@Erik Erik ErikYou know whats tragicaly funny, is really none of this matters lol.But whats really funny is that to defend this fairy tale of your Quran you actually make it sound that much worse. Lets take a look.YOu wrote...."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."So Uthman who was a inovater who was killed for at best Herasy at worst full blown apostatcy accoding to some of the Sahaba. Who was later burried in a Jewish Cementary. Did not "REDACT" or "Change" your allahs words, he just IMPROVED THEM. lolSo Uthmans Quran is the NEW AND IMPROVED QURAN. WOw no wonder he was considered a hertic or apostate and was killed by good Muslims.You then continue on in yoru attack against Gods words."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."LOL when did any of us say we DID?But hey NEITHER DO YOU so why is it a big deal to you Muslism that we Christians do not have the Original texts but not a big deal for you Muslims?Shakes head....So to use Bart EhrmanMuslims "As Erhman put it:Not only do you not have the originals, you don't have the first copies of the originals. You don't even have copies of the copies of the originals, or copies of the copies of the originals. And now it appears thanks to the work of Sheik Angelika Neuwirth that all you have is a copy of the copy of Uthmans new and improved Quran.See how you make it so much worse covering up the truth. Every lie and every distortion you tell only means you with have to come up with several more lies and distortions to cover the orignal lie or distortion. Over 200 comment on this ridiculous thread. It could of ended about 50 comments ago, if all you did was tell the truth and that is."NO WE DO NOT HAVE THE ORIGINALS" thats it and no other comments would of been nessasary
@Erik Basicaly what I am saying to you is this.There are a few facts when it comes to the ancient codixi's of both the Quran and Books that comprise the text of the Bible.FACT NO. 1: It is true we do not have the originals of the books that make up the texts of the Bible. Nor do we have the Oringal Quranic texts of Hafsa or Uthman. THATS A FACTFACT NO 2. It is true that NO ancient hand written manuscipts of the texts that comprise the bible agree with each other 100 percent. THATS A FACTFACT NO 3: Now it is also a fact that some of your surviving ancient hand written Qurans are closer to the event of Uthmans redaction then most of the hand written documents that comprise our bible are to the orignal writers. THATS A FACTFACT NO 4: There are textual variants in the QURAN. NO TWO ANCIENT HAND WRITTEN QURANS AGREE WITH EACH OTHER 100 PERCENT. THATS A FACT. I'm sure it will also be proven true that when comparing two surviving ancient Qurans. There will be less textual variants between the two as well as the modern printed editions then there are when comparing two ancient manuscipts of say the gosple of Mark, with the modern printed editions. I'M CONFIDENT THAT WILL BE PROVEN AS A FACT. Can you be intelectually honest enough to admit the same for your QURAN? So far you have not been able too.If you can admit to these facts the we can discuss what these variants are, how they came into being, the reason why your Quran has less variants then the texts of the bible etc... And more importanly why I know that the texts of the bible are in fact the inspired words of God inspite of those textual variants.If you can not and so far you have not been able to do so, then there is nothing to discuss. Because you believe in a fairy tale. And soon very soon when the Corpus Quranium begins to publish and list all those textual variants and how the manuscirpts differ not only from each other but also from the modern printed editions. THEN YOUR FAITH IS GOING TO BE SHATTERED.
Hey all,I love the providence of GodJust in time to put the final nail in the coffin of this thread here is yet another early manuscript that was discovered just days ago dating less than 100 years after the original text. And proveing yet again the reliability of the Bible.http://edition.cnn.com/video/?/video/bestoftv/2012/01/18/nr-hobby-lobby-religious-artifacts.cnnThis sort of thing happens all the time for Christians. Instead of relying on the fickle memory of men like Eric to perserve our schriptures we can actualy see the proof of the perservation of God's words for ourselves. And we don't have to take the word of some biased "scholar" like Ehrman we can see with our own eyes. I think that is enough saidpeace
FMMTruely amazing, I had no idea that hte CEO of Hobby Loby was a Christian and not only that a colector and preserver of ancient manuscripts.I wonder what the clasification of that text is goign to be.
