Is Islam correct? Is the Bible corrupted?

[Huguenot]

Allah (SWT) says: "And argue not with the people of the book unless
it be in (a way) which is better (than mere arguing), except with such
of them that do wrong, and say (to them): 'We believe in that which
had been revealed to us and revealed to you, and our God and your
God is One, and to Him we have submitted (as Muslims)" Al-
Ankaboot(29):46.

The "people of the Book" includes Jews. Remember that. Even
though Allah (SWT) has told us of the hatred they hide in their
hearts, He has not command us to hate and kill every single Jew we
meet simply because he is a Jew.

[Allah is merciful]

> snip

Did mankind tamper with the Old Testament?:

"And because of their breaking their covenant, We have cursed them
and made hard their hearts. They change words from their places and
have abandoned a good part of the message that was sent to them.
And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of
them. But forgive them and overlook(their misdeed). Verily! Allah
loves the kindly". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):13.

"O Messenger!(Mohammad) Do no be grieved by those who vie with
one another in the race to disbelief, of such as say with their mouths:
"We believe" but their hearts believe not, and of the Jews: of them are
those who listen eagerly to lies -listener to others who have not come
to you. They change the words from their places; they say: If you are
given this then take it, but if you are not given this then beware! He
whom Allah dooms unto sin, you (by your efforts) will avail him
naught against Allah. Those are they for whom the will of Allah is that
He cleanse not their hearts; for them there is a disgrace in this world,
and in the Hereafter a great torment". The Qur'an, Al-Maidah(5):41.

http://islamworld.net/docs/torah.html

Is the Old Testament, "corrupt"?

Is the New Testament, "corrupt"?

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arhNcJqHwxo

By Jay Smith

Age: 54

Born in India, residing in the UK since 1992

Jay Smith is a doctoral candidate for a Ph.D. in Islamic Studies in London,UK. Starting with his childhood as the son of American missionaries to India, he has become versed in Eastern and Western worldviews. Jay is widely acknowledged as one of the leading Christian authorities on the historicity of early Islam and the Qu'ran, and has participated in many debates including a recent one with former prime minister of Pakistan, Benazir Bhutto.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

Are you aware of the fact that Jay Smith has debated Shabir Ally on this topic?

[Huguenot]

Are you aware of the fact that Jay Smith has debated Shabir Ally on this topic?

I am new to this Professor and I have watched only a few debates on Youtube.

I may have seen Shabir Ally?

This thread is to account for and refute any false allagations and fables posited by anyone - skeptics, Anti-Biblical curmudgeons - and/or those of the Qu'ran.

IMO, Muslims cannot have it both ways, since they hold Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as Holy, and yet what was the source material for the Qu'ran?

You see kind Sir, we have only the Gospels - the four Books of the NT that we consider factual, and yes, History does matter!

The facts matter.

Even the smallest detail matters.

Additionally, we all know that the Jews or Jewsih tribes sinned, and this is not news. We know that Christians sin, and this is not news. That is why we need a savior Jesus Christ. So, any quote: "news" that Jews are quote: "corrupt" is stupid. All people, all Arabs or all Iraqis or Iranians have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. Let us avoid this silly notion that the peoples of any Book are "corrupt" and I just don't believe it other than what is common to all men and women. I have seen it all and I heard everything. (I did an extensive study of the gods of Babylon, the Baals, Istar, Isis, etc, - the Greeks, the Romans, the Teutonic hoards of the Norse peoples, the Celtic Druids, the North American indians, and even White Anglo-Saxon men of Washington DC. - ARGH! God knows that his creation has worshipped false idols and is fallen from the time of Adam.

Back to our topic here..................

BTW, we do not count gnostic sources and clearly these were floating around Arabia or Jordan, or Syria.

e.g. Infant Gospel of Thomas

How can Muslims have it both ways? If the Bible is true, then Muhammad should have quoted the REAL BIBLE and should not have blundered the quotes.

In fact, even the name - Isa is wrong.

Y'Shua is correct and there is a name in Arabic for Jesus, and I will wager that you do not know the real name for Jesus Christ?

And.....................



