Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Christianlady said:

So, where is the Injeel? Jesus Christ is the Injeel/Evangel/Good News 

Sorry, sister

The Quranic Injeel was given to Jesus.

If a thing A is given to a person B, then A cannot be the same as B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Christianlady said:

Jesus Christ is the Injeel/Evangel/Good News (of the Kingdom) for all people!!! :)

I can accept that that is the Christian view. 

However, the Islamic view is that he was a messenger to the children of Israel. (Q 3:49).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2017 at 10:02 AM, MohammadAli1993 said:

SalamAlaykum Brothers and Sister, 

I hope you are all well

I was wondering if someone can tell me where in the Quran it says that the Old and New Testament is Corrupt.

Because Muslims say that the Injeel and Torah was changed but where does it say that in the Quran.

PLEASE DONT BRING VERSES WHICH TALK ABOUT THE WORDS BEING ALTERED ORALLY,

But verses which mention that it was changed in writing.

Jazakallah 

Sura 5: Ayats 13 & 41  --read also literal translations, Yousef Ali, ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hasanhh said:

Sura 5: Ayats 13 & 41  --read also literal translations, Yousef Ali, ...

Cannot see that verse 41 say Gods message was distorted.  

Verse 13 speaks about distortion by Israelites, not all thou. If it was the written text seems unclear. Anyway since it was not all Israelites, some had the true word. 

Verse 14 speaks about a treaty God made with Christians. My impression is that this treaty was different but that some parts were forgotten, not distorted. Wich parts we are not being told. The verse also say because of this God caused hatred among Christians. I must admit it is true, but cant see it is any better among Muslims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Orig: Ayat 5:13 is revealed. The Maccabean Era's rewriting the OT is historically correct.

You are mostly correct about Ayat 5:41 as when you read the word-by-word- grammatical analysis this Ayat does refer to the "raina" tongue-twisting elsewhere in Qur'an.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2017 at 7:30 PM, hasanhh said:

Enoch does not correlate with ldris.

Enoch "God took him". That can also mean death, not only "heaven".

ldris-as, Sura 19:56-58, In the literal analysis, ldris-as was raised to a "high position" because Allah-swt bestowed on him-as and others a "favor". So ldris-as had a story more similar to Yusef-as than an assention like lsa-as.

assalamu alaykum

I want to mention a couple of points.

There is good reason to correlate the Quranic ʾIdrīs with the Biblical Enoch. Jeffery mentions an interesting point that there is an etymological similarity between the two names. The name إدريس is derived from the root درس (to learn or to study) while the Hebrew name for Enoch, חֲנוֹךְ (Ḥanōḵ -- Ḥēṯ-Nūn-Wāw-Kāf) is derived from the root כ‎נ‎ח‎ (Ḥēṯ-Nūn-Kāf, to instruct or to initiate). Jewish and Christian legend indicate that Enoch had mastery of occult wisdom. (Jeffery, The Foreign Vocabulary of the Qurʾān, 2007, 51)

In addition to this both narratives hold that this individual was taken by/raised to the Lord. The Hebrew word indicating this in Genesis 5:24 is לָקַח (Lāqaḥ -- Lamaḏ-Qōf-Ḥēṯ). This can be used to mean "to take", "to take in the hand", "to take away and carry", or "to take/carry away". The final usage of the verb seems to be how it is being employed in Genesis 5:24. This isn't like the Arabic verb قبض (to seize), which can be used as a euphemism for someone dying, it isn't connotative of someone's death. According to the Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English lexicon, this verb can be related in this meaning to the verb נְשָׂאַ֖תְנִי (Nasāʾatnī, from the root נשׂת -- Nūn-Sīn-Tāw) which was used in Ezekiel (3:14) to express the Spirit lifting Ezekiel away. To read more on the linguistic discussion regarding this verb, please follow this link.

Jewish tradition also held that the verse in question wasn't indicating that Enoch died, rather, that he was taken up by God to Him. In Biblical tradition, the Book of Enoch, a very influential text was written describing what Enoch might have seen in his journey. Despite not being canon (except in the Ethiopic Church, which includes 1 Enoch in its Biblical canon) this text was very important in Biblical history. It influenced Jewish-Christian thought heavily in the first century BC and AD. Even Jude brother of James references it in his Epistle (Jude 14, referencing Enoch 1:9). There's no good reason to think that this Biblical verse indicated that Enoch died.

I think the most important reason to believe there a correlation between the two is the precedent of most, if not all, Muslim scholars believing there is.

The Bible is about tradition, I see no good reason to break from tradition here.

wa assalam

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, hasanhh said:

Orig: Ayat 5:13 is revealed. The Maccabean Era's rewriting the OT is historically correct.

You are mostly correct about Ayat 5:41 as when you read the word-by-word- grammatical analysis this Ayat does refer to the "raina" tongue-twisting elsewhere in Qur'an.

 

I understand you agree with me on 5:41, but not certain you agree with me on 5:13-14. 

Who says the OT was rewritten in the Maccabean period? Someone here mentioned it earlier, but I have not read any documentation for this claim. Of course copies were being made all the time, but I suppose you mean the OT was changed(?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi hasanhh

You need not answer. Fact is: 

According to Muslims the OT is corrupted. The prof is that it does not match the Quran. No proofs necessary since it is the word of God.

