Thursday, 5 January 2012

What Every Christian and Muslim Should Know About the Bible - Forged Interview (Bart Ehrman)

2 Hour Interview with Bart Ehrman about Forgeries in the Bible (New Testament)



Interviewed by Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM, Bart Ehrman explains that many books of the New Testament are forgeries written by unknown authors.

 
Sharia Law against terrorism:
 
 
 
Learn about Islam:

226 comments:

1 – 200 of 226   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

the wonderful thing about christian religion and most of other world religions is the proud tradition of textual criticism which eventually leads to further discussions, explorations, researches, to find the truth.

on the contrary, in islam when someone raise a criticism, ALLAHU AKBAR..... you got killed in a painful way.

minoria said...

I am familier with the book,I have read it,in fact I adress many of the details in French articles.

Another who has read the book is Michael Licona.He has written an entire analysis of it.Read it all:

http://risenjesus.com/articles/52-review-of-forged

In the article Licona says:

"And now I wish to return to the crux of the matter of the traditional authorship of the disputed New Testament letters, but especially those attributed to Paul. Most scholars recognize that the use of a secretary in the writing of a letter has the potential to change much. As stated earlier, Ehrman himself recognizes the seriousness of the secretary factor related to arguments against traditional authorship.

Virtually all of the problems with what I've been calling forgeries can be solved if secretaries were heavily involved in the composition of the early Christian writings. (134)

Did Paul sometimes use a secretary? We may answer with an unequivocal yes. Of Paul's seven undisputed letters, it is certain that four involved the use of a secretary.

I, Tertius, who write this letter greet you in the Lord. (Rom 16:22)

This greeting is in my own hand—Paul. (1 Cor 16:21; cf. Gal 6:11; Phile 19)"

Anonymous said...

I'm getting tired of those atheist bible "scholars"...there is no such things as miracles, therefore the book is forged, I don't believe in god, therefore the book is forged.
They don't believe that Jesus did miracles in the New Testament, what makes you think they will believe the same accounts in the quran? Oh wait, you are using a different standard for the quran, you don't care, inconsistency...

erikfadli said...

Muslims took Ehrman position that much of the bible is filled with forgeries and interpolations as part of their faith.

I find particularly interesting when Ehrman propose that the present text included in the New Testament is because a proto- orthodoxy group won the battle for theological orthodoxy

Muslims also believe long time ago as Ehrman pointed out that as many books considered to be valid at the Council of Nicea such as the Gospel of Barnabas, were left out for very specific reasons.

For instance the Gospel of Barnabas was left out because Jesus himself stated that "He is not God."

Also, The "Theology war" raged even within the council, as Arius lost the battle when he disagreed with the Trinity Doctrine. Athanasius and his powerful supporters won that war.

@Minoria,

I find Licona objections are founded on misunderstands Ehrman position because of his own presupposition thus irrelevant .

I dont think Licona's objection is going to hold much weight in the face of the totality of the evidence for the issue of a secretary. The most powerful arguments against the authenticity of most New Testament books are not stylistic, but rather based on external data, and their style-independent internal content.

Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@erik fadli

the gospel of barnabas is not even an apocrypha, it is a forgery written in islamic spain. there are many textual criticism written about the text. please research.

christian textual criticism is a very long tradition which is still ongoing until now. bart ehrman is only one voice in the discussion.

on the other hand, muslims are afraid of textual criticism, or any kind of criticism, this is prooven by the deportation of gert puin after his research on the quran in sanaa concluded that the quran was an evolving text, instead of a fixed codex by the time the sanaa quran was written.

minoria said...

Hello Erik:

I have stated before technical reasons why I accept that the NT documents are from before 7O AD.

Ok,for example,here is why,in part,I accept,the 3 first gospels are from before 62 AD.It also an argument WHY 1 peter is from before 62 AD and by him.

Ehrman rejects that Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed,so that determines his dating conclusions.

It is in French,translate with Google translate:

http://translate.google.com/

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/07/sur-lepitre-1-pierre-et-son-authenticite-et-beaucoup-dautres-informations-techniques/

You can say,like Ehrman,that the miracles,prophecies in the NT are propaganda inventions.

However there are like twenty anti-propaganda passages in the gospels.

Using Baye's Theorem for calculating probabilities you see the math is against lying/inventing for a cause and at the same time saying truthful details that are counter-propaganda for the same cause.Think about it,Erik.

minoria said...

About a Muslim argument

It is told by,I think Shabir Ally,certainly by Williams.That Jesus said:"I desire mercy,not sacrifice".He says it twice in 2 different incidents.

He was citing Hosea.

Ok,about Judaism again

I find it hard to believe the Muslim debaters don't know Judaism,they do.

In Judaism you had to really repent to be forgiven and if possible you have to carry out a sacrifice for sin,in the Temple.Mosaic law says so in Leviticus.

If you did NOT really repent....God did not accept the sacrifice,it was useless.

SO?

So,of course, God wanted mercy,real goodness,repentence and not sacrifice.

Real goodness through repentence came first.But as a good Jew,if it was possible,a sin-offering,killing an animal,was done.

minoria said...

Muslims cite Jesus citation of Hosea and say "Atonement was not necessary".

Yom Kippur (lit. "day [of] atonement",is the most holy Jewish day.It is in Mosaic law,read Levticus 16:29.

Animals were killed as sin-offerings for the entire nation by the High priest.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


@Anon.

No. I dont put my faith much on Gospel of Barbanas. I just find it too bizzare for this muslim forgery theory.

Yes, Wiki stated that existing translation are based from the two medieval Italian and Spanish manuscripts however why can we dismiss the possibility that the source were based from earlier apocryphal work which was suppressed from apostolic original as some academics suggest.

I dont find the Gospel of Barnabas a piece of important document to validate Islam but for me this further showcase that scripturally Christianity is not based on solid platform and that the 4 gospels were cherry picked in the midst of hundreds of Gospels by anonymous Church Fathers.

Also what I find problematic is why these anonymous gospels written in a foreign language (Greek). Didn't Jesus speak Aramaic or a form of Hebrew?

I have no interest in destroying anyone faith or proselytising or taking position as "My belief is better than yours" but objectively, the authenticity of the gospels are incomparable with the Quran, even of the Sahih Hadith's.

Most of the time the sanad /isnad trace back the transmitters of hadith as the children or grandchildren of the disciples of prophet Muhammad himself. the names of the transmitters are no "Mystery".
Unlike Church Tradition which only started late 2nd or 3rd century; hundreds of years after Jesus (p). While the Gospels are regarded anonymous by the majority of New Testament scholars like Ehrman.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Anon: "..on the other hand, muslims are afraid of textual criticism, or any kind of criticism, this is prooven by the deportation of gert puin after his research on the quran in sanaa concluded that the quran was an evolving text, instead of a fixed codex by the time the sanaa quran was written.."

This official fixed codex of the Quran was written down from the original manuscripts. Moreover this codex was agreed by EVERY SINGLE disciples of prophet Muhammad (notably Ubayy, Ibn Mascud, Zaid Ibn Thâbit ) and under supervision by prophet Muhammad living closest companion the Uthman RA.

It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of Uthman was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the official codex of the Quran actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script.

On the contrary the need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of Uthman to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs.

The incorrect writing of vowel and diacritical marks at some places does not in any way effect the integrity of the text as a whole. This is due to the fact that the oral recurrent reporting of the Quranic text has always been used as the standard reference.

You must be aware that the representation of the text in the Arabic language has always been used as a secondary reference.
We have hafidhs (the Quran memoirzers) which can quickly spot any discrepancies/forgeries. This oral tradition of the Qur’an is so well established that any minor textual “error” can be easily rectified.

Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@erik fadli

there are many occassions in which we can see that jesus was multilingual. he was a learned man. if you say that he did not speak greek, then where is the proove. the fact is that greek was a common language on the region at the era, while aramaic was a more of a local language in the syrian province.

the differences found in the sanaa codex and the standarized quran are more than reading marks. research.

there are many stories about other mushafs, like the one of fatima, or ali, or something else. sadly muslims cannot confirm the legitimacy of their quran by comparing other mushafs and other mushafs (like christians are still able to access apocryphas) because uthman burnt them all... sad sad sad....

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


Anon: "..the differences found in the sanaa codex and the standarized quran are more than reading marks. research.."

I got the impression you dont know what you are talking about and just parroting what Islam hater missionary said. Why dont you bring your case and let us check and compare with the NT corruption of the scripture

Anon: "... sadly muslims cannot confirm the legitimacy of their quran by comparing other mushafs and other mushafs (like christians are still able to access apocryphas) because uthman burnt them all.."

Why are so proud of keeping apocryphas? The transmission of the Qur'anic text after the death of the prophet Muhammad (p) was essentially static. There was always a single text, and nothing significant, not even allegedly abrogated material, could be taken out nor could anything be put in.

You have no clue about how Muslims have treated writing text of the Qur'an. We have a Qur'an text right from the time of the Prophet.
Muslim orthodoxy took careful steps to preserve the Qur'an by adding taskeel marks for proper recitation as well as writing the Qur'an in the way it was written in the al-Rasm al-Uthmani well before the first century AH.

Nadia Abbot, an expert in ancient Arabic literary papyri dating from 1st, 2nd and 3rd century AH as well as later ones has found no textual differences but one a scribal error in one of the manuscripts.

Most importantly we have memorizers from every generations from the time of the Prophet.

The only religious scripture which can be miraculosly memorized entirely by heart. God has made it easy.

Therefore, any deviation from these conditions would be termed as aberrations. So, the idea of using the mushaf of the Qur'an to document the textual inetgrity is ridiculuous.

So, both the oral as well as written Qur'an was secured and went through the process of textual criticism including the Qirâ'at long before the textual criticism of the Bible originated.


Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@ erik

the importance of apocryphas is to let people see the diversity of ideas on christian theology, and to help theologians to explain why they are wrong, when any of those ideas were to repeated sometime in the future.

the accesibility of apocryphas also enrich the possibilities of how a doctrine can be explain.

you say that the current version of quran is the right one, the most accurate, the question is why. can you show and explain why the mushaf burnt by uthman were wrong or inacurate? you cant, because uthman burnt them!!!!!

puin described the quran as a sort of cocktail text which includes stories and sayings from other sources, which some predates islam. that was the reason why he got kicked out of yemen.

you can find many quranic stories in christian and jewish apocryphas. but there is no rational explaination why, perhaps there was, but uthman burnt them.

in the end, content is as important as preservation. the sad thing is that muslims fail to see this.

Anonymous said...

@ erik

http://www.akhbari.org/English/tq.htm

this is a shia website which claims that quran was altered. of course, i am not saying he is right, but i am saying that you cannot say that he is wrong because.... wait for it.....

UTHMAN BURNT THE ORIGINAL TEXTS

sam1528 said...

anon ,

I am trying to understand your logic of repeating your mantra 'UTHMAN BURNT THE ORIGINAL TEXTS'.

Caliph Uthman(ra) did not burn the original text. The original text was returned to Hafsah(ra) for safekeeping after a perfect copy was made and recited to the public for approval. He then issued an edict to burn the private copies belonging to the different individuals. What is the issue??

Its not to say private copies no longer exist. The Islamic Awareness webpage has an article on these copies. If you claim comparison to other copies , it has been proven that there is no difference in context. In addition , supposedly there is a difference , I don't see any reason that we muslims should accept the documentation of an individual against mushaf Uthman(ra) that has been approved by the public (which consists of memorizers) upon its compilation.

What is your rationale of arguing 'UTHMAN BURNT THE ORIGINAL TEXTS'??

minoria said...

Segment 1

Hello Erik:

Here I want to address a claim said by some Muslims debaters.

The Didache/"Teaching"

It is a catechism from 1OO AD.Some Muslims say:

"It nowhere says Jesus is God so that is evidence the early Christians did not believe Jesus was God."

WRONG

The Didache says to baptize in the name of the Father,Son and Holy Spirit.

Here it is:

"7:5 But if thou hast neither, then pour water on the head thrice in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.
7:6 But before the baptism let him that baptizeth and him that is baptized fast, and any others also who are able;
7:7 and thou shalt order him that is baptized to fast a day or two before."

SOURCE:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-lightfoot.html

minoria said...

Segment 2:

SO?

In Judaism you Always baptized in the name of God,never,never in the name of Abraham,Moses,David,Solomon,etc

To do so was elevating a man to the level of God,saing he was God.

More details are here.You can translate with GOOGLE TRANSLATE:

http://translate.google.com/

The Article in French:

http://www.dieucafe.com/2011/11/02/jesus-a-annonce-la-trinite-dans-levangile/

CONCLUSION

The Didache announces the Trinity,and of course,that Jesus is God

minoria said...

Hello Erik:

I incline to the idea the Koran evolved,er,changed,over time.

The Muslim Claim

It is that Muslims have perfectly memorized all the Koran since the 7th century.

The Case of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem

It was built in 691.It has Koranic verses.

Those verses are basically the same as in the Koran,but not word for word.

ONE REASON GIVEN

That it is an eastern custom to paraphrase.

That is true.But why paraphrase the Koran if millions,including the caliph who built it,had memorized it perfectly?

It makes no sense,if you know something by heart,why give a variant version,er,your own words, in what you consider holy ground?

erikfadli said...

الرحيم

@anon,

On the issue of tahrif instead of relying on missionary propgandist and give me a website link, do you care to explain this issue to show that you really understand this issue? 

Lets make it easy, have you evertried to investigate the copies of Holy Qur'an in various countries of the world to find out whether they contain the slightest discrepancy with other editions of the Holy Qur'an or not? 

No one has been able to claim that even a single word of the Qur'an differs from one another.


So dont spreading lies and make it to appear you understand the Shia tahrif.


if there were many manuscriots of differing version of the Quran like what happened in the Bible no high authority would never able to control it. 

Not  Uthman RA not Emperor Constantine.. There is always manuscripts which survived

The fact that  Christians have unhappy state with their biblical canon history and still today are not in agreement about the contents of the Bible is undeniable proof of corruption.

The problem is especially acute with the OT canon with massive disagreements between Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant Christians.

I repeat the reality is that the canon of the OT & the NT has never been agreed upon by Christians no matter how far back you go back in time.

It is historical fact.

The Bible cannot be the inerrant Word of God when Christians cannot even agree about its contents!

You dont have the original "recitation"  like the Quran, memorized by milions of people since the time it was revelaed.

Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@ erik

what original recitation? muhammad did not supervize the the codification of the quran himself. if the quran is so authentic, then why is there a shia-sunni controvercy about whether quran is altered or not (in the case of shia, it is regarding on the succession of caliphs).

if quran is so immaculate, then what is the proove? because a bunch of people have memorized it? the bible is not a recitation from god, it is the writing of normal people but inspired by god. its not god dictation, but it is a work literature, and thus biblical textual criticism is similar to any other literary criticism.

the only reason that muslims think that their book is immaculate is because they are deluded, they dont want to see or hear anything other has to say, when they use literary criticism to analyze the quran....

the reason why muslims cannot agree on many things about their own faith is because the quran is ambiguous and its authenticity is questionable.

@sam

UTMAN BURNT THEM ALL

its not just a mantra, its a historical fact. and the problem about burning original text is a matter of credibility, when he said that something was wrong, then he had to show why and let others judge for themselves.

you can find apocryphas and documents of false doctrines in christianity, these are not burnt, so people can see for themselves why they are false.

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

You wrote...

"Muslims also believe long time ago as Ehrman pointed out that as many books considered to be valid at the Council of Nicea such as the Gospel of Barnabas, were left out for very specific reasons."

The council of Nicea? Really?

Can you show me one source even from Bart Erhman that any book was left out at the "Council of Nicea"?

You also wrote...

"Yes, Wiki stated that existing translation are based from the two medieval Italian and Spanish manuscripts however why can we dismiss the possibility that the source were based from earlier apocryphal work which was suppressed from apostolic original as some academics suggest."

Answer becasue you have no EVIDENCE that it is based on anything.

But putting aside the fact that you have no evdidence other then mid evil manuscript one containing notes in Arabic as if done by a arabic correcter.

Also putting aside the fact that the author of the Gosple of Barnabas didn't have a clue of the geography of 1st century palastine. It is you Muslims who should reject the Gosple of Barnabas becasue what it says of your prophet Mohamed as well as Jesus.

You do know what it says about your Prophet mohamed and about Mohamed right?

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

@minoria
The inscriptions at the Dome of the Rock was not Quranic verses but brief sermon incorporating a series of passages from the Quran versers challenging Christian dogma of worhsipping Jesus (p).

Although the actual recitation of the Qur'an had been regulated from the time of the prophet; such text inscription taken from the standard Qur'anic verses in order to fit a particular sermon was common in Islamic inscriptions.

On the contrary, the existence of such text so recognizable as the Quranic verses we have today (even muslim kids can recognize it) is a proof that the Qur'an is so well preserved.

Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@ erik

the joke that quran is well preserved is not funny anymore, because it has been played like a broken record. uthman had burnt the evidence. something was preserved, but there is no evidence to confirm it.

the logic of this delusion goes in a loop. muslims invest a lot of time to memorize something, so that something has to something worth the effort, so since it has been memorized all through those centuries, therefore it must worth the while... getting out of this loop would be a disaster...

the fact is, muslims cannot confirm whether they are reciting correctly because uthman burnt everything, and the first generation of quran reciters are all dead... perhaps you could invent a time machine and introduce them to tape recorder.

Alexander said...

Mashaallah, who is this guy Ehrman. He is amazing really. He destroys the Christian faith in two hours while the Christians enjoy and laugh with him. Maby thats one of the reasons Allah the most High do not guide him to the truth, who would then listen to him. The Christians try to praise their textual criticism of their bible while people with knowledge know the bible is not from God. If this is the textual criticism the Christians want us Muslims to apply to the Quran, the word of Allah, then ofcourse thats impossible.
How true is not the words of Allah the Most Great when he says:

"Then woe to those who write the Book with their own hands, and then say:"This is from Allah," to traffic with it for miserable price!-Woe to them for what their hands do write, and for the gain they make thereby." (02:79)

and also

"So because of their breach of their covenant, We cursed them, and made their hearts grow hard. They change the words from their (right) places and have abandoned a good part of the Message that was sent to them. And you will not cease to discover deceit in them, except a few of them. But forgive them, and overlook (their misdeeds). Verily, Allah loves Al-Muhsinun" (5:13)

May Allah guide Dr Ehrman and those Christians.. amin

Is it possible to listen to the debate between Ehrman and White for free somwere?

All praise is due to Allah and may the peace and blessings be on His final messenger.

Anonymous said...

@alexander

bart ehrman is an atheist, he will "smite" islamic faith the same way he "smite" christianity before you even finish saying allahu akbar.

when you crash an airplane into a building, it kills christians and muslims alike.

dont dance to a music that you dont get..

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

@anon,

Your hollow propaganda does not impress me at all.

Lets make it easy, please investigate the copies of Holy Qur'an in various countries of the world whether it is *Sunni and Syiah* to find out whether they contain the slightest discrepancy with other editions of the Holy Qur'an to back up your claim.

It seems to me you are making up story of Dr. Puin allegated claim of Quran authenticity.
Have you read anything not from Islamophobes propaganda site?

Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all of the findings Toby Lester ascribes to him in tabloid journalism "What Is the Koran".

Here is a part of Puin’s original letter – which he wrote to al-Qādī Ismā’īl al-Akwa’ ( was president of the Yemeni Antiquities Authority) shortly after Lester’s article –in Arabic with translation (I have the scanned copy of original in arabic)

--------------------------------
المهم والحمد لله لا تختلف المصاحف الصنعانية عن غيرها في متاحف العالم ودور كتبه إلا في تفاصيل لا تمسّ القرآن كنصّ مقروء وإنما الاختلاف في الكتابة فقط. هذه الظاهرة معروفة حتى من القرآن المطبوع في القاهرة حيث ورد كتابة
ابرهيم على جانب ابرهم
قران [على جانب] قرن
سيماهم [على جانب] بسيمهم على جانب بسيمهما
لخ
اما في اقدم المصاحف الصنعانية فتكثر ظاهرة حذف الالفات مثلا.

The important thing, thank God, is that these Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments do not differ from those found in the museums and libraries elsewhere, with the exception of details that do not touch the Qur’ān itself, but are rather differences in the way words are spelled.
This phenomenon is well-known, even in the Qur’ān published in Cairo in which is written:

Ibrhīm (ابرهيم) next to Ibrhm (ابرهم)

Qurān (قران) next to Qrn (قرن)

Sīmāhum (سيماهم) next to Sīmhum (سيمهم) etc.

In the oldest Yemeni Qur’ānic fragments, for example, the phenomenon of not writing the vowel alif is rather common.
--------------------------------

Contrary to the Bible, the new findings of qur’anic mushafs affirm the the Quran as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have.

While Ehrman like the majority of non fundie scholars went to opposite directon with regard to Bible manuscripts critical exploration. From faith in the Bible as the inerrant, unchanging word of God to a proponent of the textual inconsistencies of the New Testament himself.

Wassalam

minoria said...

Segment 1

Hello Erik:

Regarding the Koran in itself I take the minimalist position of common agreement.You are,for all I know,right about the Dome of the Rock inscriptions.

But the text as it stands has errors,but that is another subject.I think you probably believe that Jesus was never crucified,it was made to look that way.

But if you by any chance accept the swoon theory of Ahmed Deedat and Shabir Ally then there is a problem.

Shabir Ally's argument

It is that according to the Gospel details:

1.We can not be 1OO% sure Jesus really died

2.So in that case you can not convince me,Shabir Ally,that Christianity is true.

minoria said...

Segment 2:

Here are 2 articles about why scholars disagree with the Swoon Theory.It has ansers to 5 of Shabir Ally's arguments about it.

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/why-shabir-allys-arguments-about-jesus-not-dying-are-rejected-by-atheist-scholars/

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/more-on-why-atheistic-scholars-reject-shabir-allys-arguments-against-jesus-death/

minoria said...

segment 3

My argument to him is also:

About Dr. Frederick Zugebe

The ancient literature we have right now says crucified victims lived for days..Most of the ancient writings are gone however.

We no longer crucify anybody.

However Zugebe has made scientific experiment,using mesurements,during 2O years or more,he is the greatest authority on crucifixion and its medical aspect

He says it is possible for a crucified person to die after only a few hours,depending on the circumstances.

Hmmm

Now Jesus died after only six hours.From a scientific view,it is possible.

I would say to Ally:

1.We can NOT be 1OO% sure Jesus did NOT die on the cross.

2.So you can not convince me 1OO% the Koran is telling the truth:Jesus did NOT die.

3.That being the case,you can NOT prove 1OO% Islam is true

minoria said...

Segment four

Another of Shabir Ally's arguments

He says Raymond Brown,the one who theorized about a Johannine School.

He said a generation or more a group of followers of John invented stories about Jesus,the Gospel of John.

About what happened on the Cross

John says a Roman soldier pierced Jesus and water and blood came out

From a medical point of view it proves Jesus was dead.

Brown says it was invented.

Anonymous said...

@ erik

In the 1999 Atlantic Monthly article referenced below, Gerd Puin is quoted as saying that:

My idea is that the Koran is a kind of cocktail of texts that were not all understood even at the time of Muhammad. Many of them may even be a hundred years older than Islam itself. Even within the Islamic traditions there is a huge body of contradictory information, including a significant Christian substrate; one can derive a whole Islamic anti-history from them if one wants. The Qur’an claims for itself that it is ‘mubeen,’ or clear, but if you look at it, you will notice that every fifth sentence or so simply doesn’t make sense. Many Muslims will tell you otherwise, of course, but the fact is that a fifth of the Qur’anic text is just incomprehensible. This is what has caused the traditional anxiety regarding translation. If the Qur’an is not comprehensible, if it can’t even be understood in Arabic, then it’s not translatable into any language. That is why Muslims are afraid. Since the Qur’an claims repeatedly to be clear but is not—there is an obvious and serious contradiction. Something else must be going on.

the quran is problematic, no matter which version you are reading.

quote from bart ehrman:

Moreover, finally, you want sources that are not biased toward the subject matter. You want accounts that are disinterested. You want lots of them, you want them independent from one another, yet you want them to be consistent with one another.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm

if you use bart ehrmans bart ehrman's criteria to verify that quran is true than according to the qutation above you need to provide an account from an independent (unbiased) party to collaborate your story.

the believe that uthman codification is authentic is only based on the guarantee from uthman.

so, can you? or is your believe just based on faith?

minoria said...

segment 5

About Bauckham's book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"

He says the evidence is John was written by an eyewitness,not by John,but certainly by a follower

WATCH THESE 2 VIDEOS

They explain with detail the technicalities as to why Bauckham affirms it.

He explains the telling us of the name of the minor characters in the Gospels is very important,that those people were important among the early Christians.

One is by Nabeel Qureshi

He refers to Bauckham's arguments in:

"Mark's Gospel: Does it Contain Peter's Eyewitness Testimony?"

http://youtu.be/dvFk-H6VTy4

The other is by Bauckham himself

http://youtu.be/292NTf1cCNw

minoria said...

Segment six

Ok,I would say to Shabir Ally:

1.Bauckham has good arguments that John is by an eyewitess.

2.I can say we can NOT be 1OO% sure that John is NOT by an Eyewtiness

3.So then we can NOT be 1OO% sure Jesus was NOT pierced and died.

The eyewitness says HE SAW the piercing

JOHN 19:34

"Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus' side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.

The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true.

He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe."

Anonymous said...

@ erik and alexander

another cool quote from ehrman:

It's a very long story, but the short version is this: I realized that I could no longer reconcile the claims of faith with the facts of life. In particular, I could no longer explain how there can be a good and all-powerful God actively involved with this world, given the state of things. For many people who inhabit this planet, life is a cesspool of misery and suffering. I came to a point where I simply could not believe that there is a good and kindly disposed Ruler who is in charge of it.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

you made a hero out of a person who does not even believe in god, and you expect that his absent of faith will help your case.

i think you are one sad little man. i rest my case, peace out!

minoria said...

segment 7

The correct verse is JOHN 19:34-35,not just John 19:34.

Now Shabir Ally can say:"Bauckham has no credibility."

But he can NOT say Zugebe has no credibility"

The most Shabir can argue is:

"Most deaths by crucifixion took days,according to the writings."

But he can not say ALL crucifixion deaths took days,NEVER a few hours.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


@minoria

Id love to have a discussion with you but Im sorry, I have problem with your habit of throwing irrelevant posts and red herring arguments. or is it just me?

Keep it simple and to the point then you can expect me to come up with manageable and sensible responses.

Please.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

@anon,

You have a pattern of spreading something unfounded, you may continue doing this but it wont help your case.

Dr. Puin himself has in fact denied all of the findings Toby Lester ascribes to him in 1999 Atlantic Monthly What Is the Koran".
No serious scholarship take this tabloid style news seriously.

Back to business..

You are making such nonsense accusing Bart Ehrman as an "atheist".

HE IS NOT!

He is an agnostic. Need me to explain the difference??

Then stop spreading lies about Bart Ehrman!

He came from a long journey to pursue truth as evangelical Christians with a religiously inspired commitment to truth, who later find that our dedication to the truth is leading us away from the religion itself.

Contrary to what you say he is , it is virtue (in the form of truth-loving) rather than some vice that brings him to the point of rejecting Christianity.

His credentilas is so imrpressive from devout evangelical at Moody, to a skeptic at Wheaton, to a critic at Princeton.

No, muslims make no hero of him, but we find his position in sync with the Quranic revelation.

I watched christian apologetics hero James White debating with Bart Erhman.

Out of desperation James spent a minute talking about the Quran, while was the New Testament and not the Quran. He asked Bart Ehrman whether the Quran is allegedly corrupt or not.

You know what Ehrman answer?

"I know nothing about the Quran"

It is so obvious James white intention is to make Ehrman to say something against the Quran so he could then say to his Muslim opponents: "hey look, Ehrman also says this and this against the Quran!"

Everybody know that, White's hobby is Muslim bashing, and he is having a hard time discovered that Muslims often use the writings of Ehrman.

If you dont base your faith based on superstition you will agree with bart Ehrman arguments. He makes valid points regarding serious intentional corruption in your bible.

Wake up to the truth man.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

ERIK you never answered my questions so I will repeat them.

You wrote...

"Muslims also believe long time ago as Ehrman pointed out that as many books considered to be valid at the Council of Nicea such as the Gospel of Barnabas, were left out for very specific reasons."

The council of Nicea? Really?

Can you show me one source even from Bart Erhman that any book was left out at the "Council of Nicea"?

You also wrote...

"Yes, Wiki stated that existing translation are based from the two medieval Italian and Spanish manuscripts however why can we dismiss the possibility that the source were based from earlier apocryphal work which was suppressed from apostolic original as some academics suggest."

Answer becasue you have no EVIDENCE that it is based on anything.

But putting aside the fact that you have no evdidence other then mid evil manuscript one containing notes in Arabic as if done by a arabic correcter.

Also putting aside the fact that the author of the Gosple of Barnabas didn't have a clue of the geography of 1st century palastine. It is you Muslims who should reject the Gosple of Barnabas becasue what it says of your prophet Mohamed as well as Jesus.

You do know what it says about your Prophet mohamed and about and JESUS right?

Radical Moderate said...

To Yahya Snow Erik and all the other Muslims.

WHat is funny really funny is that the Uthman Authorized Version of the KOran was compiled under the orders of a "INOVATER" and what some during his time called a APOSTATE. A man that was so despised that after they killed him they burried him in a jewish cementary.

sam1528 said...

anon ,

What historical facts are you talking about?? Caliph Uthman(ra) did not burn any original copy of the Quran as claimed by you. The original copy is 'suhuf Hafash(ra)' and it was returned to her after a copy was made and proof read to the public - 'mushaf Uthman(ra). You have got your wires crossed. Only the texts belonging to individuals were ordered to be burnt. You need to justify why you claim its wrong. 'Mushaf Uthman(ra) became the standard official text which had the approval of the public , consisting of memorizers of the Quran. Compare that to the compilation of the bible which was done in secrecy and just shoved to the public - lack of transparency.

If we are to compare the 'other copies' , the early mss of the Quran greatly outnumber the early mss of the bible. Either way the bible is inferior in terms of preservation and reliability. You have nothing.

Is there any value of comparing individual texts against an official one that had been approved by the public?? I do not see any but having personal texts will eventually lead to differing versions , it being the current issue - the different versions of the bible.

Caliph Uthman(ra) should have been given a medal for his effort.

Now you are quoting outdated scholarship citing piun in his so called interview with toby lester. Scholarship has moved on and it is a recognized fact that the Quran has been preserved with utmost reliability.
'....new findings of Qur'anic text fragments , moreover , can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Qur'an as an early fixed text composed of the suras we have..'
(Angelika Neuwirth : The Cambridge companion to the Quran , pg 100)
The Cambridge companion to the Quran

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

Yes it was returned to her, however years later it was burned by the governer of Mecca, after the first civil war.

minoria said...

Hello Erik:

You have said I have thrown a red herring.I told you that for all I know you may be right about the Dome of the Rock affair.Where is the red herring in that?

As for the extra-information,it is just that,extra-information.I wanted to address very common objections Muslims give.

I know you have not raised those issues,but you have certainly read them before,they are in The Blogging Theology blog you read.Now you know there are answers.

minoria said...

Or if you have not read them there you have heard them in debates.

You stated,about Ehrman:

"Contrary to what you say he is ,it is virtue (in the form of truth-loving) rather than some vice that brings him to the point of rejecting Christianity."

OK.

In I think all his debates and in his books he says:

"The accounts contradict each other about the death of Judas:did he die by hanging or was he walking in a field and fell and his stomach burst?"

minoria said...

Ehman is that it is contradiction.

SEGMENT 1:

We have 2 citations about the fate of Judas in the NT.The situation is:

1.We have it in Matthew 27:5 and Acts 1:18.

2.One is a clear verse and the other one less clear, we know that from the original Greek.

3.So in the clear verse in Matthew 27:5 we have that Judas hangs himself:

” Judas threw the pieces of silver in the temple, left and went to hung himself.”

What Matthew 27:5 does Not say

Notice it does NOT say WHERE: in a house, in a field, from a tree, from the ceiling, etc. More than that he hung himself we can not say. End of information.

The Unclear Part of Acts 1:18

Checking in several sources it turns out that in the original Greek we have the words PRENES GENOMENOS. That is the phrase translated as falling headlong. The meaning of PRENES is undeniably ” headlong, head foremost, head first. “

However the word genomenos does NOT mean falling at all. It is translated like that to hide the ambiguity. It means becoming or to become.

What we have in Acts 1:18 is:

” With the reward he got for his wickedness:

1. Judas bought a field;

2.There Prenes genomenos,

3.His body burst open and all his intestines spilled out. ”

minoria said...

Segment 2

WHAT TO NOTICE IN THE PASSAGE:

Notice that nowhere in the Acts 1:18 passage do we have the verbs TO WALK or TO FALL.

The way the words are put does not say that Judas was WALKING in the field and FELL head down and hit his stomach which burst open.

NEITHER does the passage say the body of Judas was hanging and when the rope was cut it fell on the ground and the feet hit the ground and the body inclined HEAD DOWN, thus making the stomach hit the ground and bursting.

WHAT DOES THE PASSAGE SAY?

All it says is, to paraphrase it accurately, that ” the stomach of Judas burst open when it ( Judas, or his body ) became head foremost. ”

What does that mean exactly? It what way did the head becoming foremost CAUSE the stomach to BURST open? We do not know. The way the Greek text stands is too fuzzy.

THE WAY CORPSES FALL AND HIT THE GROUND:

Skeptics say a corpse would fall feet foremost or first. That is true, I agree. But when a corpse hits the ground it does not stand on its feet, it:

1. Falls back foremost, falling on its back.

2. Falls sideways, falling on its side.

3. Falls head foremost, head pointing down, on its stomach.

minoria said...

Why would a stomach burst so easily?

It is RARE for a person to fall and just burst his stomach like that. Not that it is impossible, but rare. However accepting the hanging of Judas then since it was the Passover Festival Holidays of several days, no Jew would have touched a dead body to become ritually impure.

The taking down of Judas’ body would have taken several days. In the meantime it would have got SWOLLEN. When the hung body would have been taken down by cutting the rope, it is natural for the SWOLLEN STOMACH to BURST OPEN when the feet hit the ground and the body tipped HEAD FOREMOST, making the stomach hit the ground, not the BACK.

ONE EXPLANATION:

1.Some have said here is a scribal error and that the original words were Presthes genomenos, not Prenes enomenos, meaning ” swollen becoming “ ( ” to become swollen “,and not ” to become head first “ ).

2.One who held this idea was Hyam Maccoby ( 1924-2004 ), a Jewish-British NT scholar who is famous for his view that Paul was not Jewish but a Gentile.It is in his book:“The Mythmaker:Paul and the Invention of Christianity”(1986). A view that has been rejected by all NT scholars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyam_Maccoby

In his book “Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil” ( 1991 ) he says the orignal wording was Presthes genomenos. Now to be superskeptical one can say it is only speculation, but in the website tektonics,taking the information is accurate, it is stated that in Syriac ( the Aramaic of Syria ), Armenian and Georgian manuscripts the passage is translated as “and becoming swollen”.

That is important, really, because the translator may well have had Greek copies with the words PRESTHES genomenos.

Conclusion

Again, one is not obliged to accept that explanation so leaving it as PRENES genomenos the impartial skeptic would agree that:

1. The passage as it stands in Greek is very ambiguous.

2. It is rare for a person walking in a field to fall and burst his stomach, a fractured or broken leg is more likely. Unless he fell from a cliff, but no cliff is mentioned in Acts 1.

3. So at best either explanation of what becoming headlong exactly means in relation to the bursting of the stomach is a candidate. But to say the passage 100% says Judas was walking, fell and burst his stomach is inaccurate.

minoria said...

Certianly Ehrman knows all that about the Greek words,but he does not say so,so I really have a low regard of him.

He also claims there are variants that are early that modify doctrine,it is not true.

That is his idée fixe,as it is said in French,an obsession,against the evidence it is false.

minoria said...

ANOTHER CASE

In his debates and books Ehrman says:

"Was there an angel or a young man who told the women about the resurrection?Which was it?"

He knows Greek and he certainly knows:

1.The Greek word "angelos" means "messenger"

2.He also knows in Greek it can be human or celestial

3.There is no contradiction in Greek.

EVEN IN ENGLISH

If we were to translate is as "messenger" Ehrman's statement would sound absurd to us:

"Which was it,a young man or a messenger?Here is a contradiction"

Don't you agree Erik?

minoria said...

THERE IS EVEN MORE

In the current Judaism then a celestial messenger was often thought of as a young man dressed in white.

In effect,the accounts say it was a young man in white.

Today we would say a man or woman with wings

Ehrman knows that so his statement is really like laughing at his audience.

minoria said...

EVEN MORE

Luke uses "young man" and "messenger/angelos" for the same thing

Luke 24:4

"And it happened that while they were perplexed about this, behold, two men suddenly stood near them in dazzling apparel."

LATER MEN SAY WHAT THE WOMEN AT THE TOMB TOLD THEM

LUKE 24:22-23:

“In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of ANGELOS/messengers, who said he was alive.”

Erik,certainly Ehrman knows THAT.Now you see why I am very sketical about him

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM,

I made an erroneous statement regarding Bart Erhman Gospel of Barnabas and council Nicea, for that I take my words back.

As I re-read Ehrman's book again in fact it was about the Epistle of Barnabas,that almost made it into the Bible but then denied. I mixed that up.

As I said I dont put my faith on the Gospel of Barnabas, it is not even sacred text or written authority in Islam, and I dont think muslims are in the business of researching which early christian works that made or failed to enter the canonical book of the Bible.


What I meant to say was I find Ehrman works is intersting that
- We do not have the original texts and;
- that there is intentional alteration in much of the New Testament to fit the desired Orthodoxy.


Wassalam

Anonymous said...

@ erik

this is a summary of content of a book which was written by karl heinz-phlig and gerd puin:

http://www.amazon.de/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342

but just let me give you the highlight:

Indeed, evidence from the Koran, finalised at a much later time, shows that its central theological tenets were influenced by a pre-Nicean, Syrian Christianity. Linguistic analysis also indicates that Aramaic, the common language throughout the Near East for many centuries and the language of Syrian Christianity, significantly influenced the Arabic script and vocabulary used in the Koran. Finally, it was not until the end of the eighth and ninth centuries that Islam formed as a separate religion, and the Koran underwent a period of historical development of at least 200 years.

and here is a definition of the word agnostic:

ag·nos·tic (g-nstk)
n.
1.
a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.

so, your hero is a person who does not even sure whether god exists.. hmm...

@ sam

something was "perserved" alright, but was it really the original quran? nobody knows, the codification process was just as transparent and accountable as cayman island's bank account. and then UTHMAN BURNT THEM ALL

Anonymous said...

@ erik

another quote from bart ehrman:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=19096131

The problem of suffering became for me the problem of faith. After many years of grappling with the problem, trying to explain it, thinking through the explanations that others have offered—some of them pat answers charming for their simplicity, others highly sophisticated and nuanced reflections of serious philosophers and theologians—after thinking about the alleged answers and continuing to wrestle with the problem, about nine or ten years ago I finally admitted defeat, came to realize that I could no longer believe in the God of my tradition, and acknowledged that I was an agnostic: I don't "know" if there is a God; but I think that if there is one, he certainly isn't the one proclaimed by the Judeo-Christian tradition, the one who is actively and powerfully involved in this world. And so I stopped going to church.

end quote.

his problem was not about whether christian scriptures was forged, by his problem was whether god exists at all.

Anonymous said...

@ erik

bart ehrman:

“One of the most certain facts of history is that Jesus was crucified on orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate” (see The New Testament: An Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings, pgs, 261-262).

not only that your hero is a non believer, he also affirmed that jesus was crucified, would you accept this also?

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

Thank you for responding, and taking back your workds on the Gospel of Barnabas.

Tell me what about the council of Nicea, where there any books excluded at this council? Where there any books included at this council?

Now on to another point.

you wrote...


"What I meant to say was I find Ehrman works is intersting that
- We do not have the original texts and;
- that there is intentional alteration in much of the New Testament to fit the desired Orthodoxy."

So then Islam is false then becasue.

1. You do not have the original text of the Quran

2. There is evidence that the text of the Quran was altered to fit what later became Islamic orthodoxy by the "INOVATER, APOSTATE, POST MORTUM JEW; UTHMAN.

BTW here is a clip where Bart Ehrman is asked when he will start working on the Quran.

Bart Ehrman on the Quran

Anonymous said...

@radical moderate

i have asked erik a similar question, what if ehrman's methodes were to be applied on the quran.

since erik accepted ehrman's conclusion then he should also accepts his methodology, and thus accepts the conclusion if it were to be applied to the quran.

@ erik

if you answer radical moderate's question, i will count it also as an answer to me.

minoria said...

Segment 1

Hi Erik,

You asked me to stay on the subject.So continuing with Ehrman:

Another of his points in his debates is:

"Another contradiction is did Jesus ascend on the same day of his resurrection or forty days after,which was it?"

THE ANSWER

Luke-Acts is by the same authors.

It is true that Luke 24:45-53 gives that impression.

Then in Acts 1:1-11 it talks about the same EVENT,the ASCENSION.

And remember it is by the same AUTHOR.

And THERE it says the ascension was forty days later,so Luke was simply giving extra-information

minoria said...

Segment 2

What is the Koran had a similar situation?

Then Muslims would say one part was simply giving more,extra-information.

That brings me to Shabir Ally again

In his debates he says Raymond Brown says there was ONLY ONE appearence to the disciplesthat LATER became several.

I have heard it over and over and Ally believes it.

minoria said...

SO?

Ok,now the most radical NT group,the Jesus Seminar,almost all of them,except for Robert price beleive that:

The 1 COR 15 Creed:

1.That gives several different appearances

2.Is the official creed of the first disciples

3.And dates from AT MOST 2 YEARS after Jesus' death.

minoria said...

Segment 3

So who is Right,the Jesus Seminar of Raymond Brown?

Shabir would say it is Brown.But why?

The reason given by Brown for the "There was Only One Appearance"

He says it is because the disciples NEVER went to Galilee,they always stayed in Jerusalem

BUT WHY,WHY?

Because Brown only accepts the information Luke 24:45-53 and rejects Acts 1:1-11.

So for Brown,for some myserious reason,the 2 passages,evn though by the same author,can not be harmonized.

So there was ONLY 1 appearance and it was in Jerusalem on the day of resurrection

minoria said...

Segment four

What if it had been in the Koran?

The Koran says was taken by Allah,in other words he ascended to heaven

What if one passage in the Koran said:

1."Jesus was taken up by Allah and it was seen by his disciples"

2.""Jesus was taken up by Allah and it was seen by his disciples forty days later"

Would Shabir accept the reasoning of Raymond Brown?,No,not at all,but he is inconsitent in his methodology,that is why I don't think highly of his methodology

sam1528 said...

anon ,

Ha ha , now your tune has changed from caliph Uthman(ra) burning the originals to burning the other copies. You actually do not have any argument ... do you. You are just scatter shooting hoping to hit something.

You are like a headless chicken. Your argument has no direction. We already have the hadith that confirm 'mushaf Uthman(ra) was / is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the the compilation was proof read to the public which consisted of memorizers of the Quran for acceptance. Why are you still asking about the 'original of the Quran'??

Which part of the documented historical evidence that you don't understand??

With such line of argument , your bible fails at just about any test of preservation and reliability. The compilation of the bible was about 300 - 400 years after biblical jesus. You don't even have any originals and no historical attestation that the copies were in any way the same as the original books. The funny part - its is the word of your god , written by people who have never met , walked and talked to biblical jesus. Sooo sad - the inconsistency of fundies like you.

You need to justify why burning of the personal copies was / is wrong. You cannot answer but go on an argument without direction.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

from you :
'..Yes it was returned to her, however years later it was burned by the governer of Mecca, after the first civil war..'

Yeah ... so what?? 'Mushaf Uthman(ra)' has been confirmed to be an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'. The public which partly consisted of the Quran memorizers confirmed such (and such tradition is still alive with us muslims).

What is your issue other than running around like headless chicken ... phuck - phuck - phucccckkk ; oops sorry ... no chicken head

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Anon: "..this is a summary of content of a book which was written by karl heinz-phlig and gerd puin:
http://www.amazon.de/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342
.."

I havent read this book and this is a collection of essays co-edited by Puin. It does mean that Puin conclude what you people to conclude about the Quran.

Interestingly other editor is Karl-Heinz Ohlig. He is a christian theologian and the proponent of historicity of prophet Muhammad. You see this will speak alot of his true intention.

Ohlig posits that the Koran is a Christian text and that Muhammad probably never lived. This view which also includes very small revisionist like Volker Popp and some others, is outside of accepted scholarship.

Ohlig position is merely backing other more bizzare revisionist like christpoh Luxenberg and at odd with more respectable western scholars on early Islam like Angelika NEUWIRTH, Nicolai SINAI , Michael MARX etc.

Angelika Neuwirth who is the chair of Arabic Studies at the Freien Universitat of Berlin said that :
"Luxenberg’s assumption of a Syriac-Arabic linguistic melange as the original language of the Qur’an lacks a methodologically sound basis.
The alternative visions about the genesis of the Quran presented by Wansbrough, Crone and Cook, Luling and Luxenberg are not only mutually exclusive, but rely on textual observations that are too selective to be compatible with the comprehensive Qur’anic textual evidence that can be drawn only from a systematically micro-structural reading."

You may well need to refer to the following book for serious and unbiased study on quran and early islam for a start.

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item1151067/?site_locale=en_GB

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

You wrote...

"Yeah ... so what?? 'Mushaf Uthman(ra)' has been confirmed to be an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'. The public which partly consisted of the Quran memorizers confirmed such (and such tradition is still alive with us muslims)."

I say PROVE IT.

Show me the Orignal Quran Authorized by the (Inovater, Apostate, Post Mortom convert to Judiasm) Uthman Quran and the original Hufsa Quran along with one of the Orignal Reciters or a recording of one of the Original reciters so we can compare the three.

If you can not do that then using the logic of Bart Ehrman that you Musilms love to use against Gods Word, then you must come to the same conclusions against the Quran and Islam that you come to against Gods Word. Thats if your intelectualy honest.

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

You never answered my question so I will repeat them again.

"Tell me what about the council of Nicea, where there any books excluded at this council? Where there any books included at this council?

Now on to another point.

you wrote...


"What I meant to say was I find Ehrman works is intersting that
- We do not have the original texts and;
- that there is intentional alteration in much of the New Testament to fit the desired Orthodoxy."

So then Islam is false then becasue.

1. You do not have the original text of the Quran

2. There is evidence that the text of the Quran was altered to fit what later became Islamic orthodoxy by the "INOVATER, APOSTATE, POST MORTUM JEW; UTHMAN."

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM: "..So then Islam is false then becasue. 1. You do not have the original text of the Quran.."

Give it a test. Easy one.

Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot.

We only have one copy . And it was based on the revelation given to Prophet Muhammad.

While Bible in the unhappy state.

You have many conflicting books and worse you dont know who actually wrote it.

That is no comparison.

RM: "..2. There is evidence that the text of the Quran was altered to fit what later became Islamic orthodoxy by the "INOVATER, APOSTATE, POST MORTUM JEW; UTHMAN.."

A pathetic claim. You expect people to become christian by spreading lies like this??


"..BTW here is a clip where Bart Ehrman is asked when he will start working on the Quran.."

This is a silly. Typical fundie desperation

Bart Ehrman has no credentialon islamic studies or the Quran. He can't speak authoritatively about the Quran.

He himself admitted that when the ignorant James White, out of desperation, attempted to ask him about the Quran into their debate. Ehrman said, " I do not know anything about the Quran".

Wise answer.

However Bart D. Ehrman is a truly New Testament scholar:
- The James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
- He went studying the Bible at the fundie Moody Bible Institute
- A graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois.
- He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.

So whe he said BIBLE IS CORRUPTED he speaks authority and we as muslims on the sideline can see him as unbiased

So I find it dirty tactics persona like White, Radical and anon in trying to get to talk about the textual corruption of the Quran by Bart Erhman as if that proved some sort of bias.

He is not.

He loves God and stil believe it, however he just can not have faith in Christianity with its glaring theological differences found in its scripture.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM: "..So then Islam is false then becasue. 1. You do not have the original text of the Quran.."

Give it a test. Easy one.

Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot.

We only have one copy . And it was based on the revelation given to Prophet Muhammad.

While Bible in the unhappy state.

You have many conflicting books and worse you dont know who actually wrote it.

That is no comparison.

RM: "..2. There is evidence that the text of the Quran was altered to fit what later became Islamic orthodoxy by the "INOVATER, APOSTATE, POST MORTUM JEW; UTHMAN.."

A pathetic claim. You expect people to become christian by spreading lies like this??


"..BTW here is a clip where Bart Ehrman is asked when he will start working on the Quran.."

This is a silly. Typical fundie desperation

Bart Ehrman has no credentialon islamic studies or the Quran. He can't speak authoritatively about the Quran.

He himself admitted that when the ignorant James White, out of desperation, attempted to ask him about the Quran into their debate. Ehrman said, " I do not know anything about the Quran".

Wise answer.

However Bart D. Ehrman is a truly New Testament scholar:
- The James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
- He went studying the Bible at the fundie Moody Bible Institute
- A graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois.
- He received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985.

So whe he said BIBLE IS CORRUPTED he speaks authority and we as muslims on the sideline can see him as unbiased

So I find it dirty tactics persona like White, Radical and anon in trying to get to talk about the textual corruption of the Quran by Bart Erhman as if that proved some sort of bias.

He is not.

He loves God and stil believe it, however he just can not have faith in Christianity with its glaring theological differences found in its scripture.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

Thank you again for responding. You stil l have not answered one of my orginal question. So i will repeated it again for the third time.

"Tell me what about the council of Nicea, where there any books excluded at this council? Where there any books included at this council?"



you then went on to attempt to give a resonse to mine and Anons other point when you wrote...

"Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."

Poor poor poor Erik your about to have your faith SHATTERED.

I have to go to work but when I get back from work later tonight I am going to prove to you that.

1. There are differences between ancient quranic mansucripts.

2. In ancient Quranic Manuscripts their where later correcters who went through the text and corrected it.

3. Even in modern day printed editions of the Quran there are differencess.

These differences are in words and in DOTS.

SO when I do are you going to leave ISLAM?

I doubt it because that would require you to be intelectualy honest. A trait that is absent in most Muslims.


YOu then gave no response to my second point.

When you wrote

"A pathetic claim. You expect people to become christian by spreading lies like this?? "

It is not a pathetic claim.

Uthaman was a inovater, he added TWO RAKKA's to ending prayer of Hajj. GASPPPP

He was considered a apostate by those who I would say under islam rightfully put him to death and he was burried in a JEWISH CEMENTARY.

Not even ALi would dig him up and move him to a Muslim cementary.

It wasnt until ALi was killed for what those who killed him rightfully considered apostatacy. That the wall dividing the jewish and Muslim cematary was knocked down, and muslims started buring their dead. That they conqured the Jews in death to make it a Muslim cementary.

Ahh the golden age of Islam

You then again demonstrate the single most common trait amoung Muslims. That is Intelectual Dishonesty when you wrote...

"He himself admitted that when the ignorant James White, out of desperation, attempted to ask him about the Quran into their debate. Ehrman said, " I do not know anything about the Quran".

First the question that James white asked was not out of desperation. He said multiple times on his raidio show months prior to the debate that he was goig to ask that very same question.

Second the question that was asked was not If Dr Ehrman knew anything about the quran. THe question that was asked was basicacly if we where to apply your logic to any text say the Quran we would not know what the original writer had intended to say"

It is not about what he knows about the quran, it is about using the Textual critical methodology the "Science" of textual critism that has been developed on the bible over the last two to three hundread years on the Quran.

BTW those very same methods are in fact now being used on the Quran. Its called the Courpos Koranium something Muslims are shuddering over right now.

It is the same question that we have been asking you.

Remember your standard is this.

1. We do not have the "original" NT documents.

2. There have been changed to the text of the New Testament.

Well you do not have the ORIGINAL text of the Quran.

And there is evidence that the text of the Quran has been changed.

So if you were consistent and intelectualy honest you would have to conclude just like Ehrman concluded on the New Testament that the quran is not from God.

Are you willing to do that now?

Anonymous said...

@ erik

you said:
He loves God and stil believe it, however he just can not have faith in Christianity with its glaring theological differences found in its scripture.

i say

where the heck did he say that? i have showed a citation where he said that he doesnt know whether god exists, and if there is a god, it would not be the god of judeo-christian tradition? muslims always say they share the same god as jews and christians, so he excluded your god too! and even if you dont agree with christians monotheism, at least you dont have problem with jewish monotheism? or is it not the case, please enlighten me...

and i think you miss my point entirely, i dont know if quran is the word of god or not, or if it was corrupted or not, but i wanted to show if the textual criticism of the bible is applied to quran, problems will rise. and unlike christians, muslims have a hard time standing under the spotlight of criticism.

in the christian world, every information, text, scriptures, and other sorts of material are open for public to see and analyze. go to any public library in europe, you will find that any kind of book, if available, will be accessable for you.

discussions are still ongoing and there is always something new to find, while in islam, it simply blocked by the "quran preservation is perfect" dogma. perfect what? there is no muhammad approved quran codification from the 7th century which still exists.

any contending codex of quran was burnt by uthman, thus it is impossible to cross check the different codex and find out why their reading is not used by the current codex.

if you are honest about your own history, you will admit that there were disputes on the quran codification. i never find any reference of a council or a meeting ever taking place to resolve the disputes. uthman put together a small committee to compile and copy quran with an order that if there were any dispute, then they should take the quraish dialect...

the westerner is more active in tracing the historicity of the quran. because they have no bias towards it.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Pseudoname "Radical moderate" self appoint scholar of Islam insist:

1. We dont have the ORIGINAL text of the Quran.
2. And there is evidence that the text of the Quran has been changed.

=Yawn.=

Bart D. Ehrman, M.Div., Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

1. We do not have the "original" NT documents.
2. There have been changed to the text of the New Testament.

The world listen...

-----------------------------------



The Qur'an is the same at that Muhammad(P) taught.

So if Rad Mod the self appoint "scholar of ealy Islam" has a problem with it let it be.

Islam teaches there is no compulsion in religion

Serious unbiased non evengelical western scholars of Islam tend to agree in their assessment of the authenticity of the Quran, accepting the basic/main outlines adopted by Muslim scholars. This would include scholars such as Motzki, Watt, Burton, Waines, Whelan, Neuwrith etc.

Angelika Neuwirth’s essay is entitled Structural, linguistic and literary features. She holds the chair of Arabic Studies at the Freien Universitat of Berlin.

Here is her statement from an extended excerpt from her article subtitled ‘The Pre-Canonical Quran’ page 100-101.

"New findings of qur’anic fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Quran as an early fix text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Quran as we know it. "

Back to the topic again.

The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers.

These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.

It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants.

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

So, you see the problem with the transmission of the material only in written form mean the corruption of the text so easily.
The transmission in both written and oral form provides a security and adds a corrective factor.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Pseudoname "Radical moderate" self appoint scholar of Islam insist:

1. We dont have the ORIGINAL text of the Quran.
2. And there is evidence that the text of the Quran has been changed.

=Yawn.=

Bart D. Ehrman, M.Div., Ph.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

1. We do not have the "original" NT documents.
2. There have been changed to the text of the New Testament.

The world listen...

-----------------------------------



The Qur'an is the same at that Muhammad(P) taught.

So if Rad Mod the self appoint "scholar of ealy Islam" has a problem with it let it be.

Islam teaches there is no compulsion in religion

Serious unbiased non evengelical western scholars of Islam tend to agree in their assessment of the authenticity of the Quran, accepting the basic/main outlines adopted by Muslim scholars. This would include scholars such as Motzki, Watt, Burton, Waines, Whelan, Neuwrith etc.

Angelika Neuwirth’s essay is entitled Structural, linguistic and literary features. She holds the chair of Arabic Studies at the Freien Universitat of Berlin.

Here is her statement from an extended excerpt from her article subtitled ‘The Pre-Canonical Quran’ page 100-101.

"New findings of qur’anic fragments, moreover, can be adduced to affirm rather than call into question the traditional picture of the Quran as an early fix text composed of the suras we have. Nor have scholars trying to deconstruct that image through linguistic arguments succeeded in seriously discrediting the genuineness of the Quran as we know it. "

Back to the topic again.

The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one. In addition to these Greek MSS, the NT has been preserved in more than ten thousand MSS of the early versions and in thousands of quotations of the Church Fathers.

These MSS of the versions and quotations of the Church Fathers differ from one another just as widely as do the Greek MSS. Only a fraction of this great mass of material has been fully collated and carefully studied. Until this task is completed, the uncertainty regarding the text of the NT will remain.

It has been estimated that these MSS and quotations differ among themselves between 150,000 and 250,000 times. The actual figure is, perhaps, much higher. A study of 150 Greek MSS of the Gospel of Luke has revealed more than 30,000 different readings.

It is true, of course, that the addition of the readings from another 150 MSS of Luke would not add another 30,000 readings to the list. But each MS studied does add substantially to the list of variants.

It is safe to say that there is not one sentence in the NT in which the MS tradition is wholly uniform.

So, you see the problem with the transmission of the material only in written form mean the corruption of the text so easily.
The transmission in both written and oral form provides a security and adds a corrective factor.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

Erik demonstrating your complete intellectual dishonesty I see. Part 1

You wrote…

"The Qur'an is the same at that Muhammad(P) taught. "

I say PROVE IT. Show me a pre Uthman (a man who was killed for his innovation, and apostasy) Quran.

You then go on to NAME DROP a bunch of scholars but then focus on a single quote from Angelika Neuwirth.

This is great because she is working on the "Corpus Quranium Project". So you agree with her finding, I do too although a case can be made, that it is possible for a evolving text after Uthman, I feel it may be improbable. But she is referring to POST UTHMAN, I am talking PRE UTHMAN.

As your new Sheik; Angelika Neuwirth puts it

"The traditional scenario of the uthmänic redaction, the hypothesis that the remnants of the Prophet's recitations were collected soon after his death to form the corpus we have before us, is thus plausible though not possible to prove. ( Quran and History a Disputed Relationship Some reflections on the Quran History and History in the Quran. Page 11)

READ

So lets take a look at a few words and statements in that paragraph.

First notice it says "Uthamic REDACTION.

Let me give you the definition of REDACTION from dictionary.com

1. to put into suitable literary form; revise; edit.

Notice the words REVISE and EDIT

Lets look up the words REVISE and EDIT.

Again from dictionary.com

REVISE

1. to amend or alter: to revise one's opinion.
2. to alter something already written or printed, in order to make corrections, improve, or update: to revise a manuscript

EDIT

1.to supervise or direct the preparation of (a newspaper, magazine, book, etc.); serve as editor of; direct the editorial policies of.
2. to collect, prepare, and arrange (materials) for publication.
3. to revise or correct, as a manuscript.
4. to expunge; eliminate (often followed by out ): The author has edited out all references to his own family.
5. to add (usually followed by in ).

So we have a text that was redacted, "Revise, EDIT, Amend, alter, make corrections, IMPROVE or update, revise a MANUSCRIPT expunge; eliminate; to ADD".

All this was done from the REMNENTS "REMAINING, SMALL PART, FRAGMENT, SCRAP, a Trace, vestige, Remnants of Former Greatness" of your prophets sayings.

AND EVEN WITH ALL THAT IT "IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PROVE" since you do not have original text. Remember that is one yours and Bart Erhmans STANDARD against the BIBLE.

Radical Moderate said...

Erik demonstrating your complete intellectual dishonesty I see. Part 2.

Not only do you not have the ORIGINAL you do not have the Original of the Uthmatic REDACTION. And that is only one of the many problems.

See it is nice to have codified standardized text early on, and it may be nice to have all earlier texts that do not conform to the new codified and standardized text destroyed. BUT and this is a big BUTT.

You have to assume that Uthman, an innovator, heretic\apostate got it right. And with out those earlier texts then as your new Sheik states it "Is NOT possible to PROVE"

Another problem as I have outlined is that the Uthmatic Authorized Redaction was done under UTHMAN. A known Innovator of your religion and a man who was considered at best a HERTIC, and at worse a full blown apostate by a great many of the SAHABA companions of your Propeht.

Even those that may not have thought he had gone that far, (with the small exception of Ali) stood by for months while he was under siege.

Uthman was so despised that he was not allowed to be buried in a Muslim cemetery, only a handful of people after his body had been rotting for three days tried to have him laid to rest in a Muslim cemetery. Other then those few, everyone else stood by as he was quietly buried in a JEWISH CEMENTARY. His wife or daughter was told "KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT" at the burial.

It was under this mans authority and supervision that your QURAN was REDACTED.

So tell me are you really going to trust this man that he got the words of your Prophet right?

Radical Moderate said...

Erik demonstrating your complete intellectual dishonesty I see. Part 3.

Now moving onto your next GAFAW.

You wrote…

"The NT is now known, whole or in part, in nearly five thousand Greek MSS alone. Every one of these handwritten copics differ from every other one."

WOW WHAT A PROFUND STATEMENT. Hold onto your prayer beads, and magic prayer rug, becasue I absolutely agree with that statement. JUST LIKE NO HAND WRITTEN QURANIC MANUSCRIPTS AGREE WITH EACH OTHER…. GASSSSSP

NO HAND WRITTEN HAND COPPIED document from antiquity (the bible) or from the middle ages (Quran) agree with each other.

I can even show you that Qurans printed in this century DO NOT AGREE with Qurans printed a few years ago.


So lets recap, according to your standard.

"1. We do not have the "original" NT documents.
2. There have been changed to the text of the New Testament.


I have proven that

1. At best you can not prove that you have the ORIGINAL words of your prophet.

2. At worse; using a scholar you sited you have a "REDACTED, EDITED, ALTERED, CORRECTED, IMPROVED, EXPUNGED, REVISED, with text ELIMINATED and ADDED" under the authority and supervision of what quite a few of the SAHABA believed was an innovator at best a heretic at worst an APOSTATE.

3. Using your SCHOLAR YOU CAN NOT PROVE OTHER WISE.

So by your own standards I have proven that your Quran is not the word of GOD.

Now with all that said and done. IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME and more importantly if should not matter to you. Even if your QURAN was an exact photo copy of the Mohamed words, or even if you had a stateless digital recording of Mohamed's recitation done in a 21st century recording studio. It would still be worthless.

And even if my Bible is full of textual variants, tatered and torn, it is still the WORD OF GOD.

Because I discern Gods words by what the words say and mean, and at the end of the day, your Quran is just a conterfit.

And just like the counterfeit currency that is in prestien condition that I have seen on display at my local gas station it is completly Worthless, and will get you in trouble if you try to use it.

But my tattered and torn bible, just like the dollar bill I spent today. Is worth more then the perfect presitien counterfiet $50 dollar bill on display at my local gas sation.

I have real currency in my pocket and the real words of God in my Bible.

So ERIK I implore you put this nonsensical inconstitent argument away. Instead let us reason together with what the words say and mean from both texts.

The truth is as Jesus said is that Christ is the TRUTH. But the only way you can see that is if the Father has drawn you to him and placed you in his Sons hands.


Then you will know the truth and he will set you free from your SINS. BEND YOUR KNEE to the AUTHOR OF LIFE, THE CREATOR OF ALL THINGS JESUS CHRSIT and make him your LORD OVER EVERYTHING. SAVE YOURSELF from this corrupt and wicked generation.

Sell all your fasle gods and false beliefs and FOLLOW HIM and you will have eternal life.

Dont break the cross instead as he said Pick up your cross and follow him.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Ha ha , you are now a confirmed shamonian troll who is suffering from inferiority complex as the bible has been proven to be so much more inferior to the Quran - preservation / reliability wise.

The original Quran (ie. mushaf Uthman(ra))?? Isn't it the the Quran we have today? I can confirm
it is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' as per bukhari 6:61:510 (bit part) '..Narrated Anas bin Malik:
..Hudhaifa was afraid of their (the people of Sham and Iraq) differences in the recitation of the Qur'an, so he said to 'Uthman, "O chief of the Believers! Save this nation before they differ about the Book (Quran) as Jews and the Christians did before." So 'Uthman sent a message to Hafsa saying, "Send us the manuscripts of the Qur'an so that we may compile the Qur'anic materials in perfect copies and return the manuscripts to you." Hafsa sent it to 'Uthman. 'Uthman then ordered Zaid bin Thabit, 'Abdullah bin AzZubair, Said bin Al-As and 'AbdurRahman bin Harith bin Hisham to rewrite the manuscripts in perfect copies. 'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." They did so, and when they had written many copies, 'Uthman returned the original manuscripts to Hafsa..'

Which part of the hadith that you don't understand?? What does 'perfect copy' mean??

'..Zaid is reported to have said, "I saw the companions of Muhammad (going about) saying, "By Allah, Uthman has done well! By Allah, Uthman has done well!" [Nisaburi]

Ibn Abi Dawud records Musab ibn Sad ibn Abi Waqqas to have testified: "I saw the people assemble in large number at Uthman's burning of the proscribed copies; not a one spoke out against him." Ali commented, "If I were in command in place of Uthman, I would have done the same." [Zarkashi]..'
Quran Preservation

I thought we have already established that there are a lot more independent early copies of the Quran compared to the bible. All of the copies showed no variants except scribal errors. This has been provided in the Islamic Awareness site. Why are you engaged in an regressive argument repeating your diatribe over and over again??

You now need to justify your blind assertion that Caliph Uthman(ra) was
- an innovator
- apostate convert to judaism

Reversing the challenge :
Can you produce any evidence that the bible we now have is an exact copy of the original manuscript (if there is one).

Hold on to your hats bros ... we will soon witness a life long card carrying member of the shamonian cult chickening out ... phuck - phuck - phucccckkkk

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

THank you for shattering Erik's faith, by yuor admision that their are textual variants in your ancient copies of the Quran, and that not all Qurans AGREE with each other.

I have already answered all of your empty claims and foolish challange. Please read my response to Eirk.

You say that Uthmans Redaction is a perct copy of the Hafs Quran. OK PROVE IT. Show me the orignal HAFS Quran.

But even if that was the case as I stated to Erik which I repeat here.

"Now with all that said and done. IT DOES NOT MATTER TO ME and more importantly if should not matter to you. Even if your QURAN was an exact photo copy of the Mohamed words, or even if you had a stateless digital recording of Mohamed's recitation done in a 21st century recording studio. It would still be worthless.

And even if my Bible is full of textual variants, tatered and torn, it is still the WORD OF GOD.

Because I discern Gods words by what the words say and mean, and at the end of the day, your Quran is just a conterfit.

And just like the counterfeit currency that is in prestien condition that I have seen on display at my local gas station it is completly Worthless, and will get you in trouble if you try to use it.

But my tattered and torn bible, just like the dollar bill I spent today. Is worth more then the perfect presitien counterfiet $50 dollar bill on display at my local gas sation.

I have real currency in my pocket and the real words of God in my Bible."

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

A few more things. Jus to let you know, I am more of a Anthony Rogers reader.

But more importantly you wrote...

"Reversing the challenge :
Can you produce any evidence that the bible we now have is an exact copy of the original manuscript (if there is one)."

There is no reversing your standard that you have for the bible on me because your standard is not MY STANDARD.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM

:" I have proven

1. At best you can not prove that you have the ORIGINAL words of your prophet. 

2. At worse; using a scholar you sited you have a "REDACTED, EDITED, ALTERED, CORRECTED, IMPROVED, EXPUNGED, REVISED, with text ELIMINATED and ADDED" under the authority and supervision of what quite a few of the SAHABA believed was an innovator at best a heretic at worst an APOSTATE.

3. Using your SCHOLAR YOU CAN NOT PROVE OTHER WISE
.."

You wrote  long winding argument that is baseless and anything but PROOF!!


Now what is your proof that the Quran now is not the same with what prophet Muhammad (p) taught before the Uthman (r) period?

The Prophet(P) did not have his "own Qur'an" once the revelation came doen to him, he taught the recitation verbatim in front of many sahabah. Thus the recitation of Qur'an was and is the property of the Muslims from the start.


Surely there would be  many mushafs of differing version of the Quran like what happened in the current state of books of Bible, if  the Quran now is not the same with what prophet Muhammad (p) taught  is the case.

Any mushafs which were found not conforming with the recitation prophet Muhammad (p) taught was just "bad" mushafs hence aberration, muslims were never trying to reproduce them since it was worthless.

 No authority would ever able to control the growth of different mushafs if some people in contemporary Uthman (r) found they were  the text they believe what prophet Muhammad (p) taught like in the case in early christians battle of orthodoxy. 

People would have kept them thus there are always manuscripts which survived, but we dont have that as in the Bible fate.

It is a fact that muslims have always been careful of how the Qur'an should be read and written. Detailed rules were formulated to achieve the transmission both orally and written. 

And miraculously God made it easy for people to memorize the Quran until today.

Another western scholar on Islam, John Burton writes: 

"The method of transmitting the Qur'an from one generation to the next by having the young memorise the oral recitation of their elders had mitigated somewhat from the beginning the worst perils of relying solelyon written records . . . " [John Burton, An Introduction to the Hadith, p.27. Edinburgh University Press: 1994]

The Christian Bible on the other hand did not have any such phenomenon and tradition.

As a result Bible had to live a life, as Burton put it,  the worst perils of 'dynamic text' which was constantly changing at the whims and fancies of the scribes and the leaders of the Church. 

Until today the fact that  Christians are not in agreement about the contents of the Bible and have many versions of it depending of what denomination.
Also the Protestant, Roman Catholic, Syriac,Ethiopic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican churches have different number of books in the Bible.

So Bible cant be the words of God.


I know about Corpus Coranicum project. The will be Muslims and non-Muslims scholars  working side by side on this project supported   by institutions in the Arab and Islamic world.

 I dont think muslims have problem if the  Quran are studied in a serious, scientific manner by unbiased western scholar rather than done by work of islamophobes demagogues or evangelical pseudo-scholars whose motive is hating Islam and trying to discredit it and market their idelology.


Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

You responded with...

"You wrote long winding argument that is baseless and anything but PROOF!!"

So then you have no response.

You then wrote...

"Now what is your proof that the Quran now is not the same with what prophet Muhammad (p) taught before the Uthman (r) period?"

Sir I don't have to prove anything.

I am only pointing out to you that if you apply your own standards that you have for the bible to say that it is not the word of GOD, to the Quran then you must conclude that the Quran is not the word of GOD.

Your standard for the bible that you have repeated a few times is.

"We do not have the original texts and;
- that there is intentional alteration in much of the New Testament to fit the desired Orthodoxy."

SO you do not have the original text, and UTHMAN redacted the Original text.

Now you need to prove that Uthman did not change the orginal text, but you can't do that since you do not have the orignal text. THAT IS THE POINT.

Also there are hadeeth from Aissa the mother of the beleivers herself that say there is missing surah. Another Hadeeth that one of the rightly guided caliphs (I forget which one) said that there used to be a surah on stoning. So show me the STONING VERSE.

You also made the claim...


"Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."

Well Sam1528 a MUSLIM refuted you on this, since he admited that their are scribal errors in the ancient copies of the Quran.

But again I sate it does not matter if you have a digital photo copy of the Hafsa orignal, or if you have digital stateless recordings of Mohameds own voice reciting the entire Quran done in 21st century recording studio. Becuase it is still a COUNTERFIT.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Scribal errors are considered textual variants?? You must be extremely desperate to go to such level of non thinking.

Why are you going round and round in circles?? Asking for the perfect hafs of the Quran - for what? Didn't the said hadith confirm that 'mushaf Uthman(ra) was as exact copy of 'suhuf Hafash(ra)?? What do you not understand by 'exact copy'?? This can be counter checked by the early fragments of the non uthmanic copies. Current scholarship has confirmed such. You in the end have nothing. You started with nothing and ended with nothing.

Ha ha , as predicted , you chickened out from the counter challenge - phuck - phuck - phucccckk!! You are just digging in your heels and shouting at the top of your voice that your bible is the word of god. The funny thing is that part of your bible is just a lie. It was written by people who impersonated peter and paul. Dunno about you fundies .... a lie is a lie no matter how you look at it. Your word of god is now a lie.

You are just arguing emotionally whereas we muslims rely on sound scholarship in our argument. That makes you fundie , aka shamonian , stand inferior.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

I don't care who you read. No difference to me. It is clear that you are not able to address the counter challenge. In other words , you have chickened out. Such deserves a - phuck - phuck - phuccckkk!!

Come on , show us just how the current bible can be traced to its original writings. We have not even touch on the books of the NT that were written by people who impersonated peter / paul. Tsk - tsk - tsk , we do have a term for such. Is is called lying.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

Im amazed how RM doesnt have intelectual capapcity to understand scribal errors as errors.

This is the best christian apologetics has to offer?
*sigh*

Of course the scribes were human and often they err but any mushafs which were found not conforming with the recitation prophet Muhammad (p) taught was just "bad" mushafs hence aberration, muslims were never trying to reproduce them since it was worthless.

If they are not in agreement surely there would be many mushafs of differing version of the Quran, if the Quran now is not the same with what prophet Muhammad (p) taught =LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN THE CURRENT STATE OF BOOKS OF BIBLE=.

But that was not the case in the effort of compiling written Quran in the Uthmanic era.

Use your logic, No human authority would ever able to control the growth of different mushafs if some people in contemporary Uthman (r) found those were not the text they believe what prophet Muhammad (p) taught like in the case in early christians battle of orthodoxy.

Bruce Metzger, another NT scholar said that the errors in NT were not only 'scribal'. There were Intentional Changes:
Changes involving spelling and grammar
Harmonistic corruptions
Addition of natural complements and similar adjuncts
Clearing up historical and geographical difficulties
Conflation of readings
Alterations made because of doctrinal considerations
Addition of miscellaneous details
(Bruce M Metzger, The Text Of The New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration, 1992, Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 186-206. )

You can have your silly opinion on the Quran but it is no comparison to what Ehrman said about the Bible that the text was regularly adjusted in such areas as the birth of Jesus, the agony in the garden, the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus's death, his cry of dereliction, resurrection and ascension. . . .

And these adjustments were made not bythose who were labelled as heretics, but by the 'proto-orthodox'.

Ehrman vividly shows how scribes have preserved or created within the mss. they were copying reflections of early Christological debates that helped to shape version of Christianity we now know.

He concluded the battle for orthodoxy happnened in early Christianity deliberaltely shaping through each of the New Testament texts and their context—contrasting the varied portrayals of Jesus in the Gospels, each with its ownperspective.

Also portion of the New Testament were even included hundreds of years after the "death" of Jesus (p)

This is the opinion of man of authority in NT. He is no muslim da'i or anti-christian atheist peseudo-scholars, He is just sincere Christian who out of love to seek the truth.

Muslims on the sideline only can say:

Alhamdulillah we have the Quran, as we can remove any doubts and faslsehood concerning the previous revealations.

Wassalam.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

sam said,

Scribal errors are considered textual variants??

I say,

Yes duh. That is what we mean when we say textual variants. Misspellings, words copied twice and the like.

Did you actually think that textual variants were purposeful additions by evil scribes trying to change the meaning of the text?

I can’t believe the level of ignorance about the basic process of textual transmission that we see from Muslims.

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

eric said,

You can have your silly opinion on
the Quran but it is no comparison to what Ehrman said about the Bible that the text was regularly adjusted in such areas as the birth of Jesus, the agony in the garden, the institution of the Eucharist, Jesus's death, his cry of dereliction, resurrection and ascension. . . .

I say,

Please present your evidence.

Give us chapter and verse that have been altered in our text and the original readings.

peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "..Yes duh. That is what we mean when we say textual variants. Misspellings, words copied twice and the like.
Did you actually think that textual variants were purposeful additions by evil scribes trying to change the meaning of the text?.."

Yes. Obviously this is the case for the Bible.

According to Erhman:

There is clearly the issue of evil scribes just plain adding in things that weren't there before.

One of the biggest apparent additions to the gospels is the last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20). They are not present in early versions of the gospel, and include the famous passage that is the primary basis for evangelization and snake-handling church , as well as faith healing.

In addition to not being present in earlier versions, Ehrman states the writing style of these verses are different from the rest of Mark, and contain vocabulary not present in the rest of the gospel. Some later scribe possibly felt that the gospel ended too abruptly and injected theological forgery.

In many respects, the Bible was the equivalence of ancient Wikipedia article. So many hands have altered and edited the now lost originals that we will never know for sure what those originals said.

As I said before, unlike many fundies attacking Mr Ehrman labelled as atheist. Ehrman, learning about the Bible is what caused his belief to change. He still believes in God, but no longer believes the Bible is an inerrant source of the Word.

He is just a scholarly believer saying he feels the evidence is clear that the gospels were written by men with personal agendas, and both accidentally and intentionally altered over the centuries by other men with agendas of their own.

Is the Bible really authentic God's words?

Grasp!

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

you wrote...

"Scribal errors are considered textual variants?? You must be extremely desperate to go to such level of non thinking."

Shakes head on that one.
THe only one who is desperate and not thinking is you. I think the comment of FMM says it all.

"I say,

Yes duh. That is what we mean when we say textual variants. Misspellings, words copied twice and the like....

I can’t believe the level of ignorance about the basic process of textual transmission that we see from Muslims."

You then go on

"Ha ha , as predicted , you chickened out from the counter challenge "

What challange? Sir since you can not seem to follow the converstation I will spell it out for you.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINAL TEXT OF ANY OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.

There happy. But as I have stated over and over and over again.

THAT IS NOT MY STANDARD THAT IS ERIKS STANDARD. I DO NOT DISCERN GODS WORDS BY IF WE HAVE THE ORIGNAL OR NOT. I DISCERN GODS WORDS BY WHAT THEY SAY AND WHAT THE MEAN.


So since it is Eriks standard when it comes to the bible, then he should be able to produce the "ORIGNAL KORAN" which he can not.

Sam really man your going around in circles and claimign vicorty.

Here is how it has gone so far.

1. Erik claims that since Christians do not have the orignal text of the bible it can not be the word of God.

2. I challange erick to produce the ORIGNAL KORAN, either Haf's or Uthmans Redacted version.

3. He cant so you put your "COUNTER CHALLANGE" to me that I need to produce the orignal text of the bible.

4. Since I cant produce the original books of the bible even though I never said I could, and I never made the claim that I could or even that it mattered to me. You do a victory dance squakin around like a chicken with his head cut off.

Really man you don't see how you are going around in circles with that.

Now you quote hadeeth, even though there is much more to the story of how Uthman (the Inovater, some of the Sahaba would claim a heritc and still others would claim he was a apostate thats why he had to be killed) compiled the Quran.

But lets take a look at your hadeeth.

"'Uthman said to the three Quraishi men, "In case you disagree with Zaid bin Thabit on any point in the Qur'an, then write it in the dialect of Quraish, the Qur'an was revealed in their tongue." "

What part of "In case you disagree" do you not understand. If they were just making a "exact copy" then what is there to disagree with.

But be that as it may. You make the claim it is a "perfect copy" ok fine I say prove it.

Show us the original Hafs quran that we may compare it to the original Uthman Redaction.

Oh wait you can't even show us a original UTHMAN quran. Doubtful you can even show us a copy of the Uthman redaction. Maybe you can show us a copy of a copy of the Uthman orignal. But with out the HAFSA you have nothing to compare it to. So your claim that it is a exact copy is well just a un substatntiated claim. Just like Mohamed's claim of being a prophet.

Radical Moderate said...

@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

you seem to be self destructing just like Sam1528.

You wrote...


"Im amazed how RM doesnt have intelectual capapcity to understand scribal errors as errors.
"

Sir you made the claim that...


"Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."

So if there are scribal errors which are TEXTUAL VATIANTS then that means that the text are NOT "exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."

Unless your going to claim that the scribes all made the same errors at the same places?

Radical Moderate said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM,
Just one reference: the agony in the garden : Gospel of Luke 22:43–44

According to Bart Ehrman ) these two verses disrupt the literary structure and are not found in the early and valuable manuscripts, and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony. Ehrman concludes that they were inserted in order to counter doceticism, the belief that Jesus seemed to suffer.

As I repeatedly said, Muslims are not in the business of textual criticism of the NT, you can direct your query to Mr. Erhman himself.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM:"..So if there are scribal errors which are TEXTUAL VATIANTS then that means that the text are NOT "exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."


I dont like the game you play, it is kinna childish.
I have been fortunate enough to travel around Europe, Mid-east and the far east , Im yet find other "version" of the quran which are different to one another.

On the another hand ChristiansI have in my bookshelf at least 4 "versions" of the Bibles which are different to one another.

Of course there were any ancient mushafs which were found not conforming with the recitation prophet Muhammad (p) taught. But those were just "bad" copy hence aberration (due to scribal errors, the scribes were human and not a proffesional typists with notebooks and wordprpcessor), but muslims were never in disputes about it nor trying to reproduce them as another "version" of the Quran (as it is in the Bible) since it was worthless.
While for christian scriptures canonization has never been agreed upon by Christians no matter how far back you go back in time.
You as an evangelical protestant, I believe, disagree with what the RC, and Ethiopian church Greek Orthodox Church, Coptic Church, Ethiopic Church, Syriac Church as to which books are God's words

My words stand, I challenge you to get a copy of Quran anywhere in any bookshops or any mosques around the world, let me know if you can find something different words by words, dot by dot.

Wassalam

minoria said...

Hello Erik:

I think you give Ehrman to much credit.He makes a bit deal out of nothing.According to textual criticism,and this is mainstream,and Ehrman knows this:

1.We have that 99% of the NT can be traced to the original authors.

2.There are 5O passages where we don't know which was the original wording.

3.Each of them has several options that are EARLY.

However we know ONE of the 2 or 3 or more variants contains the original wording.

Any NONE of the variants goes against a doctrine of Christianity

I said EARLY because no scholar is going to accept as of serious concern a variant,from say,the 12th century that says "Jesus never resurrected".

Radical Moderate said...

ohhh Erik Erik Erik

The only one who is being childish is you.

You are the only who is ackting like a child

Question are these two sentences exaclty the same dot for dot?

If it was in the bible you would say no. If it was in the quran you would say Yes.

But be that as it may. You have not even come close to answering my questions. So I will continue to repeat them until you do.

@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?

Radical Moderate said...

@Erick

One more thing, you seem to indicate that "Scribal Errors" in the Quran like spelling mistakes are no big deal.

Is that your stance that spelling mistakes in ancient qurans are no big deal?

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

Justify why spelling mistakes are considered textual variance?? As puin pointed out in the sana'a mss , example : ibrahim was misspelt ibrahm ... where is the change or difference in context??

This is very different to the 'scribal error' , for example 1john5:7. You are again being very deceitful in your argument.

Ha ha , you fundies are scraping the bottom of the barrel in your non thinking. Its about time you admit that the Quran is so much more superior to the bible in its preservation and reliability.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Can you provide an example any Quranic mss that so called has been copied twice with the same mistake?? An example is the sana'a mss as puin pointed out ibrahim was misspelt ibrahm. Since when was this copied 2x with the same mistake. You buddy , fifth monarchy man , is like you ... creating BS out of thin air. Is the best you guys can do?? Compare that to 1john5:7 - ha ha , you will cringe in horror .... its lying ... isn't it??

If you do not have the original texts of the bible nor any attestation that the current bible is an exact copy of the original - why are you still arguing for the preservation and reliability of the bible?? This is why you are just a non thinking fundie (aka shamonian)

You are going round and round in circles chasing your backside. We muslims have
(1) attestation that 'mushaf uthman(ra) is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)
(2) the tradition of memorizing that ensures perfect preservation.

Which part of it that you don't understand?? What other proof do you need?? The context of your argument is just asking what is north of the north pole. This is an argument of people who are of lesser learning.

Dialect is pronouncing differently of the same word eg. 'eye rak' (americans) verses 'ee rak' (rest of the world)for irag. 'eye-rak' and 'ee-rak' are different countries?? What about hafs?? Justify why the different harfs are variants??

Justify why you asserted Caliph Uthman(ra) was an apostate?? Why are you avoiding to justify your blind assertion??

Ha ha ... it is true ... fundie shamonians like you are chickens when it comes about to discuss about the bible. You just pepper us muslims with , hmm , less than average intelligent questions to avoid us muslims form reversing the challenge. Soooo poor - for you again - phuck - phuck - phuccckkk!!

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 you still have not answered the question instead you are running around like a chicken with his head cut off. Ohh BTW it would be Pluck Pluck Pluck. THe way you are spelling it, phenomicaly speaking it sounds liek the F word. But I think you knew that.

Well here is the Question again..

@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

from you :
'..I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?..'

I am answering you again and again ... these are issues of a person with lesser learning. The
(1) standardised 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'
(2) memorization of Quran
enables us muslims to be independent of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and 'the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'. Any person with a bit of intelligence will understand such. That is one of the objectives of the compilation of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' and having the tradition of Quran memorizers. It is to have a robust system that frees itself from the existence or non existence of the original copies as the copies we currently have is he exact copy of the originals plus memorizing it ensures absolute preservation.

Such a simple concept yet you screw up sooo badly in its understanding. Looks like fundie shamonians and logic do not mix

For you again , being afraid to discuss the preservation and reliability of the bible : phuck - phuck - phuccckkkk!!!

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

You are asking the same question hoping for a different answer?? Justify why do we muslim even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

Why are you going in circles chasing your backside?? Can you provide something intelligent to discuss. This is crazy ....

Ha ha .... we have evidence of lies in the bible
(1) 1 joh5:7
(2) writers who impersonated peter / paul
However you are too scared to discuss ; for you again : phuck - phuck - phuccckkk!!!

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

I'm asking the SAME question the SAME way I just copy and pasted the SAME Question there is nothing different no textual variant.

And I will repeat it again its a simple yes or no question

@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

I am going to answer again :
Justify why do we muslim even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Is 1 joh5:7 a textual variance or a lie?? Can you justify why is scribal error like spelling mistake a textual variance?? Which Quran mss had spelling mistake copied 2x??

The same / repeated challenge to your repeated question :
Justify why do we muslim even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

Ohhh the wheels on the bus go round and round roiund and round.

You wrote...

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation. "

Ok so do you have the ORIGINAL recording of a reciter from the Hafsha Quran?

Really man how do you know modern day reciters are reciting from the Hafsa quran? Since you do NOT HAVE THE HAFSA QURAN?

DIdnt hey learn to recite the Quran from the UTHMAN QURAN?

really let me repeat the question again DO YOU HAVE YES OR NO?

"@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?"

minoria said...

Segment 1

To Continue about the NT

There is good evidence that there were no interpolations.They are:

1.Mark and Revelation are in bad Greek.Yet the copysts,who knew perfect Greek,did not correct the grammatical mistakes.It shows Fidelity of Transmission.

2.What also goes against the idea that there was invention/intentional lying by the author/or copysts is:

We have 2O or even 25 embarassing incidents in the Gospels.By the criterion of embarassment of the Historical Method they really ocurred.

Really,WHY invent lies about Jesus for propaganda reasons and at the SAME TIME tell alot of embarassing incidents?

minoria said...

Segment 2

3.Critical scholars say the Nature Miracles in the Gospels are Inventions.

They are Jesus walking on water,feeding 5,OOO by a miracle,raising Lazarus and others from the dead,healng lepers,calming a storm by himself

HOWEVER

The most radical NT group of scholars,the Jesus Seminar does accept that Jesus did do "something" that others thought were miracles,but they weren't,but they were taken to be great feats.

Read about it here:

Translate using Google Translate

http://translate.google.com/

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/11/le-groupe-sceptique-jesus-seminar-et-les-miracles-de-jesus/

minoria said...

Segment 3

The consensus dating of the Gospels is:

1.Mark:7O-75 AD

2.Luke-Acts,Matthew:80-85 AD

3.John:9O-95 AD

The technical reason is because Jesus in Mark,Luke,Matthew predicts the destruction of the Temple of Jerusalem.It ocurred in 7O AD.

But REAL prophecies are impossible,they never happen,so obligatorily Jesus NEVER said it,it is an invention.

However the internal evidence puts it as:

Mark:5O AD

Luke-Acts,Matt:61 AD

John:7O AD

minoria said...

Segment four

Notice that the other dating gives the writing of the gospels as within the lifetimes of the contemporaries of Jesus.After all James,peter and paul lived till the sixties AD.They died by execution,not a natural death.

The Situation

So the critical scholars would have us accept that:

The copyists or authors left 2O embarassing,counter-propaganda incidents.And such incidents appear in all four gospels.

The copyists or authors invented Nature Miracles,which appear in all four gospels.

And at least one invented the lie that Jesus said the Temple would be destroyed,which was copied by Matt and Luke.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric says,

According to Bart Ehrman ) these two verses disrupt the literary structure

I say,

So your evidence is that an agonistic apostate thinks that a couple of verses disrupt the literary structure of a text?
WOW That is quite a thin reed by which to attach your rebellion to.

In what world does a rebel’s preference in “literary structure” count as evidence for anything????

I’ve never met a non Muslim that think’s that the Quran has a coherent “literary structure”. Does that prove that your book is a human invention?

Come on man use your head.



You say,



and they are the only place in Luke where Jesus is seen to be in agony.

I say,

At least we have one claim that can be tested.

It takes about three minutes in the actual text to see that either Bart Ehrman is being disingenuous or is simply ignorant of what the text of the Gospel of Luke says.

Check this out


Quote:

And when he drew near and saw the city, he wept over it,
(Luke 19:41)

End quote:

The Greek word for “wept” is klaiō ………

Thayer’s Definition:

1) to mourn, weep, lament
1a) weeping as the sign of pain and grief for the thing signified (i.e. for the pain and grief)
1b) of those who mourn for the dead
2) to weep for, mourn for, bewail, on

And here is another one.


Quote:

for forty days, being tempted by the devil. And he ate nothing during those days. And when they were ended, he was hungry.
(Luke 4:2)


End quote:

The Greek word for hunger is peinaō ……..



Thayer Definition:
1) to hunger, be hungry
1a) to suffer want
1b) to be needy
2) metaphorically to crave ardently, to seek with eager desire
Part of Speech: verb

A Related Word from the same as penēs (through the idea of pinching toil; “pine”)


It is plain that Jesus was often in agony in Luke‘s account. verses 22:43–44 mesh quite nicely with the rest of his gospel. Not to mention it corresponds exactly with the other witnesses that we have.

This is obvious to anyone with out an antichristian axe to grind.

Is this kind of sloppy biased anti God propaganda really the sort of thing you want to bet your eternal destiny on?

You say,

Muslims are not in the business of textual criticism of the NT, you can direct your query to Mr. Erhman himself.

I say,

You are the one relying on his sloppy biased scholarship not me.


I could care less what Erhman has to say? He long ago proved that he is not interested legitimate scholarly inquiry.

He is just a bitter rebel grasping at straws to try and convince himself that he is justified in rejecting God.

sound familiar?


Peace

minoria said...

Segment 5

There is a mathematical calculation for probabilities called Bayes' Theorem and I think if you apply it you would get that:

The mathematical probability that not 1 or 2 but four writers would write so contradictorily would be statistically low.

One has to also consider the arguments of Richard Bauckham who has given other reasons that the gospels are EYEWITNESS testimony.It is in his book "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses"

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

The one going round in circles chasing his backside is you not us muslims.

Now you ask for the original recitation of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?? Isn't 'suhuf Hafsah(ra) a compilation of recitation that was checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw)?? You are not thinking ... are you?? The sahabas who memorized the Quran had their recitation checked by Prophet Muhammad(saw) himself as the Quran was taught by him. We already have such evidence from the hadeeth.

Which part that you don't understand or pretend not to understand or just do not have the mental capacity to understand??

Again I am going to answer your non thinking question :
Justify why do we muslim even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

To rub it in ... shamonians in the like of you is sooooo scared (ie. too chicken) to discuss about the preservation / reliability of the bible. One more for you : phuck - phuck - phucccckkk!!!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

Justify why spelling mistakes are considered textual variance??

I say,

UMM

Because that is what the words mean.

If we have two texts that vary between each other for any reason we have a textual variance.

Spelling errors are the most common type of textual variances.

Also common are things like missed words or lines or words or lines that are copied twice.

It is just the inevitable result of the process of hand copying any text.

This is not a difficult concept to understand.


What is your hang up here?

Do you think that when we are talking about textual variants we mean deliberate altering of the text?

Peace

minoria said...

Segment six

The argument of Bauckham is based on the essential reliability of papias.

In a comment by Erik,I think it was by him,maybe I am wrong,in The Blogging Theology,he said Christians are inconsistent,since we accept what papias said about Mark and Matt and reject what he said about Judas.

The Situation

The truth is we have 2 different versions attributed to papias about WHAT happened to Judas

That is the question.Why is the correct version,if any

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

Is 1 joh5:7 a textual variance or a lie??

I say,

The Comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscripts so it is not a textual variance.

It is not a lie either

Most scholars it is just a late marginal note from a Latin translation that was accidentally copied into the main text of a copy of that translation by an pious scribe who erred on the side of caution.

Hope that helps

Peace

minoria said...

Segment 7

Yes,which is the correct version?We don't know,they are both different.Here are the 2 versions:

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/?p=2214

The essential idea of both Versions

It is that Judas became swollen,that was WHY he died.

SO?

That coincides with the argument that the original Greek wording in Acts about Judas is "becoming swollen" and NOT "becoming headlong".READ:

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/07/how-did-judas-dieabout-a-supposed-contradiction-between-matthew-and-acts/

minoria said...

Segment eight

By the way,Ehrman certainly knows all THAT,yet he says there is still a contradiction regarding Judas' death.

So Bauckam accept the essential reliability of papias

And papias said peter gave his information to Mark,who wrote it down.

SO?

THAT would explain why an eyewitness like Matthew would copy from Mark.

Because papias also says Matthew wrote a book.He copied from Mark because it is really the Gospel of another EYEWITNESS,peter himself,it is the Gospel of peter.

ALSO

Luke tells us in his introduction that he got his information from eyewitnesses,THAT would be WHY he copied from Mark/peter's book.

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

You are now backpedaling. Tell me what is the so called 'textual variance' per your claim of the Quran (ie. mistake copied 2x). As puin pointed out on the sana'a mss , for example ibrahim was mispelt ibrahm. What variance in context will such contribute??

Now you are trying to defend the lie of 1joh5:7 by stating :
'..The Comma Johanneum is not found in any Greek manuscripts so it is not a textual variance.

It is not a lie either

Most scholars it is just a late marginal note from a Latin translation that was accidentally copied into the main text of a copy of that translation by an pious scribe who erred on the side of caution..'

Textual variance is when one version has it and another does not have it. Justify why your assertion that 1joh5:7 is not a textual variance??

The scholars are putting it politely that the scribe erred on the side of caution. Bluntly said , the said scribe put it into the mss to justify the trinitrian doctrine. Therefore its the made up doctrine influencing the text.

minoria said...

Segment 9

Ehrman is mainstream,in spite of everything.He says:

1.The first disciples believed Jesus had a physical resurrection.

2.Jesus really existed.

Now about the Really Radical NT Scholars

We have Earl Doherty,Robert price and Richard Carrier who say Jesus NEVER existed.

However,there was a time when Carrier believed Jesus existed and so he held to the very minority view that the first disciples believed in a spiritual resurrection.His theory was the 2-body theory.

THE ARGUMENT BY CARRIER AGAINST THE RELIABILITY OF THE NT

He says,and I take it it is true:

1.That the MOST variations are among the EARLIEST copies we have,those of the 2nd century.

2.However,as I pointed out,even THEN,no doctrinal idea is affected and ONE of the variants has the ORIGINAL wording,there is no problem.

3.Carrier says we have no copies from the 1st century so it is impossible to say:"The NT was NOT corrupted THEN"

WOW.

For the reasons I stated at in the first segments there ARE good reasons why corruption did NOT take place,I disagree with Carrier.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

Please answer my questions yes or NO why can't you do that. Why are you running around like a chicken with its head cut off. CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK.

""@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?"

minoria said...

Segment 1O

OK,guys,watch this great debate between Holding of tektonics,a Christian and Richard Carrier on:

"Is the New Testament Reliable?: JP Holding vs Richard Carrier"

It is a very civil debate and believe it or not,Carrier says he agrees with most of what Holding said,that there is little disagreement

OK

Now if SUCH a RADICAL scholar as Carrier says that what does that say about the claims of Ehrman?Here is the debate:

http://youtu.be/phj5H9NycdY

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

Maybe my question is a little to hard for you. I mean I am asking a Muslim to be honest and consitent so it is a little to much to ask.

Ok so you refurse to answer my quesitons so lets move on to another question.

You have brought up 1 John 5:7.

Can you show me one JUST ONE Greek Manuscript before 14th Century that has that reading in the TEXT. Not in the margins but in the TEXT. If you can do that I will take my SHAHADA.

Again let me repeat.

I want just ONE GREEK MANUSCRIPT DATING BEFORE 14th Century, OF THE GREEK NT.

I await your non answer on this just iike your non answer on my previous two questions.

minoria said...

Segment 11

Bauckham however rejects the idea Matthew wrote a book

He says because the REAL Matt would NOT have referred to himself in the third person:"And Jesus saw HIM,Matt,and called him"

HOWEVER

The truth is the use of the third person singular is found in Antiquity and later by people who took part in the very events

In fact,if you believe Moses wrote the Torah,then notice HE wrote in the 3rd person singular or "HE".READ all the cases here:

Translate using GOOGLE TRANSLATE

http://translate.google.com/

http://www.avraidire.com/2011/05/contre-largument-musulman-que-matthieu-et-jean-nont-pas-ecrit-des-evangiles/

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 you wrote..

"Textual variance is when one version has it and another does not have it."

So are there any other versions of the Quran that have the SMM spelling if Ibraham?

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Sam said,

Textual variance is when one version has it and another does not have it.

I say,

No.... That is not the definition of textual variance at all.

Textual variance is when one copy of a text (the same original version) differs in any way from another.

you say,

the said scribe put it into the mss to justify the trinitrian doctrine.

I say,

what are you talking about? The doctrine of the Trinity was universally accepted for more than a thousand years before this scribe made his error in a translation.

No one needed to alter the text of the Bible to justify it.

You say,

for example ibrahim was mispelt ibrahm. What variance in context will such contribute??

I say,

Two manuscripts each have different spellings.

That is the very definition of textual variance!!!!!!!!!

This is why conversations here are so dificult it is almost like you are unable to grasp even a very simple concept.

If you can't even understand what a textual variance is how can you have an intellegent conversation about them?

peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

sam said,

for example ibrahim was mispelt ibrahm. What variance in context will such contribute??

I say,


I’m no expert on ancient Arabic but the difference between the two words in Hebrew could not be more stark

'abrâm means “high father” and 'abrâhâm means "father of nations".

This is a difference that was so important that God himself took the time to rename the patriarch at the institution of the covenant that serves as the linchpin of all of redemptive history, the covenant that finds it’s ultimate fulfillment in Christ.

Quote;

Then Abram fell on his face. And God said to him, "Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
(Genesis 17:3-5)

And

for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.
(Galatians 3:26-29)

end quote:

To call 'abrâhâm by the name 'abrâm would imply that the covenant never happened and we nonjews are with out hope in the world.

That is quite a textual variant you got there.

Peace

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


FMM,

Wrt End of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the fact is glaring omission occured in the Bible and that human had intervened with the Bible.

I am not interested to discuss into detail to what Erhman said, but If I had not read Ehrman works I would not know some interesting point wrt to Biblical corruption, contradictions, mistakes, copyist errors and additions so that the Bible is a very human book, and that it cannot be God's Word to mankind.


· The popular story in John, (7:53-8:12) about Jesus confounding the Scribes and the Pharisees who had brought a woman accused of committing adultery to test him was not in any of the early manuscripts of the Bible.

· The last twelve verses in Mark were not found in the most ancient examples, nor was the last chapter of John.

· Each of the Gospels tells a different story of the Crucifixion, the events leading up to it and the Resurrection. We don't know which is the right one, or if there is a "right" account.

· The King James Version which are popular in the west, is probably the least accurate translation, being based on manuscripts that were inferior copies.

· The letter, supposedly written by St. Paul to Timothy, was probably, instead written by a follower of Paul's after his death, and Paul did not write the verses that relegated women to being quiet in church and learning scripture from their husbands. (1st Timothy 2: 11-15)

-In thousands of other ways, the Bible has been altered Incidentall that as Ehrman said there are more variants than words in the NT. Estimates go from 300,000 to 400,000 variants, where there are just over 100,000 words.


FMM: "This is obvious to anyone with out an antichristian axe to grind.
Is this kind of sloppy biased anti God propaganda really the sort of thing you want to bet your eternal destiny on? "

I dont think Ehrman is a sort of guy with antichristian axe to grind. He is a Bible Scholar.

Out of passion for his belief Dr. learnt about the Bible. In college he studied at The Moody Bible Institute, and later at Wheaton College, which resulted in a career of intensive Bible study.

Ehrman received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985 and he learned ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. He is now the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A top ranked among the nation's undergraduate programs in religious studies by the Gourman Report in the USA.

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


FMM,

Wrt End of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the fact is glaring omission occured in the Bible and that human had intervened with the Bible.

I am not interested to discuss into detail to what Erhman said, but If I had not read Ehrman works I would not know some interesting point wrt to Biblical corruption, contradictions, mistakes, copyist errors and additions so that the Bible is a very human book, and that it cannot be God's Word to mankind.


· The popular story in John, (7:53-8:12) about Jesus confounding the Scribes and the Pharisees who had brought a woman accused of committing adultery to test him was not in any of the early manuscripts of the Bible.

· The last twelve verses in Mark were not found in the most ancient examples, nor was the last chapter of John.

· Each of the Gospels tells a different story of the Crucifixion, the events leading up to it and the Resurrection. We don't know which is the right one, or if there is a "right" account.

· The King James Version which are popular in the west, is probably the least accurate translation, being based on manuscripts that were inferior copies.

· The letter, supposedly written by St. Paul to Timothy, was probably, instead written by a follower of Paul's after his death, and Paul did not write the verses that relegated women to being quiet in church and learning scripture from their husbands. (1st Timothy 2: 11-15)

-In thousands of other ways, the Bible has been altered Incidentall that as Ehrman said there are more variants than words in the NT. Estimates go from 300,000 to 400,000 variants, where there are just over 100,000 words.


FMM: "This is obvious to anyone with out an antichristian axe to grind.
Is this kind of sloppy biased anti God propaganda really the sort of thing you want to bet your eternal destiny on? "

I dont think Ehrman is a sort of guy with antichristian axe to grind. He is a Bible Scholar.

Out of passion for his belief Dr. learnt about the Bible. In college he studied at The Moody Bible Institute, and later at Wheaton College, which resulted in a career of intensive Bible study.

Ehrman received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985 and he learned ancient Greek, Latin, and Hebrew. He is now the chairman of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. A top ranked among the nation's undergraduate programs in religious studies by the Gourman Report in the USA.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

@ERIK ERIK ERIK

Why can't you answer my quesitons. WHy are yuo running. I will repeat them again for you.,

"""@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?"


Erik Erik ERik

What is funny is that you use the longer ending of Mark and the Woman caught in adultry to say "Aha see this is coruption". But what you fail to realize is how we know the longer ending and the woman should not be in the bible in the first place. Its because we have the older manuscripts to compare to the later manuscripts.

YOU DONT HAVE THAT

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric,

Here we go again discussing with you is like playing whack a mole.

I expose one piece of “evidence” for the corruption of God’s word is not evidence at all but just the antichristian rant of an apostate and without conceding the point and with out missing a beat you simply move on to something else hoping that something ,anything, will stick .

I’m not going to get bogged down once again because you like Ehrman have already acknowledged that the real reason you reject the Bible is not it’s supposed corruption but because you don’t like what it says about God.

Instead I’ll just quickly rebut your newest “evidence” then I’ll let you have it and get back to my family

Eric charged,

Wrt End of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the fact is glaring omission occured in the Bible and that human had intervened with the Bible.

I respond,

(Mark 16:9-20) is not part of the Bible. It a late addition to a text that brings the story up to date and does not change any single doctrine of Christianity

The reason we know that it is not part of the Bible is because we have the early manuscripts to compare. This fact that we can do this makes any real corruption impossible

Eric charged


The popular story in John, (7:53-8:12) about Jesus confounding the Scribes and the Pharisees who had brought a woman accused of committing adultery to test him was not in any of the early manuscripts of the Bible.


I respond

This passage was probably not in the original gospel of John but was known to the earliest church fathers and It probably circulated at first in oral form and was later written down and added to the text of John or Luke.

Although not considered scripture it has a much better attestation than any haddith in Islam. It’s inclusion or rejection from the cannon does not change a single Christian Doctrine.

Eric Charged

Each of the Gospels tells a different story of the Crucifixion, the events leading up to it and the Resurrection.

I respond,

Have you even read the Gospels?

They tell exactly the same story of the events surrounding the Crucifixion only just from different prospective that is exactly what one would expect from eyewitness accounts. If there were no difference in details we could not have any confidence of the independence of the accounts.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric charges

The King James Version which are popular in the west, is probably the least accurate translation, being based on manuscripts that were inferior copies.

I respond,

The king James Version was compiled over 400 years ago at a time and place when access to many of the oldest manuscripts was impossible yet I can place it side by side with a modern translation of these old manuscripts and for all practical purposes you would not be able to tell the difference between the two documents.

Eric charges

The letter, supposedly written by St. Paul to Timothy, was probably, instead written by a follower of Paul's after his death, and Paul did not write the verses that relegated women to being quiet in church and learning scripture from their husbands. (1st Timothy 2: 11-15)

I respond

This is the funniest charge yet. Ehrman’s case is based only on his opinion of what a letter from Paul would look like but elsewhere he claims that because we don’t have the autographs we can not know what a genuine letter from Paul would look like.

It is nothing short of comical the lengths to which you rebels will go to continue in your rebelion

Peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

eric said,

Ehrman received his PhD and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary magna cum laude for both his BA in 1978 and PhD in 1985 bla bla bla

I point out the odvious.

appeal to authority is the oldest falacy in the book.

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

why don't you know this?

peace

Radical Moderate said...

@sam1528

I missed this....

You wrote....

"Again I am going to answer your non thinking question :
Justify why do we muslim even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?"

BECASUE THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT ERICK SET FOR THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE. Thats why

you have one standard for the bible and another standard for the Quran. Its called INCONSITENCY. ITS CALLED DISHONESTY, and I could think of a few ohter words.

So can you answer my questions or not.

Let me repeat them again, and BTW since we are talking about written text I am refering to WRITTEN TEXTS.
""""@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?"

Now if you want to talk about recitations ok.

Produce for me a stateless digital recording, I will even accept the recording on vynal. Of Mohamed or one of his early sahaba reciting the Quran so we can compare it to the a modern day reciter.

If you can not do that then you have no bases for the claims you are making. And finaly just repeating the cliams with out evidence of those claims is not evidence that the claim is true.

Radical Moderate said...

@FMM and Minora

I think we have all done a good job of exposing the inconcistency double standards and total intelectual dishonesty of the Muslim argument against Gods word in the bible.

Have you noticed how it has gone.

He first goes to the standard Muslim argument using the "Gospel of Barnabas", and of corse the the books were excluded at the concil of Nicea. Almost to funny and stupid for comment.

Erik makes a claim against the Bible.

1. We do not have the orignal autographed copies.

2. The text was changed to support developing theology.

He then makes a foolish claim about the texts of his Quran.

"Unlike the Bible, no matter where you get the copies of Holy Qur'an the text are exactly the same with other editions of the Holy Qur'an, words by words, dot by dot."

Sam1528 then chimes in to bail out his fellow Muslim only to completly throw him under the bus and refute that statement.

" All of the copies showed no variants except scribal errors."

So Erik says there are no variants they are all the same even word for word and dot for dot. Sam1528 admits that there are textual vatiants i.e. Scribal errors.

What is the solution to this contradiction. WEll hey just redefine what a textual variant is..

""Scribal errors are considered textual variants?? You must be extremely desperate to go to such level of non thinking."

I swear I have read some pretty dumb things from Muslims in the past but that has to be the DUMBEST thing I have ever heard from a Muslim. If its not its definitly in the top ten.

So Erik then chimes in and only makes it worse for him...

"Of course the scribes were human and often they err but any mushafs which were found not conforming with the recitation prophet Muhammad (p) taught was just "bad" mushafs hence aberration, muslims were never trying to reproduce them since it was worthless."

So he admits that there were variant Mushafs, however he just dismisses them as worthless. WEll they werent worthless to those who produced them other wise they wouldn't of produced. Second on what bases do you consider them worthless since Uthman had them all destroyed.

But be that as it may I was not talking about Qurans we do not have today I am talking about ancient qurans we have today that have textual varitants and are not the same word for word and dot for dot. So how does he respond to this...

He just goes on to attack the bible on his inconsitent standards.

Then the Wackamo game really begins great job Minora and FMM for beating down the ground hogs.

However in all this have you noticed not one of them has answered the two simple questions I ahve been asking over and over and over agian.

"""""@Erick and Sam1528

I'm going to state this one more time and make it as simple as I can for you two.

DO you have the original Hafa's Quran?

Do you have a Orignal Uthman Redacted Quran?"

minoria said...

Segment 1

Hello RM

Thanks for the praise.I only try my best by giving technical reasons

I try to find out the technical reason X scholar has for his affirmation.That is vital.

Hello Erik,

I want to go into the forgery claim by Ehrman

Here is the technical basis

Ok,Ehrman rejects it is possible the Historical Jesus actually said the Temple prophecy

So automatically Ehrman rejects 1OO% and forever that 1 Peter and 2 Peter are or can ever,ever be by Peter.

1 Peter 5:13 calls Rome "Babylon"

2 Peter 3:16 says what Paul wrote is ScriPture.


Those 2 details forever show they are forgeries,for Ehrman

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

One more for the road

Eric said,

Ehrman said there are more variants than words in the NT.

I say,

To illustrate the utter emptiness of claims like this I have constructed a little exercise in textual criticism.

Here are seven simulated manuscripts each containing the same 6 words taken from a famous American speech.

Four score and seven years ago
Fourscore ande seven years a go
Fore score and seven years ago
Four score and sevan years ago
Far score an seven year ago
Foure score and seven years ago
Four skore and seven years ago


In this one small simulated exercise there are at least 12 textual variants. Each of which could easily be the result of simple scribal error.

That is more than 2 variants per word yet no one would have any problem understanding the meaning of any one of the “manuscripts” or in constructing what the original message of the phrase was.

If the phrase were read out loud none of the variants would even be noticed by a person who had the speech memorized and was listening to it.

Multiply our little exercise by the thousands of manuscripts we have for the NT and it is easy to see how we can have more variants than words with out in any way calling into question the integrity of the text.

As you can plainly see the number of textual variants per word has nothing to do with alleged corruption in a document.

For Ehrman to insinuate that it does only goes to show that he is not really interested in NT scholarship.

Peace

minoria said...

Segment 2

Acts 4:13 says John and peter were illiterate,and then 9O% of the population in the Empire were illiterate.

Since for Ehrman Jesus never said a prophecy then the Historical peter NEVER,ever heard a prophecy that said:"The Temple and Jerusalem will be destroyed"

So the Historical peter never,ever called Rome "Babylon".

Babylon in 586 BC had destroyed the Temple and Jerusalem.Rome did it in 7O AD,it was also "Babylon".

Since Rome was called "Babylon ONLY after 7O AD and NEVER BEFORE,since NOBODY KNEW of such a prophecy,it was later invented and attributed to Jesus,

then of course the letter can never,ever be by the Historical peter.

minoria said...

Segment 3

According to Ehrman and others,Most scholars say Titus,1 and 2 Timothy are by the SAME author.It is because the style is similar.

Ok, 1 Timothy 5:18 cites Luke 10:7 and calls it "scripture"


So for Ehrman and other THAT shows that those 3 letters by the same author are forever forgeries,they can not ever,never be by paul.

minoria said...

Segment Four

For them the Historical paul NEVER ever read Luke,since it was written in 8O-85 AD and paul died in 64 AD.

And Luke is dated so late because Ehrman does not believe the Historical Jesus said the Temple prophecy.But if he did:

Then Luke is from 61 AD,and since in Acts Luke is the traveling friend of paul then of course paul could have read Luke's book.

minoria said...

Segment 5

Now in 2 Peter 3:16 it says that Paul's letters/not "letter" but "letters" are "ScriPture."

For Ehrman that forever shows 2 Peter it is a FORGERY because Paul's letters were ONLY considered SCRIPTURE AFTER his death,NEVER during his LIFE.

But I showed that if the Historical Jesus really did say a PROPHECY,then:

Luke's book was considered SCRI PTURE in his own LIFETIME

So why not consider the writings of the master of Luke,Paul,to ALSO be called SCRIPTURE in HIS lifetime?

minoria said...

Segment six

So for Ehrman 1 and 2 peter are literally full of lies.And ultimately it is all because he says Jesus never,ever said a prophecy.

1 peter says:

1 peter 1:1: it says it is by peter himself,a lie.

1 peter 5:1: the author says he saw the sufferings of Jesus,I assume he means,the crucifixion... a lie.

1 peter 3:15 says to always give evidence about why Christianity is true....for Ehrman the author, aliar, was being cynical

minoria said...

Segment 7

2 peter says:

2 peter 1:1 says it by peter himself,a lie

2 peter 1:16-18 has peter say he say the transfiguration of Jesus,which occurs in Mark 9:2-8,Matt 17:1-9 and Luke 9:28-36....another lie

Radical Moderate said...

@FMM I'm going to give one more from the road as well.

Sam1528 posted hadeeth that said "Uthman had done good" by compiling the Quran.

Yup he did so good sam1528 that he was killed while reading it.

He did such a good job that he was burried in a Jewish Cementary.

He did so good that Ali the next RIghtly Guided caliph did not do enough in the eyes of some "Aisha" being one of them to punish the killers.

Yup he did such a good job that those that killed him considered him a apostate.

He did such a good because he was a inovater that added two Raka's to the closing prayer of the Hajj.

Yup good job good job indeed

Radical Moderate said...

Ok Ok Ok ONE MORE FROM THE ROAD NOW.

Muslims you think Bart Ehrman is a Agnostic. OHHH SO SORRRY. THis audio recording PROVES he is a ATHIEST.

THanks Snowman for posting this.

At 1:44:00 into the program, when answering a womans question about suffering he says.

"I DO NOT BELIEVE GOD EXISTS" full stop.

Let me repeat that again...

Barth Ehramn "I DO NOT BELEIVE GOD EXISTS".

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

You are just running around in circles chasing your backside. Looks like you are struggling to be intellectually honest.

I repeat my answer to you repeated question :

Justify why do we muslims even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

--------------------------

Nobody is refusing to answer you. In fact you are refusing to address the issue. The issue is simple , we muslims already have a system the frees us from being dependent on the original mss. Can you address this counter answer to your question.

This is bad ... you are running from the issue. You again deserve a : phuck - phuck - phuccckkk!!

From you with regards to 1joh5:7 -

'..Can you show me one JUST ONE Greek Manuscript before 14th Century that has that reading in the TEXT. Not in the margins but in the TEXT. If you can do that I will take my SHAHADA..'


Again let me repeat.

I want just ONE GREEK MANUSCRIPT DATING BEFORE 14th Century, OF THE GREEK NT..'

That is the whole issue. The greek mss did not have 1john5:7 per the later mss like the KJV. This is evidence that there has been changes made to the bible. Ha ha , TQ again for your admission that the bible has not been preserved and is extremely unreliable. You are not thinking. Your question highlight what the issue is about - the bible not being preserved and unreliable

To parrot you :
I await your non answer on this just iike your non answer on my previous two questions.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

You are not thinking again. We have hadeeth evidence that 'mushaf Uthman(ra) is an EXACT copy of 'suhuf Hafash(ra)'. Therefor it meets the standards set by bro erik. In addition the tradition of memorizers of the Quran ensures that the documentation can be checked.

You christians have nothing. There is no inconsistency in our argument. We ask for evidence whether the current bible(s) can be traced back to its original mss. The answer is NO. Applying the same criteria to the Quran , the answer is YES. You are just trying your best to confuse the issue.

You are not thinking. Oh well ... thinking and shamonians don't mix. There is no merit in your question as we muslims have a system that frees us from being dependent on the original mss.

Too bad , even though its for WRITTEN TEXTS , the answer is the same -
Justify why do we muslims even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?

We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

Don't be sacred , address the issue. If not , this is for you : phuck - phuck - phucccckkkk!!!

Asking me to produce a digital recording of Prophet Muhammad(saw) / the sahabas recitation is like questioning a learned arab whether he knows to recite the Quran in arabic. The issue now is that you need to prove that that there is a difference in recitation of Prophet Muhammad(saw) / the sahabas against the current one. Arabic is a living language that has not changed for the past 1400 yrs. You are not thinking .... as usual. Can you now justify your assertion?? Don't be scared ....

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

Its fun to see christians in forum 'takkiyaing' and consoling each other as you guys are falling head over heels trying to twist and turn in making a case for the non preservation and non reliability of the bible.

My questions ; can you justify
(1) why you assert that caliph Uthman(ra) was an apostate??
(2) why your assertion that the 2 rakaa prayers for closure of hajj an innovation??
(3) why your assertion that Aishah(ra) wanted to kill caliph Uthman(ra)??

All in all ... you are just arguing on blind assertions. Others call it fantasy ....

Hmmm , I predict you will not answer. Another one in advance for you : phuck - phuck - phucccckkkk!!

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

from you :
'..I’m no expert on ancient Arabic but the difference between the two words in Hebrew could not be more stark

'abrâm means “high father” and 'abrâhâm means "father of nations"..'

Definitely you are not an expert. Why are you applying hebrew context to arabic in the misspelling? Even though in context there is a different meaning , it doesn't divert from what it is .... a name that has been misspelled. It has no context difference to the said verse. The Quran has been consistent - Prophet Ibrahim(as).

From you :
'..To call 'abrâhâm by the name 'abrâm would imply that the covenant never happened and we nonjews are with out hope in the world.

That is quite a textual variant you got there..'

No it is not. The name change per the verses you quoted is just the biblical god acknowledging biblical abraham to be the father of nations. The appointment of abram / abraham was an action independent of any name. The name change was just to acknowledge such appointment. That is about it. You are again trying to twist your own bible to argue your point. This is bad.

minoria said...

Hello Sam:

In the debates:

1.The Muslims say,I think always,that according to the NT scholars the Historical Jesus was a religious Jew,Torah-observing Jew.

2.They say real NT scholars show the Historical Jesus would NEVER go AGAINST Mosaic Law

So,of course,the Historical Jesus NEVER went against Mosaic Law,and certainly never said he was God.

minoria said...

Segment 2

Saying he was God would be going against Mosaic Law.

What the Koran says about Jesus

Notice it says nothing controversial

Sura 3:45-49 says:

"When the angels said, 'Mary, God gives thee good tidings of a Word from Him whose name is Messiah, Jesus, son of Mary; high honoured shall he be in this world and the next, near stationed to God.

He shall speak to men in the cradle, and of age, and righteous he shall be.'

'Lord,' said Mary, 'how shall I have a son seeing no mortal has touched me?' 'Even so,' God said, 'God creates what He will. When He decrees a thing He does but say to it "Be," and it is.

And He will teach him the Book, the Wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel,to be a Messenger to the Children of Israel saying, "I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into it, and it will be a bird, by the leave of God. I will also heal the blind and the leper, and bring to life the dead, by the leave of God. I will inform you too of what things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that is a sign for you, if you are believers."

minoria said...

Segment 3

However the next verse Sura 3:5O-51 says:

"Likewise:

1.Confirming the truth of the Torah that is before me

2.And to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you.

I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear you God, and obey you me.

Surely God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path".'

minoria said...

Segment four

SO?

Notice it says:

"And to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden to you."

In other words:

1.According to the Koran the Historical Jesus actually allowed changes in Mosaic law

2.But according to certain NT scholars the Historical Jesus would NEVER do that

So THAT argument used by Muslims in debates goes against them since they would contradict the Koran.

SO?

According to the methodology of the critical scholars like the Jesus Seminar and Erhman the Historical Jesus would NEVER say:"It is ok to change Mosaic law" he was a religious Jew.

WHAT WOULD EHRMAN SAY?

So Ehrman would say:"The Koran is wrong,the Historical Jesus NEVER said that."

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528

Your the one who is not thinking

You wrote...

"You are not thinking again. We have hadeeth evidence that 'mushaf Uthman(ra) is an EXACT copy of 'suhuf Hafash(ra)'."

you mean the CORRUPT HADETH, the Same HADETH that JOOSH corrupted lol. Thats your evidence lol AMAZING how a muslim appeals to the hadeeth but will throw the hadeeth under the bus just like a Muslim who apeals to the "SCHOLARS" then throws those SCHOLARS under the bus.

Really man you muslims do not have a intelecutal honest bone in your body.

You then go on running in cirlces like a chicken with his head cut of CLUCK CLUCK CLUCK

"Justify why do we muslims even have the need for the existence of
(1) 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'?
(2) the original 'mushaf Uthman(ra)'?"

LOL this has always been asnwered BECAUSE IT IS THE STANDARD THAT ERIK HAS AGAINST THE BIBLE.

SO the real question is

WHy do Muslim demand that CHristians have the original writings of the bible when you Muslims do not have the original Quranic text either Uthman or Hafsa?

And continuing on you write...

"We already have evidence that the current copies of 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation."

What evidence? You quote from your Corrupt Hadeeth collection that some one heard someone say that he heard someone else say that they heard someone esle say that it is a exact copy. But you have not produced the orignal Hafasa or Uthaman compilation to prove this hearsay from a known corrupt source.

You then go on...

"Nobody is refusing to answer you. In fact you are refusing to address the issue. The issue is simple , we muslims already have a system the frees us from being dependent on the original mss. Can you address this counter answer to your question."

yeah a system based the hearsay of what Muslims call "Corrupt" traditions.

Radical Moderate said...

@Sam1528 continuing to laugh at you...

THen you continue to say the F word nice real nice.

You then continue to demonstrate that you DO NOT KNOW HOW TO THINK.

"That is the whole issue. The greek mss did not have 1john5:7 per the later mss like the KJV. This is evidence that there has been changes made to the bible. Ha ha , TQ again for your admission that the bible has not been preserved and is extremely unreliable. You are not thinking. Your question highlight what the issue is about - the bible not being preserved and unreliable"

So let me get this strait, there is no greek mansucript prior to the 14th century that has 1 john 5:7 we know this becasue unlike you we honestly examine the older manuscripts. So this now some how means that Gods word was not preserved?????

HOw do you come to that conclusion?


HELLO MCFLY IS THERE ANYONE IN THERE. IT IS PRESERVED IN THE OLDER MANUSCRIPTS LOL.


YOu then go on to completly mis represnt demonstrating again the common Muslim trait of dishonesty.

"You christians have nothing. There is no inconsistency in our argument. We ask for evidence whether the current bible(s) can be traced back to its original mss. The answer is NO."

Did I or FMM or any other Christian say such a thing. NO we have not, instead we have said just the opposite we state very clearly that we can trace the current bible back to the orignal. THe EVIDENCE is in the fact that you can state that 1 john 5:7 is NOT IN THE ORIGNAL lol. You knwo this becasue IT IS NOT IN THE OLDER MANUSCIPTS. Please at least try to pretend to think.

You then continue...

"Applying the same criteria to the Quran , the answer is YES. You are just trying your best to confuse the issue."

That is what we are trying to get you to do. Apply the same standard to the Quran that you apply to the bible. SOmething you fail to do.

Whats funny is that when it comes to the quran it is the opposite.

We go by the oldest manuscripts, you Muslim disregard the older manuscripts calling them as ERIK put it "Defective Mushafs" instead electing for the new and improved manuscripts.

Well have fun in your rebelion. The bible is true you "make up ways to do evil"

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM:
"appeal to authority is the oldest falacy in the book.
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true."

You are making no sense to me. If you have your case against him just write a book about it and see if the public think that it is a scholarly evidence in par with Erhman.

As I said I am not interested to go into detail to what scholars as Erhman calibre have argued in his book as I am not trying to pretend like Biblical scholar nor it is no importance to me.


However Ehrman’s view are essentially the well-established of just about every worthwhile non-evangelical biblical scholars. Ehrman admits as much beginning at the 7:50 mark in the video here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HTaVZ1pqRU

On the other hand your attempted refutation on Ehrman offer little more than setting up and knocking down straw men, the reframing and redefinition of Erhman positions if anything but a satisfactory answers.

The fact remains that Bible was riddled with corruption and inaccuracies. Thus it makes Bible a very human book .

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

I am bored with kids stuff from RM

Have you taken up my challege to get me get a copy of Quran anywhere in any bookshops or any mosques around the world, which is different words by words, dot by dot to one another, Like the current statte of the Bible we have today??

Thats undisputable evidence that we muslims have Quran in written form in ironclad integrity .

The Prophet(P) always taught the recitation he received verbatim in front of many sahabah from day one. Thus the recitation of Qur'an was and is the property of the Muslims ummah from the start. In public Muslims will spot any discrepancies in the Quran recitation or written from. No authority had been able to control it like you falsely attributed to Uthman (r).

So the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

Wassaalam

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Eric said,

If you have your case against him just write a book about it and see if the public think that it is a scholarly evidence in par with Erhman.

I say,

Wow now you pivot from the appeal to athourity fallicy to the appeal to the crowd/public fallicy .

Erhman is popular with the antichristian public so therefore he is considered right acourding to you?

How about instead of jumping from one logicall fallicy to the next you try appealing to evidence to make your case.

Is it because you have none?



peace

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

eric said,

So the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation.

I say,

I can't believe you still don't get it.

Abdullah and Hakiem each have a differing Quran recitation how do we decide which one is correct?

The answer is obvious since we have nothing written down it all boils down to the one with the biggest sword.

Human memory is the worst possible medium for preservation of any message that is why we have writing.

This fact is self evidently true. I can't believe this is even a matter of discusion.

If memory insures preservation why did not Allah just command that the earlier prophets recite the Word of God instead of writing it down?

To ask the question is to answer it.

use your head man


peace

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik Erik Erik

you keep self destructing.

You wrote...

"I am bored with kids stuff from RM

Have you taken up my challege to get me get a copy of Quran anywhere in any bookshops or any mosques around the world, which is different words by words, dot by dot to one another, Like the current statte of the Bible we have today??"

Not much a chalange since its a total catagory error. We are talking about ancient hand written documents not modern day printed editions.

Secondly you demonstrate once again Muslims willing deception and lack of intelectual integrity.

I can go to a critical edition of my bible, I can look up in the foot and end notes exaclty Which ANCIENT TEXTS the readings have come from also I can read the committies brief explination as to why they chose those readings over others.

YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT. Can you show me what ancient texts your modern day Quran has been transmited from?

Actually there are a few critical editons of the Quran however there very limited.

But now on to your alleged challange.

"(AP) TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian publishers are complaining that cost-saving plans to print Qurans (Korans) in China are yielding embarrassing results: A slew of typos."

China makes a inferior Quran

You then write...

"Thats undisputable evidence that we muslims have Quran in written form in ironclad integrity ."

Really undisputable evidence, first you have provided no evidence just repeated claims. Second why is it the Hadeeths have "IRONCLAD INTEGRITY" when it supports the Muslims point of view. HOwever when we bring up a hadeeth that does not paint mohamed or muslims in a positive light all of a sudden the Hadeeths are corupt, there forged, fabricated, and it's usualy done by JOOSH.

Remember it is your claim that since we do not have the original copies of the autographed texts then are bible is corrupt. THAT IS YOUR STANDARD against the Bible.

Please sir be consitent and produce the Original Text of Uthman, and the Original Text of Hafsa so we can compate them with each other and compare them to modern printings.

If you can not do that then at least admit your standard when it comes to the bible is un fair, un realistic, un just etc...

ANd NEVER EVER REPEAT IT AGAIN.

Radical Moderate said...

@Erick

You then go deeper into the islamic twilight zone when you wrote...

"So the tradition of Quran memorizing ensures perfect preservation."

If that is the case then why was the Quran written down in the first place. Remember according to YOUR SOURCES OF IRONCLAD INTEGRITY that the Hafasa quran was first compiled after the battle of YO MAMMA. Out of fear that the Quran would be lost because Islams disregard for human life.

According to your SOURCES WITH IRON CLAD INTEGRITY Uthman then issued his redaction becasue Muslims where arguing over who had the "SUPERIOUR QURAN".

So if Memorization insured the preservation of the Quran then why right it down in the first place.

Oh let me guess those islamic sources that testify to that do not have IRON CLAD INTEGRITY they where forged, fabricated, all by JOOSH. lol

minoria said...

I would like to add more info about the NT.

About Forgeries

Ehrman says that other books can not be accused of being forgeries.

Revelation says it is by John

But JOHN was a very common name,so you can't say there is a forgery,since it doesn't say it is by John the Apostle.

Nor can you say Mark,Luke,Matthiew are forgeries since they don't say they are by eyewitnesses.

The same for the Letter of James/Jacob and that of Jude/Judas.They were very common names and the authors don't say they were eyewitnesses.At most Jude says "Jude,brother of James

minoria said...

Then 1,2 nd 3 JOHN cannt be forgeries,they don't say they are by the apostles,they only say they are by the Elder.

As for Hebrews it cn't be accused of being a forgery either,it is anonymous.

About 2 Thessalonians

Ehrman says it is a forgery,since it says it is by paul,but it is not.

However this is the most debated of all the letters.We have 5O% of scholars say it is by him,the other half says no.

minoria said...

Hello:

Erik said Ehrman said 1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 is FURTHER EVIDENCE that it CAN'T be by him.

ABOUT 1 TIMOTHY AND WOMEN NOT TO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER MEN

1 TIMOTHY 2:11-15 SAYS:

” A woman should learn in quietness and full submission.

1.I do NOT permit a WOMAN to TEACH or to have AUTHORITY over a MAN; she must be silent.

2.For ADAM was formed first, then EVE.

3.And ADAM was not the one deceived; it was the WOMAN who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety. ”

COMMENT:this passage its interpreted by many churches to mean only to a woman being a minister in a church, not to her position in society. Others reject it even applying to that: the reason is that the prohibition is temporary.

FALSE TEACHINGS REFERRED TO

There were false teachings and disputes in Timothy’s ekklesia ( 1 TIM 1:3-8/6:3-5 ) so women were probably involved in spreading false ideas.

THE IDEA OF WOMEN SPREADING FALSE IDEAS IN 1 TIMOTHY IN THE EKKLESIA IS A SUPPOSITION:

ANALOGY:

Then why have the passage ” And MAN was no the one deceived, it was the woman who was DECEIVED “.

It refers to EVE being tricked into a false idea ( false doctrine )by Satan and then later convincing Adam of it.

So here Paul is making what is called an ANALOGY or comparison, like saying ” the situation in the EKKLESIA of Timothy is false doctrines being spread, many of them by women, like when EVE convinced ADAM of a false idea. ”

Taken from the Article,read it all:

Can Women Preach and be Ministers in a Church?


http://www.avraidire.com/2010/06/can-women-preach-and-be-ministers-in-a-church/

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

You are trying your best not to address any issues but just to confuse the issues. In the end you are confusing yourself.

The issue now is that we muslims have proven that we are not dependent on the original mss due to the fact that we have an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of memorization. You are not able to address nor refute such facts.

From you :
'..WHy do Muslim demand that CHristians have the original writings of the bible when you Muslims do not have the original Quranic text either Uthman or Hafsa?..'

It doesn't matter that we muslims do not have any of the original text. We have a system that makes 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' independent of the original text. Memorization is preservation of the original beside 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' being an exact copy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)'. In comparison the bible has a very weak case for preservation and reliability.

From you :
'..What evidence? You quote from your Corrupt Hadeeth collection that some one heard someone say that he heard someone else say that they heard someone esle say that it is a exact copy. But you have not produced the orignal Hafasa or Uthaman compilation to prove this hearsay from a known corrupt source..'

If you assert that the hadeeths are corrupt , why have you been quoting hadeeths in your past arguments?? You are deceitful and inconsistent. What is it now?? This is ample evidence of shoddy scholarship that you , being a shamonian , ascribe to. By the way the hadeeths are even better than the bible with the system of isnads for each and every one. No one verse of the bible has any isnads.

Can you now address the issue that 'mushaf Uthman(ra)' is already independent of any original mss as we have evidence that it is an exact coppy of 'suhuf Hafsah(ra)' and the tradition of memorization ensures such. In case you are too scared to answer : Phuck - phuck - phuccckkkk!!!!

sam1528 said...

minoria ,

from you :
'.. So,of course,the Historical Jesus NEVER went against Mosaic Law,and certainly never said he was God..'

Then why do you trinitrians claim he was / is god?? If such is not in the bible , that means your assertion that biblical jesus was / is god was / is from sources outside of the bible. Is it too difficult to admit to such??

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,

The one who is not thinking is you. Suddenly its the F word. This is sooo lame. Again and again you are making up things as you go along.

Now you are asserting that I stated that there is no greek mss before the 14 century. Why are you trying to lie your way thru?? Is this the best you can do??

Let me repeat :
'..That is the whole issue. The GREEK MSS DID NOT HAVE 1john5:7 PER THE LATER MSS LIKE THE KJV. This is evidence that there has been changes made to the bible. Ha ha , TQ again for your admission that the bible has not been preserved and is extremely unreliable. You are not thinking. Your question highlight what the issue is about - the bible not being preserved and unreliable..'

Which part of what I stated that you don't understand??

If you assert that you can trace the bible back to the original texts - produce your evidence. Until now , its just hot air from you guys.

Can you now justify why the existence of 1joh5:7 in the KJV. Isn't it a lie by trinitrian scribes?? In case you have cold feet in answering , this is for you : phuck - phuck - phuccckkkk!!

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

sam says,

'..That is the whole issue. The GREEK MSS DID NOT HAVE 1john5:7 PER THE LATER MSS LIKE THE KJV.

I say,

Are you really this dense?

The KJV is not a manuscript it is a translation.

If you don't know what a textual variant is and you don't understand what a manuscript is how in the world do you expect to have an intellegent conversation about this subject?

peace

minoria said...

Hello Sam:

I was stating the belief of the critical scholars:Ehrman,the Jesus Seminar,atheist Ludemann,Jewish scholars Fredriksen and Geza Vermes,etc.

For them the Historical Jesus never said was God,it was invented.

As for me,I certainly believe he said i.Was that going against Mosaic Law?...no,if it was true,then he was not doing blasphemy.

minoria said...

Segment 1

I want to get back to 2 Peter.Another reason given that it is a forgery,besides saying "Paul's letters are SCRIPTURE",in 2 Peter 3:16 is:

That 2 Peter 3:4 says they are asking when the second coming will be and that the fathers had died.

They say it shows the letter was written after the death of the 1st generation of Christians.

OK

Crossan,one of the founders of the Jesus Seminar, in a book about Jesus's life said in the 1st century 9O% of all persons died by around age 45.

Assuming the:

1.Average age of the 1st generation of Christians was 2O in 3O AD

2.Then by 55 AD, 9O% were dead.

We know Peter,Paul and James lived to the sixties AD,they beat the average,so of course the Historical Peter would be addressing his letter to the Second Generation of Christians.

minoria said...

Segment 2

Anotherreason given is that 2 Peter is not mentioned till the second century AD.

That is true,it is a Problem,but....

MOST of the WRITINGS of Antiquity in GREEK and LATIN,I read it is estimated at least 75%, have DISAPPEARED.

Undeniably the VAST MAJORITY of writing from the 1st century.Hmmm,hat is a factor to consider.

minoria said...

Segment 3

Guys,

I have just seen a documetary about the "Shroud of Turin:New Evidence"

1.We all know that it was analyzed and they said the cloth was from the time of the Middle Ages,not 2,OOO years ago.

2.But now serious scientists of the original research team say the dating is wrong.

3.It has been demonstrated,this is no longer a theory,that a Portion ofvCloth from the Middle Ages was woven into the Shroud.

minoria said...

Segment Four

1.And that by bad luck THAT was the cloth of the Shroud analyzed by Carbon 14 by 3 different laboratories.

2.It turns out NOT ALL the cloth sample taken was used,the original scientists CONSERVED some Shroud cloth.

3.Later,years later,due to arguments by 2 amateurs,they decided,not thinking it was true,to test the cloth....and yes,they discovered some of the cloth had been ADDED to the original Shroud,falsifying the results.

minoria said...

Segment 5

1.Now they want to have ANOTHER testng of the Shroud,but the Catholic Church does nothing.

2.One thing is sure,all the scientists agree the Shroud is NOT a painting,it REALLY covered a MAN.

The question is,how old is the cloth?

minoria said...

Segment Six

1.The cloth is certainly that of a Caucausian man,like Jeus.

2.Assuming it goes all the way back to the 1st century,it could REALLY,really be that of Jesus.

The Customs of the Romans

a.They threw crucified victims into a common grave,they weren't given a decent burial.

b. 50,000 to 100,000 Jews were themselves crucified by the Romans in the first century.

Source for the statistic:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/anti-semitism/jesus.html

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

RM: "I can go to a critical edition of my bible, I can look up in the foot and end notes exaclty Which ANCIENT TEXTS the readings have come from also I can read the committies brief explination as to why they chose those readings over others."

I see no intelligent reason why anyone keep those errors in a "holy book" and still call it "holy".

