Bible corrupted? Or it's explanation distorted?

[andres]

9 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

And no, we don't believe the Bible is a corrupted version of the Qur'an. I have no idea where you got that from.

The idea that the Muhammad was taking inspiration for the Qur'an from the Bible, but simply got some details wrong is pretty laughable since the Qur'an clearly attacks some major Christian beliefs like the Trinity, Jesus being God, Jesus being crucified, God having a son, etc. These are hardly 'details'.

I meant that the Bible was a corrupted version of the true message from Allah that we find in the Qura. Am well aware the first Quran was compiled around 650AD. Muslims believe that Moses, Noah, Abraham among others preached the same message as Muhammed. Christians of course disagree. (as do all historians and archeolgists)

I agree crucifixion and, Jesus being God are not detailles. However I meant detailles. Like whether Jesus was born in a barn or under a palm tree.

 

[andres]

9 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Now, what you are expecting us to believe is that the author of the Qur'an thought that the Bible wasn't corrupted, but at the same time directly contradicted major teachings of the Bible. How is that possible? You might say that he didn't know what was in the Bible, but then somehow he knew about all these Biblical stories in detail. Additionally Christians say that the Qur'an contains a whole host of non-Canonical Christian and Jewish literature. So it sounds like the author of the Qur'an had quite the impressive library. But yeah, he didn't know that the crucifixion of Jesus was in Christian scriptures, and was telling them that these were infallible...

It is not possible to determine how much but the Quran itself does not demonstrate much knowledge of the Biblical text. The authors of the Quran did not quote directly from the Bible but of course they must have heard stories from the Bible. There are not many historical detailles in the Quran, but those that we find very often differ from those of the Bible, never mentioning the ones in the Bible were wrong. And I do not regard the crucifixion as a detail.

[Renaissance_Man]

15 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

The Qur'an uses the word Injeel to mean two different things. One is the revelation given to Jesus, which clearly can't be the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. The other sense in which the word Injeel is used is to mean the teachings of Jesus in the Christian scriptures. It's certainly not 'the Bible', or even the New Testament.

 

Exactly.  The Injeel was not a book per se but the oral teachings of Jesus (as).  Critical scholarship refers to this collection of Jesus's sayings as the Q gospel or document.  Elements of it are present in the New Testament which was written several decades after Jesus and were based not on eyewitness accounts, but stories circulating at the time and the theology of the Gospel writers.

[andres]

33 minutes ago, Renaissance_Man said:

Exactly.  The Injeel was not a book per se but the oral teachings of Jesus (as).  Critical scholarship refers to this collection of Jesus's sayings as the Q gospel or document.  Elements of it are present in the New Testament which was written several decades after Jesus and were based not on eyewitness accounts, but stories circulating at the time and the theology of the Gospel writers.

Wrong. The Q source is the most accepted theory about the forming of the 3 so called synoptic Gospels. It says that Mathew and Luke used Q + Mark Gospel when writing their Gospels.

The Gospels of John and Mark are not influenced by Q. It has been suggested that Q could be Thomas Gospel. 

You will have no problem finding info online. Q stands for source, in German "Quelle"

Edited September 12, 2016 by andres

[Haydar Husayn]

11 hours ago, andres said:

I meant that the Bible was a corrupted version of the true message from Allah that we find in the Qura. Am well aware the first Quran was compiled around 650AD. Muslims believe that Moses, Noah, Abraham among others preached the same message as Muhammed. Christians of course disagree. (as do all historians and archeolgists)

Muslims believe that all Prophets preaches the same message in the essentials, not in the details. So for example, they all preached that there was only One God, who is to be worshiped. They didn't necessarily all preach the same dietary laws though, for example.

The vast majority of historians and archaeologists don't even believe that Moses, Noah, and Abraham existed, so they would have nothing to say on whether Muhammad preached the same message as them.

 

11 hours ago, andres said:

I agree crucifixion and, Jesus being God are not detailles. However I meant detailles. Like whether Jesus was born in a barn or under a palm tree.

Do you think historians would vouch for Jesus being born in a barn?

[Haydar Husayn]

11 hours ago, andres said:

It is not possible to determine how much but the Quran itself does not demonstrate much knowledge of the Biblical text. The authors of the Quran did not quote directly from the Bible but of course they must have heard stories from the Bible. There are not many historical detailles in the Quran, but those that we find very often differ from those of the Bible, never mentioning the ones in the Bible were wrong. And I do not regard the crucifixion as a detail.

Ok, so now there are 'authors' of the Qur'an? Do you have any evidence to substantiate that, or is it pure conjecture?

It sounds like you expect the Qur'an to be some kind of commentary on the Bible. Why should it quote it, or state which details the Bible got wrong?

[andres]

20 minutes ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Ok, so now there are 'authors' of the Qur'an? Do you have any evidence to substantiate that, or is it pure conjecture?

It sounds like you expect the Qur'an to be some kind of commentary on the Bible. Why should it quote it, or state which details the Bible got wrong?

I am not a Muslim. Not believing the Quran is Gods true word, the thought that Muhammed, scribes and compilers all have had some influence on the content seem rather natural. Stories from the Bible were known, not perfect remembered thou. You believe the Quran is Gods perfect word, your conclusions naturally being very different.

[Haydar Husayn]

4 minutes ago, andres said:

I am not a Muslim. Not believing the Quran is Gods true word, the thought that Muhammed, scribes and compilers all have had some influence on the content seem rather natural. Stories from the Bible were known, not perfect remembered thou. You believe the Quran is Gods perfect word, your conclusions naturally being very different.

Yeah... That's not how history works. You can of course consider it as a possibility, but if you are going to state it as fact, you need some evidence. I don't think that the Qur'an wasn't written by multiple authors because I believe it's the word of God. I don't think it was written by multiple authors, because there is simply no evidence for it

I've noticed that you use this type of argument a lot, but I would encourage you to simply debate based on logic and evidence, and stop assuming that all your opponent's arguments are only grounded in their belief in the infallibility of the Qur'an. This is a logical fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy, and you commit it so often that it is becoming tiresome.

[Son of Placid]

Sorry to interupt but I'm not sure what I'm reading here. It sounds like some "opponents" don't believe in the infallibility of the Qur'an?

1 hour ago, Haydar Husayn said:

 stop assuming that all your opponent's arguments are only grounded in their belief in the infallibility of the Qur'an. This is a logical fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy

I'm assuming by opponents you mean Muslims?

[Renaissance_Man]

10 hours ago, andres said:

Wrong. The Q source is the most accepted theory about the forming of the 3 so called synoptic Gospels. It says that Mathew and Luke used Q + Mark Gospel when writing their Gospels.

The Gospels of John and Mark are not influenced by Q. It has been suggested that Q could be Thomas Gospel. 

You will have no problem finding info online. Q stands for source, in German "Quelle"

The point is Q contained a portion of the oral tradition which actually came from Jesus (as).  This comprises a fairly small portion of the New Testament overall and is likely the only surviving authentic material in it.

If you strip away all of the fabrication and corruption in the New Testament, you'll probably get something like the Jefferson Bible.  This was Thomas Jefferson's personal version of the Bible, pared down to just the moral teachings of Jesus minus the man-made stuff.

[iCambrian]

On 9/11/2016 at 7:38 PM, Haydar Husayn said:

You can only believe this stuff by ignoring vast swathes of what is in the Bible. And if you aren't going to believe in those parts, there is no reason to believe in any of it. The pick-and-mix approach to religion is intellectually dishonest, and incapable of defence.

It isnt a matter of picking and choosing, it is a matter of interpretation of what the scripture means.  My statement is true, regardless of if you agree or disagree with the views that many Christians hold.

Regardless though, as stated before...

"Different Christians will have different experiences, but at least in contemporary protestant views, whether or not you were to get into heaven, isnt, or couldnt be, dependent on whether or not youre a trinitarian.

His grace is considered to extend further than any grace you or I could give. His love for humanity, is considered something along the lines of boundless. To the extent that His love and Grace wouid even be for people who at the present time, may not even believe in His message.

And in recognition of this and what He has done, despite our flawed nature and our shortcomings and sins, we can live at peace in our hearts and minds.

Thats pretty much how it goes..."

This isnt exactly an uncommon view ^.

 

Edited September 13, 2016 by iCambrian

[Haydar Husayn]

6 hours ago, Son of Placid said:

Sorry to interupt but I'm not sure what I'm reading here. It sounds like some "opponents" don't believe in the infallibility of the Qur'an?

I'm assuming by opponents you mean Muslims?

I mean debate opponents.

[andres]

9 hours ago, Haydar Husayn said:

Yeah... That's not how history works. You can of course consider it as a possibility, but if you are going to state it as fact, you need some evidence. I don't think that the Qur'an wasn't written by multiple authors because I believe it's the word of God. I don't think it was written by multiple authors, because there is simply no evidence for it

I've noticed that you use this type of argument a lot, but I would encourage you to simply debate based on logic and evidence, and stop assuming that all your opponent's arguments are only grounded in their belief in the infallibility of the Qur'an. This is a logical fallacy, known as the genetic fallacy, and you commit it so often that it is becoming tiresome.

Sorry for tiering you. It all depends on if you believe the Quran is the true word of God or not. If you do, then God has made certain that the Angel presented it, that Muhammed remembered it, that the scribes preserved it on all sorts of material, and that the compilers found them all, and no false ones and put them together in the order that God wished. Withour Gods interaction the words Muhamned heard or dreamt, the final result could not be identical with the original. Mormons believe something similar with the book God gave to their prophet Joseph Smith. Fundamental Christians believe God gave us the Bible with his unchanged word. In my opinion these three books are human made because they contain factual errors, and also they are not oprecis enough to prevent them being interpreted in many different ways. This even having lead to war. 

[andres]

5 hours ago, Renaissance_Man said:

The point is Q contained a portion of the oral tradition which actually came from Jesus (as).  This comprises a fairly small portion of the New Testament overall and is likely the only surviving authentic material in it.

If you strip away all of the fabrication and corruption in the New Testament, you'll probably get something like the Jefferson Bible.  This was Thomas Jefferson's personal version of the Bible, pared down to just the moral teachings of Jesus minus the man-made stuff.

Could you please tell me where you got this information from?