Sunday, 4 December 2011

Robert Tressell's Description of 'Christians' Lives On...

They believed that the Bible was the word of God, but they didn't know where it came from, how long it had been in existence, who wrote it, who translated it or how many different versions there were. Most of them were totally unacquainted with the contents of the book itself. But all the same, they believed it - after a fashion. [Ragged Trousered Philanthropists, Robert Tressell, Penguin Books, 2004, p170-171]

The remarkable thing is, Robert Noonan's (aka Robert Tressell 1870-1911) description characterizes so many Christians still to this day despite the proliferation of scholarly material on the Bible, textual criticism and the like.

Who benefits from having lay Christians devoid of any meaningful knowledge of the Bible?

Recently, I had the displeasure of encountering two 'Bible-believing' Christians who were carbon copies of the unlearned, obnoxious, right-winged American Christian fundamentalists we so often pour scorn upon, the twist being, these two 'Bible-believers' were British. Looks like the infection of American fundamentalism is affecting Christians worldwide along with the persistent problem of ignorance of the Bible and Christianity.

Somebody somewhere is laughing all the way to the bank...

Christians, please look into matters before the tide of American fundamentalist ignorance comes for you. Let's pray it's not too late...

Feedback: yahyasnow@hotmail.com

97 comments:

Anonymous said...

del plz erorr

Anonymous said...

You didn't learn anything in jail; they should have left you in there.

Anonymous said...

I really don''t feel like playing in the snow

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Yahya,

I am willing to bet that the average Christian has a much better grasp of the critical scholarship concerning God’s genuine revelation than the average Muslim has of the critical issues with the Quran that we have today.

I learned about textual criticism from my "Fundamentalist" pastor in junior high. My kids first Bible at 8 had the variants footnoted.

The general consensus of scholarship is that the Bible is the most well attested document of the ancient world. We can be much more confident of the reliability of the Bible than we are of the Quran.

The problem is that Muslim apologists gets their information about the Bible from the left wing fringe of skeptical scholarship instead of the mainstream.

These "scholars" reject miracles on principle and deney even the possibility that God could reveal his word to man.

If you were consistent and listened to people with these sorts of presuppositions when it came to your book you would conclude that we could not prove that Muhammad ever existed and the Quran was nothing but a collection of the teachings of the Ultmanic community assembled many years after his death.

I wonder how many Muslims know about even the known textual variants in the Quran and the destruction the early manuscripts by Ultman. let alone the reported additions made by Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh.

the difference between what the average adherent in our faiths knows about his schripture could not be more stark.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

yahya said,

Looks like the infection of American fundamentalism is affecting Christians worldwide

I say,

More likely what you beleive is "American Fundamentalism" is actualy mainstream historic Christianity and the milk toast liberal Christians you seem to like so much are a small minority.

I hate to disappoint you but the Christianity that you experienced is expanding rapidly across the globe mostly by conversion. This “American Fundamentalism” you speak of is growing much faster than Islam and will in the end consign it to the dust bin of history.

Just as God promised

quote:

And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall the kingdom be left to another people. It shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever,
(Daniel 2:44 ESV)

end quote:

peace

MUSLIM said...

@ the christian guy.here is the refutation os the things you say about Abdullah ibn Sa'd ibn Abi Sarh.

http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Sources/Sarh/

and kindly stop saying things toconvince christians everything is ok with bible.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Muslim,

Thanks for the link. Does it mean you are unable to discuss the issue intelligently and are you just unwilling to put in the effort to defend your book yourself?

You said,

and kindly stop saying things toconvince christians everything is ok with bible.

I say,

Do you have any evidence that what I say is incorrect?

Surely you don't want to accuse God of not being able to keep his promise to preserve his word with out any support for your charge?


peace

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the great post.

Lobo said...

FMM said:

The general consensus of scholarship is that the Bible is the most well attested document of the ancient world. We can be much more confident of the reliability of the Bible than we are of the Quran.

I say:
Not so fast. The majority of the copies are from the midieval times. Moreover, most of the conservately estimated 30.000 variations took place within the first three centuries of christianity. What exactly is most attested? Not the original? We don't have it. Unless we have the original we have no way of knowing that it has the same content as the copies?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lobo said,

The majority of the copies are from the midieval times.

I say

Of course one would expect more copies to be made as time went on. I would be very suspicious of a document that had more ancient than mediaeval copies

Lobo said,


Moreover, most of the conservately estimated 30.000 variations took place within the first three centuries of christianity.

I say,

All most all of those “variations” are simple spelling and word order differences. The that possibly effect the meaning of the text are footnoted in most bibles. And none call any Christian doctrine into question.

Lobo said,

What exactly is most attested? Not the original? We don't have it. Unless we have the original we have no way of knowing that it has the same content as the copies?

I say,

This is a perfect example of the inconsistency of Muslims.

We don’t have the original Quran either so by your own logic we have no way of knowing that the copies we have have the same content as the original.

If you reject the Bible on these grounds you must also reject the Quran, The fact is we don’t have the original of any ancient document.

But what we have uniquely in the case of the Bible is multiple early copies from all over more early copies than for any other ancient book. These copies can be compared to reveal the original.

That is why there are so many minor variations (more copies more variations) it’s the price you pay so that you can be confident no one has altered the text.

The Quran on the other hand has fewer copies because Ultman destroyed all the competing manuscripts therefore we have absolutely no confidence that the book we have today goes back to the original.

This is not controversial it’s just the result of the different histories of the texts

peace

el Lobo said...

FMM said:

We don’t have the original Quran either so by your own logic we have no way of knowing that the copies we have have the same content as the original.

I say:
We're discussing the NT. Just to humor you, we can discuss the quran.
The difference between the quran and the bible is as follows:

1. There's a chain of transmission.
2. The compilation is described in detail.
3. There was a consensus regarding the uthmanic compilation and don't say it was imposed, because we all know that muslims at that time were not reluctant to take up arms against someone who was believed to be an enemy of Islam. There were no contemporary sects who used a different version.
4. There are no variant readings in the uthmanic manuscripts that are not attested by hadiths. So if the quran was so meticously preserved after the uthmanic compilation, it's illogical to believe that the uthmanic version is different from the revelation.

FMM said:
But what we have uniquely in the case of the Bible is multiple early copies from all over more early copies than for any other ancient book. These copies can be compared to reveal the original.

I say:

You have copies far removed from the original. All you can hope to achieve is revealing a copy from the 3rd century.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey lobo,

I hope you are well


you said,

We're discussing the NT.

I say,

actually we were Discussing you charge that God does not keep his promise to preserve his word and the inconsistency of your position

You said

1. There's a chain of transmission.

I say,

Please elaborate for the outsider a chain of transmission is next to worthless. Any length in the chain could just make up the lengths that come before it.

and speaking of chains of transmission have you heard of Papias?

You say,

The compilation is described in detail.

I say,

Again for the non Muslim this is does not in any way constitute evidence. Anyone could make up a fictions compilation story to explain where a document came from.

Detail is not an insurance against fabrication in fact a good rule of thumb in every day life is the more detailed the story the less likely it was made up.


You say,

There was a consensus regarding the uthmanic compilation

I say,

how could you possibly know that? You have no evidence from the other side

You say,

There were no contemporary sects who used a different version.

I say,

Ultman could have easily exterminated the competing sect after all like you admit it’s just the kind of thing we would expect from a Muslim at this time.

You say,

There are no variant readings in the uthmanic manuscripts that are not attested by hadiths.

I say,

Can you provide evidence for this. A link would be nice. I have been lead to believe that there are variants as would be expected with any copying but have yet to see a comprehensive scholarly treatment of the Quran like is commonplace in Biblical studies.

It's allmost as if Islam is afraid to investagate

You say,


You have copies far removed from the original. All you can hope to achieve is revealing a copy from the 3rd century.

I say,

I sorry but this is just incorrect we have portions of the Gospel of John (the Gospel with the highest Christology) dating to within 40 years of the original that match our modern text and other fragments following close behind and by the time we get to the third century we have entire new testaments to look at.


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

edit

I apologize for my lack of proofreading......

a good rule of thumb in every day life is the more detailed the story the less likely it was made up.

should read

a good rule of thumb in every day life is the more detailed the story the more likely it was made up.

or

a good rule of thumb in every day life is the more detailed the story the less likely it is true.



peace

Lobo said...

FMM:
Please elaborate for the outsider a chain of transmission is next to worthless. Any length in the chain could just make up the lengths that come before it.

and speaking of chains of transmission have you heard of Papias?

I say:

It might be worthless to a polytheist, but we were contrasting the bible with the quran and it's a fact that the quran has a chain of transmission, whereas the bible hasn't. I've heard of papias but unfortunatley the cited fragments of his work do not constitute a link in a valid chain of transmission. For one thing he said this about the gospel of matthew: "Matthew put together the oracles [of the Lord] in the Hebrew language, and each one interpreted them as best he could." Is this the gospel we have today. He doesn't relay the exact wording of the NT, so we don't know what info or scripture he got from the mysterious presbyters.

FMM said:
Detail is not an insurance against fabrication in fact a good rule of thumb in every day life is the more detailed the story the less likely it was made up.

I say:

You wan't to play the do-you-have-any-sources game. Ok let's play. What's your evidence it was fabricated. Don't say there haven't been any critical study of this, because if that's true then you can't back up your claim and must concede that you don't have any evidence.

FMM said:

Can you provide evidence for this. A link would be nice. I have been lead to believe that there are variants as would be expected with any copying but have yet to see a comprehensive scholarly treatment of the Quran like is commonplace in Biblical studies.

I say:

As Jesus allegedly said "neither throw your pearls before the pigs". I'm not wasting time spoon feeding you evidence that you will throw away anyway. Instead, you give me evidence that there are variant reading not attested by hadiths. I mean variant readings not scribal errors. You know that the NT has variant readings that are not regarded as errors.

FMM said:
I sorry but this is just incorrect we have portions of the Gospel of John (the Gospel with the highest Christology) dating to within 40 years of the original that match our modern text and other fragments following close behind and by the time we get to the third century we have entire new testaments to look at.

I say:

You mean fragments. The oldest fragment only has 114 legible letters. Not only do the earliest manuscripts have the most variations, they are also copies of copies and the best you can achive after having to make decisions about which variant reading to choose is an approximation of a 3rd century bible.

By the way FMM I thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend the ONE true GOD against polytheists.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You say,

It might be worthless to a polytheist.

I say,

I’m not sure who the polytheist is you are referring to. The fact that God is one is a foundational doctrine of Christianity. It is Islam that posits a separate uncreated being (the Quran)that is eternally associated with God.

You must be referring to your Idolatrous insistence that God be monopersonal because you are. If So I must again remind you that God commands you not create a being in your own image to worship

You say,


, but we were contrasting the bible with the quran and it's a fact that the quran has a chain of transmission, whereas the bible hasn't

I say,

So !! I not sure why this is in any way relevant. A chain of transmission does not insure preservation so why even bring it up ?