minoria ,I dunno about you. So far I could not find any evidence in the bible that biblical paul attested biblical jesus to be god. Biblical paul affirmed biblical jesus to be 'lord' but the word 'lord' has multiple meanings and contexts. Take for example 1cor8:6 '..yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live. ..'The temple jews had an axe to grind with biblical jesus. They were just looking for any excuse to confront him. They did not believe biblical jesus to be god but accused him of claiming to be god thus enabling them to get rid of him.'Messiah' in jewish custom / beliefs is the anointed one. That is about it.'..The term "mashiach" literally means "the anointed one," and refers to the ancient practice of anointing kings with oil when they took the throne. The mashiach is the one who will be anointed as king in the End of Days.The word "mashiach" does not mean "savior." The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. Unfortunately, this Christian concept has become so deeply ingrained in the English word "messiah" that this English word can no longer be used to refer to the Jewish concept. The word "mashiach" will be used throughout this page. The Messianic Idea in Judaism
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمRadical Moderate the self appoint scholar of Quran and Islam claims FACT 1,2,3,4 ?RM is either confused by his still immature thought or deliberately make oversimplification on the comparison.You need a little education again.On the quran recitation, the Prophet (p) always allowed dialectical and private recitation which were essentially synonymous. The compilation of the 'Uthmanic text was not merely a matter of collecting the only authentic text; rather, it also involved selecting a particular text as being correct and not defective. Scholars agree there are no variations in the Qur'anic text. This is a statement which is based in there is a single text, incorporating certain ambiguities, which is universally accepted as authentic. However, those ambiguities do involve at least some minor variation in letters such as in vowel marking. Even muslim kids can easily recognize the correct readings in the devective mushafs the way they can recognise themselve or their dad in a mirror even if the mirror is not completely perfect. The others reflect the fact that various companions had private preferences for their own reading of the Qur'an. But we have no evidence that any of the companions rejected the 'Uthmanic text as authentic and acceptable, and what little evidence has been presented to the contrary is itself ambiguous and subject to alternate interpretations. My challenge remain:Get me a copy of Quran which is different to one another. You don t have that. It is a proof that we dont have corruption in the Quran as God himself has promised to guard it from corruption.Now I have helped you to see what is actually a *fact* out of your fantasy and kiddy thought.Here is the hard fact!: No other book in the history of mankind has many vesions and has been revised so many times as the Bible. KJV 1611- KJV 1769-RV- ASV-RSV-NASB-ESV-NKJV- HCSB-NIV-NET-NLT etc. etc..And there are many controversy surrounding to each editions and revisions. You christians are basically "at war" with each other to which editioon and revisions are the authentic Gods words some goes by saying they have The 'older and better' manuscripts. KJV vs NIV.Ridiculous issue like parts of the important teaching should be part of the text or not not like the issue of Mark 16 "long ending". Large portion of the Bible have the authors who were unknown, or claimed to be the authors they were not. If anything it has hardly remained as a Word of God. The International Version, the Bible of choice for fundies like FMM and RM, has just been undergone *MAJOR* revision from 2009 to 2011.Imagine, "god" made a mistake???Wassalam
Hello Erik,I see your point but really,the idea of blood sacrifice for intentional sins is part of Judaism.I told you about Yom Kippur,or Day of Atonement,the Most Sacred Day of Judaism.The High priest made a blood sacrifice for the sins of the entire Jewish people.Just read it here:http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/yom_kippur.html
Hello,Hmmm,the link was not well,here it is:http://www.hebrew4christians.com/Holidays/Fall_Holidays/Yom_Kippur/yom_kippur.html
SegmentHere is another link about Yom Kippur:http://torah.org/learning/yomtov/yomkippur/vol1no43.htmlAbout the Argument that John can't be by John because he says "the Jews"He says it like 7O times,"the Jews","the Jews this","the Jews that"The critical scholars say:"It can't be by a Jew,a Jewish author wouldn't have written "the Jews","the Jewish this","the Jewish that"
Segment 2Hello,for some reason the links come out a bit bad:For the 2nd link to "...vol1no43." at the end add "html"Why the argument is badOk,We know that Xenophon,a disciple of Socrates,took part in an expedition of 13,OOO Greeks as mercenaries in the persian empire.He later became one of their leaders.He wrote "Anabasis" which tells of the adventures and he talks of himself in the singular 3rd person,like John in John. He says "the Greeks","the Greeks this",and "the Greeks that". Yet no scholar ever says:"It can't be by a Greek,since he says "the Greeks","the Greeks this","the Greeks that".
Segment 3The Case of CeaserHe wrote 2 books,"The Gallic Wars"and "The Civil Wars",of a civil war between Romans.He is part of the adventures,and uses the singular 3rd person..And in both books says:"the Romans","the Romans this","the Romans that"Yet no scholar ever says:"Those 2 books can't be by a Roman since no Roman would ever say:"the Romans this","the Romans that"."
