Harmony between the Bible and the Qur'an

[BrotherSka]

Hi Susan:

Tyndale was persecuted for his Protestant theology, not because he translated the Bible into English. Latin was simply the language of literacy in medieval Europe, very little was written on any subject in the vernacular as these had not yet really become written languages. The Reformation itself helped to speed that process along, but the church had no real objections to vernacular translations prior to the Reformation. They objected to those made afterwards because the Reformation was trying to use these to discredit the priesthood.

My understanding is that both Tyndale and Luther believed that the Bible should be the deciding authority on religious traditions, rather than the opinions of religious leaders. My understanding is also that the principal reason why they were persecuted is that they chose to facilitate this belief, by translating the Bible into the language of the masses, so that the masses could know what the Bible teaches for themselves.

My understanding is not that the Reformation was trying to discredit the priesthood, but rather, it was trying to ensure that religious traditions were supported by Biblical teaching rather than the 'edicts' of religious leaders.

Most laymen rely on the scholarship done by others, but any serious scholarship must be informed by knowledge of the original sources in their original language.

It depends on what the scholarship is attempting to achieve. The purpose was to compare a logical reading of a number of English translations of the Bible with a number of English translations of the Qur'an. The assumption made was that no translation is perfect, but by using notable translators whose work has been published and scrutinized by their peers, that the translations were accurate enough for the comparative purpose. As you may have noticed, harmony was easily found without damaging the integrity of any verse or compromising the teaching of any book.

Regards,
Walter

[BrotherSka]

Hi Bowman:

We can see how easily one of your book’s assertions regarding 4.157 falls when challenged.

You have not properly criticized my description of 4:157; instead, you have criticized the method of research. I have rejected your criticism and explained why. The book's findings have easily withstood your 'challenge'. I will respond to your other 'challenge' in another post.

Regards,
Walter

[BrotherSka]

Hi Bowman:

This has to be the most superficial conclusion drawn that I have ever witnessed when it comes to knowing the Biblical creator God.

You have not even begun to criticize my conclusion.

Again, where is your study of the very terms, themselves?

Did you not read the supporting evidence.

Just remember Triple “A”… Satan, the Devil, the great serpent, the destroyer, the deceiver, the liar…in Hebrew, “Abaddon”….in Greek, “Apollyn”…and, in Arabic, “Allah”.

This is your unsupported opinion. Since you have read the book, you are aware of my supported opinion.

Regards,
Walter

[BrotherSka]

Hi Mack:

I'm gdetting here a bit late, but seems to me your question presupposes some understanding of what the "principal teachings" of each book are. It's pretty obvious to me that you've loaded this question by a definition which excludes (1) the deity of Christ, (2) the exclusivity of Christ, (3) Salvation by faith in Jesus death and resurrection, (4) the crucifixion of Christ as God's offering for sin, etc., etc.

I have addressed in detail the 4 items that you have raised, and there is harmony between the Biblical and Quranic teaching.

Regards,
Walter.

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman:



You have not properly criticized my description of 4:157; instead, you have criticized the method of research. I have rejected your criticism and explained why. The book's findings have easily withstood your 'challenge'. I will respond to your other 'challenge' in another post.

Regards,
Walter

Hi Walter.

It is not even your 'description' of 4.157 - it is someone else's 'description' is it not?

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman:



You have not even begun to criticize my conclusion.



Did you not read the supporting evidence.



This is your unsupported opinion. Since you have read the book, you are aware of my supported opinion.

Regards,
Walter

And this is your rebuttal....?

You have absolutely nothing.....Walter....

[BrotherSka]

Hi Hannah:

Of course you are right, yet the author of the thread does not wish to harmonize the muslim religion with the christian one. He even does not want to harmonize the teachings of the Qu´ran with the Bible.

While I have found little harmony between Christian and Islamic religious traditions, I have found harmony between the teachings of the Bible and the Qur'an. Surprisingly, this harmony was found without compromising any teaching, or damage the integrity of any verse in the Bible or the Qur'an. However, Christian and Islamic religious traditions are compromised, and I have found that persons will choose their religious traditions even when they conflict with their principal religious text. Jesus actually described this behavior.

“All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition" Mark 7:9

Regards,
Walter

[BrotherSka]

Hi Mack:

These statements comprise what I would call a fair representation of some of the Bible's fundamental doctrines. Now, by no stretch of the imagination are any of these statements logically consistent with the Qur'an.

Have you read the Qur'an to verify your opinion?

Regards,
Walter

[BrotherSka]

Hi Bowman:

And this is your rebuttal....?

You have absolutely nothing.....Walter....

You seem to want to debate this matter, which is to try to persuade me with rhetoric. I prefer to discuss the matter in the hope that we will converge on the Truth. In a discussion, I am quite willing to depart from any of my traditions that are found to be unsupported by Biblical evidence. If I were debating you, then I would simply defend my position, regardless of any supporting evidence. I am not debating you.

You have based your criticism on my not using the original Arabic language. However, having read my book, you are well aware that the earlier copies of the Qur’an contained almost no diacritical marks to allow the reader to distinguish the letters, and it contained no vowels. Therefore, there is a measure of uncertainty in the Qur'an whether it is in Arabic or English.

If I had devoted decades of diligent study in Arabic, my opinion of every word of every verse would still be challenged by those who choose the ‘debate’ approach. As you are well aware, I have chosen to rely on scholars of note, who have devoted such time of study, and who have had their work published for some time to allow rigorous scrutiny by their peers. I understand that such an approach is insufficient for such as you at this time. However, I trust that with the passage of time, that you will learn a better approach to achieve a better intent.

Regards,
Walter.

