From Quran to hadith. It always amazes me how black andwhite the Quran is written, yet there is always something written elsewherethat brings in the shades of grey.

Let’s not get too far apart on our understanding here. Myfirst statement was that I don’t believe “Injil” meant NT in its entirety. Ifthat was the case, the NT would be a totally different format, probably lookingmore like the Quran. It wasn’t written that way and it’s too late to change it.The sermon on the mount was Injil, the parables had meanings that related to the Injil,miracles were products of Injil. Jesus, like all Prophets had it revealed intoHis heart, not into his hands.  

Muhammad had relatives who were Christian. When they got togetherwhat would the topic of discussion be? All Christians have Bibles. 300 yearsafter its compilation the Bible was pretty wide spread. To reach the Medina/Meccaarea in time for Muhammad to be exposed to it, it would have to travel at thebreak neck speed of about 8 klms per day. Caravans were no doubt quicker thanthat.

Illiterate people with a thirst for God, will sit and,listen. They don’t read, they don’t write, we can’t ask them to. Never saidMuhammad copied a thing, but I’m sure he had to have some background on whatGabriel was telling him or he’d be utterly confused. Information overload hasblown all our minds at one time or another. None the less, Gabriel would haveknown exactly what had been corrupted and how could he relay the words of Godwho says “confirming” if the real word was “corrupted”? 

That is the method we are all used to hearing, and probablytrue due to the logistics of it all, although Gabriel was only one of the Archangelsand there isn’t much mention of what they all did. Gabriel more prominent thanthe rest was noted by Daniel as “The man Gabriel”, the Jews translated that as theman of linen. Then again he’s mentioned in the NT as being present at theconception of Jesus, and ministering to Muhammad. This is not to say he was theonly active angel. I tend to think God has an angelic army of more than one. I’mnot totally up on the full understanding of the Holy Spirit either, but by allaccounts He’s not one angel either.

Sorry, I’m not up on all the Subhana Wa Ta’ala and AlayhiSalaam meanings. I’m pretty sure the first would mean something like; The oneand only, and really sure the second does not mean son of… ;)

Other than that I’m good with the verse. We know Jesus wasthe narrator, many would write, some of it we’d get to see in the Gospels, someof it we didn’t. I wouldn’t have wanted Constantine’s job either.

I tend to believe Jesus had a direct link to God in a way wemay never understand but “incarnate” is not it. If you read the NT, and I willalways suggest you do, (for the guidance and light Jesus taught) you will seethat (almost) every reference Jesus makes to God, whether He call Him Father ornot, Jesus says “who is in Heaven”. Not sure anyone should need moreexplanation than that.

Definitely.  AlthoughJesus didn’t go into details about who was king at a given time, what he did, and how muchthat mattered. He was more interested in removing the extras that the Scribesand Pharisees had added.  Let’s notforget that cities were much better established, water works in place, etc.which could lead to statements like; “we have paper now so you can stopcounting rocks and leaves.” In other words, technology, (also not a biblicalword, but…) vs tradition will always change rules, and some laws. The lawsJesus upheld were the real laws. Who cares how many laws people made for theirown advantage.

Not at all. One mention of Jesus being taught by Gabriel inthe Bible and every Christian would believe it. You will never get a Christianto agree that the Holy Spirit is only one angel tho. You would have to read oninto the book of Acts to see what the Holy Spirit did which one angel couldnot.

Not completely different. If any corruption happened duringthe compilation of the Bible many would have opposed it. If it was coerced inany way you would have Jesus saying “I am God” somewhere. “I and my Father areone” doesn’t really do it.  

Shortly after that the Nicene creed was put together.  That’s where your “But many of them…” comesinto play.

All is definitely not lost, however; Those of the OT cannotbe saved by the words of Muhammad save they be the words of their Prophet as well, samewith Jesus. Jesus actually spelled things out well enough Christians shouldn’tneed to go looking for more. It would be good if they dropped some of the dogmabut most have been taught the same way Muslims are. Don’t question some things.Ask your Imam how that goes.  

As you can see, I’m not totally opposing your views, but asall religious leaders and followers are, we tend to dig in our heels a littledeeper over matters that can’t be fully explained. I get the feeling that whenwe get to Heaven we’ll be looking at each other going “huh?” as we realize thatHeaven is a totally different dimension than we were ever allowed toimagine.  I don’t see multiple heavenscoming up for each religion so we will have to put up with each other.  I’m okay with that.

The above assessment you have given, that "inspiration" pertains to "the words" and not "the ink" makes no sense.  What would be the purpose of "inspiring" the "words" yet leaving open the possibility of errors in the "ink?  That's like traveling half-way to your destination and then turning around and going home.  Furthermore, according to the "Catholic Encyclopedia", the concept of "inspiration" includes the author's "hand":

"The influence of the Holy Ghost had to extend also to all the executive faculties of the sacred writer — to his memory, his imagination, and even to the hand with which he formed the letters. Whether this influence proceed immediately from the action of the Inspirer or be a simple assistance, and, again, whether this assistance be positive or merely negative, in any case everyone admits that its object is to remove all error from the inspired text. Those who hold that even the words are inspired believe that it also forms an integral part of the grace of inspiration itself. However that may be, there is no denying that the inspiration extends, in one way or another, and as far as needful, to all those who have really cooperated in the composition of the sacred test, especially to the secretaries, if the inspired person had any." [1]  

Perhaps if Puin had actually read the Quran, he would have realized that the Quran states that some of its verses are purposefully cryptic and that only those who lack faith will dwell on those verses while completely ignoring the verses which are clear.  Moreover, he even admits that both Muslim and "Orientalist" (meaning non-Muslim) scholars would deny that the Quran is "incomprehensible", so what's his point? 

Just because it is "incomprehensible" to Puin does not mean it is actually "incomprehensible".  Also, one has to wonder how being "incomprehensible" is evidence of and "evolving" text.

These vague claims show that you are just repeating baseless allegations without fully understanding the situation.  What "political motives" are you talking about?  What "grammatical" issues are you referring to?  What "influence" of the infancy gospels are you referring to?  The "plagiarism" accusation is certainly a favorite of Christians to level against the Quran but they tend to ignore the simple fact that there is no evidence that Muhammad (pbuh) had enough access to these texts that he could have had a detailed knowledge of them and thus reproduce them somehow in the Quranic narrative. 

I think it is also funny how you try to non-chalantly dismiss the theological problems that come with the textual variants!  The very fact that some textual variants are serious enough to put the theology of an entire book into question is a pretty big deal.  How can a supposedly "inspired" book have such serious theological problems? 

There are still a few problems with this argument:

1.  The absence of documentation from the time of Jesus or even his disciples makes authenticating the text impossible,

2.  The "reconstructed text" is based on later manuscripts,

3.  Many of the books and epistles were probably later forgeries.  See Ehrman's "Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Why We Think They Are" for examples.

4.  Even early Christian writers were aware of the changes that were being made to the text.  For example, Origen noted:

"The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." [As cited by Ehrman, p.52].

Given these points, the claim that the Bible is "inspired" or even textually "reliable" can only be made on a leap of faith.

We have the proof of 1400 years of memorization.  We also have the evidence in the fact that there exist no significant textual variants the likes of which we see in the Biblical manuscripts.  And of course, we have the simple fact of 1st manuscripts, many of which were written in the lifetimes of the Sahabah.  The Bible has none of these to back it up.  

And when were these "1800 pages of text" written?  Please do tell. 

Oh and wouldn't a "simplistic linear pattern" of transmission be the best route to take?  Even if there is a "radial manner" (whatever that means), you have yet to prove that this "radial manner" of transmission is based on a sound chain.

These were all later figures, not earlier than the early 2nd century. This is no different than having only 2nd century manuscripts as the absolute earliest "witnesses".  There is nothing from the 1st century to validate any of the New Testament books.  In fact, it took until the late 2nd century for Christians just to finally agree on how many canonical gospels there were. Up to that point, there was no clear-cut canon.  

We have 1st century manuscripts, which you don't have for your Bible.  Who are you to complain about the Quran?  We even have an inscription that contains Surah 112 (Al-Ikhlas) from the year 650 CE, which puts it right around the time of Uthman's rule [2]. 

The very fact that Muslims have been reciting the same Quran for the past 1400 years, with no variation or disagreement, is proof that the Quran has remained as it was when it was revealed.

On the other hand, your Bible has had revisions and was in such a state that it required a "reconstructing"  of the text.  What sort of an "inspired" text would have been in such a shape?

Well, of course it is, because in the absence of documentation, "transmission" is not enough.

This is another vague claim.  What do you mean they "can clearly identify between historical validity"?  How so? 

As I said, no one seriously believes all the stories mentioned in books like the Iliad.  Therefore, to compare them to the NT is a bizarre argument.  In fact, most scholars would treat the NT the same way as the Iliad.  They would see it as mix of historical and mythical elements.  

There are many scholars who would beg to differ.  The Gospels may have been written to appear "historical", but that does not mean that it is historically "accurate".  Scholars have identified historical errors in the Gospels.  Take the example of Luke's census.  As Gier notes:

"There is no record of Caesar Augustus' decree that "all the world should be enrolled" (Lk. 2:1).  The Romans kept extremely detailed records of such events.  Not only is Luke's census not in these records, it goes against all that we know of Roman economic history.  Roman documents show that taxation was done by the various governors at the provincial level." [3]

I simply do not have the time to go through each and every single person you mentioned.  Christians do this a lot.  They give lists and then expect a response.  You haven't given any quotations from the Christian scholars you have named, so why do you expect me to provide quotes for each supposed "testimony"?  I gave you the page numbers.  You can read them yourself, if you are really interested in the facts.

Surprisingly Muhammad and ancientMuhammadans had it right in their possession, without it the Quran would not havebeen completed! So, why is it modern day Muslims today do not know where is theInjil? Could it be they truly believe Ibn Khazem rather than the prophet’sQuran?

In plain English the QURAN tells you where! READ IT FOR YOURSELVES

A1. Mary (Maryam) 19:12, MiddleMeccan in -7 AH.

God says, "`Oh Yahya! (Johnthe Baptist) take hold of the Book with might': and We gave him wisdom as achild."

A2. The Family of `Imran (Ali`Imran) 3:48, 2-3 AH.

The Angel Gabriel is speaking toMary about Jesus before Jesus' birth and says: "And he (God) will teachhim the book and wisdom and the Torah and the Gospel"

A3. The Forbidding (Al-Tahrim)66:12, 7 AH.

"and Mary (Jesus'mother)...believed in the words of her Lord and His Books"

A4. The Family of `Imran (Ali`Imran) 3:49-50, 2-3 AH.

Jesus says, "I have come toyou...attesting to (the truth of) what is between my hands of the Torah, and to make lawful to you a part of that which is forbiddento you."

A5. The Battle Array (Al-Saff) 61:6,from 3 AH.

"And remember, Jesus, theson of Mary, said: `Oh Children of Israel! I am the apostle of God toyou, confirming that which IS between my hands from the Torah...'"

A6. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:49, 10AH.

"And in their footsteps (ofMoses and the Jews) We sent Jesus the son of Mary, attesting to (the truthof) the Torah which was between his hands; and We gave him the Gospel- therein is guidance and light and attesting to (the truth of) the Torahwhich was between his hands: a guidance and an admonition to therighteous."

A7. 5:113.

"Then will God say, `O Jesusson of Mary! Recount my favor to you and to your mother when I strengthened youwith the Holy Spirit, so that you spoke to the people in childhood and inmaturity. Behold! I taught you the Book and Wisdom, the Torah and the Gospel...