I could say The Bible has individual books we can compare where the Quran does not. but that is not the subject at hand

You say,

Is this (the oracles mentioned by Papias)the gospel we have today.

I say,

Yes next question

You say,

He doesn't relay the exact wording of the NT

I say,

If he did it would not be a chain of transmission it would be a NT like the many others we already have.

You say,

Ok let's play. What's your evidence it was fabricated.

I say,

Wait a minute

It’s you that reject the word of God with out any evidence of it’s fabrication.

I’m merely asking you to be consistent and reject the Quran on the same grounds, Since you have already rejected the Bible with out evidence you can’t start demanding evidence now

You say,

you give me evidence that there are variant reading not attested by hadiths. I mean variant readings not scribal errors. You know that the NT has variant readings that are not regarded as errors.

I say,

What??? scribal errors are variants by definition.

I do not know of any variant readings in the NT that can not be ascribed to scribal errors perhaps you could show me some.


You say,

You mean fragments.

I say,

Of course a portion is a fragment that is what the word means, The letters you mention are not from sequential words but from an entire section. It’s as if you tore the middle out of every line in this message. This allows us to superimpose the letters against the much larger section to see if any alteration has been made

The important thing is that the very early sections we have match the intact gospels. No evidence whatsoever of any tampering with the text

You say,

By the way FMM I thank you for giving me the opportunity to defend the ONE true GOD against polytheists.

I say,

If I run across one I’ll let you know.

But I do appreciate the opportunity to defend God against the charge that he is weak and can’t preserve his revelation to us.


Peace

Erik Fadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


Peace to you FMM,

It seems that you immersed yourself lately with "Keith Small" outreach to mulims stuff rite?

On the Quranic reliability over the Bible, I think bro El Lobo have summarized it conclusively.

Now my take is why it is hard for you to accept that God has made several million Quranic memorizers (Huffaz) in every generation since the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and in our own time such that anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake.

I never see any Christians quote or recite Bible texts out of memory.

Can you please bring me a Bible memorizers let alone the whole Bible memorizers like we have many haffizul Quran?

In church sermon, televangelist program, street preachers it is evident that you Christians are helpless without the "printed" versions of supposedly "God sayings"book.

This alone is a sign that God has kept His promise to preserve the Book which He revealed to holy prophet for the guidance of mankind in its original form without alteration

Wassalam

Lobo said...

FMM said,

I’m not sure who the polytheist is you are referring to. The fact that God is one is a foundational doctrine of Christianity. It is Islam that posits a separate uncreated being (the Quran)that is eternally associated with God.

I say:

Christianity: three perssons one one essence.

Islam: One who one essence.

Do you see three anywhere in the islamic concept of oneness. As the quran says: don't say three.

FMM said:
You must be referring to your Idolatrous insistence that God be monopersonal because you are. If So I must again remind you that God commands you not create a being in your own image to worship

I say:
You mean unlike Christianity the concept of God can be understood by everybody, even Christians. Moreover, by your own standard your view of God is even more in the image of men. Doesn't it say in ot that God created man in his image. Your premise is that since the One God is a false god, his image must have been invented by man. If not then surely both the OT and the NT describe God as having similar attributes to men, the ability to speak and see for instance, not to mention eating sleeping and deficating.

FMM:
I could say The Bible has individual books we can compare where the Quran does not. but that is not the subject at hand

I say:

You mean error-laden copies of copies without access to the original.

FMM:

If he did it would not be a chain of transmission it would be a NT like the many others we already have.

I say:

Ahh, you accuse muslims of not having the pre-uthmanic manuscript to compare with the uthmanic version. By your own standard the same can be said about your bible copies. Moreover, mr. polytheist each verse is actually mentioned in the hadith so that we can check that the wording agrees with the quran we have today. Papias is not a chain of narration because he doesn't actually narrate the wording of what ever he called scripture. We've already seen that he seems to have had a different matthew than the copy we have today. See the difference.

FMM,

Not only is it impossible to use this fragment to verify other books in the NT, we don't know what the original looks like. By your own standard when judging the quran you must have access to the original in order to verify that it agrees with the copies.

By the way where in the NT does it say that all the books are preserved by God and that they are the Word of God?
Moreover, talk about doubble standards who is it who believes in weak gods? You believe in God who can't forgive sins, a god who dies, a god who becomes jealous, a god who in order to satiate his avengefulness orders the killing of women and babies.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric,

Memorizing something does not insure it’s preservation. That is why we write things down in the first place.


You say,

I never see any Christians quote or recite Bible texts out of memory.

I say,

You’ve got to get out more. Most Christians I know memorize schripture. There are memorization competitions for young Christians.
Every Fundamentalist kid knows what it’s like to learn his memory verses each week.

I know lots of folks who have memorized whole sections of scripture up to and including entire books .

The difference between what we do and the Islamic practice is we don’t treat the text as if it were an abracadabra magic formula. We place great emphasis in understanding what the words mean and not just repeating the syllables in a trance like fashion.

You say,

Can you please bring me a Bible memorizers

I say,

Sure here is one to wet your appetite.

audio

http://www.esvmedia.org/speeches/ferguson.hebrews.mp3

Smaller portion in Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M52nUtfk3Jw

Notice the difference between this presentation and what you find in Islam

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric,

Memorizing something does not insure it’s preservation. That is why we write things down in the first place.


You say,

I never see any Christians quote or recite Bible texts out of memory.

I say,

You’ve got to get out more. Most Christians I know memorize schripture. There are memorization competitions for young Christians.
Every Fundamentalist kid knows what it’s like to learn his memory verses each week.

I know lots of folks who have memorized whole sections of scripture up to and including entire books .

The difference between what we do and the Islamic practice is we don’t treat the text as if it were an abracadabra magic formula. We place great emphasis in understanding what the words mean and not just repeating the syllables in a trance like fashion.

You say,

Can you please bring me a Bible memorizers

I say,

Sure here is one to wet your appetite.

audio

http://www.esvmedia.org/speeches/ferguson.hebrews.mp3

Smaller portion in Video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M52nUtfk3Jw

Notice the difference between this presentation and what you find in Islam

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lob said,

Do you see three anywhere in the islamic concept of oneness. As the quran says: don't say three.

I say:

Polytheism does not mean worshiping “three”. It means believing that there is more than one God.

Only God is eternal

Islam teaches that there is more than one eternal thing (Allah and the Quran). That is the very definition of polytheism.

You say,

You mean unlike Christianity the concept of God can be understood by everybody, even Christians.

I say,

A god that is limited to what can be grasped by finite human intellect is no God at all.

You say,

Doesn't it say in ot that God created man in his image.

I say,

Exactly,

The one true God creates man in his image while the God of the idolater is made in the image of man.

You say,

The OT and the NT describe God as having similar attributes to men,

I say,

Having attributes that are analogous to ours is completely different than having an identical Unitarian nature.

You say,

You mean error-laden copies of copies without access to the original.

I say,

We have no access to the original Quran and the copies we have contain errors yet you do not reject it. Why are you so inconsistent?

You say,

By your own standard the same can be said about your bible copies.

I say

EXACTLY

That is the whole point I don’t reject the Quran because of these things I reject the Quran because it conflicts with God’s genuine revelation I could care less whether it is preserved.

You on the other hand inconsistently reject the Bible because you don’t have access to the original and yet you still accept the Quran. Why?

You say,

each verse is actually mentioned in the hadith so that we can check that the wording agrees with the quran we have today.

I say,

So you are saying that the hadith is the standard by which you judge the Quran and not the other way around?

WOW now you are judgeing the supposed word of God by the words of man.

You say,

We've already seen that he seems to have had a different matthew than the copy we have today.

I say,

Who says? where is your evidence?


Peace

Erik Fadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


FMM, Im not impressed.

Thats not a recitation out of memorization but a Bible story telling.

This cannot guarantee preservation, in fact if people attempt to memorize scripture like this there will be lots of lots missing in actual words thus meaning.

the last time I have seen person performing like this in opera :D

A Quranic memorizer can completely completely memorized the Qur'an from surah AlFaatihah to AnNaas exactly the same every syllabe to other memorizer.


watch this carefully http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wirKuo2iwOs

This is a whole quran memorization contest where a little girl is performing.

She is tested on her knowledge, e.g. in one test for example, she is asked to continue the recitation of a passage taken randomly from the whole Qur'an by the senior hufaaz. As she does not know which passage will be chosen, she must know the whole text in order to be sure of passing. In another test, a would-be hafiz might be asked to recite verses containing a specific word or phrase.


This tradition went back even after the Caliph Uthman ibn Affan collected and organized the Qur'an as a "book" in 650-656 CE, recitation (from memory) of the Qur'an was still honored and encouraged.


I do as my whole family do Quranic memorization if I have spare time as this is a meritorius devotion.

Recently I just memorized 6 opening ayaat of Surah Joseph (12) out of 25 more surahs Ive memorized

بِسْمِ اللَّهِ الرَّحْمَٰنِ الرَّحِيمِ

12:1

الر ۚ تِلْكَ آيَاتُ الْكِتَابِ الْمُبِينِ

Alif, Lam, Ra. These are the verses of the clear Book.

12:2

إِنَّا أَنزَلْنَاهُ قُرْآنًا عَرَبِيًّا لَّعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ


Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.

12:3

نَحْنُ نَقُصُّ عَلَيْكَ أَحْسَنَ الْقَصَصِ بِمَا أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ هَٰذَا الْقُرْآنَ وَإِن كُنتَ مِن قَبْلِهِ لَمِنَ الْغَافِلِينَ


We relate to you, [O Muhammad], the best of stories in what We have revealed to you of this Qur'an although you were, before it, among the unaware.

12:4

إِذْ قَالَ يُوسُفُ لِأَبِيهِ يَا أَبَتِ إِنِّي رَأَيْتُ أَحَدَ عَشَرَ كَوْكَبًا وَالشَّمْسَ وَالْقَمَرَ رَأَيْتُهُمْ لِي سَاجِدِينَ


[Of these stories mention] when Joseph said to his father, "O my father, indeed I have seen [in a dream] eleven stars and the sun and the moon; I saw them prostrating to me."

12:5

قَالَ يَا بُنَيَّ لَا تَقْصُصْ رُؤْيَاكَ عَلَىٰ إِخْوَتِكَ فَيَكِيدُوا لَكَ كَيْدًا ۖ إِنَّ الشَّيْطَانَ لِلْإِنسَانِ عَدُوٌّ مُّبِينٌ

He said, "O my son, do not relate your vision to your brothers or they will contrive against you a plan. Indeed Satan, to man, is a manifest enemy.

12:6

وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَبَوَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

And thus will your Lord choose you and teach you the interpretation of narratives and complete His favor upon you and upon the family of Jacob, as He completed it upon your fathers before, Abraham and Isaac. Indeed, your Lord is Knowing and Wise."


sadaqallahul aziim


Test me, my eyes closed! it is no abracadabra FMM, my Arabic recitation will be the same exactly words for words, comma to comma with the printed version any time anywhere or any other muslims brother who memorize this beatiful ayahs.

