Christian/Muslim ThreadsScholar Bart Ehrman confess that the Bible we have is ....Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Lets first consider the Jewish writer, which obviously is the illustration you use for the Bible If you consider the Old Testament, then we have the writings in their original language, and the ancient manuscripts for these writings (the Jewish), which go back to 4 century BC, these include: Deuteronomy 23-8 Rylands Papyrus 458 (150 BC) Isaiah (Dead Sea Scrolls) (150-100 BC) 1 Samuel 16, 19, 21, 23 (Dead Sea scrolls) (225 BC or earlier) Leviticus 19-22 (Dead Sea Scrolls) (fourth century BC) I don’t think we need to elaborate more on that for now! Concerning the New Testament, it can only be concluded at least from exposing your insight, that you are severely misinformed. Christians do not see their writings as particularly Jewish. Let me just expound on this for a while. The New Testament nowhere claims that Christians are listening or reading the words or Book of Jesus Christ. As I have already pointed out, the Gospel as described in the Qur’an never existed, and has never been detected through ancient manuscript, history, early Christian writings or early church history. Know that becomes a difficulty if you intend to hold on to the Qur’anic view. If you look at the body of evidences, all the way from the Gospel writings to the external evidences, Jesus never received a book, neither did he write a book. It is a fact that he was teaching his Jewish audience, or either in Aramaic or Hebrew, possibly even in Greek in some occasions. However that teaching was not straightly conveyed to us, but his disciples. I think I have already expounded upon this earlier, with Biblical sources. His teaching was conveyed to his apostles, and it is the apostles not Christ we are to listen to. The apostles, except possibly from Matthew (who wrote his Gospel in Hebrew according to Papias, the disciple Polycarp the disciple of John the apostle), wrote the account in Greek. Hence if you study Christianity, you are not expected to even consider the Aramaic but the witness’ account of the apostles, and what are apostles? Well what is Muhammad to you? What Muhammad is to you, Matthew, Peter (Mark’s Gospel) and John are to us. You may say: but the apostles were mere men! And I answer: exactly so was Muhammad who supposedly conveyed to you God’s word, and so was Zaid Ibn and other compilers who later had to find, collect and write down the material. If you find yourself able to trust Muhammad or Ibn Zaid, then do not condemn or undermine Christians for trusting the Apostles!!!!! In Matthew 28 we read: Here the responsibility is given to the Apostles to convey the teachings of Christ In John 14 we read: In John 16 we read: Here the apostolic responsibility will be guided by the Spirit of God In other it is the apostles and their message we are to listen to not Jesus Christ This was also the understanding of the early Christians such as Clement:
Now let’s look at your points: Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: In this case the fathers are the Apostles and they conveyed the Scripture in Koinia Greek Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: If your reference is to Jesus, what evidence do you possess that Jesus did not understand Greek? However, if the Apostles conveyed the New Testament in Greek, it means the original memo, which is the apostolic account was in Greek; hence in one sense there is not even a translation. In fact I have already referred to the writings of Papias and Justin Martyr who e.g. verify two of the compilers Matthew and Mark recording the account from the apostle Peter. Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: If you refer to the translation in English, then there are a multiple number of Koranic translations too Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: If you compare the Koranic translations, you will notice that none of them agree either Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: Exactly which translations, the Gospels are not translations as such, do you refer to King James or NIV? Yet if you refer to those who conveyed the teachings of Christ, the names are Matthew, Peter (Mark), Luke and John Muslim gladiator wrote:
Kai replies: Well we know that the Gospels were written between 50-90 AD; unless you can provide me with an exact date for the revelation and compilation of the Koran, I can apply the same argument upon you Muslim gladiator wrote: Kai replies: I assume here, that your illustration concerns the Muslims, who supposedly have a Qur’an that agrees exactly with its origin, both in its language and meaning, and of which we only have one kind and one version. Yet this is a dream-world bro; in fact there are a multiple number of Koranic Arabic versions. I personally attended a debate last year in which the Muslim debater Shabir Ally had to admit variants within different Arabic Qurans. We are nothing talking about simple dialects, but e.g. the issue whether Allah is the owner or the king of the day of judgement, as seen in Sura 1. The Koran used (I think) in North Africa uses one of these readings while the one used elsewhere uses the other. Here is a good introduction to the topic: http://answering-islam.org.uk/Green/seven.htm This book compares the ten readings of the Koran and reveals that within the Arabic itself, among the 10 readers a third of the verses contain variants. Which of these do you assume to be correct? The fact is that Muhammad left us no book neither did he attempted to leave us one. The earliest Muslims even considered the compilation of what Muhammad had revealed to be impossible: In fact many passages had been lost and were never recovered: This is further confirmed by as-Suyuti:
According to Islamic criteria therefore, the Qur’an is an incomplete book Hence according to Islamic history, its compilation seems unreliable. Yet more problems follow, after a period the Muslims begin fighting due to the different recitations of the Qur’an: There are several interesting things to point out here; first and most the Muslim have begun fighting about the book in the same manner as the Christian and Jews. If this refers to Bible corruption, then in fact the Qur’an at this point has been corrupted. However the passage most likely refers to the difference between Jews and Christianity in accepting the books; that is the Christians accepted the Old and the New Testament, while the Jews accepted only the Old Testament. In other words, if we apply this analogy then some Muslim possessed parts of the Koran that the others had omitted. The means to solve the problem was to collect all these Qur’ans, pick and one and burn the rest. Zaid ibn and others are then ordered to write that particular manuscript into the dialect of the Quraish. Two points here, it seems as if the motive of Uthman is merely political mainly to unite the Arabic people! Secondly, it indicates that even the manuscript which Uthman accepted, and which was considered to be the most reliable had to be rewritten into a certain dialect; the correct dialect. Hence we can’t but assume that the Muslims at this point had no clue about how the Qur’an appeared in its original language; they had to assume and conject what had to be correct and rewrite it in that manner. That there are was lack of agreement among the Muslims present is also a fact: As is recorded by the Islamic history, Uthman did nothing in respect of the manuscripts; obviously the whole matter was political, without doubt a religious conspiracy! Notice also that Muslim scholars were arguing about the superiority of specific Korans. Hence we might ask: which one of these would be the correct one? Perhaps you can answer me on this one Muslim gladiator. Further more those who were considered experts in Islam where excluded, one example being Abdullah bin Mas’ud:
Abdullah wondered why he was to surrender his Koran????? Obviously if we only have one Koran and one version, why would be best reciter have to surrender his Koran to be destroyed: How do you explain all this Muslim gladiator???? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame