Why does the Quran direct Muslims to Bible?

[Dirty Penguin]

You just did.

I NEVER said the "Quran" existed BEFORE the information in the scriptures....No one here has suggested that.

Where?

You mean the parts where it says it confirms the torah before it??....

Where?

Surly you can't be a bible thumper and didn't realize that the Old Testament makes reference to scrolls that are lost to antiquity? These are your scriptures you so vehemently boast. Surly you know where the references are????

Try to stick to the OP...even though you know absolutely nothing about the Koran...even less than your brother who has now completely abandoned you...

Actually I know a great deal and just showed you that you know even less about the historicity of your own scripture....and I'm not sure what brother you're talking about. If you mean Oberon then you have yet to answer his questions on Greek syntax he's repeatedly asked you...You went silent and ran off to hide...

 

[Bowman]

I NEVER said the "Quran" existed BEFORE the information in the scriptures....No one here has suggested that.

The Koran came after the Holy Bible, brother.

When are you ever going to understand this...?

You mean the parts where it says it confirms the torah before it??....

Give us a verse.

Not another meritless assertion.

Surly you can't be a bible thumper and didn't realize that the Old Testament makes reference to scrolls that are lost to antiquity? These are your scriptures you so vehemently boast. Surly you know where the references are????

Again...you assert but never provide proof.

Actually I know a great deal and just showed you that you know even less about the historicity of your own scripture....

You have nothing.

and I'm not sure what brother you're talking about. If you mean Oberon then you have yet to answer his questions on Greek syntax he's repeatedly asked you...You went silent and ran off to hide...

Your brother was visibly shaken when he had to admit that Jesus is God in the Greek.

He could barely compose his last post before he disappeared from the forum.

Owned.

 

[Morse]

Fact: Christianity and Islam are incredibly similar, as are all religions really.

Argument: Holy Scriptures are almost always based off of older works, so bringing up the fact that what was in the Quran was penned earlier in the bible is illogical. Because everything that was in the bible was ALSO penned earlier.

Prime example is the Garden of Eden, as mentioned in this link here
"The Eden motif itself, and the biblical tale of the flood, are in fact far older than the Bible, dating at least to the civilization of ancient Sumer. In the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2000BCE), King Gilgamesh's noble savage rival and companion Enkidu is reduced from idyllic immortality to civilized mortality through hapless sinful union with a fallen woman. In a subsequent quest for immortality, Gilgamesh finds a magical plant in the sea, but is robbed of his prize by a serpent. Many other details of the tale are echoed in the Hebrew Bible."

Opinion: Don't feed his flames. One who wishes to wallow in ignorance will not be dissuaded.

Opinion: One must see not only the value in each path to enlightenment (aka religion) as well as their interwoven nature. Karma and Ahimsa would have us refrain from the pointless and harmful attack of others. One could argue that this aids us in taking a step back to better look at and grasp a concept and allow the anger and hate to leave our bodies.

 

[A-ManESL]

+1 to above

 

[Dirty Penguin]

The Koran came after the Holy Bible, brother.

When are you ever going to understand this...?

Again...NO WHERE did I ever suggest that the Quran was before the Bible. Once again...you are confused and missed the point of my post.

Give us a verse.

Not another meritless assertion.

5:46 (Arberry from Classical Arabic)
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah before him and We gave to him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah before it, as a guidance and an admonition unto the godfearing.

Again...you assert but never provide proof.

"Proof"......You can't be serious..!!!!!

Well, "The Book of the Wars of the Lord" (Book of the Wars of the Lord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Really, this stuff is elementary and you shouldn't even be asking me for proof or stating it's an "assertion". This is one of many lost books the OT references. If you truly knew anything about your scriptures you wouldn't have made such a claim....but we already know from the thread (http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/scriptural-debates/107858-god-throne-lamb-revelations.html) your knowledge of your scriptures is weak.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Fact: Christianity and Islam are incredibly similar, as are all religions really.

Argument: Holy Scriptures are almost always based off of older works, so bringing up the fact that what was in the Quran was penned earlier in the bible is illogical. Because everything that was in the bible was ALSO penned earlier.

Prime example is the Garden of Eden, as mentioned in this link here
"The Eden motif itself, and the biblical tale of the flood, are in fact far older than the Bible, dating at least to the civilization of ancient Sumer. In the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2000BCE), King Gilgamesh's noble savage rival and companion Enkidu is reduced from idyllic immortality to civilized mortality through hapless sinful union with a fallen woman. In a subsequent quest for immortality, Gilgamesh finds a magical plant in the sea, but is robbed of his prize by a serpent. Many other details of the tale are echoed in the Hebrew Bible."

Opinion: Don't feed his flames. One who wishes to wallow in ignorance will not be dissuaded.

Opinion: One must see not only the value in each path to enlightenment (aka religion) as well as their interwoven nature. Karma and Ahimsa would have us refrain from the pointless and harmful attack of others. One could argue that this aids us in taking a step back to better look at and grasp a concept and allow the anger and hate to leave our bodies.

Agreed...

 

[Bowman]

+1 to above

Still waiting for you to rebut our list of Koranic facts, brother...

 

[Bowman]

Fact: Christianity and Islam are incredibly similar, as are all religions really.

False.

The Koran and the Holy Bible are similar because one copied the other.

Islam denies Jesus' deity.

Christianity promotes Jesus' deity.

No similarity at all.

Argument: Holy Scriptures are almost always based off of older works, so bringing up the fact that what was in the Quran was penned earlier in the bible is illogical.

False.

That the Koran copied the Holy Bible is completely logical.

Because everything that was in the bible was ALSO penned earlier.

Prime example is the Garden of Eden, as mentioned in this link here
"The Eden motif itself, and the biblical tale of the flood, are in fact far older than the Bible, dating at least to the civilization of ancient Sumer. In the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh (ca. 2000BCE), King Gilgamesh's noble savage rival and companion Enkidu is reduced from idyllic immortality to civilized mortality through hapless sinful union with a fallen woman. In a subsequent quest for immortality, Gilgamesh finds a magical plant in the sea, but is robbed of his prize by a serpent. Many other details of the tale are echoed in the Hebrew Bible."

Another internet 'scholar'...great.

Perhaps you could start yet another dedicated thread to any one of your googled topics and we can see which narrative is the original.

 

[Morse]

I think it may be wise to take a step back and perhaps examine your mindset before continuing a debate. You have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to others, and your energy is thoroughly hostile and condescending. It is not conducive to healthy debate, my friend.

Let your hatred and negativity pass through you, and become nothing more than chill wind on a warm day.

Regards,
Morse

 

[Bowman]

I think it may be wise to take a step back and perhaps examine your mindset before continuing a debate. You have consistently demonstrated an unwillingness to listen to others, and your energy is thoroughly hostile and condescending. It is not conducive to healthy debate, my friend.

Let your hatred and negativity pass through you, and become nothing more than chill wind on a warm day.

Regards,
Morse

When you are finished with your 'zen-moment' come back and we can discuss scripture.

 

[Bowman]

Again...NO WHERE did I ever suggest that the Quran was before the Bible. Once again...you are confused and missed the point of my post.

Yes....you did.

5:46 (Arberry from Classical Arabic)
And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus son of Mary, confirming the Torah before him and We gave to him the Gospel, wherein is guidance and light, and confirming the Torah before it, as a guidance and an admonition unto the godfearing.

وقفينا على ءاثرهم بعيسى ابن مريم مصدقا لما


بين يديه من التورية وءاتينه الإنجيل فيه هدى


ونور ومصدقا لما بين يديه من التورية وهدى


وموعظة للمتقين​

Waqaffayna AAala atharihim biAAeesa ibni maryama musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati waataynahu al-injeela feehi hudan wanoorun wamusaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati wahudan wamawAAithatan lilmuttaqeena

5.46 And we caused to follow for the sake of their evidences on account of Jesus, Mary's son, fulfilling The Truth altogether manifestbefore Him from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and we gave Him The Gospel concerning Him, a victim for sacrifice, and light, and fulfilling The Truth altogether manifestbefore Him from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and a victim for sacrifice and an admonition for guarding against evils.

"Proof"......You can't be serious..!!!!!

Well, "The Book of the Wars of the Lord" (Book of the Wars of the Lord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Really, this stuff is elementary and you shouldn't even be asking me for proof or stating it's an "assertion". This is one of many lost books the OT references. If you truly knew anything about your scriptures you wouldn't have made such a claim....

You are using the same googled material as used by mormons.

Thus...the same question can be posed to you, as to them...where does the Holy Bible ever state that it belonged as canon?

It never does.

Further, for you, where does the Koran mention this material?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

وقفينا على ءاثرهم بعيسى ابن مريم مصدقا لما​

Lying about Greek wasn't enough I see.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Your brother was visibly shaken when he had to admit that Jesus is God in the Greek.

(See what I mean?)

 

[Bowman]

(See what I mean?)

What on earth are you even doing in this thread, brother?

You most certainly don't know any Arabic.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Yes....you did.

NO I DIODN'T and I dare you to produce a post where I did..because I never did.

Waqaffayna AAala atharihim biAAeesa ibni maryama musaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati waataynahu al-injeela feehi hudan wanoorun wamusaddiqan lima bayna yadayhi mina alttawrati wahudan wamawAAithatan lilmuttaqeena

5.46 And we caused to follow for the sake of their evidences on account of Jesus, Mary's son, fulfilling The Truth altogether manifestbefore Him from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and we gave Him The Gospel concerning Him, a victim for sacrifice, and light, and fulfilling The Truth altogether manifestbefore Him from the scriptures of the Jews and Christians, and a victim for sacrifice and an admonition for guarding against evils.

Here we go again. Is this going to be another long drawn out thread where I put up all the accredited scholars and linguist of the Quran against your independent translation you've been rendering from a age old Lexicon and a dictionary????? Is this what our debates have been reduced to? The fact is...it says exactly what I told you it would say.

Additionally it appears you're breaking a forum rule by not citing your source material because it is easy to see above that your are copying and pasting from somewhere given the fact that you jumbled ("manifestedbefore") twice in one verse. This isn't the first time you've done this.

You are using the same googled material as used by mormons.

Thus...the same question can be posed to you, as to them...where does the Holy Bible ever state that it belonged as canon?

It never does.

Where did I personally state that the bible belonged as canon? I never did. This is something your church fathers did. My position was that your bible is like every other scripture. You made mention of the age of certain fragments of the Quran supposedly what books it copied without realizing your scripture is in the same position. Some its source material is directly reference within its pages and/or can found in other myths in antiquity (i.e. Epic of Gilgamesh etc.). Additionally it's oldest "fragment" dates to about 120 to 150 years after the facts. If your position is that you suspect the current day Quran is not the original then you must also realize that the NT bears the same problem. None of what you have are the originals. You have copies of copies of copies with varying differences between them as well as discovered and documented interpolations. Before pointing a finger at another's scripture take a long look into your closet full of skeletons. You never know what you'll find.

Further, for you, where does the Koran mention this material?

What material.

 

[Bowman]

NO I DIODN'T and I dare you to produce a post where I did..because I never did.

We have already been over this brother.

You keep repeating your same mistakes, over and over...

Here we go again. Is this going to be another long drawn out thread where I put up all the accredited scholars and linguist of the Quran against your independent translation you've been rendering from a age old Lexicon and a dictionary????? Is this what our debates have been reduced to? The fact is...it says exactly what I told you it would say.

It looks like you are wanting to slavishly google your responses again, and then run away from defending the Arabic behind the rendering.

Just like you have always done...

Additionally it appears you're breaking a forum rule by not citing your source material because it is easy to see above that your are copying and pasting from somewhere given the fact that you jumbled ("manifestedbefore") twice in one verse. This isn't the first time you've done this.

What Arabic word or phrase is bothering you?

Where did I personally state that the bible belonged as canon? I never did. This is something your church fathers did. My position was that your bible is like every other scripture.

Why bring it up in the first place if you can't prove that something is missing?

Typical mormon tactic.