Not like the guy ryan ferguson "reciting" hebrew 9, 10, Im having a hard time checking the accuracy of his recitation with the Bible I have in my hand.


And btw no I never came across anyone memorizing Bible.

Wassalam

Ali said...

its impossible to memorize the bible beacause 1) the original bible and the original language it was written in is tough for many Christians to quote and 2) there's way too many versions of the bible.

Erik Fadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم



FMM: "Memorizing something does not insure it’s preservation. That is why we write things down in the first place. "


Who says? where is your evidence? :D

Yes it does not insure preservavation if it is "memorized" the way you Christians memorize it.

This is a simple and yet an overwhelming fact.

Unlike the Bible, in the present day, millions of Muslims (Arabs and non-Arabs) memorize the whole Arabic text of the Quran by heart. Some of them have been able to memorize the entire Quran at the very young age.

Surah (chapter) 15, Ayah (verse) 9

“We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).”

The purity of the Arabic text of the Quran through fourteen centuries is a foretaste of the eternal care with which God's Truth is guarded through all ages.

God’s Pure and Holy Truth will never suffer eclipse in any time or in any place.

Not only did God preserve the Arabic text of the Quran, but also the style of reciting the Quran by today’s Muslims is exactly the same style of recitation as that of Muhammad himself.

Muslims, when reading verses of the Quran, stop where the Messenger of Allah stopped, and continue where he continued. One may really wonder about the strength of God’s promise to preserve the Quran in writing as well as in reading.

When one recites the Quran, one is reading the authentic Words of the Only God, with the exact reading style of Muhammad, an enormous spiritual experience.

Wassalam

Syed Muddassar said...

22 comments on your this post this is a pulse point for you.
learn quran online
Online Quran learning

el Lobo said...

FMM said:

Polytheism does not mean worshiping “three”. It means believing that there is more than one God.

I say:

Exactomondo! you worship three gods. They are all gods since they are of the same kind. They can't be one being.

You say:

Islam teaches that there is more than one eternal thing (Allah and the Quran). That is the very definition of polytheism.

I say:

Well aren't the attributes of God eternal. The quran is his speech and as such it's eternal.

You say:

A god that is limited to what can be grasped by finite human intellect is no God at all.

I say:

So it's impossible to grasp the trinity. Too bad for you. Well good has endowed us with reason so that we can worship God. Certain aspects of God can be understood, so that we can worship him. If you see one person does that mean that you can grasp everything about that person. It's a false analogy.

You said:

The one true God creates man in his image while the God of the idolater is made in the image of man.

I say:

Circular argument.

You said:

Having attributes that are analogous to ours is completely different than having an identical Unitarian nature.

I say:

Everything in the world is limited. God is unlimited, so his oneness is analogous to the oneness in the created world, not identical. Walking on earth is identical to what men do, eating, deficating etc. All things that you blasphemous people attribute to whatever it is you call god.

You say:
That is the whole point I don’t reject the Quran because of these things I reject the Quran because it conflicts with God’s genuine revelation I could care less whether it is preserved.

You on the other hand inconsistently reject the Bible because you don’t have access to the original and yet you still accept the Quran. Why?

I say:

LOOL. Are you stupid or only pretending so that you can make a cheap point. Where have I said that that's my only reason for rejecting your false scriptures. The content is in many places simply blasphemous. It's written by men. It's internally inconsistent. The list goes on.

I said:

We've already seen that he seems to have had a different matthew than the copy we have today.

You say:

Who says? where is your evidence?

I say:

For one thing it was written in hebrew. Secondly, it contained oracles not a narrative according to your chain of transmission Papias. Moreover, it's up to you to prove that Papias is a chain of transmission by proving that whatever he testifies he got from the previous link in the chain is the same scripture we have today. You brought up Papias not me.

el Lobo said...

Bro Erik, on a personal note. If I recall correctly you're living in Malaysia or Indonesia. How's life there?

Erik Fadli said...

Salaam Lobo,

Yeah, Im an Indonesian living in the Jakarta, a bustling Capital City typical to any modern City in the far east.

At the moment life is relatively ok here, thanks God.

We don't experience much of the economic recession like in the Europe and the US. Indonesia is still enjoying healthy 5% growth from energy projects, bio-fuels, infrastructure investment (roads, railways, ports), manufacturing and retailing sector.

Theoretically Indonesia is top 20 in GDP size and it will soon join the top ten world economies within two decades.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric

you said,

Not like the guy ryan ferguson "reciting" hebrew 9, 10, Im having a hard time checking the accuracy of his recitation with the Bible I have in my hand.

I say,

That is because you are using the wrong English translation. Try the ESV. He is quoting word for word exactly in the langue the he and his listeners understand. You can check it out

This sort of thing is not uncommon a few years ago my Pastor did the same thing with the entire book of James.

Muslims on the other hand repeat mantras in a unknown mystical tongue that all most no one understands just like a sorcerer’s incantation.

God warned us about such mystical mumbo jumbo

Quote:

If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
(1 Corinthians 14:7-11)

And

Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a (unknown) tongue.
(1 Corinthians 14:19 ESV)

End quote:

you said,

وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَبَوَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

I say,

this might as well say


Mecka lackh hi mecka himi ho

Or

Bala la la bamba

or

bla bla bla

I have no idea what you are saying, It means absoulutly nothing to me.

contrast that worthless excersise with the video.

As he speaks I’m overwhelmed by the greatness of Christ who is the perfect sacrifice that was foreshadowed in the books of Moses and I weep in gratitude at the news that his blood has inaugurated a new covenant in which

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
(Hebrews 10:17b )

I hope you can see the difference

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric

you said,

Not like the guy ryan ferguson "reciting" hebrew 9, 10, Im having a hard time checking the accuracy of his recitation with the Bible I have in my hand.

I say,

That is because you are using the wrong English translation. Try the ESV. He is quoting word for word exactly in the langue the he and his listeners understand. You can check it out

This sort of thing is not uncommon a few years ago my Pastor did the same thing with the entire book of James.

Muslims on the other hand repeat mantras in a unknown mystical tongue that all most no one understands just like a sorcerer’s incantation.

God warned us about such mystical mumbo jumbo

Quote:

If even lifeless instruments, such as the flute or the harp, do not give distinct notes, how will anyone know what is played? And if the bugle gives an indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? So with yourselves, if with your tongue you utter speech that is not intelligible, how will anyone know what is said? For you will be speaking into the air. There are doubtless many different languages in the world, and none is without meaning, but if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be a foreigner to the speaker and the speaker a foreigner to me.
(1 Corinthians 14:7-11)

And

Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a (unknown) tongue.
(1 Corinthians 14:19 ESV)

End quote:

you said,

وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَبَوَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

I say,

this might as well say


Mecka lackh hi mecka himi ho

Or

Bala la la bamba

or

bla bla bla

I have no idea what you are saying, It means absoulutly nothing to me.

contrast that worthless excersise with the video.

As he speaks I’m overwhelmed by the greatness of Christ who is the perfect sacrifice that was foreshadowed in the books of Moses and I weep in gratitude at the news that his blood has inaugurated a new covenant in which

"I will remember their sins and their lawless deeds no more."
(Hebrews 10:17b )

I hope you can see the difference

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

You said,

you worship three gods. They are all gods since they are of the same kind. They can't be one being.

I say,

Once again I worship one God existing in three persons. The fact that you can’t understand how God can be different than you is not a problem for me

You say,

Well aren't the attributes of God eternal. The quran is his speech and as such it's eternal.


I say,

The attributes of God are nothing but a description of God’s nature are you saying the Quran is part of God?

If you don’t mind I’ll try and limit my comments to discussion about your charge against God’s ability to preserve his word for now and We can talk about your Idolatry later


Lobo said,

For one thing it was written in hebrew. Secondly, it contained oracles not a narrative

I say,

Actually the phrase can be understood to say that it was written in the Jewish style and oracles can be sayings about events.

It’s just like me saying that

“Jed told the stories of bubba in the redneck dialect everyone interpreted them as best as they could”

You say,

Moreover, it's up to you to prove that Papias is a chain of transmission by proving that whatever he testifies he got from the previous link in the chain is the same scripture we have today. You brought up Papias not me.

I say,

Like I said before I don’t accept the Bible because of what any man said I accept it because it is the word of God.

I only brought up Papias to show you that your claims that the Bible has no chain of transmission are bogus.

No objective scholar puts any stock in such “evidence” anyway.

“Tommy said that Billy said that Bobby said” will get you laughed out of any court of law it’s called hearsay. and it's worthless

Peace

Erik Fadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

"...you said,

وَكَذَٰلِكَ يَجْتَبِيكَ رَبُّكَ وَيُعَلِّمُكَ مِن تَأْوِيلِ الْأَحَادِيثِ وَيُتِمُّ نِعْمَتَهُ عَلَيْكَ وَعَلَىٰ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ كَمَا أَتَمَّهَا عَلَىٰ أَبَوَيْكَ مِن قَبْلُ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَإِسْحَاقَ ۚ إِنَّ رَبَّكَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ

I say,

this might as well say


Mecka lackh hi mecka himi ho or Bala la la bamba ..."



You still have a sense of humor in such a serious subject dont u FMM?


I pity you FMM for not being able to recite God's word in its *original form*.

This is the case when the original language are not preserved.

Although my Arabic is not as sophisticated as my English I can understand once I consulted a tarjamah (translation) for few difficult/new words or grammar, going forward I usually quite easily understand the meaning when I recite those verse again.

Non -arab muslims use the translation alongside with the orignal arabic utterance to understand the meaning.

This is a non issue.

Muslims might differ in translation, and interpretation but they have the original words. That is not the case with you.

Jesus (p) dont speak theatrical (American English) most likely ;) like ur this ryan "memorizer" guy.

So are you sure not feeling a bit irreverent for not being able to recite the scriptures the way Jesus (p) speak.

The real issue is: How can you be so confident with the preservation if you dont have the original language and never use alongside the translation?

How can you be so confident that you are following a true path when eventually you will judge by the one true God in the hereafter?

I hope you will find guidance InshaAllah

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Eric,

You say,

How can you be so confident with the preservation if you dont have the original language and never use alongside the translation?

I say,

What? I have the original language and I use it often

What I don't do is go around vainly reciting what would sound like gibberish to English speakers to prove my piety to others.

If my speech has no possibility of edifying the listener God commands me to keep my mouth shut.


Quote:

Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
(Ephesians 4:29 ESV)

End quote:

As far as being confident in the preservation I’m confident that God keeps his promises so I know he will preserve his word .

I don’t need to rely on the mental honesty and mental acuity of some unknown human. I can rely of God himself.

You can't do that for you it's all about how proficent and trustworthy your leaders are.

I feel sorry for you in that your religion requires you to rely on human beings because I can guarantee that humans will let you down.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey all,

Here is yet more evidence that humans can’t be counted on the preserve texts


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AKl0gA35HaE

I am so Glad that as a Christian I need not worry about what the latest scholarship will claim about the Word of God.

