Historical Errors of the bible

[sief]

forgive me if I offend somebody ,but the whole idea is to debate and exchange views isn't it ?

[barnasha]

To be crucified as a means of death penalty is having the cross kill you.

True, but Jesus was crucified and in the end, was not killed (as the biblical accounts go)

And the point was, the Quran said (most correctly translated) "they did not kill/execute him"... and not that "'the crucifixion' did not happen" !

John 10:18 and the NT indicate that even though Jesus was on the cross, neither the cross nor any man killed him.

But he gave up his ghost to God willingly while on the cross.

So the Quran says Jews and Romans thought they took his life by force with the cross, but they didn't. That's all it means.

[mastralvarado]

To be crucified as a means of death penalty is having the cross kill you.

John 10:18 and the NT indicate that even though Jesus was on the cross, neither the cross nor any man killed him.

But he gave up his ghost to God willingly while on the cross.

So the Quran says Jews and Romans thought they took his life by force with the cross, but they didn't. That's all it means.

I see you point. To you your way and to me mine.

[John Goddard]

True, but Jesus was crucified and in the end, was not killed (as the biblical accounts go)

And the point was, the Quran said (most correctly translated) "they did not kill/execute him"... and not that "'the crucifixion' did not happen" !

That's the simplest way to read it, he was not permanently killed because he was resurrected.

If you go further and point out that no man took his life, he laid it down himself as he says in the NT, then it just closes the interpretation that much more.

[penguinfan]

Bismillah,
The Quranic text does not say Jesus (PBUH) was not crucified:

The variations appear in the translation/interpretation of the end portion of the verse which reads: "wa lakin shubbiha lahum"

wa means: And, also, but, whilst.
lakin means; But, still, nevertheless.
shubbiha means; To be made like; A likeness or similitude.
(This could refer to: A likeness or similitude (of Jesus), or
A likeness or similitude (of Killing), or
A likeness or similitude (of Crucifixion), or
A likeness or similitude (of Killing & Crucifixion)
lahum means; Was made for them.

Below are the other English translations by Muslims and non Muslim scholars for comparison:

1. Translation by Allama Abdullah Yusuf Ali:
"But they killed him not, nor crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."

2. Translation by Mohammed Marmaduke Pickthall:
"...They slew him not nor crucified
but it appeared so unto them;"

3. Translation by Professor Arthur J. Arberry:
"...yet they did not slay him, neither crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."

Source: http://www.mostmerciful.com/substitution.htm

See this post for clarification of the topic.

Allah knows best.

The last part seems clear to me. The Quran is saying that someone else died on the cross (or was crucified, whichever) but that person was not Jesus. How do you reconcile the part of the passage that says:

"But they killed him not, nor crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."

With your view that the Quran does not say that Jesus was not crucified?

[mastralvarado]

The last part seems clear to me. The Quran is saying that someone else died on the cross (or was crucified, whichever) but that person was not Jesus. How do you reconcile the part of the passage that says:



With your view that the Quran does not say that Jesus was not crucified?

It means that the death of Jesus (p) was perceptual and not absolute. Imagine a person who is dead. Still long after scalp hair grows and even nails. Why would other sources of hair stop growing and yet the scalp still keeps on? How does science explain such phenomena? I only ask questions. Sorry if I made you angry because of some of my comments in past.

[mastralvarado]

The last part seems clear to me. The Quran is saying that someone else died on the cross (or was crucified, whichever) but that person was not Jesus. How do you reconcile the part of the passage that says:



With your view that the Quran does not say that Jesus was not crucified?

It seems to me that the crucifixion as Christians came to know did not happen to occur by the popular 'orthodox' similitude that churches taught. The crux of the argument is that if to God some word is defined not by its actions but by its descriptors such that the word 'crucifixion's' peculiarity is ruled by the execution style, that is the "x" shape, therefore the Qur'an is right to point out that a crucifix-ion need an "x" form or a hebrew TAV form (the letter tav had an "x" form in earlier lexemes) in order to qualify as the Qur'an wants to point out.

"But they killed him not, nor crucified him,
only a likeness of that was shown to them."

It was quite known to christians who witnessed the apparent execution of Jesus (AS) that a pole was used instead of the popular opinion's "x" shaped wooden logs because some people were crucified and others raised onto poles "I". This was known up until recently and yet Christians prefer the x-shaped Constantinian symbol.

Either way, the Real Jesus (PBUH) did not die. See the specific example I pointed out to you above.