We can only conclude from this thatthe True Unchanged Torah was present in the first century when Jesus lived.

Since the Sura of The Forbidding(Al-Tahrim) from 7 AH quoted above [A3] says that Mary believed in "His(God's) Books" (kutubihi), this must refer to the Books which the otherProphets brought to the Jews, as well as the Torah of Moses.

LET ME SHOW YOU VERSES THATTRUE CHRISTIANS WERE LIVING DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN JESUS AND MUHAMMAD

B1. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:113-114,10 AH.

"Then will God say, `O Jesusson of Mary! Recount my favor to you... Behold! I taught you the Book andWisdom, the Torah and the Gospel...

"And behold! I inspired thedisciples (al-hawariyun) to have faith in Me and My apostle (Jesus). Theysaid (to Jesus), `We have faith and (you must) bear witness that we are Muslims(submitted ones)."

B2. The Family of `Imran (Ali`Imran) 3:52-53, 2-3 AH.

"When Jesus found unbelief ontheir part he said, `Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?' Thedisciples said, `We are God's helpers. We believe in God and (you must)bear witness that we are Muslims (submitted ones). "`Our Lord webelieve in what You have revealed and we follow the apostle (Jesus).'"

B3. The Battle Array (Al-Saff)61:14, 3 AH.

"O ye who believe! Be yehelpers of God: as said Jesus the son of Mary to the disciples, `Who will be myhelpers for God?' The Disciples said, `We are God's helpers!' Then a portionof the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: but Wegave power to those who believed against their enemies, and they becamethe ones that prevailed."

VERSES SHOWING THAT THE TORAH ANDTHE GOSPEL WERE TRUE AND UNCHANGED AT THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD.

C1. The City of Saba (Saba) 34:31,Early Meccan.

"And the unbelievers say, `Wewill not believe in this Qur'an, nor in that which IS between his (its)hands (the Torah and the Gospel)'..."

Note: The CAPITAL LETTERS show verbswhich are in the present tense for Muhammad and his people. Italics havebeen used for phrases speaking of groups of Jews or Christians at the time ofMuhammad spoken of as believers or unbelievers in order to emphasize that therewere always some true believers who would not have changed their ownscriptures.

C2. The Originator of Creation(Fatir) 35:31, Early Meccan.

"That which we have revealed toyou of the Book is the truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which ISbetween his (its) hands (the Torah and Gospel)..."

C3. Jonah (Yunus) 10:37, LateMeccan.

"This Qur'an is not such as canbe produced by other than God; but it is a verification of that (the Torahand Gospel) which IS between his (its) hands, and the explanation of thebook, wherein there IS no doubt, from the Lord of the worlds."

C4. Joseph (Yusuf) 12:111, LateMeccan.

"...It (the Qur'an) isnot a fabricated story, but a verification of that (the Torah and Gospel)which IS between his (its) hands, a detailed explanation, a guide and amercy to the people who believe."

C5. The Cattle (Al-An`am) 6:154-157,Late Meccan.

"Then We gave Moses the Bookcomplete as to whatever is excellent, and explaining all things in detail, anda guide and a mercy, that they might believe in the meeting with theirLord. And this (the Qur'an) is a Book which We have revealed, blessed: sofollow it and be righteous, that you may receive mercy: lest you should say, `TheBook was sent down to two peoples before us, and for our part, we remainedunacquainted with all that they learned by assiduous study;' or lest youshould say: `If the Book (Torah and Gospel) had only been sent down to us,we should have followed its guidance better than they.'"

C6. The Believer (Al-Mu'min)40:69-70, Late Meccan.

"Do you (Muhammad) not seethose who dispute concerning the signs of God? How are they turned away? Thosewho REJECT the Book, and that (book) with which We sentour apostles, they shall know when the collars shall be around their necks,and the chains, they shall be dragged along."

C7. Winding Sand Tracts (Al-Ahqaf)46:12, Late Meccan.

