is extremely hard to do and I don't agree 2 sides can ever find an unbiased source to support a claim.

You are probably partially correct. But in the context of my debate with 1robin, you can clearly see (as I have shown in my last post) that the sources he was quoting validating the authenticity of the Bible are somehow connected to the Christian apologetics except one who is a fiction writer. And you want me to accept those as unbiased/authoritative opinions on the reliability of the Bible ? On the other hand, the one source that I quoted is a non-muslim orientalist historian. And if you know anything about the orientalists, you should know that they were not in the business of favoring Islam/Muslims but to the contrary. Even though it still remains subjective but most people with an open mind can judge as to which one is a more neutral/unbiased source.

If I am arguing a topic with a Muslim such as yourself and of course I am not skilled in reading or even interpreting the Quoran in it's original language, so I will go to a translation I can understand. This will be refuted many times by my opponent. If I go to a source I trust to give me a Hadith to support my claim, This can be refuted two ways, One I used a bias source and two, the Hadith is not reliable.



As you can imagine finding Hadiths that all Islam agree in is exceptionally challenging these days. I have been told to consider a certain trusted Imam who has gathered all reliable Hadiths and avoid others. But this Imam is not trusted by all Islam, only the ones I seem to debate....uuuugh

Again, I see it as a flawed understanding of the issue. You should understand that Muslims even on their day to day religious issues stick to the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths. Even if some people might take some stuff here and there from outside of the Sahih Hadiths, every Muslim can practice their religion completely by just following the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths. Everything that is mandatory for a Muslim's faith, rituals, and what not are all in the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths. When you talk about trusted Imam, it is nothing but Sahih Hadith. For example, Imam Bukhari, Imam Muslim (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim) etc.
So it is really stretching it(and rather desperation) to ask a Muslim to accept something from outside of the Qur'an and the Sahih Hadiths to find a fault in Islam, whereas Muslims themselves don't need to go out of those sources for their own salvation.

Finally, none of us would probably accept if either of us brings things from 'heretic sources' which is from a really minority off shoot group not accepted by the majority.

I personally love Dr.. James White, he is an exceptional apologist and has a very respectful debate history with many of the top Islamic Scholars of our time. Yet If I choose to use him as a source for argument, Muslims will refute him as well.

I wouldn't have any problem with any christian sources when you are trying to show certain point/interpretation from the Bible. I might refute his ideas using my own valid arguments or other equally respectable Christian scholars/opinions. But if you try to use a Christian source to prove something in the Qur'an/Islam, of course I wouldn't accept that - just like you wouldn't accept a Quranic verse or Islamic Scholars opinion as a proof of something in the Bible.

Even using the Bible to refute the Quoran is futile because Muslims will say it has been corrupted. That one is deemed completely useless and yet it is the most important weapon in any Christians arsenal.

I think it is logical and fair that Muslims wouldn't accept anything from the Bible as a proof against the Qur'an just as Christians wouldn't accept anything from the Qur'an as a proof against the Bible. When I quote a hadith/Qur'an in a debate with a Christian, I only do that to show them what it states - that's all - but not as an argurment/proof. That's why Christians need to find out something from the Muslim Scripture(Qur'an or Sahih Hadith) and Muslims need to find out something from the Christian Scripture(Bible) in addition to natural logic, science, historical facts etc for debate. And even though subjective, we can try to demonstrate unbiased/authentic outside sources as I have shown earlier.

I am not saying it is just pointless to try to debate rationally, It is just very difficult to agree in the rules.

I am not in any way singling out Islam as the problematic, I see this in all debates. The source is deemed invalid therefore game over...really?

So I really don't agree with that assessment. Peace.