The text is a clear corruption that should not be attributed to the divine.

Take for instance what Dr. Erhman mentioned about Jesus Appears to Mary Magdalene and the Two Disciples (Mark 16:9-13)
It appears there have been several efforts to interpolate the ending of Mark taken from other, later sources to avoid inappropriate embarrasment for the early Christian community.

How could anyone with intelligence not to see this as a human tampering??

RM, "(AP) TEHRAN, Iran - Iranian publishers are complaining that cost-saving plans to print Qurans (Korans) in China are yielding embarrassing results: A slew of typos."

This is a silly piece of evidence. This news could be true but the fact is muslims were quick to recognize it.

No matter you with your evangelical CBN lads can continute to lie about the Quran, the Quranic recitation was in the propperty of the Muslims ummah since it was revealed, any discrepancies will be spotted immediately and there are going to be public uproar should any bad copy of the quran are around. We only have version of the Quran as taught by the holy prophet.


If Christians want to make a comparison between the Quran and the Bible as the word of God maybe you better sort out your dispute with your fellow trinitarians Roman Catholic, Syriac,Ethiopic, Greek Orthodox, Coptic and Anglican, as they have different opnion to which books in the Bible is called the God's words first.

As I understand it you are still in doubts to one another till now.

You dont have the same method of prservation going back to the revealeation of prophet Jesus(p) as we have in Islam. The canon of the OT & the NT has never been agreed upon by Christians no matter how far back you go back in time.

You read later credal formulations back in to the first centuries.

Uthman did not control anything if you study the history of christianity It was the Roman state which enforced its orthodoxy Trinitarian will at the time when Christians did not accept the ‘Deity of Christ, the Incarnation, the Trinity’.

Just like Ehrman view, Historian Charles Freeman wrote:

"The relevance of Christianity is as hotly contested today as it has ever been. ‘A New History of Early Christianity’ shows how our current debates are rooted in the many controversies surrounding the birth of the religion and the earliest attempts to resolve them. Charles Freeman’s meticulous historical account of Christianity from its birth in Judaea in the first century A.D. to the emergence of Western and Eastern churches by A.D. 600 reveals that it was a distinctive, vibrant, and incredibly diverse movement brought into order at the cost of intellectual and spiritual vitality. Against the conventional narrative of the inevitable ‘triumph’ of a single distinct Christianity, Freeman shows that there was a host of competing Christianities, many of which had as much claim to authenticity as those that eventually dominated."

http://www.amazon.co.uk/New-History-Early-Christianity/dp/030012581X

A New History of Early Christianity by Charles Freeman, published by Yale University Press 2009

Wassalam

minoria said...

Segment 7

1.Josephus Flavius tells us an exception was made in Jerusalem,letting crucified victims be buried honorably.

2.We know in a few other cases in other parts of the Empire cruciifed victims were allowed a decent burial.

ONE COULD SAY:

"Then even IF the Shroud is from the 1st Century is could be that of ANY CRUCIIFIED victim who was given a decent burial"

minoria said...

Segment Eight

We KNOW the Romans

1.Had nails go through the victims.

2.We also know they flogged the victims,though it is not know if it was always.

3.The Shroud CERTAINLY shows a man who was FLOGGED and pierced.

The Detail that Astounds.

The Shroud shows the man had had his head pierced by a crown of sharp objects,like thorns.There is no doubt.

minoria said...

Segment 9

The thing is the Romans NEVER,according to our evidence,never,ever,had the CUSTOM of piercing crucifixion victims with CROWNS of THORNS

Flogging yes,nails,yes,but crowning with thorns was OT part of the crucifixion ritual.

The only likely candidate would be the Historical Jesus.Here is the documentary,by the Discovery Channel,with interviews of the scientists:

http://youtu.be/2YEivEc6KcI

ALSO AN INTERVIEW OF BARRIE SCWHORTZ,Jewish,not a believer in Jesus,of the original research team,who believes it could be that of Jesus

http://youtu.be/YHaMEOPvbUA

minoria said...

Segment Ten

I almost forgot to add that he Shroud shows the body's side was pierced,there is a SIDE WOUND

SO?

Listen,that event only appears in JOHN and IF the shroud if from 2,OOO years ago,then considering the CROWN of THORNS,the SIDE WOUND would prove Jesus DIED

Listen to Barrie Schwortz talk about the side wound of the Shroud:

http://youtu.be/IVPm-ObxBt8

He says the man of the Shroud was DEAD.

SO?

Where does that leave SHABIR ALLY and RAYMOND BROWN who say the side wound incident was all invented by a forgerer who said he was an EYEWITNESS it all?

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

FMM: "Human memory is the worst possible medium for preservation of any message that is why we have writing. "

Maybe true, It is part of the Quranic miracle that God made it easy for you to memorize the Quran if you have clean and pure heart and mind and sincere intention.

Here is the guideline:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li3QRbxp7Fs&feature=related

You may also check this HBO documentary (the whole film used to be available in you tube but removed due to copyright)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPf3r1ymQOg

This isn't just claim.

Praise the Lord, I am living it, although Im not gifted enough to be able to memorize long surahs (still trying to memorize longer surah step by step) but I have met various of muslim who commited entire Quran and they come from all sort of people mostly just ordinary people not specifically Islamic ulama/learned men/women.

The Holy Qur'an is the only book on earth, which was adopted to be preserved through humans chests and minds and hearts, not just preservation on papers and manuscripts, as God Almighty says:

إِنَّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَإِنَّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ

Behold, it is We Ourselves who have bestowed from on high, step by step, this reminder (Quran)? and, behold, it is We who shall truly guard it [from all corruption]. (Q 15:9)

Wassalam

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم


RM,

When you say "We go by the oldest manuscripts" as for 1 john 5:7 ommision, what do you mean by that?

I bet you are referring to Sinaiticus (B) or Vaticanus(aleph)?

Just a matter of fact:
1. Both manuscripts contain the Apocrypha as part of the Old Testament.

2. Tischendorf, , a German scholar, in the year 1844. who had seen both manuscripts, believed they were written by the same man, possibly Eusebius of Caesarea (260-340 A.D.).

3. Vaticanus was available to the King James translators, but God gave them sense enough to ignore it.

4. Vaticanus omits Geneses 1:1-46:28, Psalm 106-138, Matthew 16:2-3, Rom. 16:24, I Timothy through Titus, the entire book of Revelation, and it conveniently ends the book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14. If you're familiar with Hebrews 10, you know why.

5. While adding The Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas to the New Testament, Siniaticus omits John 5:4, 8:1-11, Matthew 16:2-3, Romans 16:24, Mark 16:9-20, Acts 8:37, and I John 5:7 (just to name a few).

6. It is believed that Siniaticus has been altered by as many as ten different men. Consequently, it is a very sloppy piece of work (which is probably the reason for it being in a trash can). Many transcript errors, such as missing words and repeated sentences are found throughout it.

7. The Dutch scholar, Erasmus (1469-1536), who produced the world's first printed Greek New Testament, rejected the readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus.

8. Vaticanus and Siniaticus not only disagree with the Majority Text from which the KJV came, they also differ from each other. In the four Gospels alone, they differ over 3,000 times!

Sorry state for Christian scriptures.

Wassalam

Radical Moderate said...

Sam1528

I found nothing in what you wrote worthy of repeating. The sad truth is everything you wrote has been responded to over and over and over again. All accept one thing which I will respond to then bid you good day.

YOu wrote...

"The one who is not thinking is you. Suddenly its the F word. This is sooo lame. Again and again you are making up things as you go along."

So let me get this straight. YOu try to imitate a chicken sound of CLUCKING but miss spell it this way over and over again..

PHUCK PHUCK PHUCK

PH in english in alot of cases makes the F sound. as in PHONE, PHASE.

So your writing this out making the sounds in your head and did not realize that what you were writing when sounded out loud was pronounced just like the F WORD????

So there are two options. Either you are demonstrating another comon trait with muslims and that is LYING, WILLFULL DECIET, well just lying.

OR YOU ARE DEMONSTRATING THAT YOUR COMPLETLY STUPID.

Eitherway there is noting more to say to you.

I bid you good day.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

FMM: "Human memory is the worst possible medium for preservation of any message that is why we have writing. "

eric now

Maybe true,


Me now

Just think of how crazy you sound. You concede that human memory is the worst possible way to insure preservation but at the same time claim that your god chose to use this method to preserve the message out of all the other possible ways.

Are we suposed think highly of such an inept deity that would pourposely make the perservation of his message depenant on the fickle proven untrustworthy faculty of human memory?

Eric says,


It is part of the Quranic miracle that God made it easy for you to memorize the Quran if you have clean and pure heart and mind and sincere intention.

I say,

Let me get this strait, your god made it especially easy for you to rely on what you agree is the “worst possible medium” to perserve his message and you call this a miracle?

WOW

Peace

Radical Moderate said...

@FMM

Great response to Erik, but it gets worse for him.

Because Allahs choice of preservation FAILED. Failed so bad that his IRON CLAD SOURCES OF INTEGRITY say that the Muslism were dying off thats why it had to be written down so it could be PRESERVED.

ERIK think for a second.

If I memorize something and lets say I teach it to 5 people. Well all 5 of us DIE.

What we have memorized is lost.

But if I write somethign down and it is coppied it can be coppied and coppied and coppied, whether I am alive or dead.

Not only that but written text does not require food or water, it does not cry out or make sounds, so it can be put in a cave, it can be burried in the desert, it can be HIDDEN.

In other words it is much much easier to burn and destroy people then it is written texts.

Thats why we can find works like the DSS manuscripts even though any trace of those that coppied those texts are long long gone, even most of thier bones have been turnd to dust.

Radical Moderate said...

@Eirk

One ohter thing then I will reply to what you addressed me with after I get off work.

you said words to the affect that Allah made the quran easy to memorize.

WEll

"Marry had a little lamb, little lamb, little lamb.

Mary had a little lamb its fleace was white as snow.

And every where that mary went mary went mary went.

Every where that mary went that lamb was sure to go...."

Anyway I guess thats from Allah two since it is easy to memorize lol

minoria said...

Hello Erik,

I want to answer the citation you gave about there being various different early Christianities.I think I know what the authors's reasons are.

As I told you,,critical scholars don't believe Jesus said he was God.

The point of departure

Except for a very few,virtually all agree 1 COR 15 was the official creed of the 1st disciples

So they think paul invented the idea Jesus was God,it was the difference between the 2 groups

minoria said...

Segment 2

Now in Jeremiah the Messiah is called Yahweh Tsidkenu.He is given the total name of God.

Hebrew language usage changes,before they named an altar or city Yahweh this or Yahweh that.

Today,it is forbidden.

Before they actually pronounced the word Yahweh in public,today the religious Jews are horrified at the thought

minoria said...

Segment 3

Then and today Jews use a "portion"and I repeat,a portion of Yahwehs name as part of a Jews' personal name.

Eli-jah is a compresion of Eli-Yahweh,or "Yahweh my God"

Here are the citations for Yahweh as the name of a city/altar

GEN 22:14/EXOD 17:15/JUDGES 6:24/JEREMIAH 33:16/EZEKIEL 48:35.

AND HERE THE MESSIAH IS CALLED YAHWEH

JEREMIAH 23:5-6:

It is about the MESSIAH,the rabbis agree on this:
” “The days are coming,” declares YAHWEH,”when I will raise up to DAVID a righteous Branch (NOTE:a descendant of king DAVID), a KING who will reign wisely and do what is just and right in the land.

In his days Judah will be saved and Israel will live in safety.This is the NAME by which he will be called:YAHWEH TSIDKENU(Yahweh our Righteousness).”

minoria said...

Segment Four

But it has NEVER been the custom to use the total name of Yahweh as part of a Jew's personal name

WHY?

It would be saying the person was God,was YAHWEH

In EXODUS it is MOSES who names an altar,an inanimate thing, with the name of Yahweh

But he did NOT DARE call a HUMAN with the Name of Yahweh

Numbers 13:16

"These were the names of the men whom Moses sent to spy out the land.

And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun, Joshua."

Notice Moses CHANGED HOSHEA's name to JOSHUA,which has a part of the name of Yahweh,but not its entirety.

minoria said...

Segment 5

So paul was right in calling Jesus God,it is Biblical and I believe the 1st disciples of Jesus and Jesus himself,KNOWING what Jeremiah said,said he was God and Messiah.

Fifth Monarchy Man said...

Hey RM


It seems that ease of memorization did not save Marry had a little lamb from corruption.

Here is a web site with no less than four versions of the ditty.


http://bussongs.com/songs/mary_had_a_little_lamb.php


LOL LOL LOL


With that conclusive proof of the inadequacy of memorization to assure the preservation of a message I will take my leave for now.


Peace

sam1528 said...

fifth monarchy man ,

from you :
'..Are you really this dense?

The KJV is not a manuscript it is a translation.

If you don't know what a textual variant is and you don't understand what a manuscript is how in the world do you expect to have an intellegent conversation about this subject?..'

It is even worse for you now. If its a translation per your claim of the KJV , that means the said translation has been deceitful in support of the trinitarian doctrine. This is an admission that the bible has been tampered with.

Huh ... spelling mistakes is considered textual variants?? Fundies like you don't seem to think. Is it a sin for fundies like you to use your brains??

sam1528 said...

minoria ,

This is the problem with christians like you. Any scholars having the opinion that the bible has not been preserved or biblical jesus not god (from the bible) you classify them being liberal or critical. They are scholars .... without the tag.

They have a good case in their scholarship of biblical jesus not being god. There is just no evidence of such.

sam1528 said...

radical moderate ,+

Poor chap. You are not able to address anything except trolling and trying to confuse issues. You must be really burning inside in your hatred for muslims. We muslims love it as all we need is to provide the spark , sit back and watch you rave and rant. Suddenly its the F word .... hmmmm , making things up again ??

Anyways ... this is for you again and again for chickening out of addressing any issues : phuck - phuck - phuccckkk!!!

Radical Moderate said...

@Erik

I started to take the time to respond to the distoritions, dishonesty, deliberate lack of understanding, and your completly WRONG information you posted in your several points.

But then on the way home I thought "WHY?"

Instead I think will respond to this single statement you made.

You wrote...

"I see no intelligent reason why anyone keep those errors in a "holy book" and still call it "holy"."

Thank you for demonstrating a major differnece between Chritians and Muslims.

WE are to be like the Breans.

" Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so." Acts 17:11

See we Chritians we study the scriptures, we do not hide and cover up like Muslims. We do not stick are fingers in our ears and say "LIES LIES ALL LIES". Instead we want to know we want to make sure that we have God's Word.

Anyway If God calls you, your eyes will be open to all this and you will Cry Out and Bend the Knee to your savior Jesus Christ.

minoria said...

Segment 1

Hello Sam:

I have read the examples in the four gospels where Jesus,according to Judaism says he is God,it is in all four.

Then in paul we have that Jesus is God.

Then in Jeremiah,according to Jewish custom,the Messiah is God.

That doesn't make him God but the text says he is God,an impartial analysis shows it.

About Q

The technical argument for saying the Historical Jesus didn't say he was God would be Q.

It is from 5O AD,a collection of 5O sayings of Jesus.Nowhere does Jesus say he is God.

But paul wrote around 5O AD and he said Jesus was God

So we have 2 competitive books.

minoria said...

Segment 2

But internal evidence would show Mark is from 5O AD and not 7O-75 AD.

Then the earliest gospel is as old as Q.So the evidence is stronger that the Historical Jesus did say it.

Really in Jeremiah,by naming the Messiah Yahweh, it is as if a MUSLIM named his child:

ALLAHU-AKBAR(God is Great)

ALLAHU-RAHMAN(God is Merciful)

ALLAHU-KAMAL(God is Perfect).


They never give Allah as a personal name.What they do is give,as a name:

Abdul-Allah:slave of Allah

Abdul-Rahman:slave of the Merciful,etc

minoria said...

Besides saying the the Messiah would be Yahweh,the OT says the name of the Messiah,it is Joshua,Hebrew for Yeshua or Jesus

http://www.avraidire.com/2010/04/the-old-testament-says-the-messiahs-name-is-yeshua-jesus/

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

On the issue of "redaction", RM is making a kiddy opinion as if Neuwirth assesement such that the Quran is "edited" by Uthman.

I say RM is making deliberate distortion to western scholarly opinion or he just need a little education.

Angelika Neuwirth, in fact, wrote in Structural, linguistic and literary features as part of the essay of Cambridge companion to the Quran:

"The earliest written codification of the qur'anic texts could not, therefore, serve as more than a mnemonic-technical support for *A CONTINUING TRADITION OF ORAL RECITATION*. Despite the preliminary format of the first redaction, however, with the consonantal fixation of the text and with its arrangement as a sequence of suras, a fixed text had been established"


In the other words Neuwirth imply that the traditional scenario of the Uthmanic redaction, was an effort not to add or change the Prophet’s recitations but the corpus with the consonantal fixation of the text as the Arabic script as the earliest codification only incompletely rendered the phonetic shape of the text.

The Quran as a "text" always does not accurately translate to Jewish and Christian framework.

Jane D. Mcauliffe in Cambridge companion to the Quran © Cambridge University Press, 2007 wrote:

"It is only rather recently that the term ‘scripture’ has itself become a contested category, a subject of scholarly interest and debate. An obvious, but not unique, reason is its etymology and derivation from the Latin word for ‘writing’, scriptura (pl. scripturae). Not all texts that have achieved a normative status within particular religious communities are written texts and, for others, writing is not the primary form of their dissemination. Scholars of comparative religion have discovered that this category, a category conceived within a Jewish and Christian framework, does not translate easily and accurately to other religious traditions. Neither content nor form suffices to define and delimit this concept. But ‘scripture’ does describe a connection between a particular community and a particular text. It names a relationship. Rather than designating a quality that inheres in a text, the term marks an affiliation between a text and those who accord it special status. People who do not acknowledge or share that affiliation will study and treat such texts differently from those who do. As commonly classified, the Quran falls into this category of ‘scripture’ and that categorisation shapes the way in which it has been read, by both Muslims and non-Muslims, and the way in which scholars have treated it."

As for the Christian tradition where writing *is* the primary form of their dissemination, there never was an ‘original repository of text’.

So you dont have the "original" text.

As Erhman put it:

"Not only do we not have the originals, we don't have the first copies of the originals. We don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the originals. What we have are copies made later-much later. In most instances, they are copies made many centuries later. And these copies all differ from one another, in many thousands of places."

This is not a ‘liberal’ view – it is historical fact. Only fundies have a problem.

Wassalam.

erikfadli said...

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

@Minoria,

You wrote irrelevant post earlier in this topic but I feel that Im being generous to comment on that:

"In Judaism you had to really repent to be forgiven and if possible you have to carry out a sacrifice for sin,in the Temple.Mosaic law says so in Leviticus."

Where is it as such?

I dont see there is evidence to suggests in book prophets ever mentions the requirement of shedding blood for forgiveness of sins.

This is the view of Judaism.

The mosaic law, if you look through the OT /Jewish Bible, you will see that the big false assumption made was that every sin was atoned for by a blood sacrifice.

Here are some points for you to consider:

- We can see in Leviticus that sin sacrifices were only brought for unintentional sins.

- A poor person did not need to bring a blood sacrifice for their sins, but rather fine flour (Lev 5:11)

- God prefers prayer and repentance to sacrifices (Proverbs 15:8, Micah 6:6-8, Hosea 6:6)

- When you mention that the Temple was a house of sacrifice, you will see in I Kings 8:46-53 when King Solomon was giving the dedication speech of the Temple, that he doesnt mention sacrifices at all – but rather explains that if the Jewish people in captivity sin, they should repent and make supplication and return with all their hearts and God will forgive them.

These points are repeated again and again throughout the OT

The belief that Jesus (p) though is the person to be sacrificed to wash out people sins is just unbiblical.

Wassalam

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 226   Newer› Newest»