"And before this was the Bookof Moses as a guide and a mercy: and this Book is a verification (of it)in the Arabic tongue to warn those who transgress and as glad tidings to therighteous."

C8. 46:29-30.

"Behold, We turned towards youa company of Jinns listening to the Qur'an...When the (reading) was finishedthey returned to their people as warners. They said, `O our people! we haveheard a Book revealed after Moses attesting to (the truth of) that which ISbetween his (its) hands (the Torah) - guiding to the truth and to astraight path.'"

C9. The Heifer (Al-Baqara) 2:91, 2AH.

"When it is said to them,`Believe in what God has sent down,' they say, `We believe in what was sentdown to us (the Torah)': yet they reject all besides, even if it be truth attestingto (the truth of) what IS WITH THEM (the Torah)..."

C10. Family of `Imran (Ali `Imran)3:3, 2-3 AH.

"It is He (God) who sent downto thee the Book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) what IS between its(his) hands (the Bible), and He sent down the Torah and the Gospel beforethis as a guide to mankind."

C11. The Women (Al-Nisa') 4:162-163,5-6 AH.

"But those of them (theJews) that are grounded in knowledge, and the believers, BELIEVE in thatwhich has been revealed to you (Muhammad) and in that which has been revealedbefore you... We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and theprophets after him, and We sent inspiration to Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac, Jacoband the Tribes, and to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David wegave the Psalms."

C12.Repentance (Al-Tauba) 9:111, 9 AH.

"God has bought from thebelievers their selves and their wealth, and for them is the garden (ofParadise) if they fight in the ways of God: and whether they kill or arekilled, the promise of God IS true in the Torah and the Gospel and theQur'an, and who is more faithful to his promise than God?"

C13. The Table (Al-Ma'ida) 5:51, 10AH.

"To you (Muhammad) We revealedthe book in truth, attesting to (the truth of) that which IS between his(its) hands from the scripture (the Torah and Gospel), and guarding it (wamuhaiminan `alaihi)..."

We find in these verses a strongtestimony to the Torah and the Gospel as being true and present at the time ofMuhammad.

In the Sura of Repentance, one ofthe last revelations given, it says, "The promise of God IS true in theTorah, the Gospel, and the Qur'an" [C12].

NOW THIS MIGHT SURPRISE YOU ALL --HERE ARE VERSES WHERE MUHAMMAD ACTUALLY QUOTES OR APPEALS TO THE TORAHAND/OR THE GOSPEL.

D1. The Star (Najm) 53:33-38, EarlyMeccan.

"Do you (Muhammad) see the onewho turns back? Gives a little, then hardens (his heart)? What has he knowledgeof the unseen so that he can see? Nay, IS he not acquainted with what IS inthe books of Moses and of Abraham who fulfilled his engagements? - namelythat no bearer of burdens can bear the burden of another."

D2. The Poets (Al-Shu`ara')26:192-197, Middle Meccan.

"Verily this is a revelationfrom the Lord of the worlds. The Spirit of faith came down upon your heart withit that you might be one of the warners in the plain Arabic tongue. Andtruly it IS in the Scriptures (Zubur) of the former people. IS it not a sign tothem that the learned of the Children of Israel RECOGNIZE it."

D3. Ta-Ha 20:133, Middle Meccan from-7 AH.

"They (the Meccans) say, `Whydoes he not bring us a sign from his Lord?' What! Has not a clear sign cometo them in what IS in the former pages (al-suhuf al-aulla )?"

According to Baidawi's commentary onthis verse - The "former pages" refers to "the Torah and theGospel and all the divine books."

D4. The Prophets (Al-Anbiya') 21:7,Middle Meccan.

"And before thee (Muhammad), Wesent no one, except men, to whom We granted revelation. ASK (plural) thepeople of the Scripture message, if you don't know."

D5. The Prophets (Al-Anbiya')21:105, Middle Meccan.

"Before this We wrote in thePsalms, after the Message (given to Moses): `My servants, the righteous,shall inherit the earth.'"