According to traditional Christianity, Moses wrote the Torah (except for the passages that have been added after his death) around 1.300BC. No more proofs necessary since it is the word of God.

Critical examination of the OT text,  compared with archeoligical findings and known history from other sources, show the OT books were written in the 1 milennium BC. Like the Quran they have not been rewritten. The youngest from the Maccabean have not been changed either.

So if the Quran is correct, the OT texts were full or errors already when they were written. Simple as that.

 

Edited by andres

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, andres said:

I understand you agree with me on 5:41, but not certain you agree with me on 5:13-14. 

Who says the OT was rewritten in the Maccabean period? Someone here mentioned it earlier, but I have not read any documentation for this claim. Of course copies were being made all the time, but I suppose you mean the OT was changed(?)

I started this before your next post, so l'II continue.

Ayat 5:13 reveals words were changed. Ayat 15 uses the verb "hide" (Yousef Ali translation) for these activities. The "ra`ina" l noted is at Ayat 4:46.

The Book of Jeremia has the same info. Jer 29:23 can be read three ways, written or spoken or both of these.

Motivation to sin like this? Fraud and Scorn, Jer 6:13 and 6:10, 19 Douay-Rheims translation.

What l wrote -actually the way l wrote it- about the OT being redone in the Maccabean Era is from one of my books somewhere. For a similar restatement of this opinion, See the Wikipedia article "Old Testament" [the article start with the sub-address "OldTestament#Greek..."] and got to paragraph 4.1. You can also get a summary at "Dating the Bible". This latter one will show you why critical opinion varies and is expressed differently -my regurgitation on the Maccabean Era being one example. The Bible was also being translated into Greek in Alexandria at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

They change words from their context and forget a part of that whereof they were admonished.

Is there anything that should make me believe that these particular people had the one and only actual original scriptures to alter? The scriptures were kept in the Synagogues. The disbelievers moved away from the scriptures, first of all, physically, then mentally. They paraphrased and forgot. poor fools. What does that have to do with past scripture? 

It would seem to me that if there were scriptural corrections to be made, Gabriel would have bullet pointed the lot. Instead we see the Quran confirming past scriptures, and correcting doctrines, not correcting past scripture.

Ahadith to the rescue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/02/2017 at 8:03 PM, baqar said:

If someone asks you that question and you don't know the answer, you should find out from someone privately.  

By asking here in a public forum, you are implicitly saying that their books are corrupted and therefore their religion is false.

Understand?

 

Why don't you relax? Every religion says that they are right so if one reads this, it shouldn't offend them but it encourages them to research. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Is there anything that should make me believe that these particular people had the one and only actual original scriptures to alter? The scriptures were kept in the Synagogues. The disbelievers moved away from the scriptures, first of all, physically, then mentally. They paraphrased and forgot. poor fools. What does that have to do with past scripture? 

It would seem to me that if there were scriptural corrections to be made, Gabriel would have bullet pointed the lot. Instead we see the Quran confirming past scriptures, and correcting doctrines, not correcting past scripture.

Ahadith to the rescue.

You are right. Interpretations can change but when many copies of books like the Quran and the Bible were made, it no longer is possible to make significant changes to the original. And Jews did not have a lot of other Books. Nor did Muhammeds countrymen. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Hello, Not a single rebuke from fellow Shia Chat members or Edits from Shia Chat Moderators?  But, to date, there are two likes? This post clearly violates Shia Chat rule number 4, No swear words, unmannered replies or racist comments, especially when directed at other members. A warning followed by a temporary ban shall be met. If a member repeats their offensive or racist language, a permanent ban will take place. No excuses. Overt slogans of "death" or "destruction" (or similar wording) of any specific government, nation, people, group, or religion is not permitted. However, constructive criticisms of the above are welcomed and encouraged. And, I question the morals of those that would allow a post such as Darth Vader's to go unanswered.  Many of you like to lament about the irrationality of "Islamaphobia."  Yet, you only clap and praise such racist and divisive post. It has been nice chatting with you all.  I have learned what I came here to learn. All the Best, David
    • Are you not allowed to see your daughter anymore sister? 
    • Jungle main mor nacha kis ne dekha?? @shiaman14
    • I heared a scholar saying that every sinner will burn in hell. And this burning is to cleanse him from sinns he committed. And this burning of sinner is mercy of Allah. Once he is cleansed from sins he will be send to paradise. 
    • Most of the reasons are that modern feminism has made a boogeyman out of abusive men (yes they exist, but let us be realistic at the same time) and thus it scares women into thinking they need a job because a man could allegedly become an ape and go crazy on her. I am not denying abuse exists, but that a degree and an income prevents NOTHING. A headstrong personality does. You said you are from the east, so you should know what I mean. For example, you probably know of aunties who are just based on personality headstrong and don't have a degree or income. And you must know that these women also manage to prevent abuse done to them and being taken advantage of merely by being headstrong (of course reasonably headstrong and not to the level of being defiant). And modern day feminism quite literally shames women who are housewives and who do not work. As if they are brainwashed creatures. It honestly sickens me. To heck with any woman who shames a housewife.  
×