Before moving into a more in depth review I shall cite a succinct comment (sourced from Paul Williams' BloggingTheology) which sums up White's performance:
I just finished listening to the debate and i must say the reason i feel james white wanted to debate dr bart ehrman was because he wanted it on his resume,there is no way he will want to debate him again after that performance. especially in the q&a james white was all over the place and honestly i didnt understand some of his questions and answers,as a supposed new testament scholar i really dont think he measures up well against ehrman or even agaisnt other chrisrtian nt scholars,probaly the reason why he never gets any academic recognition although there is no doubt he so badly wants it. he could provide no rebuttal to ehrmans questioning of why God didnt at least preserve one original manuscript, he couldnt answer if the author of p72 thought all that he was writing was scripture,well he tried to but it was really a mumbled response. you knew the debate was going the way of ehrmans when mr white tried to corner him about other world scriptures especially the Quran and if he thought they were preserved but that didnt work and you almost imagine the christians in the audience with palms in thier face. i also found it quite funny how he only knew the works of the english speaking nt scholars when bart erhman started naming the german and french ones he had no clue as to who they were. no wonder its took this long to get this debate out,i wonder how long before his disastrous performance against dr robert price comes out. [maratsafin]
Learn from Bart Ehrman’s Opening Presentation
Ehrman goes into describing how the Gospels would have been copied prior to the invention of printing (16th century) – hand copying which was an error-laden process – especially so with the earlier scribes who were non-professionals.
Ehrman essentially goes into his standard presentation on this subject. Nevertheless it is quite a devastating presentation in light of not having the autographs. Ehrman points out he is speaking facts and there is no slight in his information. Ehrman is not interested in exaggerating in order to “win” the debate – his is a scholarly presentation designed to educate but also drive across his point.
There are more differences in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament – probably several hundred thousand. Ehrman does the Christian a favour by mentioning many of the changes were insignificant (i.e. spelling errors and accidental mistakes).
It is a FACT that the scribes DID change the manuscripts – some were intentional changes!
Ehrman cites four serious/intentional changes (forgeries) in the Bible:
Scribal insertion John chapter 7-8; the story of Jesus and the adulteress was not originally in the NT, thus it is a forgery.
Last 12 verses of Mark; these are intentional additions (forgeries) by the scribe
Luke 23:24 – this is not found in some of the oldest manuscripts
Most worryingly, Matthew chapter 24; Jesus denying knowledge of the Day of Judgement is REMOVED by scribes – the obvious reason behind this would have been to push the idea of Jesus being God!
Bart Ehrman on manuscripts
He drives home the point of not having the originals by discussing the gospel of Mark
P45 – is the earliest manuscript of Mark and dates to ca 220AD thus ca 150 years after the original. It is not even a whole copy – it has portions of half of the chapters in Mark.
First complete manuscript of Mark comes in the FOURTH century – thus some 300 years after Mark’s original.
We have roughly 5,500 NT manuscripts – fragmentary as well as complete copies. It is good news we have so many but the bad news is all have mistakes and none are originals. John Mill’s Greek New Testament contained 30,000 places of variation now we have even MORE manuscripts thus there are even more variations – we don’t know how many changes there are as nobody has added the numbers!!!!
However, there are more differences in the manuscripts than words in the New Testament – probably several hundred thousand. Ehrman does the Christian justice by mentioning many of the changes were insignificant (i.e. spelling errors).
I’m glad Bart Ehrman speaks about P52
Christian evangelicals bang on about P52 and exaggerate its significance in order to prop their claims so I’m glad Ehrman discusses P52.
P52 is dated by palaeographers ca. 125 AD. It is a tiny fragment and the earliest manuscript we have and most date nowhere close to this!
“New Testament the best attested book of antiquity” – salesmanship!
Christian missionaries do make this claim but it is somewhat misleading as most of these attestations come many, many centuries AFTER the originals - 94% of the manuscripts date after the 9th century!
The Moody Bible Institute and Biola University seem to be churning folk out who use this misleading argumentation – please stop it folks!
Ehrman’s Conclusion: Do we have a reliable text of the NT? Scholars do NOT know. Some passages are under continuous debate whilst the validity of other passages are just NOT KNOWN.
Essentially, Dr Ehrman puts forward a very embarrassing case for the Christians – the Christians believe in a book which is reconstructed by scholars and is conjecture based.
For those who reflect rationally upon this presentation the idea of the Bible being preserved 100% would be a large jump of faith. It is logical to believe parts of the originals have been lost partly due to scribal errors/forgeries within the flawed copying system and due to the absence of complete originals in the early manuscript tradition (never mind the autographs!)
James White’s presentation
I found it difficult to follow White’s presentation – I’m glad Ehrman confirmed White’s presentation was obscured and convoluted. Ehrman went further by not “buying” White’s claims.
However, White confirms the huge number of variations (estimated at 400,000) and the doubt concerning what constitutes the Bible and what does not!
The amazing thing is White AGREES with Ehrman’s information but White goes into damage control – he claims the more manuscripts you have the more variants you will have – this is correct.
He makes the claim the original readings are within all the manuscripts BUT does NOT give a valid reason why he believes the originals are somewhere within the 5,700 manuscripts. This seems to be a faith conviction on the part of White – it is not convincing at all.
White starts talking about the Quran in a discussion with a BIBLE EXPERT!!!
White mentions Uthman’s role in the preservation of the Quran and seems to espouse the misconception this was an act carried out by Uthman alone – it was not – it was done as an act unanimously agreed upon by the living companions of the Prophet and the believing community at large. If White had a similar type of event for the Bible he would have used it to prop up the claim of the Bible!
Unimpressed: White’s hollow argumentation
White misdirects us into thinking the fact there was no uniformed textual transmission with regards to the NT is something to be proud of – he seems to prop up his argumentation by this misdirection. Who cares whether the Bible was copied in a controlled environment or not?
What matters is whether we have the text today!!!
White admits his embarrassing problem
White believes the Bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts – but he does not know what exactly constitutes the Bible. When he comes across the viable and meaningful variations (1100-1400 according to Wallace) he has to say he does NOT KNOW which ones comprise the Bible and which ones are the forgeries/errors!
This is all rather faith shattering for the thoughtful Christian – why would God leave us with this type of book? A book which Christian theologians and scholars are unsure as to what comprises it due to scribal errors and forgeries!
White presents nothing to challenge Ehrman’s facts but simply brings forward a faith conviction dressed up with irrelevancies and erudition in order to reassure the Christian audience.
Bart Ehrman grilling James White
Embedded from the YouTube user kidcudder11
Bart Ehrman cuts to the chase
This is the MOST CRUCIAL part of the debate.
Ehrman challenges White by asking White how he knows he has the Bible preserved and why does he not know where the original text is, i.e. what comprises the Bible? In my view White simply holds this illogical belief based on his conservative Christian faith conviction.
Ehrman exposes White’s belief and makes him look silly
White answers by claiming authorities support his view. To be fair to James White; he does claim his own studies back up the claims of these authorities.
However, White is found not to be familiar with authorities in Germany nor France – White does not know some of the biggest names in the field. This is a blow to White’s appeal to authority. It gets worse for White…
Ehrman crushes White further
Ehrman crushes White by announcing the leading authorities do NOT agree with his claim of the Bible being preserved within the manuscript tradition – the only authorities who do agree with White are those who share a similar faith conviction to White. Virtually every authority DISAGREES with White except evangelical scholars!
This is a crushing point and further strengthens the view that White simply believes the Bible is preserved in the tradition due to a FAITH conviction – thus it is not a logical conviction and nor is his conviction supported by evidence.
Bart Ehrman lampoons James White
How much do the differences matter?
A major point of contention between the two is as to how much the differences matter. White hangs himself on this by confirming Dan Wallace cites numerous viable and meaningful variations. So obviously there are many, many meaningful variations!
Ehrman confirms the clear teaching of the doctrine of the Trinity is dependent upon which manuscripts you read – this is a major points score by Ehrman as it shows variations are very significant. Earlier he mentioned the scribal omission of Jesus not knowing the hour – obviously the scribe did this to push the idea of Jesus being God. Again, further showing the variations do matter!
Bart Ehrman exposes James White’s bogus argumentation
P75 (late 2nd /early third century) and codex Vaticanus are very similar so White claims there was no primitive corruptions. Ehrman tells us this is a bogus argument!
Ehrman tells us the fuller picture; there are manuscripts of similar dates as P75 which differ significantly from codex Vaticanus!
Aren’t you glad Ehrman tries to present a more complete picture? Many Christian apologists are like salesmen in not telling the whole picture – Ehrman does not allow James White to get away with this bogus and misleading argument.
James White caught not telling the full picture – AGAIN!
White claimed P52 is similar to later manuscripts BUT Ehrman highlights a SIGNIFICANT textual variant even within this credit-card sized manuscript.
Most variants we have are from the earliest manuscripts – the early copyists were the least skilled thus there were even more variations between earlier manuscripts.
James White – 95% agreement?
Ehrman thought White claimed there were 95% agreement at different ends of the spectrum. Ehrman tells White it is not that simple. It is rare for manuscripts to have 70 % agreement of their variations. Ehrman confirms the manuscripts are not all alike.
White comes back and explains what he was actually talking about here – nevertheless it was insignificant!
However Ehrman did misunderstand what White was presenting.
James White: Falls away at the seams
As is White’s wont – he seems to be desperate to appear on top in a debate. White starts attacking Ehrman by accusing him of being imbalanced. White bemoans the fact his side are not getting as much media coverage. Who cares about media coverage?
If White had a sound refutation he would have presented it but he starts falling away at the seams whilst frustration sets in.
White seems to have taken umbrage to his presentation being denounced as convoluted – it was! James was not as coherent as Ehrman. I reckon the Christian audience would have agreed too.
White simply offers a load of gusto and irrelevancies but Ehrman presents the better arguments and uses the facts to arrive at more sound conclusions.
White pettily complains Ehrman has not looked at White’s material despite White having studied Ehrman’s work. Who cares? Bart Ehrman is one of the biggest names in the field – he is familiar with the work of the major authorities in the field (White did not even know their names!!!). Why should Ehrman look at White’s work?
In any case, Ehrman had debated Wallace previously – White was reliant on Wallace.
James White: overly reliant on Dan Wallace
Bart Ehrman makes White squirm in the cross examination.
For me White seemed to be heavily reliant on Dan Wallace – the question that begs to be asked is what in the world was White doing debating Ehrman as Wallace had already debated Ehrman – Wallace is a giant in conservative Christian circles. Perhaps White felt his debate experience and ability to use tricks of the trade would undo Ehrman – White failed, he simply served to offend Ehrman.
Rest assured Ehrman would have been grossly unimpressed by White’s style and his argumentation was even less impressive.
White is found to be using Dan Wallace’s opinion on viable and meaningful differences in the manuscript tradition: 1100 – 1400. Ehrman found this numbering odd as it would simply be guess work. Ehrman questions the criteria to judge what is important and what is not.
James White does not know
Apart from White not knowing of authorities in mainland Europe there were other gaps in his knowledge.
White is asked to name the twelve manuscripts he refers to in his presentation – White cannot supply the answer – he waffles but he does not know and again is reliant on Wallace.
White is seems not to know what a collation is.
White is asked as to the level of agreement between a Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript – White simply waffles and struggles in an uncomfortable cross-examination. White has not collated a Byzantine and Alexandrian manuscript.
Bart Ehrman impresses us further with his knowledge on the subject. I don’t expect White to know more than Ehrman, however I felt White’s knowledge and research should have been a little better and he should not have been afraid of saying “I don’t know” rather than waffling. Pride makes us all look rather silly at times.
White offends Ehrman
White seemed to have an aggressive tone throughout the debate.
Ehrman claims White likened him to a Muslim (White denied this); subsequently Ehrman dressed White down. Ehrman said he knows nothing about the Quran and was thus unwilling to discuss the Quran. Why would White want to talk about the Quran in a debate about the BIBLE with a BIBLE scholar in front of a CHRISTIAN audience?
In my view White was looking to quote mine from Ehrman so he has something to counter Muslim debaters who rely on Ehrman’s work – somewhat disingenuous if that is the case!
White finishes off with a cheap shot by denouncing Ehrman for not correcting misapprehensions others acquire through his work. It had nothing to do with the debate. In any case White should be consistent and address the misapprehensions within his own community as well as the less-reliable stream of information which stems from some of the rabble-rousers who are associated with him.
Conclusion
Ehrman proved his case, White did not. Ehrman was coherent, White was not. Ehrman was classy, White was not.
The most entertaining (and cruel) part may have been Erdmann’s grilling cross-examination of White BUT it should not overshadow the fact Christian evangelicals simply believe what they do out of a faith conviction and espouse shallow and misleading argumentations.
If Ehrman was the nasty sort I’m pretty sure he could have made the cross-examination more uncomfortable for White. I’m surprised the evangelical community sent White into the ring with Ehrman – you would expect them to have their best men tackle Ehrman. Is White really one of their best?
To be fair to White and other evangelicals – they have very little to work with and are impugned by their faith convictions alongside the thousands of manuscripts which militate against their convictions. I guess they are trying to make the “best” out of a bad situation.
Ehrman finishes by saying “All Bibles misquote Jesus”. Ehrman demonstrates this – White offered very little to counter Ehrman.
James White’s new book on Islam
James White Debates Robert Price
Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
67 comments:
@Yahya Snow
You said ....
"Ehrman goes into describing how the Gospels would have been copied prior to the invention of printing (16th century) – hand copying which was an error-laden process – especially so with the earlier scribes who were non-professionals."
What other hand written document was copied by this "error-laden process". I know the Quran.
Yahya Snow said...
"P45 – is the earliest manuscript of Mark and dates to ca 220AD thus ca 150 years after the original. It is not even a whole copy – it has portions of half of the chapters in Mark."
Hmm the earliest Quranic Manuscripts known have lots of portions missing.
The Samarqand codex (2nd Century Hijra 8th Century to the civilized world) is incomplete Surah 44 to 114 are missing.
Samarqand
Another 8th century manuscript housed mostly in St. Petersburg Russia is missing a great deal. Surrah 72 and above are missing.
A St Petersburg
The manuscript housed in Constantinople has 17 folios missing which were restored at a much later date.
Constantinople
The The Al-Hussein manuscript is missing 4 folios, many verses are either missing or restored in later and writting.
Al-Hussein
The Dār Al-Kutub Al-Misrīyya manuscipt is extremely fragmented.
Missing Surah 1-2, and picking up In Surah 3:104.
Dār Al-Kutub
Well I think I proved my point.