[Bowman]

Hi Bowman:



You seem to want to debate this matter, which is to try to persuade me with rhetoric. I prefer to discuss the matter in the hope that we will converge on the Truth. In a discussion, I am quite willing to depart from any of my traditions that are found to be unsupported by Biblical evidence. If I were debating you, then I would simply defend my position, regardless of any supporting evidence. I am not debating you.

You have based your criticism on my not using the original Arabic language. However, having read my book, you are well aware that the earlier copies of the Qur’an contained almost no diacritical marks to allow the reader to distinguish the letters, and it contained no vowels. Therefore, there is a measure of uncertainty in the Qur'an whether it is in Arabic or English.

If I had devoted decades of diligent study in Arabic, my opinion of every word of every verse would still be challenged by those who choose the ‘debate’ approach. As you are well aware, I have chosen to rely on scholars of note, who have devoted such time of study, and who have had their work published for some time to allow rigorous scrutiny by their peers. I understand that such an approach is insufficient for such as you at this time. However, I trust that with the passage of time, that you will learn a better approach to achieve a better intent.

Regards,
Walter.

Hi Walter,

You are fishing for excuses once again.

All the ancient scriptures were originally devoid of diacritical markings – this includes Arabic, Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek. Hence, the need for the study of semantics, as the ancient words carried with them multiple means in numerous cases, of which, can only be understood by context and proper exegesis with other parts of scripture.

Since you appear to be cognizant of this, why then are you petrified to defend your reasoning for your rendering of choice? What good is a rendering when it cannot be defended?

Every single rendering that I posit, I can defend.

You, on the other hand, immediately become defensive and start a charade of character defamation.

Your whole argument regarding 4.157 revolves around one Arabic word (wama) which apparently you were not even aware of. Thus…why not discuss this word in detail so that you can grow in your understanding that context determines its meaning?

I already posited Biblical scripture showing that the Jews are held fully responsible for the murder of Jesus Christ. There is no mention of the Romans being held responsible for the act.

Now…apply this knowledge to 4.157….you are in a debate room….let’s debate…

[smaneck]

Wrong.

Any Jew who rejects Jesus is following the Devil.

Okay, we get it. You are an anti-semite who thinks the Bible is too.

Scripture?

I gave you the scripture passage which shows these were Jews who were trying to stone Jesus in my last post.
Apparently you weren't paying attention.

You cannot possibly have capital letters after your name.

Which only goes to show how many facts in front of your nose you are willing to deny.

[mackharrell]

Hi Mack:



I have addressed in detail the 4 items that you have raised, and there is harmony between the Biblical and Quranic teaching.

Regards,
Walter.

Hello Walter:

Where have you addressed them? Would you do so again here?

(1) Is Jesus of Nazareth God incarnate?

(2) Was Jesus of Nazareth crucified... and did he thus die.

(3) Was Jesus' death a sacrificial offering for sin?

(4) Are human beings today offered forgiveness on the basis of Jesus' death for them and in their place?

(5) Was Jesus raised from the dead by God?

I've always been given the impression that Muslims believe the Qur'an teaches things which are logically inconsistent with (1) - (5)

Please feel free to correct me.

Thanks,

Mack

[mackharrell]

Hello Walter:

Let me jump in here. As an instance, Calvin taught (and Presbyterians generally agree) that there is no provision in the New Testament for Prelacy. For instance, the words translated 'elder' and 'bishop' in the New Testament in several contexts are used interchangeably. See Witherow's excellent slim volume on this for much, much more.

Of course, the Reformers were dead set against Rome and its theology. Roman Catholic Christianity ("RCC") teaches an entirely different religiious system that is utterly incompatible with Reformed Protestantism. Moreover, RCC has no basis in biblical teaching.

Thanks for letting me "jump in"!

Mack

[smaneck]

Hi Susan:
My understanding is that both Tyndale and Luther believed that the Bible should be the deciding authority on religious traditions, rather than the opinions of religious leaders. My understanding is also that the principal reason why they were persecuted is that they chose to facilitate this belief, by translating the Bible into the language of the masses, so that the masses could know what the Bible teaches for themselves.

Yes, that's fair enough. It was part of their theology of the "priesthood of all believers" which of course undermined the church hierarchy. My point is that had translations into the vernacular been done without this agenda, there would not likely have been any objection.

My understanding is not that the Reformation was trying to discredit the priesthood, but rather, it was trying to ensure that religious traditions were supported by Biblical teaching rather than the 'edicts' of religious leaders.

If by 'edicts' you mean canon law, that would be correct. The position of the Catholic Church was and is that the Bible itself is the outcome of the Holy Spirit working through the church. Therefore one cannot really split the authority of the Bible from the authority of the Church.

It depends on what the scholarship is attempting to achieve. The purpose was to compare a logical reading of a number of English translations of the Bible with a number of English translations of the Qur'an. The assumption made was that no translation is perfect, but by using notable translators whose work has been published and scrutinized by their peers, that the translations were accurate enough for the comparative purpose. As you may have noticed, harmony was easily found without damaging the integrity of any verse or compromising the teaching of any book.

I think that is probably adequate for your personal purposes. It just when it comes to publishing a book you are usually expected to be able to access the primary sources for yourself. But I think your conclusion is generally correct. There is a good deal more harmony than most people realize. The discrepancies are more with Christian vs. Muslim theology than with the scriptures themselves.

warmest, Susan

[smaneck]

Hello Walter:

Let me jump in here. As an instance, Calvin taught (and Presbyterians generally agree) that there is no provision in the New Testament for Prelacy. For instance, the words translated 'elder' and 'bishop' in the New Testament in several contexts are used interchangeably

I can only think of one place in the NT where bishop and elder appear to be used interchangeably. Normally the bishop was the head of the church in a metropolitan area.