* sigh *

The angels' announcement of Jesus' birth (vv. 45-6) differs from Gabriel's annunciation in Luke 1:30-35 NIV in several key particulars: in the Qur'an, Jesus is identified as a "word" from Allah and is called "Messiah," but not "Son of the Most High." Muslim exegetes explain that Jesus is Allah's word not in the sense of being divine, as in John 1:1 NIV but because he was created without a human father by Allah's word, as was Adam — as v. 59 explains. In v. 48, we're told that Allah will teach Jesus "the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel": in the Qur'an, the Gospel is not the news about Jesus, but a book that he is given by Allah. V. 49 recounts several miracles Jesus performed, each one "by Allah's leave." Bulandshahri explains that this clause is repeated in order to emphasize that only by Allah's permission does Jesus perform miracles – since "after witnessing these miracles, especially the raising of the dead, it is possible that a person may consider Sayyidina Isa [Master Jesus] to be Allah himself." One of these miracles involves bringing clay birds to life, which appears in the second-century Infancy Gospel of Thomas.

By Robert Spencer

Sura 3, "The Family of Imran," verses 33-63

[Ibn Abu Talib]

IMO, Muslims cannot have it both ways, since they hold Abraham, Moses, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ as Holy, and yet what was the source material for the Qu'ran?

The source material for the Quran is the Wisdom of your Creator.

[Huguenot]

The source material for the Quran is the Wisdom of your Creator.

Sorry, but Muhammad is busted, since we found his sources. The Jewish Talmud, the Mishna, and various Jewish fables or stories.

That and Zoroastrainism.

Oh and philosophy from Aristotle and Plotinus - i.e. Neoplatonism.

And, the result, in the Qu'ran your Allah is monad - one - singular one - and this crushes the creative nature of God, and how God intervenes and interacts with his creation. (God in the Bible is ONE with a plural nature - the Holy Spirit is a gift from God the Father, promised by the Son and active in every believer;)

And, we shall not soon forget the Gnostic gospels rejected from the Cannon by the Holy Church of Christ - e.g. Gospel of Thomas, Infant gospels of Thomas, and others.

In summary, the Qu'rans POV on Jesus is flat and short of the truth!

[Ibn Abu Talib]

Sorry, but Muhammad is busted, since we found his sources. The Jewish Talmud, the Mishna, and various Jewish fables or stories.

That and Zoroastrainism.

Oh and philosophy from Aristotle and Plotinus - i.e. Neoplatonism.

If I were to judge the Gospels according to source criticism, I would come to the same conclusion as the one reached by scholars at the Jesus Seminar-only 18% of what the Gospels say Jesus said is what he actually said; the rest are just forgeries. Don't even get me started on the Greek pagan myths which parallel core Christian beliefs!

Humanistic approaches to Scripture cut both ways, Hugenot.

[smaneck]

[QUOTE=Huguenot;2395126]Sorry, but Muhammad is busted, since we found his sources. The Jewish Talmud, the Mishna, and various Jewish fables or stories.

That's funny, because one of the Christian apologists was just trying to defend the Gospel of Matthews misqoutations of the Tanakh by suggesting he got it from the Midrash. Now you are suggested that such 'sources' bust a religion.

That and Zoroastrainism.

LOL. Then Christianity is *really* busted because it borrowed more from Zoroastrianism than any other Abrahamic religion (including the Baha'i Faith.)

Oh and philosophy from Aristotle and Plotinus - i.e. Neoplatonism.

Oh, oh. Now John's Gospel is in trouble.

Can't possibly be inspired by God!

[Abelard]

Whatever you think about the New Testament, in the Gospels you have four narrative accounts that present a clear, detailed and coherent picture of Jesus Christ and his ministry. The amazing thing is that the four accounts have so much in common - differences even between eyewitnesses are to be expected.

The Qu'ran is beautiful but it is mostly poetry and has few specifics. It's an entirely different type of literature. If you want to compare how 'corrupt' it is, compare Qu'ranic manuscripts with manuscripts of any one book of the New Testament.

Comparing the relative consistency of four different narratives with a book of poetry by a sole author is just silly.

[smaneck]

Comparing the relative consistency of four different narratives with a book of poetry by a sole author is just silly.

Agreed.

But in the Qur'an at least we have the exact revelation given by Muhammad while the Gospel is more like what the Muslims call hadiths, hearsay accounts of what Jesus is supposed to have said or done.