@Yahya Snow
So this is true about the Quran right?
"For those who reflect rationally upon this presentation the idea of the QURAN being preserved 100% would be a large jump of faith. It is logical to believe parts of the originals have been lost partly due to scribal errors/forgeries within the flawed copying system and due to the absence of complete originals in the early manuscript tradition
@Radical Moderate
Suras missing in ancient manuscripts is not the same as textual variants, scribal errors, interpolations etc
Nice try ;)
bible forgeries = too much to count
Quran forgeries = NONE
Anonymous
So Bart Ehrman points out in regards to the NT that we do not have the original autographs, that the ancient manuscripts are missing portions, and that the manuscripts are copied by hand until the printing press which is a "ERROR-LADEN PROCCESS"
So since the Quran is copied by this same "ERROR-LADEN" process, since we do not have the Original manuscript, and since the earliest qurans are missing surrah's. This is not the same as textual varaints.
Oh but I left this part out for last because there ARE TEXTUAL VARIANTS IN THE QURAN. Whoops stepped into that one didn't you.
See Bassam Zawadi's debate on textual variants with Nabeel Qureshi. The funny thing is you Muslims actually believe he won by admiting what we know. THAT THERE ARE TEXTUAL VARIANTS. THE ARUF thing is just stupid.
Oh btw the Corpos Quranium is coming out soon. FUN FUN FUN.
Brilliant. Brother Yahya Snow will you review Brother Bassam Zawadi's debates with James White and Tony Costas.
Mr White was owned.
Anonymous said...
bible forgeries = too much to count
Quran forgeries = NONE
They entire Quran is a forgery.
What are you going to do when Corpus Koranium finaly begins to publish documenting the textual variants in your quran?
Are you going to stick to the "7 Aruf" explanation, a explanation that no one can explain and no one knows what a ARUF is?
Who ever thought of that one had to be really desperate.
Muhammad (pbuh) is prophesised in the book of Isaiah:
It is mentioned in the book of Isaiah chapter 29 verse 12:
"And the book is delivered to him that is not learned, saying, Read this, I pray thee: and he saith, I am not learned."
When Archangel Gabrail commanded Muhammad (pbuh) by saying Iqra - "Read", he replied, "I am not learned".
radicalmoderate = dummy of paltalk.
abushujjah will own u again. please come to ac room.
Anonymous said...
radicalmoderate = dummy of paltalk.
abushujjah will own u again. please come to ac room.
When did that ever happen. He is a MUSHRAKEEN, you know that right. He commits SHIRK.
He said in the debate that the Christians according to Islam were the ARIANS. SHIRKIN IT BABY SHIRKIN IT BIG TIME.
I was in the AC room last night was dotted and left dotted, because the Muslim in that room including Abu Shujab could not respond.
Abu Shujab said "Jesus was born east of somewhere" LOL
He didn't realize that every where is east of somewhere
RadicalIdiot: What other hand written document was copied by this "error-laden process". I know the Quran.
Actually, the primary means of preserving the Quran was memorization.
RadicalIdiot: What are you going to do when Corpus Koranium finaly begins to publish documenting the textual variants in your quran?
Considering that the project is headed by Prof. Angelika Neuwirth who admitted, in her own words, "New findings of quranic text fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Quran as an early fixed text composed on the Surahs we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct the image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Quran as we know it," I doubt the project will produce anything that will undermine 1400 years of traditional scholarship.
Hey, RadicalIdiot!
According to Ibn memorization is a better way to preserve something than copying it down!
here is Paul: in reply to your question, No, it doesn’t apply to the Qur’an as the revelation is primarily articulated as an oral recitation, memorised by countless companions of the prophet and literally millions of Muslims afterwards
LooooL!
Look! I can do it too: in reply to your question, No, it doesn’t apply to the Gospel as the revelation is primarily articulated as an oral tradition, memorised by countless companions of Jesus and literally millions of Christians afterwards
LOL!
Hello:
Minoria here.Something was not cited,and that is that we have 30,000 citations from the NT by Christian writers within the first 300 years and according to Michael Licona(a credible,serious source) they correspond to all the verses of the NT except 11.
How close the correspondance is I dont know but the citation after citation after citation of authors before the first complete NT copy that has survived ,from 325-350 AD is evidence in favor of having made faithful copies.
Another Factor
1.The fact that Mark and Revelation are written in bad Greek yet the grammar was not corrected shows a tradition of fidelity to the original text.
2.The existence of some 20 counter-propaganda and even embarassing passages in the 4 gospels show a tradition of fidelity to the original text.
3.And attributing 2 of the gospels to people who had not known Jesus (Mark,Luke)instead of to Peter,James,Thomas,Mary Magdalene,something utterly counter-propaganda,is evidence of fidelity to truth.
“New Testament the best attested book of antiquity” – salesmanship!
Christian missionaries do make this claim but it is somewhat misleading as most of these attestations come many, many centuries AFTER the originals - 94% of the manuscripts date after the 9th century!
The Moody Bible Institute and Biola University seem to be churning folk out who use this misleading argumentation – please stop it folks!
So if you say that this claim is misleading, can you please suggest a better candidate for the title of the best-attested book of antiquity? You make it sound like it's bad to have the majority of manuscripts centuries later when in fact this is still very good. Many works of antiquity have their first extant manuscript somewhere around 1000 years after the original writing.
Minoria,
Yes, the early church fathers’ quotations of the NT prior to Nicea (325AD) do amount to most of the NT.
This is a good point to counter folk who claim the NT was developed over centuries. This is not my claim.
What matters here is the variation in reading – were the church fathers quoting forgeries and scribal errors? This is what matters.
White would have brought the church father’s letters to the table if he felt it could support him – he did not – which is quite telling.
I would imagine Licona brings this argument up to counter folk who claim the NT was developed over centuries or the folk who claim the contents of the Bible was decided upon after Nicea– I doubt he uses such information to counter Ehrman’s argumentation. In any case – Licona is not presenting new information here – Mcdowell has already put this nugget forward – of only 11 verses being missing. It would be an utter misdirection to bring this claim forward and attempt to counter Ehrman’s claims – it would be a bogus argument as it is not relevant to the discussion.
However, if you have a link to Licona mentioning this I would appreciate you sending it to me as I would like to ascertain the context in which Licona uses such information. Sadly, there is much Christian salesmanship taking place so double/triple checking is required. Even in this debate bogus arguments were put forward by White.
I find it worrying that Christian apologists are hoodwinking folk – this cannot be good for the long term. In fairness to White, he does encourage educating Christians on how the Bible came into our hands – essentially, how it is “reconstructed” – Geza Vermes uses that word, please do not take offense.
You also wrote: The fact that Mark and Revelation are written in bad Greek yet the grammar was not corrected shows a tradition of fidelity to the original text.
Yes, there would have been some scribes who did try to accurately copy the material BUT we KNOW there were other scribes who were not as faithful. There are 4 examples cited in the review.
I’m glad you admit Mark and Revelation are written in bad grammar – very glad. You see, some folk who amongst the evangelical community use their colloquial Arabic to judge the classical Arabic of the Quran and make silly claims about grammar and the Quran. I have an expert (Numan Ali Khan) on one/two of my YouTube channels denouncing such ignorant missionaries. I should really embed it as a blog post too. God willing.
You also mention “20 counter-propaganda”and “embarrassing passages” in the Gospels. I’m not sure what you refer to – please do elaborate.