God (i.a. Allaah) knows best.

BTW. As a sign of respect, please do not quote the Qur'an liberally and in small pieces.

[Pumbelo]

Ok, if we are going to discuss the crucifixion now:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2327

I am disappointed that you guys did not even try to respond to my "Jesus did not spoke in the cradle"-argument. But I expected it.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

Ok, if we are going to discuss the crucifixion now:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2327

I am disappointed that you guys did not even try to respond to my "Jesus did not spoke in the cradle"-argument. But I expected it.

I did respond to your argument, maybe you missed it.

As for James White, what about the Seattle debate? You can find a Muslim commentary of the event here

http://open-discourse.com/2007/10/24...ebate-summary/

The funny thing is White accuses Shabir Ally of inconsistency when he himself relies on circumstantial ad hominem to defend his case.

[Pumbelo]

I did respond to your argument, maybe you missed it.

1. I deny that reasonable criteria can demonstrate us that Jesus was not born of a virgin.

2. The Quran also claims that Jesus was born of a virgin, so you are not helping your case.

3. The thread began with the claim "The Bible has many historical errors" and I answered with an even bigger "historical error" in the Quran. Responding with another "historical error" isn't really a respose.

I never started to defend the Bible, I said that the Quran needs more defense.

As for James White, what about the Seattle debate? You can find a Muslim commentary of the event here

http://open-discourse.com/2007/10/24...ebate-summary/

The funny thing is White accuses Shabir Ally of inconsistency when he himself relies on circumstantial ad hominem to defend his case.

This commentary is laughable at best. More inconsistency and you don't even notice it.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

I never started to defend the Bible, I said that the Quran needs more defense.

which is a red herring since the topic is about the historical errors in the bible, not the Quran.

This commentary is laughable at best. More inconsistency and you don't even notice it.

I've seen both the debates and it seems clear to me that Shabir Ally dominated in both, more so in the first debate where James wasn't even able to provide a good reason as to why we should regard the New Testament as the inspired word of God. All he did was accuse Shabir Ally of double standards for relying on so-called liberal scholars. It never occurred to White that the source from which a claim originates does not necessarily determine the veracity of the claim itself. Thus, he persistently committed the genetic fallacy, literally allowing Shabir Ally to come out victorious.

[mastralvarado]

Technically, it says he was not EXECUTED... translating salaba as "crucified" is a contextual interpretation! Very important yet subtle difference.

And God knows best.

You are right. If Jesus (P) had layed down his life in a cross he would have been crucified. Whereas if he had layed down his life in a pole he would have been killed/executed. Jesus (P) layed down his life in a stick, therefore the Qur'an was right to point out that he had not been crucified.

Whoever lives by the sword dies by the sword. Criminals were crucified in x-shaped timber logs (crosses) shaped like swords. Rebels were executed in stakes and traitors in trees which is something Muhammad (P) could not have known at the time.

Therefore, some Muslims are wrong to presume that Jesus did not lay down his life and all Christians are wrong to doubt the authenticity of the Qur'an.

Allah knows best.

LINK

[barnasha]

Therefore, some Muslims are wrong to presume that Jesus did not lay down his life and all Christians are wrong to doubt the authenticity of the Qur'an.

Doubting is fine. Disbelieving something for the wrong reasons is not.

[smaneck]

I am disappointed that you guys did not even try to respond to my "Jesus did not spoke in the cradle"-argument. But I expected it.

I saw nothing to respond to. You made an assertion that Jesus did not speak from the cradle. You have no way of knowing that is true since you aren't there. I suppose you can argue that it is scientifically impossible, but so are all the miracles associated with Jesus' life. That's why they are called miracles.

[Pumbelo]

which is a red herring since the topic is about the historical errors in the bible, not the Quran.

i was talking about double standards. You don't accept the historicity of the Bible, but you accept information from the gnostic gospels which aren't historical.

I've seen both the debates and it seems clear to me that Shabir Ally dominated in both, more so in the first debate where James wasn't even able to provide a good reason as to why we should regard the New Testament as the inspired word of God. All he did was accuse Shabir Ally of double standards for relying on so-called liberal scholars. It never occurred to White that the source from which a claim originates does not necessarily determine the veracity of the claim itself. Thus, he persistently committed the genetic fallacy, literally allowing Shabir Ally to come out victorious.

DEJA-VU!
Would you accept it if I rely the muslim professor of islam from Munich, who thinks Muhammed never existed? No? I smell a double-standard.