This is a direct quotation from Psalm37:29 which reads, "The righteous shall inherit the earth and dwelltherein forever." When considered with the preceding quotation from thesame Sura (21:7), it is clear that, according to the Qur'an, God is quotingfrom the Psalms as still present and true at the time of Muhammad.

D6. Gold Adornments (Al-Zukhruf)43:44-45, Late Meccan.

"The (Qur'an) is indeed amessage for you (Muhammad) and your people, (all of) you shall be brought toaccount, and ASK those of our apostles whom we sent before thee, `Did Weappoint any deities other than the Most Merciful whom they shouldworship?'"

According to Baidawi, Jelaleddin,and Yusuf Ali, "ask those of our apostles whom we sent before thee"means enquire of their people - those learned in their writings and doctrines.Therefore those writings and doctrines were clearly available in Muhammad'stime.

D7. Jonah (Yunus) 10:94, LateMeccan.

"If you (Muhammad) are indoubt regarding that which We have revealed to thee, ASK those who READthe book from before you..."

D8. The Bee (Al-Nahl) 16:43-44, LateMeccan.

"And We have not sent beforeyou (Muhammad) other than men to whom we granted revelation. And (all of you) ASKthe people of the (Scripture) Message if you don't know."

D9. The Children of Israel (BaniIsra'il) 17:101, Late Meccan from -1 AH.

"To Moses We gave nine clearsigns. ASK (O Muhammad) the Children of Israel..."

Both the Jews and Christians "READthe book" [D15], and "STUDY it earnestly" [D17].

There are some righteousJews [D14] who GUIDE with truth and JUDGE by it [D13], and among theJews and Christians is a people on the right course [D24].

Meccans are told, "ASK thePeople of the Scripture message if you don't know" [D4,D8], and "ASKthose of our Apostles whom we sent" - that is ask their people who arelearned in their writings and doctrines [D6].

Muhammad is told, "ASK thosewho READ the Book from before you, if you are in doubt" [D7], and"ASK the Children of Israel" about the nine clear signs givento Moses [D9].

According to other passages Godrepeats commands from the Torah, warning the Jews to JUDGE by them [D22], andquotes from the Psalms of David [D5]. He appeals to worshiping asthe likeness of Muslim believers which is to be found in the Torah, andalludes to growing seed in the Gospel of Jesus as the likeness of believersfrom the Gospel [D20].

Muhammad tells the Jews to bring theTorah that "it might JUDGE between them" [D16]. On anotheroccasion he tells them, "BRING the Torah and READ it if you are men oftruth" [D18].

God asks Muhammad why the Jews cometo him for judgement when "they HAVE the Torah in which IS the commandof God" [D21]; and the Christians are told to "JUDGE by whatGod has revealed in it (the Gospel)" [D23].

God speaks of "the Torah andthe Gospel that IS WITH THEM" [D12]. And in the last Sura which cameto Muhammad - the Sura of the Table (Al-Ma'ida) from 10 AH - both Jews andChristians are told "you are not (founded) on anything until youPERFORM the Torah and the Gospel, and what was revealed to you from yourLord" [D24].

One of the commentators, Ibn Ishaq,relates the following Hadith concerning this passage [D24]. He says:

"Rafi son of Haritha and SalamIbn Mashkum and two others, came to Muhammad and said to him, `O Muhammad!do you not claim to be a follower of the religion of Abraham and of his faith, anddo you not believe in that which we have of the Torah and do you not testifythat it is truly from God.'

"He replied, `Yes, in truth,but you have invented new doctrines, and you deny that which is thereinregarding which a covenant was taken from you; and you conceal what you havebeen commanded to show to mankind. Therefore, I separate myself from your newideas.'

"They said, `And as for us, wehold by that which is in our hands, and we follow the truth and guidance; andwe do not believe in you and we will not follow you.'