Minoria, I think you may have access to other expertise as Ehrman mentioned French authorities – you are French so perhaps you could point me to some French work which may have been translated…
Thanks
To the anonymous who wrote:
Look! I can do it too: in reply to your question, No, it doesn’t apply to the Gospel as the revelation is primarily articulated as an oral tradition, memorised by countless companions of Jesus and literally millions of Christians afterwards
This is untrue! If you had a tradition of memorization you would KNOW what the Bible comprises of – yet we find the Christian in this debate essentially saying the bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts BUT he does NOT know the difference between the erroneous portions (forgeries/errors) and the faithful words.
This is a serious matter, please be scholarly about it.
As for the Quran, ALL scholars will tell you of an oral tradition. Sheikh Al-Azami highlights the fact that manuscripts were secondary and essentially just seen as an aid to memorisation UNDER THE INSTRUCTION OF A TEACHER (EXPERT IN THE BOOK).
This tradition of memorisation is still in place today. Thus the Quran would return within hours – if all copies were removed from circultation. The same cannot be said for the Bible as it does not have an oral tradition.
Please stick to facts. If you have anything to counter Ehrman (ie if you feel you can do a better job than the Christian apologist, White) bring your argument. Please do not bring incorrect claims.
@Haeccetas
I did not articulate clearly here. Good spot. Yes it is the most attested but the problem here is our Christian apologist friends use it as a misdirection and even an argument to support the inerrancy of the Bible.
The claim is meaningless – why do Christian apologists all repeat this claim? It smacks of salesmanship.
What matters here:
-The dating of the manuscripts (our Christian apologist friends do not mention that most of them come after the 9th century)
-The variants (our Christian apologist friends gloss over this problem – for me it seems they use this claim to aid them in doing so)
Christian apologists should move away from this disingenuous mode – it just further deepens mistrust of Christian apologists. You know as well as I know that there are a number of deceptive episodes catalogues on this blog – specifically, episodes conducted by Christian apologists. Transparency is key; Christian apologists need to tell it straight. It should not be left to Bart Ehrman and Muslims to present the whole picture.
How many Christians know their apologists believe the Bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts but are not sure what the bible is. This is utterly faith shattering, hence why they bog us down with misdirections such as the “most attested book in antiquity”.
I say spare us the sales spiel and cut to the chase.
@Radical Moderate
"P45 – is the earliest manuscript of Mark and dates to ca 220AD thus ca 150 years after the original. It is not even a whole copy – it has portions of half of the chapters in Mark."
Nobody is claiming the NT (specifically the Gospel of Mar) was developed over centuries. The reason
The above information demonstrates the lack of early manuscripts as well as serves to further demonstrate autographs are NOT present.
I am NOT claiming the Gospels were composed over centuries. There is NO problem in having incomplete manuscripts. No real argument can be made against incomplete copies.
As for the “incomplete” mushafs of the Quran. You clearly have not studied this issue at all. Sheikh Al-Azami points out people are at liberty to make their own personal copies and thus people would copy selected suras – in doing so they do not even have to maintain the order of suras.
Now why would early Muslims make partial mushafs? Because they were copied onto parchment (heavier than paper), combined with the fact Yemeni collections contained very few words on each page (equivalent to half a line of the standard copy Muslims of today have in their homes and mosques); this all meant a whole copy of the Quran would have weighed a few kilos!
So obviously people scribed various chapters for their personal use – thus partial copies are of no concern. In fact, they are of no concern WITH RESPECT TO THE Gospels either – it does not mean a thing at all.
As for your other comment concerning variants. In our terminology when discussing the Quran they are multiple readings – if you indeed refer to Ahruf. You can insult and laugh all you like. We have ahruf – there is nothing embarrassing about that at all as the Prophet mentioned it. It is mentioned by at least 20 companions of the Prophet (p)- if memory serves me correctly
The major difference between the Bible and the Quran with regards to this review is that you do not know what the Bible is. You have a shed load of manuscripts and believe somewhere within that shed the Bible is preserved BUT you do NOT know which variants (of which there are many) are forgeries, scribal errors or faithful. This is quite shocking.
You see if you had an oral tradition you would have a group of experts telling you exactly what the bible should be. You don’t have this – you are now in the realm of conjecture – FACT.
I understand this may be difficult and rather faith shattering for you. Vermes mentions the reconstruction process as having the capacity to shock but the fact you don’t know what is a forgery and what is faithful is even more staggering.
I take NO delight in this – unless it helps you see the truth:
Ediscoverislam.com
I do not want you to move over to agnosticism/atheism or other false ideologies. I want you to come to the truth. You know I could be really harsh on this topic but I am trying to be thoughtful as this is a very sensitive area.
Peace
New islamic blog check it out
I don't know how to answer on behalf of a vaguely defined group of people such as "our Christian apologist friends", so I won't. Suffice it to say that you will find plenty of inaccuracies and misleading statements on the Muslim equivalent group. I do know that misrepresentation occurs but it occurs on all sides. In fact, one would be within reason to accuse you of misrepresenting the issues with your statement that I quote below (though I won't acccuse you of that because there is at least one reading of it that isn't obviously false - it just doesn't happen to be the most natural reading).
"How many Christians know their apologists believe the Bible is somewhere within all those manuscripts but are not sure what the bible is."
I think it would be more correct to say that a characterization like "somewhere within all those manuscripts but exactly not sure where" applies to a tiny fraction of the text whereas an overwhelming majority of it is quite definitely established. You probably know this. But it would be easy for someone who reads your comment to conclude that you're saying that the contents of the original Bible as a whole are somehow in great doubt and all that can be said is that it's probably there somewhere among the manuscripts, which would be completely wrong. As long as you just intend to convey that we don't definitely know 100% of the original readings, then you are correct. But isn't the most natural reading of what you said (that we don'w know what the Bible is).
"This is utterly faith shattering,"
I see nothing faith shattering in it. No one has shown that the choices of an original reading among the viable variants could provide a basis for changing any Christian doctrine. In fact, adding that it is "faith shattering" after having just described the issue in a way that is easily open to misunderstanding could be seen as further evidence on your part of intending to mislead the readers. (But again, I'm not making that claim. The point is that it is easy to find some potentially misleading statements and then attribute them to the writer's intention to deceive, to mislead, etc.)
"hence why they bog us down with misdirections such as the “most attested book in antiquity”."
I fail to see how it is a misdirection to say this of a book that in fact IS the best attested book in antiquity. Even Ehrman would agree that it is.
"I did not articulate clearly here. Good spot. Yes it is the most attested but the problem here is our Christian apologist friends use it as a misdirection and even an argument to support the inerrancy of the Bible."
To argue that the Bible (or any other document, including the Quran) is inerrant on the basis of its transmission history (even if it's a history of perfect transmission) is obviously fallacious and a confusion of categories. I have seen some people argue like that. So there you do have a point.
Its double standards Yahya.
Christians DO KNOW what the Bible comprises of. We go by the same standard you Muslims go by - DATE.
The Gospel was originally preached by mouth. Thousands of people heard it, thousands died for preaching it.
As long as you just intend to convey that we don't definitely know 100% of the original readings, then you are correct.
As Bart said in response to one audience question during the debate: "we can’t really know anything!"
This same 'scholarly' standard applies to you, O Muslims, if a Muslim would actually muster up courage to debate someone like Ehrman.
Stay strong Br. Snow, that YouTube channel is coming soon, Insh'Allah.
Hello Yahya:
As you know there is the Alexandrian Family of NT copies,Byzantine type,Western type.
In the Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_text-type
It is stated the earliest citation of the Byzantine type by a writer is from 341,then we have by Chrysostom(late 300's).
The Western and Alexandrian types are more reliable than the Byzantine so all the 30,000 citations of the first 300 years are from them.
Hello Yahya:
I understood that you simply wanted a link to the argument of the 30,000 citations in the first 300 years by Michael Licona,it is here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKOJisZuKwA
Hello Yahya:
One can also add the Diatessaron,the first translation of the 4 gospels into Aramaic in 175 AD,in a combined form.It serves to compare if in 175 AD the 4 gospels in Syria in the Greek original were radically different from the year 350 AD.
And to compare with the 30,000 citations,regarding citations from the 4 gospels.
You asked about the 20 or so passages in the gospels that are counter-propaganda and therefore considered authentic and also that the original author had it in there.
I once cited them,I think it was like 25,but from memory I can cite:
1.The Fig tree incident
2.John-Baptist doubted Jesus was the Messiah
3.Peter denied Jesus 3X
4.The disciples fled when Jesus was arrested
5.Jesus doesnt know when is the second coming
6.The "this generation" prophecy
7.His family thought he was mad.
8.The people of Nazareth(population:100) did not think he was a prophet
9.On the cross he said:"My God,why have you abandoned me?"
And so on,you get the idea.
Hello Yahya:
You asked for a French NT scholar.I am not French but I do love the language,the most beautiful in the world.I am not a great expert on the French scene,but it seems there is not much.
However:
Yo probably know Gerd Ludemann,the most famous NT scholar of Germany,ex-Christian,atheist,who believes the disciples had hallucinations and that explains the resurrection.
Claude Tresmontant
Undeniably the most original,and French.He knew Hebrew and koine Greek perfectly and he held that:
1.The 4 gospels in Greek had obscurities but when you translate them into Hebrew the meaning becomes clear...for him all 4 gospels were originally written in Hebrew.
2.The gospel of John was written very shortly after Jesus' death,not in 90 AD,in Hebrew and by John.
Here is a chapter dedicated to him by French philosopher Guy Sorman(in "The True Thinkers of Our Time (1989))
http://www.philo5.com/Les%20vrais%20penseurs/25%20-%20Claude%20Tresmontant.htm
Here is the entire book:
http://www.philo5.com/Les%20vrais%20penseurs%20de%20notre%20temps.htm
You can translate it with Google Translate:
http://translate.google.com/#
@Yahya Snow PART 1
You wrote in reference to P45
“The above information demonstrates the lack of early manuscripts as well as serves to further demonstrate autographs are NOT present.”
So that means then that information I posted on the early Quranic Manuscripts demonstrates the LACK OF EARLY QURANIC MANUSCRIPTS, as well as the demonstrates the AUOTOGRAPHS ARE NOT PRESENT? That is if your being consistent right?
You then wrote...
“As for the “incomplete” mushafs of the Quran. You clearly have not studied this issue at all. Sheikh Al-Azami points out people are at liberty to make their own personal copies and thus people would copy selected suras – in doing so they do not even have to maintain the order of suras.”
You just demonstrated that it is you who have not studied this issue at all. Everyone one of the Quranic Manuscripts I posted was not a personal copy, but a complete Quran. These are very well done productions, with multiple colors done by professional scribes. So I have no idea why you would be talking about “Mushaf's” of the Quran when I was talking about QURANS.
You then wrote...
“ We have ahruf – there is nothing embarrassing about that at all as the Prophet mentioned it. It is mentioned by at least 20 companions of the Prophet (p)- if memory serves me correctly”
You have “Ahruf” but nobody knows what a “AHRUF” is. Bassam Zawadi in his debate on this subject said there are 20 THEORY'S on what a AHRUF is. So you have 20 different THEORY'S as to what your QURAN SAYS. We don't have theory's we have textual evidence as to what the books of the bible say.
@Yahya Part 2
You then wrote...
“The major difference between the Bible and the Quran with regards to this review is that you do not know what the Bible is. You have a shed load of manuscripts and believe somewhere within that shed the Bible is preserved BUT you do NOT know which variants (of which there are many) are forgeries, scribal errors or faithful. This is quite shocking. “
No; we do know what the bible is for the same reason we know what the bible is not. We have the manuscript evidence. But here is what you have on the Quran, you have AHRUF, nobody knows what a AHRUF is, but you have it? So how can you know what the QURAN actually says if no one knows what the AHRUF IS. Do you see the problem Muslims scholars have created when they tried to explain away something common to every hand written document. There are TEXTUAL VARIANTS, SCRIBAL MISTAKES, RECONSTRUCTIONS AND CORRECTIONS, LATER EMINDATIONS, ADDING AND SUBTRACTING OF WORDS, all of this is in the HAND WRITTEN QURANIC MANUSCRIPTS.
You then wrote...
“You see if you had an oral tradition you would have a group of experts telling you exactly what the bible should be. You don’t have this – you are now in the realm of conjecture – FACT.”
This has to be the funniest thing yet. Experts to tell you what the Text is supposed to say. Where did these EXPERTS learn there oral tradition from. Oh that's right from the WRITTEN TEXT. Before sound recording could a “ORAL RECITATION be compared? Could ORAL RECITATION be collated? Could ORAL RECIATION BE EXAMINED? The answer to all these questions is NO. And then you have the AHRUF, so who is to say that when one of these EXPERTS disagrees with the another EXPERT that their not just reciting a different AHRUF? Something that nobody can say with certainty what a AHRUF IS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
I understand this may be difficult and rather faith shattering for you. After all if the Quran is NOT PERFECTLY PRESERVED then according to MUSLIMS it is not the WORD OF GOD. And this is the problem for you. That is why Muslims make up silly things like the “AHRUF” to explain away the textual variants.
But none of this really matters. Because even if the Quran was perfectly preserved from its inception in a 100 percent digital format, on un corruptible media, it would still be what it is, and that is a “FORGERY” it is not the work of God.
I can have a torn up, wrinkled dollar bill in my pocket, with parts of it missing and still buy a cup of coffee. You can not do the same with a perfectly forged $100 bill. It is worthless and will actually get you into trouble if you try and use it. That is the Quran.
My blog is now open to everyone
Radical,
Regardless of what you state the Ahruf are only changes in pronunciation and/or a synonym of select words because of regional dialectical differences in the Arabian peninsula. The ahruf do not make changes at the verse or surah level, only specific words that would have been pronounced differently or have a different synonym in its place hence not affecting the verse whatsoever. However with the bible there are many rewritten, edited, and forged verses that coincidentally deal with religious dogma. So in reality Pauline doctrine has changed the bible to fit its beliefs which Ehrman shows unquestionably.
Your comments wreak of shear belligerence, you seem to come to this site just to try to block the message of Islam from reaching open-minded rational thinkers. Also you comment on this site to score brownie points with your masters at the AI and AM websites.
Just some advice when you do finally open your eyes to the truth of biblical adulteration do not become an athiest or agnostic and study Islam with a open heart and mind and Inshallah you will be guided.
HH
Radical,
The first generations of Muslims did not memorize the Quran from a written text. Written texts were not widely available and the majority memorized the Quran from teacher to student orally. The Quran came down to Muhammad(PBUH) and he spread it orally to his companions and they spread it orally to the generations without the need for written text. The text was just written down to safeguard the Quran for future generations. That is what is meant by a strong oral tradition. Christianity cannot claim this same stringent and diligent oral tradition to safeguard its texts which is quite evident today.
HH
Anonymous said...
"Radical,
Regardless of what you state the Ahruf are only changes in pronunciation and/or a synonym of select words because of regional dialectical differences in the Arabian peninsula. The ahruf do not make changes at the verse or surah level, only specific words that would have been pronounced differently or have a different synonym in its place hence not affecting the verse whatsoever."
WOW you know more then all the Scholars of Islam. Since none of them know what the 7 "AHRUF" are. Second how do you know this? Since there is only ONE AHRUF in existence now. SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER AHRUFS ARE WHAT YOU SAY THEY ARE.
Your argument WREAKS OF DESPERATION.
Anonymous said...
"Radical,
The first generations of Muslims did not memorize the Quran from a written text. Written texts were not widely available and the majority memorized the Quran from teacher to student orally...The text was just written down to safeguard the Quran for future generations. That is what is meant by a strong oral tradition. Christianity cannot claim this same stringent and diligent oral tradition to safeguard its texts which is quite evident today."
How do you know if what those early Muslims memorized is preserved in the written text? Since you do not have those first Muslims to compare their recitations with the written text.
You also do not have the ORIGINAL written text to compare with the oral tradition as well as the later manuscripts of the Quran. So when you attack the NT for not having the original autographs you also attack the Quran. You can't have it both way's.
Also there is over whelming evidence from ISLAMIC sources that what one group memorized was not the same as what another group memorized, different numbers of Surha's, as well as the first Surah of the Quran is a later edition. But again you do not know since you do not have the original autographs, and since you do not have the original memorizers of the quran to compare any of this to.
radical said,
"SO YOU DON'T KNOW IF THE OTHER AHRUFS ARE WHAT YOU SAY THEY ARE.
How do you know if what those early Muslims memorized is preserved in the written text? Since you do not have those first Muslims to compare their recitations with the written text.
You also do not have the ORIGINAL written text to compare with the oral tradition as well as the later manuscripts of the Quran. So when you attack the NT for not having the original autographs you also attack the Quran. You can't have it both way's."
Nice try radical, you ask how do we know, we know
EVERYTHING thru the prophet(pbuh) and his companions testimony in the hadith literature. Every verse and every iota of the Quran is verified and preserved in the hadith literature. So unlike the Swiss cheese OT and NT we have all the "autographs" we need and more, yes I certainly can have it both ways. The bible as Ehrman has concluded does not have anything to stand on, for God's sake the authors are anonymous, the rewrites are anonymous, the editing is anonymous and most importantly the forgeries are anonymous, how faith shattering. Its pathetic how White tried to get Ehrman to state the same for the Quran, it just shows how utterly weak his arguments were.
radical I CAN HAVE MY CAKE AND EAT IT TOO.
As yahya says, "stop just please stop" and open your eyes to the truth of biblical adulteration and stop sticking to your pure unadulterated BELLIGERENCE.
HH
radical moderate ,
From you '..Before sound recording could a “ORAL RECITATION be compared? Could ORAL RECITATION be collated? Could ORAL RECIATION BE EXAMINED? The answer to all these questions is NO..'
Why can't an oral recitation be examined? All you need is the particular person to recite and compare his recitation with others. What is so difficult? Don't you ever use your brains?
Textual variance can be of 2 categories
(1) variance that changes the context of the sentence / verse
(2) variance that do not change the context of the sentence / verse
What is your understanding of 'ahrufs'?
haven't even made reference to on this blog or on the DL for quite some time. He is a man who confesses he knows little about the subject of textual criticism, yet, he then displayed his own ignorance by posting the following under his own name:
James White embarrassed evangelicals with this poor dialog with Ehrman. Ehrman walks away looking like an accomplished scholar. On the other hand, White crawls away like a whipped mongrel.
As I will be doing the regularly scheduled DL tomorrow
@Sam1528
You wrote...
"Why can't an oral recitation be examined? All you need is the particular person to recite and compare his recitation with others. What is so difficult? Don't you ever use your brains?"
Putting aside the fact that memory recall is not PERMINET, and a recitation could be different from day to day. As well as the fact that if you have two reciters and they differ on one day who is to say that they won't differ on other days in other places and who is to say which reciter is correct?
The real issue is you can not compare any of those recitations with recitations that happened(unless you have a recording)with another reciter that is dead. So you can only go back as far as the surviving reciter. There is no way to go back further then that, much less to say going back 1400 years.
So do "you ever use your brains?" Oh that's right your a MUSLIM.
Anonymous said...
"Nice try radical, you ask how do we know, we know
EVERYTHING thru the prophet(pbuh) and his companions testimony in the hadith literature. Every verse and every iota of the Quran is verified and preserved in the hadith literature."
Preserved in the Hadeeth litature? you mean that corrupt hadeeth litature right. With all those WEEK hadeeths and CORRUPT HADEETHS, who is to say that those hadeeths are correct. Oh thats right you have a "SCIENCE" that was developed over 200 years to sort out the mess. Well who is to say that they got that "swiss cheese" right? So again we go back to the FACT THAT YOU DON"T KNOW. Well that is if you are consistent.
Also according to that Hadeeth littérateur the reason the Quran was first compiled is after the battle of YO MAMMA, when the Muslims were doing what Muslims do best and that is DIE. So who is to say that some of the QURAN was lost with those companions? Since as your hadeeth littérateur says that during the second revision of the quran a single surah was only found with one man.
The point is that if you accept the Bart Ehrman arguments against the text of the NT then if you are consistent you must accept those same arguments against the text of the QURAN. But that is if you are consistent.
Tell me in your hadeeth litarture can you find me the reciter that gave you the first SURAH?
Or what about Sura 4:157?
I ask these questions because I don't know.
You also wrote...
"As yahya says, "stop just please stop"
Yes the snowman does say that, when he has thrown in the towl, is that what your doing?
radical moderate ,
You again fail to use your brains. Can you still recall your 'a' , 'b' , 'c'? Why are you talking about 2 reciters? Why can't you compare the particular reciter with 8 or 10 others? The memorisers of the Quran are the living testimony that muslims have achieve such. You are again arguing blind.
Why do you want to compare a recitatation with a dead reciter? If the dead reciter was a teacher , he / she would have taught others. This is all logic. Oops , logic and you don't mix. My apologies.
Haven't you experience reciting poems when you were a kid? The teacher will make sure you got it right. The difference is that what has been learned by the muslims , we put it to practice 5 times a day whereas the christians do not use their bible for prayers.
We muslims use our brains , that is why we are arguing from a logical standpoint. You are just scatter shooting. What is that? Comparing a recitation with a dead reciter? You are an epitome of stupidity.
For the 2nd time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'? Don't tell me you are again scared to answer.
@Sam1528
You wrote...
"You again fail to use your brains. Can you still recall your 'a' , 'b' , 'c'?"
Yeah you really used your brain on that one. NOT!!!
You are comparing 26 letters of the English alphabet with aprox 1500 words repeated 62,400 times.
Source
You also wrote...
"Why can't you compare the particular reciter with 8 or 10 others? The memorisers of the Quran are the living testimony that muslims have achieve such. You are again arguing blind."