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.
(Matthew 24:35)

The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever.
(Isaiah 40:8)

Too bad you as a Muslim can’t rest on promises like that.

Your god is unable or unwilling to preserve all of his word. So you are stuck relying on finite sinful humans like those in the video.

It must be awful to be in such a predicament

Peace

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :
'..Too bad you as a Muslim can’t rest on promises like that..'

Quran15:9 (Yusuf Ali)
'..We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)..'

Oops , what were you saying??

From you :
'..I am so Glad that as a Christian I need not worry about what the latest scholarship will claim about the Word of God..'

Consider an alternative POV. The authors of the 4 gospels / hebrews were / are still unknowns , paul wrote almost all of the rest of the NT. How do you claim that the NT is the word of god?

Radical Moderate said...

Ok I have to chime in...

Erik wrote...

"Now my take is why it is hard for you to accept that God has made several million Quranic memorizers (Huffaz) in every generation since the time of the Holy Prophet (PBUH) and in our own time such that anyone alter a syllable of the original text of the Qur'an, these Huffaz would at once expose the mistake. "

Really several million from hte time of Mohamed? So why was it nessasary to compile the Quran after the battle of YOMAMMA?

Second it is easier to burn poeple then it is to burn books.

If the only means of preservation is the memories of several Million people, it is easier to kill off those several million people then it would be to burn several million books.

The history of the New Testament speaks to this. We have surving codex's and manuscripts that have survied long after those that have written those texts and copied those text have been dead and burried.

Also if you claim that the orginal Quran is preserved in the modern day reciters of the Quran then prove it. Find me a recording or a actual reciter from the time of Mohamed so we can compare the two recitaions. Since you obvioulsy can not do that then your claim like your god is un founded.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Sam,

You said,

Quran15:9 (Yusuf Ali)
'..We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)..'

I say,

The problem a core tenant of your faith is that God's message the (Torah and the Gospel ) has in fact been corrupted

It is as if Allah is saying

“I know I failed in the past but this time I promise I’ll do better”

If Islam is true we can be absolutely confident that Allah is not very good at his keeping this sort of promise...


Quite a dilemma you got there isn’t it

you say,

Consider an alternative POV. The authors of the 4 gospels / hebrews were / are still unknowns , paul wrote almost all of the rest of the NT. How do you claim that the NT is the word of god?

I say,

The fact that you choose to inconsistently accept a skeptical claim as to the authorship of the Gospels and dismiss the apostle Peter’s authoritive pronouncement that Paul’s writings are scripture does not change the promise of God.

I know the NT is the Word of God because God tells me it is.

I know that it's really God speaking to me because he has repeatedly said the same thing to all his children for over 2000 years.

And also because the NT corresponds perfectly with all the rest of God’s genuine revelation.


And also because God promised that his words would be preserved and has a history of doing just that


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Wow, I can’t believe I almost missed this

Lobo said,

Where have I said that that's my only reason for rejecting your false scriptures. The content is in many places simply blasphemous. It's written by men. It's internally inconsistent. The list goes on.

I say,

Ah so the real reason you reject the Bible has nothing to do with supposed corruption.

The real reason you reject God’s word is that you don’t like what it says.

Why did I know that feigned scholarly skepticism toward the Bible’s preservation was only a cover for a rebellious demand that God’s word acquiesce to your own sensibilities before you will submit to it?

I wonder?

Quote


For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.
(2 Timothy 4:3-4 )

End quote:

How do you know what is blasphemous? What is your standard for internal consistency? How do you determine that it was written by men?

If you reject God’s word you have nothing concrete with which to base such judgements.

Lobo is the standard by which God’s revelation is judged.

Like I said WOW

quote:

The unfolding of your words gives light; it imparts understanding to the simple.
(Psalms 119:130)

To the teaching and to the testimony! If they will not speak according to this word, it is because they have no dawn.
(Isaiah 8:20)

end quote:

Peace

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :
'..The problem a core tenant of your faith is that God's message the (Torah and the Gospel ) has in fact been corrupted..'

Don't think so. The core tenant of the muslim faith is the 6 tenants of faith. We claim that the revelations before the Quran has been corrupted with rational reasons that is in agreement with the scholars of biblical textual critic. We muslims are not wrong in this case. Its the fundamentalism of christians like you who have difficulty accepting the truth.

From you :
'..The fact that you choose to inconsistently accept a skeptical claim as to the authorship of the Gospels and dismiss the apostle Peter’s authoritive pronouncement that Paul’s writings are scripture does not change the promise of God..'

Disagree again. I do not think it is skeptical scholarship with regards to the claim that the authors of the gospels / hebrews plus almost the rest of the NT written by paul. Those authors have never met , walked and talked to biblical jesus. Peter is not biblical jesus. His claim that paul's writing did not change the word of god does not have any bearing on the issue.

What is your justification to claim that your god told you so?? The actual so called documented speech by biblical jesus constitute only 10% (give or take) of the NT. The rest is just third party narration of what he did - similar to the hadeeths but with no isnads hence we do not know how authentic were the transmitted stories.

In short you have nothing with regards to the so called revelations in the bible except convincing yourself by hook / crook the bible is the word of god.

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM: “What? I have the original language and I use it often”

Claim, claim, claim,

You have a habit of claiming something with no proof.

• where is the Bible with this original language that you “often” use ?
• which “original language” is that?, see if you bring me and can show me an identical “original language” from bible books available like we have in the Quran. To be honest I never see any Christians “use” and read the original language before.

Just face it FMM, Christians care less about perservation of scriptures. You don’t have strict oral tradition like we have in Islam.

In my country, like many other Muslim majority countries, we held the annual Musabaqah Tilawatil Quran or the Al-Quran Reading and memorizing Competition with great respect.

However you make it to appear to us that Christians do memorize the scripture the fact remain : you don’t have this tradition.

FMM: “I feel sorry for you in that your religion requires you to rely on human beings because I can guarantee that humans will let you down.”

What? I pray to God thank you.

You are the one who worhsip Human.

FMM: “Here is yet more evidence that humans can’t be counted on the preserve texts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=AKl0gA35HaE “

Interesting. you rely on Link from humanist atheist?.

It does mean that you are unable to discuss the issue intelligently and you are just unwilling to put in the effort to defend your corrupted book yourself? :D


Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

RM: :Second it is easier to burn poeple then it is to burn books.

Oh well,… here …we…. Go… again.

No, Muslim don’t get inspired by holy ghost and go around and burning people.

RadMod always come up with radical ideas…

I can understand you have this genocidal tendency, where this you this from?? …..let me brush up my Bible verses knowledge…
1 Samuel 15?

Ist it correct RM??


RM: “Also if you claim that the orginal Quran is preserved in the modern day reciters of the Quran then prove it. Find me a recording or a actual reciter from the time of Mohamed so we can compare the two recitaions. Since you obvioulsy can not do that then your claim like your god is un founded.”

A recorder?? I guess “Sony corp” hadnt released its voice recorder at that time of the holy prophet.

Interesting insight of how your mind works.

Find me actual reciter from the time of prophet Muhammad (p)??

Do u want to make joke or what RM?

If I could raise people from the dead (I wish I could), I bet you will start worshipping me ..

Today I just met with the Imam who gave today Friday’s sermon, he run quranic memorization school which cater hundreds of young kids. Just amazing. Just watch the the Al-Quran memorizing Competition once for a while, you will see this great tradition with your own eyes.


'..We have, without doubt, sent down the Message; and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)..' Q 15:9

Wassalam

el Lobo said...

FMM, I judge the bible on the basis of the true word of God, the Quran. Why do you put words into my mouth?

Concerning the oneness of God, just because something is within the realm of our understanding doesn't mean that thing is identical to us. Moreover, the oneness of God is not identical to the oneness of created things since he is unique and one of a kind, a human individual is not one a of a kind. There are billions and billions of human beings, but only one God. So it's you who create your god in your image since you ascribe plurality to your gods in the same way humans exist as multiple beings. Finally, do you know why we can't understand the trinity, it's simply because it's illogical. In the same way that a rectangular circle can't exist, neither can a triune god exist.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey all,

short on time

I'll get to the rest of the comments later but I could not resist this

lobo said

I judge the bible on the basis of the true word of God, the Quran. Why do you put words into my mouth?

I say,

It's you (not me) who said you reject the Bible because of the things I mentioned. remember

A couple of quick questions.

How can you decide that the Quran is God's word given the fact that it contradicts all other schripture?

How can you know that the book you have is the real Quran given the fact that you don't have the original and what we have is full of errors?

Where in the Quran does it tell you to reject God's Revelation in the Bible?

That should be enough for now

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric,

In my country, like many other Muslim majority countries, we held the annual Musabaqah Tilawatil Quran or the Al-Quran Reading and memorizing Competition with great respect.

Me,

However you make it to appear to us that Christians do memorize the scripture the fact remain : you don’t have this tradition.


I say

http://www.biblebee.org/biblebee_overview/overview.php

http://southwesterner.swau.edu/?p=2400

http://www.wnccog.com/pdf/scripture.pdf

Google is your friend man It took me about 5 seconds to find these Bible memorization competitions.

As a child I myself participated in a similar competition. Most of them are local in Church events.

Please do a little research before you make these sorts of claims It will make conversation easier.

I'll respond to the rest later

Peace

el Lobo said...

FMM said:

It's you (not me) who said you reject the Bible because of the things I mentioned. remember

I say:
well you accused me of: "The real reason you reject God’s word is that you don’t like what it says." Remember.
I decide that the bible is blasphemous on the basis of the quran.

FMM said:

How can you decide that the Quran is God's word given the fact that it contradicts all other schripture?

How can you know that the book you have is the real Quran given the fact that you don't have the original and what we have is full of errors?

Where in the Quran does it tell you to reject God's Revelation in the Bible?

I say:

Replace Quran with bible and bible with quran and answer the questions yourself? I ask you to judge your own book on the same merits as you judge the Quran.
I've alread answered the second question in an earlier post. Well, it's your NT that has a different concept of God than the OT, not the Quran. Moreover, have you eaten any pig lately? You get my point. Well it doesn't, but does say the bible has been corrupted so we can't know what's from God and what's from man. There are many more reasons, but this will do for now.

Ta da!

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"
http://www.biblebee.org/biblebee_overview/overview.php

http://southwesterner.swau.edu/?p=2400

http://www.wnccog.com/pdf/scripture.pdf

"

What?? This shows nothing really. Iis comparable only to shakespeare memorization for english literature students.


Here is a more CREDIBLE link, a undeniable living proof (God-made-easy) whole-Quran memorization competition :

http://www.hbo.com/documentaries/koran-by-heart/index.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdYr6vogSyg


No, it is impossible for an individual to commit the entire Bible to memory. I never see or hear one.

You dont have agreed versions to use for a start. You dont have the original version. It is lost, it is never used.

Maybe some folks can memorize parts of a particular version though, but you can not have an International competition like we do in Islam.

Because we have ONE Quran, the same for syllable, every dot.

This is one miraculous preservation aspect of the Quran, a genuine God's revelation, from the time of holy prophet up to now and to the future.

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lobo said,

Replace Quran with bible and bible with quran and answer the questions yourself? I ask you to judge your own book on the same merits as you judge the Quran.

I say,

You just don’t get it do . I don’t Judge the Quran by these things you Judge the NT by them


I do judge the Quran by the same merits that I judge the scripture and it fails miserably.

Does the God tell me the Quran is the word of God ……..NO
Have the people of God down through history accepted the Quran……. NO
Does the Quran fit seamlessly with God’s genuine books ………….NO


The Quran fails in every measure that I use to determine the authenticity of Scripture and by every measure that God himself has given it is false prophecy.

Full stop end of story

The NT on the other hand meets all the criteria to be considered the Word of God .


Now I ask you to Judge the NT by the same merits as you judge the Quran.

Forget all the dishonest nonsense about not having the original and textual variants and be honest.

Use the same standard for both books

I’m consistent are you?


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

eric,


No, it is impossible for an individual to commit the entire Bible to memory. I never see or hear one.

I say,

I know of several people who have done this. Here is a facebook group dedicated to the task


https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=270906759994

you say,

You dont have agreed versions to use for a start. You dont have the original version. It is lost, it is never used.

I say,

ענה כסיל כאולתו פן־יהיה חכם בעיניו׃

translation:

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:5)

ἐν πρᾶότητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους μήποτε δῷ αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας


translation

correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
(2 Timothy 2:25)


Please do a little research before you make such claims

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

but you can not have an International competition like we do in Islam.

I say,

You don't get do you?

Christians would never have an international competition like this because it is just an excersise in pride and vanity.

For the average Joe it's just people uttering illegable noises most people have no idea what is being said.

It does not guarantee preservation it does not edify the listener it does not please God. It serves no purpose other than to stroke the vanity of the participant

Contrast that with the Biblical reason for memorization

quote:

This Book of the Law shall not depart from your mouth, but you shall meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do according to all that is written in it.
(Joshua 1:8a)

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

We claim that the revelations before the Quran has been corrupted with rational reasons that is in agreement with the scholars of biblical textual critic.

I say,

As has been demonstrated if you applied the same “rational reasons” to your Quran you would reject it just like you reject the Bible. You aren’t in agreement with the majority of biblical scholars you are in agreement with fringe of unbelieving skeptical scholarship.


You say,

Peter is not biblical jesus. His claim that paul's writing did not change the word of god does not have any bearing on the issue.


I say,

A text does not have to be written by Jesus in order to be scripture if it did the Quran is in much more trouble than the NT


Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

Interesting. you rely on Link from humanist atheist?.

I say,

The claims about the Bible's supposed errors come from unbelivers yet you have no problem relying on them

Inconsistant much?

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

Well, it's your NT that has a different concept of God than the OT, .


I say,

The authors of the NT and all Christians through out history would disagree and we put our money where our mouth is by whole heartedly accepting the entire OT.

On the other hand you reject it

WHY?


You say,

not the Quran

If Quran has the same concept of God why do you reject it? I thought you rejected the Bible because it disagrees with the Quran.

You say,

Moreover, have you eaten any pig lately?

I say,

Have you even read the OT?

Gentiles were never forbidden from eating pork. That is a law for Israel

Quote:

And the LORD spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying to them, "……Speak to the people of Israel,…………. saying, These are the living things that you may eat among all the animals that are on the earth. Whatever parts the hoof and is cloven-footed and chews the cud, among the animals, you may eat.
(Leviticus 11:1-3)

End quote:


You say,

but does say the bible has been corrupted so we can't know what's from God and what's from man.

I say,

If you were to apply the same standard to the Quran as you do to the Bible you would reject it for the same reason. Yet you don’t. what is your justification?


You say,

There are many more reasons, but this will do for now.

I say,

I’m sorry but you have not presented a single reason for rejecting the genuine word of God that would not if applied consistently cause you to reject the Quran.

Who was it that said inconsistency is the sure sign of a failed argument?

Peace

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

from you :
'..As has been demonstrated if you applied the same “rational reasons” to your Quran you would reject it just like you reject the Bible. You aren’t in agreement with the majority of biblical scholars you are in agreement with fringe of unbelieving skeptical scholarship..'

It quite the opposite. If we apply rational arguments with evidence , we can safely conclude the Quran has been preserved from the following data / evidence
(1) The Quran was documented upon its revelation and orally checked
(2) The oral tradition of memorization
(3) The mushaf of Uthman(ra) was an exact copy of suhuf Hafsah(ra) as attested by the hadeeth

Scholarship of the bible not being preserved is the majority. You belong to fringe scholarship in your claim that the bible is not corrupted.

From you :
'..A text does not have to be written by Jesus in order to be scripture if it did the Quran is in much more trouble than the NT..'

Nobody is claiming the said text should be written by the person receiving the revelation. However the NT in particular is not a document that records the words of biblical jesus when he provided any said revelation. The NT is just a document by unknown authors and authors after the passing of biblical jesus who never knew , walked and talked with biblical jesus. How do you justify that the NT is the word of god??

The NT is just the word of people who heard about a person who could perform miracles many years removed.

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :

'..Well, it's your NT that has a different concept of God than the OT..'

'..If Quran has the same concept of God why do you reject it? I thought you rejected the Bible because it disagrees with the Quran..'

'..Have you even read the OT?

Gentiles were never forbidden from eating pork. That is a law for Israel..'

You are already confused. The above are not my arguments. Please refer your arguments to the correct person.

TQ

el Lobo said...

FMM said:

Does the God tell me the Quran is the word of God ……..NO
Have the people of God down through history accepted the Quran……. NO
Does the Quran fit seamlessly with God’s genuine books ………….NO

I say:

You're getting more and more confused by the minute.
In the quran it does. Or do you have some channel to God through which he tells you it's the word of God. How many verses in the NT say the individual books are all from God?
I don't know how you define people of God, but a lot of people from different walks of life have accepted Islam.
If you mean the OT, it fits in more ways than the NT. Moreover,it does fit with the uncorrupted scripture, none of which exist today.

You said:

Use the same standard for both books

I’m consistent are you?

I say:

I just did and have done in the previous post, even though these are your criteria not mine. You're the one who fail to judge your book by your own criteria. Moreover, you come up with different criteria all the time. In other threads you've hammered the argument that the Quran is not reliable because we don't have access to the pre-uthmanic copies. I've refuted this argument and also showed that on the basis of this standard your NT fares much worse.

Ta da!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Sam,

Let’s examine your evidence “rationally”

You said,

1) The Quran was documented upon its revelation and orally checked


I say,

You know this how? Because your leaders told you so? Where is your evidence. What you have is stories written down many years after the fact no physical evidence at all


You say,

(2) The oral tradition of memorization

I say,

Memorization does not insure preservation if it did we would not right anything down.

Suppose we have to people with a different recollection of a passage who are equally convinced they are right how do you determine who is right?

We both no the answer the man with the bigger sword gets to choose what is in the Quran.

You say,

(3) The mushaf of Uthman(ra) was an exact copy of suhuf Hafsah(ra) as attested by the hadeeth

I say,

Again you are relying on what your leader’s claim and what they collected?

If anyone disagreed Uthman’s followers would surely have expunged their claims Just like he did to the competing texts


When we examine your evidence “rationally” we find that it boils down to one thing

You believe your book is preserved because that is what you have been told.

Contrast that to the situation with the NT.

We can and do physically check our text against early copies, more copies than exist for any other ancient document.

When a new copy is discovered as happens frequently we carefully compare it with the text we have.

We’ve done this since the beginning and continue to do so.

It’s not just the leadership who do this anyone can see for themselves.

Can you see the difference? One of us puts his faith in his leaders the other in God and the phyiscal evidence?



Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

You are already confused. The above are not my arguments. Please refer your arguments to the correct person.

I say,

I'm Sorry I was in a hurry and it's difficult to keep strait a three way discussion.

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lobo said,

You're the one who fail to judge your book by your own criteria.

I say,

Please elaborate if I’m being inconsistent I want to know it.

You say,

Moreover, you come up with different criteria all the time. In other threads you've hammered the argument that the Quran is not reliable because we don't have access to the pre-uthmanic copies.


I say,

When I bring up ulthman’s destruction of the competing Qurans it’s not because I reject the Quran on this basis. I reject the Quran because it is clearly a false prophecy.

I only bring up Ulthman to demonstrate that when you reject the NT because you do not have the original and the copies contain errors you need to reject the Quran as well.

You say,


I've refuted this argument and also showed that on the basis of this standard your NT fares much worse.

I say,

When did you do that?

There is no Ulthman in the history of Christianity because Christianity was a persecuted faith and no Christian leader ever had the power to do what Ulthman did.

Peace

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"...
https://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=270906759994
..."


What is it you are going to prove?

Another unverified link. Mr. Google is your friend?? Yeah..


Just face it man. No individual to commit the entire Bible to memory.

It is not God'genuine literature.

It wasn't part of God's almighty plan.


FMM:

"...

ענה כסיל כאולתו פן־יהיה חכם בעיניו׃

translation:

Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own eyes.
(Proverbs 26:5)

..."


Are you sure?

Last time I checked in Christian site http://ecmarsh.com/index.htm this is what reads for Proverbs 26:5

It translates as:
lest they drink, and forget wisdom, and be not able to judge the poor rightly.


going down we found the corresponding verse which read :

28:5 Yet answer a fool according to his folly, lest he seem wise in his own conceit.


A stark difference, a undeniable fact of corruption, insertion and deletion.

See, you christians can never agree to one another what is the "original text" for OT.

The Masoretic Text oldest fragments were from the 10th century AD.

This Hebrew text clearly not the original Hebrew because it is different to the Greek Septuagint considered older than masoretic text which is available today.

Last time I check in

http://www.septuagint.org/

The proverbs contains no greek text for chapter 25 to 30

Another clear sign of corruption I found in less of 5 seconds.


more comments to come Inshallah

Wassalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Lobo said,

Or do you have some channel to God through which he tells you it's the word of God.

I say,

Do you honestly not know this about us?

Quote:

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
(John 16:13-14)

End quote:

You say,

How many verses in the NT say the individual books are all from God?

I say,

Quote:

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
(2 Timothy 3:16)

End quote:

I don’t take the word of a particular book as to whether it is scripture that would be a circular argument.

To determine if a particular book is scripture requires the testimony of the Spirit validated by the people of God and the scripture as a whole.

You say,

I don't know how you define people of God, but a lot of people from different walks of life have accepted Islam.

I say,

A lot of people from all walks of life accepted atheism but that does not make them the people of God.

God gets to define who his people are

quote:

but you do not believe because you are not part of my flock. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me.
(John 10:26-27)



For it stands in Scripture: "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame." So the honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, "The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense." They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do. But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are…………. God's people; ……………………….once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.
(1 Peter 2:6-10)

end qoute:

You say

If you mean the OT, it fits in more ways than the NT.


I say,

This does not make any sense

You reject the OT because it does not fit with the Quran. You said so yourself

We accept it because it does. The Authors of the NT all accepted the OT as schripture all Christians have always accepted it. We all say that it is perfectly consistent. More than that we say that it is a necessary part of our faith.

If you think the OT does not agree with the New please present some evidence.

You say,

Moreover,it does fit with the uncorrupted scripture, none of which exist today.

I say,

Again present some evidence and be consistent use the same standard that you would use for your book.

Please don't give me that "we don't have the original" stuff again.

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric,

you said,

Last time I checked in Christian site http://ecmarsh.com/index.htm this is what reads for Proverbs 26:5

I say

do you honestly think the verse numbers are schripture?

You say,

the Greek Septuagint considered older than masoretic text which is available today.

I say,

considered by WHO?

be consistant

peace

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"...
ἐν πρᾶότητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους μήποτε δῷ αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς

μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας

translation

correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them

repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth,
(2 Timothy 2:25)

..."


I checked with http://www.septuagint.org

Interestingly this greek text reads:

διδακτικόν, ἀνεξίκακον, ἐν πραΰτητι παιδεύοντα τοὺς ἀντιδιατιθεμένους, μή ποτε δῴη αὐτοῖς ὁ θεὸς μετάνοιαν εἰς ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας


25 and who can calmly teach those who disagree. Why, perhaps God will lead them to repent and to an accurate knowledge of the truth,

A clear evidence of difference.

We dont have this different in the Genuine God's Word. Pity you dont have stringent tradition of text preservation.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"..

the Greek Septuagint considered older than masoretic text which is available today.

I say,

considered by WHO?

.."

Don't give me "considered by WHO" stuff again.

You think I made this up, muslims is in no business of textual integrity of OT. These are are the opinion of scholars.


Please be a little bit humble and do a little research

Here is a good place to start http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Masoretic_Text


Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


FMM:

"...
There is no Ulthman in the history of Christianity because Christianity was a persecuted faith and no Christian leader ever had the power to do what Ulthman did.
..."


‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan was prophet apostle (sahabah) he was helped by a commision headed by Zayd ibn Thabit – a personal secretary to the Prophet.

What more to expect for such credible persons to do such task to collect all the available verses of the Qur’an from the ‘Ummah and undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur’an.

God had kept His promises to preserve His Final Scripture. The third Caliph was just an instrument of Allah to do what Allah had intended to do.

There is no evidence there is internal disagreement within Commission regarding rejected the verses that DID MEET the established criteria. Nor, there is evidence to show that the Commission was biased in preparing the final copy. It was unanimous decision.

Contrast this with the formation of NT, what became the Bible today at the hands of the scribes who were none from apostolic era over the The Bible text had been through radical alteration over hundred of years at the hands of the scribes “who were not only conserving scripture but also changing it.

For instance, the first time any Christian of record listed the 27 books of the New Testament as the books of the New Testament was 300 years after the books have been written .

Modern scholars studying surviving Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, came to the conlusion that we simply don’t have the original words constituting the New Testament.


Btw FMM, may I know who you are? do u have a name?

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

The Man who brought you your Quran Uthman converted to Jewdiasm after he died. No joke he was burried in a Jewish cementary.

As a matter of fact Uthman was considered a HERTIC\Apostate by quite a few Muslims. Even Aisha the mohter of believers brought out one of Mohameds Sandals and waved it at him in contempt.

Uthman was STONED at the Mosque in Medina, and ohhh Uthman was KILLED by MUSLIMS becasue he was viewed as a APOSTATE.

So this is the person who brought you your Quran.

A hypocrite, hertic\Apostate, and later convert to Judasim.

el Lobo said...

FMM said:

I only bring up Ulthman to demonstrate that when you reject the NT because you do not have the original and the copies contain errors you need to reject the Quran as well.

I say:

You know that the Bible is rejected on the basis of many criteria. Each these criteria invalidates the bible on it's own. If the book is unreliable then we can't trust anything in it.
You compare the Quran with the bible. Bad analogy. There were so many who had memorized the Quran that it would be impossible for him to get away with it. Moreover, as you argue for the NT too many people were involved that it would be virtually impossible to maintain a conpiracy of this magnitude.

You said:

To determine if a particular book is scripture requires the testimony of the Spirit validated by the people of God and the scripture as a whole.

I say:

You talk in riddles. How did you come up with these criteria? I smell a circular argument here.

Concerning timothy, all scripture is a little bit vague. Moreover, it's the only place in the NT where such a statement is made.

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


RM:

"...The Man who brought you your Quran Uthman converted to Jewdiasm after he died. No joke he was burried in a Jewish cementary..."


Yeah, I heard that George W Bush the man who brought your Bible was also converted to "Jewdiasm" (whatever it means) too.

Thanks for the info, very enlightening.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

You wrote...

"Yeah, I heard that George W Bush the man who brought your Bible was also converted to "Jewdiasm" (whatever it means) too."

That is just pathetic on so many levels. Dont know what FORMER president Bush has to do wth the bible or what he even has to do in comparason with one of your rightly guided calaiphs being murdered and burried in a jewish cementary because he was so dispised as a hypocrite and even Apostate.

This same "Rightly GUided" Calaiph was also the rightly guided Caliph who brought you your Quran.

So how can you follow the words compiled by a hypocrite\aposate\ post mortom JEW?

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


"That is just pathetic on so many levels."


Just as pathetic someone who just claim ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan conversion to Jewdiasm (whatever it is)

`Uthman ibn `Affan ibn Abi al-`As ibn Umayya ibn `Abd Shams, Abu `Amr, Abu `Abd Allah, Abu Layla al-Qurashi al-Umawi (d. 35).

He was the Prophet companion, the Amîr al-Mu’minîn, leader of the Muslim ummah, no better person to undertake the task of preparing a definitive compiled copy of the Qur’an.

You don't even know who wrote the new testament.

That is no comparison.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

ERIC

Your compiler of the Quran was murdered becasue he was considered a hypocrite and apostate. He was so dispised that after his murder they the Muslims would not even allow him buried in the Muslim cementary. Instead he was burried in the Jewish cemetary.

It was only years later that the wall that divided the Muslim cementary from the Jewish cementary wa knocked down.

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"...
Have you even read the OT?

Gentiles were never forbidden from eating pork. That is a law for Israel
..."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=aU5kek3D-4I


This video is self explanatory... NO PORK!!!

Joel Osteen, a mainstream pastor apprently still honest to Jesus (p) teaching tells you:

DO NOT EAT PORK!!

So take heed or eat it at your own destruction man!

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


Another radical idea from fundie Radmod,

No muslim consider Uthman (R) a hypocrite nor an apostate.

The Prophet once said: "The most compassionate of my Community towards my Community is Abu Bakr; the staunchest in Allah’s Religion is `Umar; and the most truthful in his modesty is `Uthman."


He was humble and was seen at the time of his caliphate sleeping alone in the mosque, wrapped in a blanket with no one around him, and riding on a mule with his son Na’il behind him.

'Uthman (R) is also a Quran memorizer, a hafidz. It is related through several sound chains that `Uthman recited the whole Qur’an in a single rak`a.

Ibrahim ibn Rustum al-Marwazi said: "Four are the Imams that recited the entire Qur’an in a single rak`a: `Uthman ibn `Affan, Tamim al-Dari, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, and Abu Hanifa." Ibn al-Mubarak also narrated that `Uthman used to fast all year round. `Ali ibn Abi Talib said: "`Uthman was one of those who were ‘mindful of their duty and [did] good works, and again [were] mindful of [their] duty, and [believed], and once again [were] mindful of their duty, and did right.


Do you know it is a Muslim tradtion to give salawat and mention Prophet Muhammad and all propherts before jim (the Anbiyaa), and the four Khulafaur Rasyidiin: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, Hadhrat Ali whenever muslim perform a prayer.


The fate of `Uthman (R) marked political division of the muslim ummah.

The Prophet spoke of `Uthman’s forthcoming martyrdom on numerous occasions:

"Give him [`Uthman] the tidings of Paradise after a trial that shall befall him."

"A dissension shall surge like so many bull’s horns. At that time, he [indicating a man wearing a veil] and whoever is with him are on the side of right." Ka`b ibn Murra al-Bahzi then ran to the man, lifted his veil, and turned him towards the Prophet saying: "Him, O Messenger of Allah?" The Prophet said yes. It was `Uthman ibn `Affan.

`Uthman said: "The Prophet took a covenant from me [not to fight at the time of my martyrdom] and I shall fulfill it."

"O `Uthman! It may be that Allah shall vest you with a shirt. If they demand that you remove it, do not remove it."


It was Political division rather than Theological division.

Compared this when emperor Constantine the most powerful person in his era. His conversion to Christianity had far reaching effects on the common practice of the religion we call Christianity today.

The first Christians did not worship Jesus and they were within the ranks of the unitarians in affirming a simple monotheistic theology.

Constantine power shaped the theology and developed shirk as promoting the serious sin of idolatry in its worship of prophet Jesus (p) as God for the past 2000 years…

Wasalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

you said it was poltical and not theological.

Unfortunitly theology in Islam is politics in Islam.

Second tell me what are the "Political Reasons" that Uthman was STONED at the Mosq in Medina? What where the Political reasons that three Muslim Armies rode out and surrouned him in Medina and kept him under seige?

What are the "Political Reasons" that Aisha held up a sandal of Mohamed and said words to the affect of "This sanda is not yet worn out and you have forgotten his SUNNAH"?

Tell me what are the "Political Reasons" that after he was murdered he was burried in a Jewish cementary and not a Muslim cementary?

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :

'..When we examine your evidence “rationally” we find that it boils down to one thing

You believe your book is preserved because that is what you have been told..'

Wrong!! The hadeeths that records the compilation of Mushaf Uthman(ra) clearly provided the evidence that
(1) Suhuf Hafsah(ra) has been proof read and approved by the Prophat Muhammad(saw) himself
(2) Mushaf Uthman(ra) was an exact copy of Suhuf Hafsah(ra) and upon compilation it was proof read to the public and had public approval. The process was a very transparent one.

The non preservation theories have long been abandoned. Even Orientalist nowadays affirm that there has been no change to the Quran. You can refer to works by Angelika Neuwirth. We muslims have documented proof of preservation together with the results of research done by non muslims attesting preservation of the Quran. You are just arguing based on your judgement of non preservation of the Quran.

From you :

'..We can and do physically check our text against early copies, more copies than exist for any other ancient document..'

What early copies do you have? These so called early copies are just copies after copies. If you talk about early copies , the Quran MSS like the ones in Sana'a , British Library , Bibliotheq National are within 70 yrs after the passing of Prophet Muhammad(saw) (dated by non muslims). Do you have any Bible MSS within 70 yrs of biblical jesus??