Hi Sam:Paul calls Jesus God 3 times when he cites an early Christian hymn-creed called the Carmen Christi.Read the details here:You can translate it with Google Translate:http://translate.google.com/http://www.avraidire.com/2011/02/jesus-sest-limite-volontiers-et-cela-explique-deux-passages-etonnants-des-evangiles/
Segment 2Hello Sam:Now the letter where that creed,the Carmen Christi,is in is accepted by all scholars as really being by paul.About Colossians and EphesiansThey are similar and one copied from the other,or they are by the same author.They both say they are by Paul.The 3 Pastoral letters,Titus, 1 and 2 Timothy,also say they are by Paul.And most think the Pastorals are by the same author,but....by a different author from Colossians and Ephesians.SO?Then 9O% of the population was illiterate,so there was a group of professional scribes/writers who wrote for illiterates.Now why would paul use 2 different scribes to write his letters?Even Ehrman in one of his books,I believe it is in his first or second,says that often scribes would just take the general ideas of a person and say it in their own way,and get the approval of the other person.
Segment 3In a letter that all say was Paul,in 2 Corinthians 12:7-10 he says:That he had a "thorn in the flesh" that he had asked God 3 times to take away,but nothing.Some say it was epilepsy,others say homosexuality,we don't know.Assuming it was a physical illness it would explain why he used a secretary and let him write a letter in the scribe's own style,he was too ill.
Segment FourIn addition,there are the prison letters:philemon,Colossians and Ephesiansphilemon is not doubted by any as being by Paul..He says he is a Prisoner in Philemon 1:1.Now Ephesians 3:1 and Colossians 4:1O and 4:18 says Paul is a Prisoner.SO?It could also be that:1.Besides being ill2.He was also denied writing materials and so gave a scribe permission to say it using his own words.
Segment 5About the argument that John,an Illiterate,could Not have Written JohnActs says he was illiterate.Ok,but as I said before there was a professional cadre of scribes who wrote for illiterates,so John could have used one.About the Argument John knew No GreekI agree he knew no Greek,a very difficult language.But if he used a bilingual scribe he would have said it in Aramaic and the scribe would have written it in Greek.That also explains another argument:"John can't be by John,the Greek is too good".
Segment SixAbout Akiba,from Illiterate to the Greatest Jewish Teacher of his TimeAccording to the Talmud he was a shepherd and illiterate till 4O years old.Then by himself he learned to read and write and because a great scholar.He was martyred by the Romans after the Bar-Kokhba rebellion.
@ErikWell then I guess we have nothing more to discuss.Looks like you will continue to believe in your fairy tale.I used to beleive in fairy tales but when I was 4 years old I grew up. So there may be hope for you yet
fifth monarchy man ,You have proven nothing ,In the said video there are 2 so called evidence(1) a fragment of the book of romans , about the size of a credit card dated ~ middle 2nd century(2) codex climaci rescriptus which is not the bible and have not been researched intoCompare that to (1) The san'a mss :'..On this basis, therefore, they suggest that it is highly probable that this manuscript was produced NO MORE THAN 15 YEARS after the death of Muhammad (d. June, 632 CE). They conclude that the scriptio inferior text belonged to the codex of a companion of Prophet Muhammad, whilst the scriptio superior text belongs to the ʿUthmānic tradition, and using stemmatics, it is shown as the prototype to be identified with the Prophet..'codex san'a(2) Inscription on rocks / other texts confirm preservation of the QuranDated Texts Containing The Qur’an From 1-100 AH / 622-719 CE Inscription , ~ 29 AH / May, 650 CE , found in cyprus about the time caliph Uthman(ra) standardization of texts. Surah 112 - completeAn Arabic Inscription From Cyprus, 29 AH / 650 CEWe muslims have hard evidence of the preservation of the Quran whereas you christians have nothing. Yet fundies like you still argue for the preservation of the bible.
minoria ,Possible for you to summarize your argument?? Its very difficult to follow your train of thoughts.'Carmen christi'?? Are you talking about phili2:6-11??9 - Therefore God exalted him to the highest place 11 - and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. A distinction has been made between biblical jesus and god. In this case biblical jesus <> god
Hello Sam:The Carmen Christi says Jesus has the name that is above all names.In Judaism that name is Yahweh,in other words it is saying he is Yahweh.
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيمRM,We muslims have hard evidence of the preservation of the Quran back to prophet Muhammad.Whereas you are following the theology of the Cross of Paul, as modern scholars examining New Testament books that claim Paul as their author have concluded that they are, in fact, pseudonymous and were included hundreds of years after the alleged Jesus (p) cruci-fiction. Who then believe in a FAIRY TALES?GRASP!Wassalam
Br. Snow,Where did you go? I didn't know any other way to get in contact with you. I hope all is well, and admittedly, I miss you online presence. FeeAmanAllah
@FFM"And we don't have to take the word of some biased "scholar" like Ehrman we can see with our own eyes. "Oh, so a guy who was evangelical but turned agnostic after bible studies is now "biased" just because you don't agree, hilarious :-) Go tell us more about validity of trinity based on the bible... oh, you can't? pitty.
Post a Comment