It doesn't matter how many living reciters you compare you can not compare those reciters to the dead reciters.
You also wrote...
"Haven't you experience reciting poems when you were a kid? The teacher will make sure you got it right."
Yes I memorized poems as a kid, got A's when I did. But I can guarantee you that the recitation of those poems differed from day to day. Plus I used TEXT to memorize the poem.
Seriously man use your Brain
@Sam1528
Here is another problem with comparing Oral Traditions. The Human mind is fallible. Studies have shown on human memory that we often fill in the missing parts that are sensory systems have given us.
For instance, if you are listing to someone recite to you from memory what you already have memorized, sometimes your mind will fill in what has been left out.
The same thing happens when copying text.
Also (Unless you have a audio recording) you can not rewind to get exactly what the person said.
In other words someone is reciting the quran, the teacher thinks he heard a mistake. He stops the student to question him. Well the student now knows he made a mistake so when asked to repeat the recitation he corrects his mistake. But it doesn't take away the fact that he made the mistake in the first place. So if he was reciting this to someone other then the teacher that mistake would of been carried on. There is no way to go back and look and independently judge, because it is all based on someones memory.
Finally this verification all depends on another judge or judges listing to a recitation. Ever hear of fatigue, or mind wandering.
Now these same things happen in hand coping text. But the difference is the judgment is not subjective. The evidence is PRESERVED right in front of you.
So a oral tradition is the weakest way to preserve something.
radical moderate ,
Ha ha , now you are saying that you can remember your alphabets. Earlier you claim memory is not permanent. You are going round in circles. If you say the Quran cannot be memorised , we have millions of hafiz / hafizah. Are you living in a cave? Looks like it .. or you are just too dumb to notice.
Initially your argument was comparing between 2 reciters. I take it you concede the point.
Why do you want to compare with the dead reciters? The group of hafiz / hafizah who come from a particular school can still be a comparison even though their collegue has died. The tradition of oral transmission don't change. Where is the so call change?
Ooh , you managed to get an A in poem recitation when you were a kid? I am amazed. Looks like your intelligence regressed over the years. However its still not good enough. You cannot recite by just oral learning. Too bad ... you are too old to learn. If other kids can memorise from oral teaching ... you are not top notch.
Looks like you again did not use your brains.
For the 3rd time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'? Do you know what you are talking about?
Sam1528
Man you are desperate, to compare reciting 26 letters with 64 thousand words. DESPERATE
My understanding the AHRUF is what I learned from Bassam Zawadi in his debate with Nabeel Qureshi. Which is all though there are many "THEORIES" as to what a AHRUF is no one knows specifiably what they are. Second all though there are seven of these Ahruf's that no one knows, there is only one in existence today.
radical moderate ,
What BS are blabbering about '..sometimes your mind will fill in what has been left out..'. You are proven wrong once again as we muslims have living examples of the millions of memorisers of the Quran. You are just dreaming with 'if this / that' , 'sometimes'. The fact is spitting in your face that we muslims have millions who memorised the Quran. You have no argument against this.
TQ , you now admit that the teacher corrects the student. Who else do you learn from if not from a teacher? Now you have contradicted yourself. You are soooo desperate. You are getting clumsy.
If there are 10 judges , all of them go 'mind wandering' at the same time? Its a sin not to be using your brains.
However the problem for you christians is that
(1) the Quran was immediately documented when recited by Prophet Muhammad(saw) and read back to him for verification
(2) oral tradition of recitation by memory survive till now with no changes to the 'oral Quran'.
The combination of the two ensures preservation. You are sore as the bible does not measure up. I think its about time you contemplate reverting to Islam.
For the 5th time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'. Are you arguing blind?
Sam1528
Wow so you deny that your mind fills in things. Well you can only deny that if you do not have a mind.
I suggest you do some research on memory recall.
Yes the teacher or the judge corrects the student or the reciter. But if that judge or teacher wasn't there then no one would correct him, so that means that variant would be passed on.
You also said...
"However the problem for you christians is that
(1) the Quran was immediately documented when recited by Prophet Muhammad(saw) and read back to him for verification
So where are these written documents, that we can verify?
You also wrote ...
"(2) oral tradition of recitation by memory survive till now with no changes to the 'oral Quran'."
You sure about that?
Lets take a look. In Yousef Ali translation of the Quran we have in Surah 33:6 this translation.
"The Prophet is closer to the Believers than their own selves, and his wives are their mothers. Blood-relations among each other have closer personal ties, in the Decree of Allah. Than (the Brotherhood of) Believers and Muhajirs: nevertheless do ye what is just to your closest friends: such is the writing in the Decree (of Allah)."
On page 1057 there is a footnote 3674,
"In some Qira ahs, like that of Ubay ibn Ka'ab, occur the words "and he is a father of them"...
So you see there is oral recitation variants. Now this changes the meaning of the text, because the Quran says that that Mohamed is a father to know one.
You also asked
"For the 5th time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'. Are you arguing blind?"
Wow demonstrating your reading comprehension problem again I see. In case you didn't notice I mentioned what my understanding of the Aruf's are, that of Bassam Zawaldi. Please at least pretend to understand what you are reading.
christian dude got owned. this is the same dude who is running from nadir ahmed. he got owned by sami zatari 2. shabir ali bosssed this dude. he just got owned by bassam zawadi. man when r christians gonna know they are failed. these dudes r all tryin to be next jimmy swaggart. jokes. im phonin nadir now to tel him to chalenge this sucker. i think this dude lost allot of weight. he was a fatty and now dude looks like white ethiopian. must b the stress of failin. dude looks not healthy.
radical moderate ,
What is so desperate about memorising the Quran? Like I said , the truth is spitting in your face. There are millions of muslims who memorise the Quran. Its proven then , if one can memorise the 26 alphabets , one can also memorise the Quran. The one who is desperate is you. You are trying to undermine 'Quran memorisation' but its a fact you cannot dispute. Poor you ....
Why are you trying to hide behind the debate between Bassam Zawadi and nabeel qureshi (in which bro zawadi was mopping the floor using nabeel). Bro Zawadi did not say no one knows what is 'ahruf'. I want you to explain your understanding of 'ahruf'. Why are you so scared to give such explanation? For the 6th time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'?
radical moderate ,
Research on memory recall? What BS are you vomiting? There are millions of muslims who memorise the Quran. That is a fact. Are you mentally unstable?
If the teacher or judge wasn't there , how can the said student learn the Quran? This is logic. You need a teacher to teach. You are going from bad to worse. If there was / is no teacher , there will not be any variant as the person will not even learn the Quran.
Haven't you heard of 'suhuf hafsah'? Bukhari vol6 bk 61 no509/510/511/512 attest to that. Therefore the written documents is the 'mushaf' we have today.
Ha ha , you copied your argument wholesale from 'sham' shamoun. The link where you copied your argument : http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Contra/muhammads_fatherhood.html.
You again fail to use your brains. Why don't you finish the footnote citing ibn mas'ud? Simple , as it states (and a well known fact) that Ibn Mas'ud had made notes in his own Musaf for his personal references. Looks like you don't know what you are talking about.
Why are hiding behind bro zawadi? I want you to explain what is your understanding of 'ahruf'. Do you or do you not understand it? For the 7th time : what is your understanding of 'ahruf'?