A simple example is the last chapter of mark. I quote from the NIV bible :
'..The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have verses 9–20..'

Fundamental christians like you still believe that such is the word of god and use it as if nothing happened.

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

I dont blame you RM, there are always people like you, those who are spreading lies and falsehood (Fitnah) among muslims.

This was already foretold by the Prophet in the hadith: "I entrust to you the well-being of my Companions, and that of those that come after them. Then falsehood will spread."


"It is as though the prophecy that made 'Uthman Ibn 'Affan, great leader may Allah be pleased with him, has come true when wild mob of political opponent that came from distant regions of the kingdom, from Egypt and Iraq, entered his home, having decided to kill him, a caliph who had, been democratically elected.

Do you think those mob were true muslims?? They violated the sanctity of the home of the Caliph – the pious, worshipping, prostrating [caliph] – as he sat on his prayer mat reading the Holy Koran. They killed him and spilled his blood on the holy book (We still have the remain of the this blood stain Quranic manuscript to this day in Museum), and cut off his wife's fingers as she tried to protect him with her own body.


"[The Caliph Uthman] told them, 'If you kill me, you put the sword to your own neck, and then Allah will not lift it from you until the Day of Resurrection. And if you kill me, you will never be united in prayer, and you will never divide the booty amongst you, and Allah will never remove discord from amongst you.'

Sadly ever since that murderous event (as if fulfilling the curse of 'Uthman Ibn 'Affan) the Muslims had already been disunited and have never been reunited to this day.

However Muslims share no spiritual differences, but political ones.

Unlike Christians, all muslims agree on the most fundamental Islamic beliefs, articles of faith and (holy scripture).

Muslims may differ on certain interpretation of religious text but the religious text itself remain intact.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

Erik

Just have one question for you.

Do Muslims have the right, nay the DUTY to over through the Caliph if he strays from the path of ISLAM?

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


FM:
"..The problem is that Muslim apologists gets their information about the Bible from the left wing fringe of skeptical scholarship instead of the mainstream.."


Your problem is that you turn a blind eye to most leading non evangelical scholars of NT study and textual criticism agree that that there are no original text.

The originals were lost, the first copies were lost, the copies of the copies were lost, and the copies of the copies of the copies were lost.

Muslims have no problem accepting that God inspired the originals, but it wasn't part of God's plan that the originals are preserved.

Since we we don’t know what the originals said, thus why the final revelation the Quran to validate against forgery and correct controversial theology like Jesus (p) is divine.


Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

Erik

YOu accused me of trying to spread "FITNA" against Muslims.

I don't have to as thsi video proves.

Muslim prayer"

What I find most interesting about this video, is the Muslim who is condeming him. He is not condeming him so much for the prayer but who the prayer was against.

Had this Muslim only prayed these things against JEWS it would of been ok.

Well enjoy

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم



RM: "Do Muslims have the right, nay the DUTY to over through the Caliph if he strays from the path of ISLAM?"


The judgement of someone gone astray is only appropriate for the people of knowledge who are firmly grounded in knowledge.
Islam discourage this and even the sign is clear there are judges in the Shari’ah law courts.

This definetely not for the 3 third Caliph of the highly respected Khulafa'ur Rasyidin of whom the Prophet (p) had put trust on them.

Suppose there is still Caliphate for the muslim ummah (not Khulafa'ur Rasyidin), impeachment of gone astray Caliph must be consulted through shari'a majlis (council) elected by muslims ummah through an agreed ruling not through violent mob, bloodshed and killing.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erick

You wrote...

"The judgement of someone gone astray is only appropriate for the people of knowledge who are firmly grounded in knowledge.
Islam discourage this and even the sign is clear there are judges in the Shari’ah law courts.

and


"Suppose there is still Caliphate for the muslim ummah (not Khulafa'ur Rasyidin), impeachment of gone astray Caliph must be consulted through shari'a majlis (council) elected by muslims ummah through an agreed ruling not through violent mob, bloodshed and killing."

DId any of these councils or shari'a Jajlis exist during the time of Uthman? And do you know any of their names?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

Don't give me "considered by WHO" stuff again.

You think I made this up, muslims is in no business of textual integrity of OT. These are are the opinion of scholars.


I say,

So you looked around and found someone who calls himself a scholar who considers a copy of a translation to be superior to a copy in the original language and you just take their word for it?

This is after your repeated insistence that Islam is superior because you use the original language instead of a translation.

Be consistent.

Would you as a Muslim ever consider a translation to be superior to a Quran in the original language?

The majority of scholars consider the Masoretic Hebrew text to be superior to a Greek translation in most instances that is why we follow it in our Bibles. That is why I asked you who's word you were taking

This beautifully illustrates the difference between our two faiths.

We Christians have the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew and the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead sea scrolls.

Four separate witnesses coming from four competing relegious sects.

We can see them all for ourselves to verify for ourselves that the OT has not been corrupted.

For the Muslim this is impossible because of the actions of your leaders. You destroy the competing texts we study and footnote them in our Bibles.

As to the minor differences you see between the Hebrew and it’s Greek translation You need to understand the book of Proverbs is actually a collection of different collections of short pithy ethical sayings. It’s not narrative Each saying stands on it’s own and it’s meaning is not dependant on it’s particular order in the collection. Most of the differences between these two witnesses is due to a different ordering semantic used by the Greeks.

I hope that helps

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

Don't give me "considered by WHO" stuff again.

You think I made this up, muslims is in no business of textual integrity of OT. These are are the opinion of scholars.


I say,

So you looked around and found someone who calls himself a scholar who considers a copy of a translation to be superior to a copy in the original language and you just take their word for it?

This is after your repeated insistence that Islam is superior because you use the original language instead of a translation.

Be consistent.

Would you as a Muslim ever consider a translation to be superior to a Quran in the original language?

The majority of scholars consider the Masoretic Hebrew text to be superior to a Greek translation in most instances that is why we follow it in our Bibles. That is why I asked you who's word you were taking

This beautifully illustrates the difference between our two faiths.

We Christians have the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew and the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Dead sea scrolls.

Four separate witnesses coming from four competing relegious sects.

We can see them all for ourselves to verify for ourselves that the OT has not been corrupted.

For the Muslim this is impossible because of the actions of your leaders. You destroy the competing texts we study and footnote them in our Bibles.

As to the minor differences you see between the Hebrew and it’s Greek translation You need to understand the book of Proverbs is actually a collection of different collections of short pithy ethical sayings. It’s not narrative Each saying stands on it’s own and it’s meaning is not dependant on it’s particular order in the collection. Most of the differences between these two witnesses is due to a different ordering semantic used by the Greeks.

I hope that helps

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

The originals were lost, the first copies were lost, the copies of the copies were lost, and the copies of the copies of the copies were lost.


I say,

The situation is exactly the same for the Quran plus the early copies were burned but you reject the Bible and accept it.

Why?

be consistant.


When it comes to the Bible we can check the texts we have against the many many manuscripts (more than for any other ancient text) scattered all over the ancient world many very early ones. And new manuscripts are discovered all the time.

There is absolutely no way an evil church leader could have corrupted the NT this is not controversial it is just the history of the text.

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

Muslims have no problem accepting that God inspired the originals, but it wasn't part of God's plan that the originals are preserved.

I say,

wow

Just think about the implications of that statement....

Allah does not care if his Word is preserved. God supposedly speaks to man revealing his will and his nature and then allows that message to be lost.

If Allah has such a low level of concern for his word how can possibly trust that he preserved the Quran.

If Allah has failed to preserve his word 66 times why would you expect him to do it this time.

A god that has a preservation record of 1 and 66 is not worthy of worship in anyone's book if they are consistant

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

sam said,

Wrong!! The hadeeths that records the compilation of Mushaf Uthman(ra) clearly provided the evidence that.....

I say,

Come on man use your head. Who compiled and perserved the hadeeths??

Are you really this gullible?

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

If you talk about early copies , the Quran MSS like the ones in Sana'a , British Library , Bibliotheq National are within 70 yrs after the passing of Prophet Muhammad(saw) (dated by non muslims). Do you have any Bible MSS within 70 yrs of biblical jesus??



I say,

Are you dishonest or just uninformed?

check this out


Quote:



Having studied early Qur'an manuscripts, John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." He comes to this conclusion by analysing the state of development of the script used in the two of the oldest manuscripts available at the time he is writing, the Samarkand and Topkapi codices. The codices are both written in the Kufic script. It "can generally be dated from the late eight century depending on the extent of development in the character of the script in each case."

End quote:


That is more than two hundred twenty years after The death of Muhammad. The codex Codex Sinaiticus which is an entire NT dates to within of 250 years of the compleation the text and we have many many partial manuscripts that are much older than this.

Please be consistent

The textual evidence for the NT is much stronger than that for the Quran. It's not even close

Peace

Radical Moderate said...

FMM

YOu asked if Sam is dishonest or just uninformed.

I'm saying he is just a Muslim.

From Islamic Awareness

"Shebunin dated this manuscript to the early second century hijra.[1] On the basis of the orthography as observed in the 1905 facsimile edition prepared by S. I. Pisarev,[2] Jeffery dated it to the early ninth century.[3] More recently, Déroche had assigned a date to the second half of the eight century.[4] The carbon-dating of a folio from this manuscript was carried out at Oxford. The result showed a 68% probability of a date between 640 CE and 765 CE, and a 95% probability of a date between 595 CE and 855 CE.[5] Commenting on this result, Rezvan noted that the paleographic dating of this manuscript also indicated a date at the turn of the eight / ninth century CE.[6]"

Thats a little bit later then 702 AD

Quran Manuscript

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :
'..Having studied early Qur'an manuscripts, John Gilchrist states: "The oldest manuscripts of the Quran still in existence date from not earlier than about one hundred years after Muhammad's death." He comes to this conclusion by analysing the state of development of the script used in the two of the oldest manuscripts available at the time he is writing, the Samarkand and Topkapi codices..'

Whaaat??? Why are you quoting John Gilchrist , a south african lawyer not a scholar , who claimed he had examined the tokapi / samarkand codices?? I am talking about the codices of Sana'a , in the British museum and the Bibliotheq National. Why are you twisting and turning trying to falsify information??

For the codices in
(1) Sana'a
date : 1st century of hijra (equivalent to the 'great umayyad Quran)
sana'a mss
(2) British Museum
'..Based on the similarity between MS. Arabe 328a and MS. Or. 2165, Dutton suggests re-dating this manuscript to the time just before the Umayyad Caliph Walid (r. 86-96 AH), i.e., within the period 30-85 AH with the latter end of this time scale being safer. The last part of first century hijra dating for this manuscript was also suggested by Rabb.[8] Thus, these studies confirm the earlier datings of Karabacek and Grohmann..'
British Museum mss
(3)Bibliotheq National
date : Second half of first century of hijra.
Bibilotheq mss

Why are you diverting to Tokapi / Smarakand whereas I am talking about Sana'a , British Museum , Bibliotheq?? You need to start facing facts and not try to twist and turn when the bible has been compared to be inferior.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

from you :
'..Thats a little bit later then 702 AD
Quran Manuscript

I am talking about the codices in Sana'a , British Museum and Biblioteq. Why are you twisting it into Tokapi / Samarkand?? Must be the holy spirit in you. You christians just cannot be honest ... can you??