[smaneck]

The Qu'ran is beautiful but it is mostly poetry and has few specifics.

I might add that the so called poetry of the Qur'an (it is not poetry by Arab standards) is pretty much given in the same exact style as those portions of the Tanakh which claim to be God's revelation to His prophets. It is called saj which is a kind of rhymed prose. Unfortunately the rhyme in the Hebrew tends to be lost in translation.

[historic salve]

That's funny, because one of the Christian apologists was just trying to defend the Gospel of Matthews misqoutations of the Tanakh by suggesting he got it from the Midrash. Now you are suggested that such 'sources' bust a religion.

Um -- you can't get anything "from the midrash", because midrash is a method of interpretation, not a source.

LOL. Then Christianity is *really* busted because it borrowed more from Zoroastrianism than any other Abrahamic religion (including the Baha'i Faith.)

Sorry, the Zoroastrian borrowing hypothesis is almost universally rejected by scholars today.

Oh, oh. Now John's Gospel is in trouble.

What exactly do you think John copied from neoplatonic thought? The Logos?

[smaneck]

Um -- you can't get anything "from the midrash", because midrash is a method of interpretation, not a source.

The term midrash can also refer to a compilation of homiletic teachings (commentaries) on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), in the form of legal and ritual (Halakha) and legendary, moralizing, folkloristic, and anecdotal (Aggadah) parts.

Sorry, the Zoroastrian borrowing hypothesis is almost universally rejected by scholars today.

Nonsense. Narnian insists the influence goes way back into the OT. Every Zoroastrian scholar I know (and I know at lot of them) accepts this. Where did all the demons running around the NT come from? Where were they in OT times and why doesn't the Tanakh mention them?

What exactly do you think John copied from neoplatonic thought? The Logos?

That and the whole light vs. darkness imagery, which probably owes a lot to gnosticism as well.

warmest, Susan

[Abelard]

I might add that the so called poetry of the Qur'an (it is not poetry by Arab standards) is pretty much given in the same exact style as those portions of the Tanakh which claim to be God's revelation to His prophets. It is called saj which is a kind of rhymed prose. Unfortunately the rhyme in the Hebrew tends to be lost in translation.

I imagine you have seen a Schocken Bible, but just for general edification it is an English translation of the Tanach that tries to maintain the rhyming quality of the original Hebrew.

What is the Bahai literature like? I've never read any.

[historic salve]

The term midrash can also refer to a compilation of homiletic teachings (commentaries) on the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible), in the form of legal and ritual (Halakha) and legendary, moralizing, folkloristic, and anecdotal (Aggadah) parts.

But you said the midrash. Which commentary are you referring to?

Nonsense. Narnian insists the influence goes way back into the OT. Every Zoroastrian scholar I know (and I know at lot of them) accepts this. Where did all the demons running around the NT come from? Where were they in OT times and why doesn't the Tanakh mention them?

I know that's what Narnian says, but she's wrong about this. I don't know which Zoroastrian scholars you have in mind, but the consensus is firmly against any borrowing.

Demons don't pop up as often in the OT, but they are there:

1 Kings 22:23 "So now the LORD has put a lying spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The LORD has decreed disaster for you." (NIV)

That and the whole light vs. darkness imagery, which probably owes a lot to gnosticism as well.

The Logos is not a neoplatonic concept. Wisdom theology existed in Judaism prior to John ever writing his Gospel (most obviously, in the intertestamental literature). Since John says that the Word became flesh, which platonists abhorred, and he uses the imagery of tabernacling (alluding to the way that God tabernacled among the Israelites in the desert) it is more appropriate to see him writing from within Judaism.

The light vs. dark imagery is so broad that it can be used in any philosophy. Light and day are part of the universal human experience. But in any case, John is alluding back to the creation account in Genesis (the separation of light and day), which places him in the Jewish spectrum of thought.

[Narnian]

I know that's what Narnian says, but she's wrong about this. I don't know which Zoroastrian scholars you have in mind, but the consensus is firmly against any borrowing.

I haven't come across any such "consenus". Conservatives would reject it, because they operate from a closed mind. Even in liberal departments, there is an incredible lack of knowledge about Zoroastrianism in Christian scholarship.