Are you Christians serious? Still debating on the veracity of the Bible when it's clear cut that there's something horrendously wrong? Guess they do call it 'blind' faith for a reason ;)
radical said,
"YO MAMMA"
HAHAHAHAHAHA Is the fat bastard getting angry, I see the holy bullshit is strong in you my son.
Radical said,
"The point is that if you accept the Bart Ehrman arguments against the text of the NT then if you are consistent you must accept those same arguments against the text of the QURAN. But that is if you are consistent."
That's just pure belligerence, we have the oral tradition and the written text and furthermore how the written text was compiled.
We have a Hadith literature which you do not have, and we have a science to verify it. This is not a weakness but a strength for Muslims and further shows our diligence and veracity to protect and preserve our holy scripture.
We have stacks of verification which you choose to ignore, take out of context, cherry pick for weak narrations, and in desperation flat out lie like david wood and his lap dog nabeel. In reality all we need is the oral tradition which has been recited from memory (not read) a minimum 5 times daily since the advent of Islam. We only put forth the written proof for you islamophobes because you do not have a oral tradition to compare to, a couple of verses read from a book every Sunday doesn't suffice.
That's consistency.
radical said,
"YO MAMMA"
HAHAHAHAHAHA Is the fat bastard getting angry, I see the holy bullshit is strong in you my son.
Radical said,
"The point is that if you accept the Bart Ehrman arguments against the text of the NT then if you are consistent you must accept those same arguments against the text of the QURAN. But that is if you are consistent."
That's just pure belligerence, we have the oral tradition and the written text and furthermore how the written text was compiled.
We have a Hadith literature which you do not have, and we have a science to verify it. This is not a weakness but a strength for Muslims and further shows our diligence and veracity to protect and preserve our holy scripture.
We have stacks of verification which you choose to ignore, take out of context, cherry pick for weak narrations, and in desperation flat out lie like david wood and his lap dog nabeel. In reality all we need is the oral tradition which has been recited from memory (not read) a minimum 5 times daily since the advent of Islam. We only put forth the written proof for you islamophobes because you do not have a oral tradition to compare to, a couple of verses read from a book every Sunday doesn't suffice.
That's consistency.
HH
Sam1528
I really don't have the patience like I did the last time I embarrassed you and exposed you for the dishonest bigot you are.
Believe all you want that you quran is "PERFECTLY PRESERVED" believe all you want that Memory is better then something written down.
Because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. Its not that you don't believe in the one true living God YHWY, its that you will believe anything but.
radical said,
"I really don't have the patience like I did the last time I embarrassed you and exposed you for the dishonest bigot you are."
I see the same holy bs that dwells in sam shamoun has been dwelling in you.
So since you can't defend the bible you take a page from sam shamoun's underhanded verbal abuse techniques.
Why don't you go give him some more of your money so you can go broke.
The only thing I see is that you never and I say never answer Sam1528's questions, did you ever answer this question or the last question, NO. you just go to verbal abuse when your put in a corner.
Oh yeah, an no its YO MOMMA, fat idiot.
HH
Radicak Moderate,
The partial musahif (manuscripts) has no bearing on anything substantial. If you want to believe the partial manuscript of p45 tells you the original mark was incomplete then that is down to your erroneous mode of thought.
Many Muslims will have partial mushafs in their homes today (ie first 5 juz or last 5). Does that mean there is a problem? No.
Sadly, your apologists deceive and mislead folk out of their desperation and insecurity as to the Bible's worrying state.
I could not careless if your NT was preserved 100% or not. All of it is written by anonymous or unsanctioned authors so not of it would have any bearing on me or any other Muslim.
However, I do care about the bogus arguments your apologists feed you - they are salesmen and some of you believe them out of sheer ignorance whilst others amonsgt you follow theleaders as they present material that suits your agendas and reassures you in your faith (regardless of the valifdity of such material).
A case in poiint would be the fella who is making a meal out of the fact the Quran was preserved in a controlled environment - this is a bogus argument especially considering those who were contrlling the texts were the Prophet's companions in unison!
White typically does not tell you such info and his "controlled" vs. uncontrolled environment is a red herring BUT you folk just copy and paste without thought.
As for Ahruf, I can tell you have never sifted through what Von Denffer (or Yasir Qadhi) has presented on the subject. Von Denffer's is shorter and more concise (pages 113-114).
I can see why the brother (sam) is so annoyed and irritated at you. You do yourself no favours at all.
I understand this post was rather faith shattering as it hits at the core of your belief BUT you must try to control your emotions and STOP peddling conspiracy theories about the Quran. We have REAL evidence your book has inserted forgeries (4 were cited in the post). Yet, instead of thinking about such material you bring your conjecture and conspiracy theories and throw them our way in the hope you can deflect attention from the Bible.
Going back to Ahruf, there are some 35 opinions as to the exact reason why they are there. There is NO dispute concerning whether they should be there. so essentially, the difference of opinion is regarding the exact definition of the word ahruf. We have NO dispute concerning the ahru (musltiple readings) - they are part of our Quran and we have NO issues here. As for your Bible, your variants are indeed variants and they arise out of Biblical cribal errors/forgeries.
PLEASE understand theses points. Also, concerning the Ahruf, Burton writes:
All the rival readings represent one and the same text. They arre substantially agreed in what they transmit...
Sorry, I just want to go back to your claim as to partial manuscripts. You do realise your first whole mnucript comes from the 4th century?
Just like Quranic manuscripts, there are fragmentary manucripts/partial manuscripts - they don't mean a thing as to arguing against the preservation of the Bible or the Quran
Please show some consistency and foresight. If you got this argument from a Christian apologist - please realise, he/she is either ignorant and/or disingenuous.
Sadly, this is part of the course for Christian apologists - salesmanship - shoddy salesmanship!
@Radical and other Christians,
Once you have pondered upon the info in this post please do ponder upon the other issue concerning the Holy Spirit - I don't mean to overburden you - I simply want to show you the Truth.
God is the One who guides.
http://thefactsaboutislam.blogspot.com/2011/02/100-proof-holy-spirit-is-not-guiding.html
Sorry, I recall reading somebody claiming they do know how to differentiate between the forgeries/errors in the Bible and the genuine text - date.
No, there are NO hard and fast rules concerning this SO you do not know how to differentiate between the forgeries/errors and the faithful Biblical text, hence why White confirmed he believes the Bible is within the manusript tradition but was not sure with regards to the variants.
Search for the Truth and the Truth shall free you...
@minoria, thanks very much.
Thanks for getting back to me and staying objective.
Peace
radical moderate ,
You only embarrass yourself with your illogical arguments. This is really funny , all the christian fundies (including zionist christians like you) will claim victory after you have been thoroughly pawned.
Ha ha , believe in the 'living god - biblical jesus'? Says who? The unknown authors of the gospels or paul who never met biblical jesus or the later church leaders who never knew what actually happened?
If you don't know what is ahruf , don't make an argument out of it. You are just exposing your weakness.
@Radical
since everything you said got owned and refuted over and over I didnt feel the need to respond but I laughed so hard when I found this from you :
"Oh thats right you have a "SCIENCE" that was developed over 200 years to sort out the mess."
ha ! The science of hadith wasnt developed 200 years later , it was developed during the time of the prophet (pbuh) and full implemented during the reign of Abu Bakr as caliph.
FAIL !
The debate was removed from Youtube. Found it on another site:
http://www.archive.org/details/BartEhrmanVsJamesWhite-DoesTheBibleMisquoteJesus
Post a Comment