You made mention of the age of certain fragments of the Quran supposedly what books it copied without realizing your scripture is in the same position.

Where?

Some its source material is directly reference within its pages and/or can found in other myths in antiquity (i.e. Epic of Gilgamesh etc.). Additionally it's oldest "fragment" dates to about 120 to 150 years after the facts. If your position is that you suspect the current day Quran is not the original then you must also realize that the NT bears the same problem. None of what you have are the originals. You have copies of copies of copies with varying differences between them as well as discovered and documented interpolations. Before pointing a finger at another's scripture take a long look into your closet full of skeletons. You never know what you'll find.

Start dedicated threads to your googled concerns.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

We have already been over this brother.

You keep repeating your same mistakes, over and over...

Yet your claim was a baseless one because you can't produce one single quote in this thread or all of RF where I've ever said the material in the Quran was before the bible. Basically you told a lie and got caught.....

It looks like you are wanting to slavishly google your responses again, and then run away from defending the Arabic behind the rendering.

Just like you have always done...

What are you talking about? Remember you asked me how many Qurans I owned and I told you....? Why would I have to google a quote when I own plenty of them?...

You're problem is you're deflecting as usual. You copied from some online source and and have failed to cite your source. If it was truly yours you wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake by copying and pasting and allowing your pasted plagiarized work to come out a jumbled mess.

Why bring it up in the first place if you can't prove that something is missing?

Typical mormon tactic.

First of all I'm not a Mormon. Showing what is missing wasn't even the point. You've been posturing how the oldest fragment of the Quran dates to X...well so does the bible. You've been posturing that the Quran was copied from a previous older source...well so was the Bible (specifically events in the OT). At the end of the day the originality for the Bible is just as questionable as any of scripture touted by its believers.....

Where?
What do you mean where? You stated it. Did you for get already what you said and what we've been discussing? Yo said it right here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2278679-post487.html

and right here;

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2280524-post494.html

Start dedicated threads to your googled concerns.

My only concern is you don't know half of what you think you know and it might help to educate yourself a little better if you wish to continue.... Try again...

 

[Bowman]

What are you talking about? Remember you asked me how many Qurans I owned and I told you....? Why would I have to google a quote when I own plenty of them?...

Owning an English Koran must be pretty important to you...yes?

Now...how about discussing the Arabic behind your special English renderings...?

Not that you ever have...but, you never know...

You're problem is you're deflecting as usual. You copied from some online source and and have failed to cite your source. If it was truly yours you wouldn't have made such a rookie mistake by copying and pasting and allowing your pasted plagiarized work to come out a jumbled mess.

Another meritless assertion without a shred of evidence.

Still pandering to that fantom wiki site....?:clap

First of all I'm not a Mormon. Showing what is missing wasn't even the point. You've been posturing how the oldest fragment of the Quran dates to X...well so does the bible. You've been posturing that the Quran was copied from a previous older source...well so was the Bible (specifically events in the OT). At the end of the day the originality for the Bible is just as questionable as any of scripture touted by its believers.....

Then why mention something that you thought should have been there if it makes no difference?

You are fumbling again...

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Owning an English Koran must be pretty important to you...yes?

Arabic and English....so what's your point?

Now...how about discussing the Arabic behind your special English renderings...?

Not that you ever have...but, you never know...

I have cross referenced all the Qurans I have. I have a Picthall, an Ali, Hilali-Khan and a Shakir Quran and these are just my Orthodox ones. They're OK but Arberry's is better (IMO). Besides Arberry I have 6 other Qurans on my bookshelf. There is no need to breakdown Arberry considering it is one of the best on the planet.

The renderings you have...Where are they from?

Did you translate them?

If you translated them where are your credentials that state you are qualified to do so?

These questions are important when discussing ANY language considering, as I suspect with you, anyone can pick up a Lexicon and a dictionary on the language and feel as though they are quipped to translate.

Another meritless assertion without a shred of evidence.

Still pandering to that fantom wiki site....?:clap

OK Bowman...the fact that you jumbled up words in your rendering means you've copied and pasted them. I've copied, pasted and cited an online bible before and every time I did it, it would jumble words together. I've since stop using that source. This is to be expected with certain sites, fonts and website code. The fact is you did it but are to dishonest to admit it.

Then why mention something that you thought should have been there if it makes no difference?

You are fumbling again...

It wasn't the main point but it showed your bible not to be any more authentic than any other scripture. Remember, before man put pen to "paper" what he had was stories that were past down (oral tradition). The bible had it (Old and NT) as well as the Quran and pretty much every other religious text on the planet. While it's without a doubt your bible makes mention of a lot of scrolls that are seemingly lost in antiquity, if you go back a few pages you'll notice I mainly mentioned the fact that the earliest bible fragment dates to 120 to 150 years after the fact and how your stories were taken from earlier myths and the fact the bible, specifically the NT, have no originals either and are copies of copies of copies with redaction's from Christian scholars rendering the RSV due to the discovery of early Christian interpolations. With all that said the fact of 15 or 20 books mentioned in the OT that are lost to antiquity are a mere backdrop to other issues experienced by your scriptures

The question was asked (why does the bible direct Muslims to the Bible) and all you have done is talk about the Quran being copied and its age and how incompetent Muslims are concerning their language and their religious text yet you show no real knowledge or understanding for the historicity of your own scripture or the people following it..

 

[Bowman]

Arabic and English....so what's your point?

The point is you rely on others' renderings in lieu of your own because you don't know any Arabic at all.

Therefore you must constantly be defending someone else's work....of which, you cannot support.

I have cross referenced all the Qurans I have. I have a Picthall, an Ali, Hilali-Khan and a Shakir Quran and these are just my Orthodox ones. They're OK but Arberry's is better (IMO). Besides Arberry I have 6 other Qurans on my bookshelf. There is no need to breakdown Arberry considering it is one of the best on the planet.

None of your renderings show their work.

We have already been over this numerous times, brother....and yet you still cling tenaciously to something that you can never defend.

The renderings you have...Where are they from?

Myself.

Did you translate them?

Yes.

If you translated them where are your credentials that state you are qualified to do so?

What would you like them to be?

These questions are important when discussing ANY language considering, as I suspect with you, anyone can pick up a Lexicon and a dictionary on the language and feel as though they are quipped to translate.

Is this the point in our conversation where you list Arberry's credentials, and then promptly make excuses why he never showed any of his reasoning and why you are unable to defend his renderings?

OK Bowman...the fact that you jumbled up words in your rendering means you've copied and pasted them. I've copied, pasted and cited an online bible before and every time I did it, it would jumble words together. I've since stop using that source. This is to be expected with certain sites, fonts and website code. The fact is you did it but are to dishonest to admit it.

This is a pretty poor excuse for not discussing the Arabic.

You can do better.............stall.....

It wasn't the main point but it showed your bible not to be any more authentic than any other scripture.

You have no point....and no, your googled assertions are meaningless and without merit.

Remember, before man put pen to "paper" what he had was stories that were past down (oral tradition). The bible had it (Old and NT) as well as the Quran and pretty much every other religious text on the planet. While it's without a doubt your bible makes mention of a lot of scrolls that are seemingly lost in antiquity, if you go back a few pages you'll notice I mainly mentioned the fact that the earliest bible fragment dates to 120 to 150 years after the fact and how your stories were taken from earlier myths and the fact the bible, specifically the NT, have no originals either and are copies of copies of copies with redaction's from Christian scholars rendering the RSV due to the discovery of early Christian interpolations. With all that said the fact of 15 or 20 books mentioned in the OT that are lost to antiquity are a mere backdrop to other issues experienced by your scriptures

If you think that you have googled something of merit then start a dedicated thread to it...as if it has not already been debated numerous times already...

The question was asked (why does the bible direct Muslims to the Bible) and all you have done is talk about the Quran being copied and its age and how incompetent Muslims are concerning their language and their religious text yet you show no real knowledge or understanding for the historicity of your own scripture or the people following it..

The authors of the Koran repeatedly state that they copied the Holy Bible.

It really does not get much simplier than this brother.