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

We can see that the codices of Sana'a , British Museum and Biblioteq is about 70 yrs after Prophet Muhammad.

What is the earliest bible mss you have?? 200 or 300 yrs after the passing of biblical jesus. When was a complete NT compiled?? 400 / 500 yrs after the passing of biblical jesus??

You christians have nothing. In the end , we muslims talk about the Sana'a , British Museum , Biblioteq MSS you tried to twist the facts and talk about samarkand / tokapi. This is very dishonest. Oh well , I guess you have to take that path as you have nothing in comparison.

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


RM:
'..YOu asked if Sam is dishonest or just uninformed.

I'm saying he is just a Muslim.."



The Qur'an was memorised and written down at the time of prophet Muhammad.

The earliest surviving manuscripts digged at the Great Mosque built at the time of prophet Muhammad (p), carbon dated to 645–690 AD (mid century Hijra) just several decades after the prophet death.


Of course RM/FMM dont acknowledge this since they rely on dishonest answering-islam site


Lets get some basic, Non evangelical serious NT Scholars agree that:

- No one know who had written the NT
- You dont have original NT text.


FMM claims that the textual evidence for the NT is much stronger than that for the Quran??

Use your head man!

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


FMM:
"...
Eric said,

The originals were lost, the first copies were lost, the copies of the copies were lost, and the copies of the copies of the copies were lost.

I say,
The situation is exactly the same for the Quran plus the early copies were burned but you reject the Bible and accept it.
..."


Nope. We muslims all over the world use ONE Quran, we MEMORIZED it, we have been faituful to recite the *original text* the same language as it was revealed from the time of prophet to now no matter what language muslims come from.


In contrast you treat Scriptures like a Novel and disregard language other than English as "LaBamba" rubbish.

No wonder your book was forged.

Wassalam

Erik said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم

FMM:

"..If Allah has failed to preserve his word 66 times why would you expect him to do it this time.

A god that has a preservation record of 1 and 66 is not worthy of worship in anyone's book if they are consistant.. "


You think muslims believe in the genuine Injeel is the same as what in Protestant Church , Roman Catholic Church , Anglican Church, Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church, Syriac Church books?

They even can not be consistent to which BOOKS should be called a BIBLE to begin with. is it 66, 73, 100...?


Yes, God are not supposed to make distinction between any of the messages, however, the people who received the message before, they threw this covenant behind their backs:


وَإِذْ أَخَذَ اللَّهُ مِيثَاقَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ لَتُبَيِّنُنَّهُ لِلنَّاسِ وَلَا تَكْتُمُونَهُ فَنَبَذُوهُ وَرَاءَ ظُهُورِهِمْ وَاشْتَرَوْا بِهِ ثَمَنًا قَلِيلًا ۖ فَبِئْسَ مَا يَشْتَرُونَ

And [mention, O Muhammad], when Allah took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture, [saying], "You must make it clear to the people and not conceal it." But they threw it away behind their backs and exchanged it for a small price. And wretched is that which they purchased. (Q3:187)


فَبِمَا نَقْضِهِم مِّيثَاقَهُمْ لَعَنَّاهُمْ وَجَعَلْنَا قُلُوبَهُمْ قَاسِيَةً ۖ يُحَرِّفُونَ الْكَلِمَ عَن مَّوَاضِعِهِ ۙ وَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ ۚ وَلَا تَزَالُ تَطَّلِعُ عَلَىٰ خَائِنَةٍ مِّنْهُمْ إِلَّا قَلِيلًا مِّنْهُمْ ۖ فَاعْفُ عَنْهُمْ وَاصْفَحْ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ يُحِبُّ الْمُحْسِنِينَ

So for their breaking of the covenant We cursed them and made their hearts hard. They distort words from their [proper] usages and have forgotten a portion of that of which they were reminded. And you will still observe deceit among them, except a few of them. But pardon them and overlook [their misdeeds]. Indeed, Allah loves the doers of good. (Q 5:13)

وَمِنَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّا نَصَارَىٰ أَخَذْنَا مِيثَاقَهُمْ فَنَسُوا حَظًّا مِّمَّا ذُكِّرُوا بِهِ فَأَغْرَيْنَا بَيْنَهُمُ الْعَدَاوَةَ وَالْبَغْضَاءَ إِلَىٰ يَوْمِ الْقِيَامَةِ ۚ وَسَوْفَ يُنَبِّئُهُمُ اللَّهُ بِمَا كَانُوا يَصْنَعُونَ

And from those who say, "We are Christians" We took their covenant; but they forgot a portion of that of which they were reminded. So We caused among them animosity and hatred until the Day of Resurrection. And Allah is going to inform them about what they used to do. (Q 5:14)

They are blasphemous to consider Jesus as God;


لَّقَدْ كَفَرَ الَّذِينَ قَالُوا إِنَّ اللَّهَ هُوَ الْمَسِيحُ ابْنُ مَرْيَمَ ۚ قُلْ فَمَن يَمْلِكُ مِنَ اللَّهِ شَيْئًا إِنْ أَرَادَ أَن يُهْلِكَ الْمَسِيحَ ابْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَأُمَّهُ وَمَن فِي الْأَرْضِ جَمِيعًا ۗ وَلِلَّهِ مُلْكُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَمَا بَيْنَهُمَا ۚ يَخْلُقُ مَا يَشَاءُ ۚ وَاللَّهُ عَلَىٰ كُلِّ شَيْءٍ قَدِيرٌ

They have certainly disbelieved who say that Allah is Christ, the son of Mary. Say, "Then who could prevent Allah at all if He had intended to destroy Christ, the son of Mary, or his mother or everyone on the earth?" And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them. He creates what He wills, and Allah is over all things competent.(Q 5:12)


Jesus taught the Oneness of God. He told everyone that there is only one LORD, Jesus never called himself God.

So Jesus words did not pass away, his essential teachings (the Injeel) are still here in the Holy Qur'an!


Wassalam.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey Sam and Eric,


Before this evoloves into a typical battle of the scholars you need to keep in mind that it makes no difference to me at all if the Quran is perfectly perserved I would still reject it.

Eric on the other hand has again claimed that he would accept the NT if it was not lost so I will again make my challenge

Suppose I could produce a passage that scholarship can trace conclusively to the closet companions of Jesus and to less that 10 years after his death that contradicted a key teaching of Islam would you accept it.

If the answer is no then please abandon this charade and be consistent.

Argueing againist the perservation of the NT is not your real aim is it? You really wish to argue against it's message.

Am I right?

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric, Do you honestly think that not knowing the exact number of times Allah failed to perserve his word ishelpful to your case?

you said

Yes, God are not supposed to make distinction between any of the messages, however, the people who received the message before, they threw this covenant behind their backs:

I say,

So allah is dependant on people to perserve his message. If the people are unfaithful the message is lost. WOW

contrast that sort of weak diety with the all powerful God of the Bible

quote:

Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged."
(Romans 3:1-4)

end quote:

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

The earliest surviving manuscripts digged at the Great Mosque built at the time of prophet Muhammad (p), carbon dated to 645–690 AD (mid century Hijra) just several decades after the prophet death.

I say,

carbon dating tells us next to nothing about when a text was written it only tells us a verry rough approximation of when the plant or animal that was used to create the “paper” that eventually contained the text lived.

That is why when it comes to dating texts scholars rely on script analysis.

Do you know of such an analysis done on these texts? Is there a place that we can view the manuscripts for ourselves to verify that they are the quran we have today?

Hey Sam,

Thanks for the links to the Islamic Dawah site do you have any thing from a scholarly source.

I got my information on the date of the earliest quran from wikipeida not a reliable source but the only one I could find with out a particular axe to grind

Peace

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

From you :
'..Before this evoloves into a typical battle of the scholars you need to keep in mind that it makes no difference to me at all if the Quran is perfectly perserved I would still reject it..'

You completely missed the point. We muslims have proof of preservation of the Quran and the strongest being the oral tradition in addition to dated documents. To be blunt christians have nothing in comparison.

What has been very disappointing is that both you and radical moderate have been quite dishonest in your arguments. Why bring up samarkand / tokapi mss while we have been talking about the mss in sana'a , british museum and the bibilotheq??

Your belief is your right. Nobody is questioning it.

Oh yeah , you claim the following :
'..Suppose I could produce a passage that scholarship can trace conclusively to the closet companions of Jesus and to less that 10 years after his death that contradicted a key teaching of Islam would you accept it..'

(1) Where is the said document?? Is it copies after copies after copies ...
(2) Who was the transmitter of the passage or is it just a story picked up from the marketplace at that time?

Erik said...

بِسْــــــــــــــــــمِ اﷲِالرَّحْمَنِ اارَّحِيم


FMM:
"..
you said

Yes, God are not supposed to make distinction between any of the messages, however, the people who received the message before, they threw this covenant behind their backs:

I say,

So allah is dependant on people to perserve his message. If the people are unfaithful the message is lost. WOW
.."


You dont get it do you ?

وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ مِنَ الْكِتَابِ هُوَ الْحَقُّ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ ۗ إِنَّ اللَّهَ بِعِبَادِهِ لَخَبِيرٌ بَصِيرٌ

And that which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], of the Book is the truth, *confirming* (Ar: Musaddiqan مُصَدِّقًا ) what was before it. Indeed, Allah , of His servants, is Acquainted and Seeing.(Q35:31)



Confirming Ar: Musaddiqan مُصَدِّقًا comes from the stem word Saddaqa ص د ق means:


"To say (tell, speak) the truth; to be true, truthful, sincere."


By confirming that which was revealed then Quran by default exposes the corruption.”


What you have with you now was corrupted and the Quran is speaking the truth regarding those scriptures.

In almost all the verses using the word "Musaddiqan "

Surah 35 Verse 31
Surah 10 Verse 37
Surah 12 Verse 111
Surah 3 Verse 3
Surah 5 Verse 46 – 48
Surah 2 Verse 41
Surah 2 Verse 89
Surah 2 Verse 91
Surah 2 Verse 97
Surah 2 Verse 101
Surah 3 Verse 39
Surah 3 Verse 50
Surah 3 Verse 81
Surah 4 Verse 47
Surah 6 Verse 92
Surah 37 Verse 52
Surah 46 Verse 12
Surah 46 Verse 30
Surah 61 Verse 6


it is stated that the Quran is ‘confirming the previous revelations’. So it confirms what which is preserved in the Bible ‘to be true’.

Confirming what is still truthful’ and ‘sincere’ to the previous revelations by God and not to the corruptions made by man.

It is impossible for the still preserved passages in the Bible which is contradicted a key teaching of Genuines God's revelation, the Quran.

As it is impossible for one who insist that ONE is equal THREE

Wassalam