"Then the great and gloriousGod revealed, `Say, O People of the Book! You are not (founded) on anythinguntil you perform the Torah and the Gospel and what was revealed to you fromyour Lord.'"

If this hadith is true then,by itself, it proves that Muhammad believed in the Torah available to the Jewsin Medina in 10 AH. And, even if it is not a strong hadith, it is animportant testimony to the fact that Muslims of the first and second century ofthe Hejira knew about a valid Torah and Gospel with them in Arabia.

With orwithout the above hadith, the 24 passages which we have looked at in thissection and the 13 from the previous section, make a total of 37 quotationswhich testify to a true Torah and Gospel being available to the people of Meccaand Medina while Muhammad was alive.

Muslimsmay claim that the true Torah and true Gospel, which were present in Arabia,are different from those presently available. But where are they?!? Surely someMuslim would have preserved such important books in one of the many Muslimlibraries found throughout the Islamic world, even if only to help the Jews andChristians obey the Quranic instruction to "perform the Torah and theGospel". Moreover, we would then be able to compare them with the copieswhich have been preserved by the Jews and Christians.

In fact,this is not the case. No such ancient copies have been preserved by theMuslims. Over the whole world there is only one Torah, which IS WITH both Jewsand Christians, and one book called the Gospel. which IS WITH the Christians.

Many of the great Muslim thinkershave, indeed, accepted the authenticity of the New Testament text. Listing thenames of these men seems a fitting conclusion to this essay. Their testimonyproves that Christian-Muslim dialogue need not for ever be stymied by theallegation introduced by Ibn-Khazem. Two great historians, Al-Mas'udi (died956) and Ibn-Khaldun (died 1406), held the authenticity of the Gospel text.Four well-known theologians agreed with this: Ali at-Tabari (died 855), Qasimal-Khasani (died 860), 'Amr al-Ghakhiz (died 869) and, last but not least, thefamous Al-Ghazzali (died 1111).¹⁴ Their view is shared by Abu AliHusain Ibn Sina, who is known in the West as Avicenna (died 1037). Bukhari(died 870), who acquired a great name by his collection of early traditions,quoted the Qur'an itself (Sura 3:72,78) to prove that the text of the Bible wasnot falsified.¹⁵ Finally, Muhammad Abduh Sayyid Ahmad Khan, areligious and social reformer of modem times (died 1905), accepted the findingsof modern science. He said:

As far as the text of the Bible is concerned. it has notbeen altered ... No attempt was made to present a diverging text as theauthentic one.¹⁶

14. I. DI MATTEO, loc. cit (note 5), AT-TABARI and AL-GHAKHIZ claimed thetranslations were unfaithful at times; they did not doubt the authenticity ofthe Greek original. With regard at AL-GHAZZALI, see F. M. PAREJA, op. cit, p.463.

15. G. PARRINDER, Jesus in the Qur'an, Faber and Faber, London 1965; Dutchtranslation, Ten Have, Baarn 1978, p. 124.

16. M. H. ANANIKIAN, `The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid AhmadKhan'. The Moslem World 14 (1934) p. 61.

BOTTOM LINE, modern day Muslims don't have to believe me butat least follow the teachings of YOUR Quran!

"It's hilarious and adorable how you think you know something that will blow us away! "

"Why do you think I refer to Christian commentaries when quoting from the New Testament?  Why do you think I refer to Jewish commentaries when quoting the Tanakh?"

"I said that there are 1st-century manuscripts of the Quran.  Do you disagree?  Do you want me to provide examples?"

"I don't understand why you people try to pretend that you know so much about a topic that you are so clueless on. "

""Stereotypes are essentially assumptions that are made about a person or group's character or attributes, based on a general image of what a particular group of people is like." [1]  "

"Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just." (60:8)

And I notice that you, like many of your brethren, are extremely thin-skinned!  Let's see if you practice what you preach (not using sarcasm and "subtle abuse"). 

Thank you for admitting that the Bible is not inerrant. 

However, you contradict yourself by stating that even though the Bible "is inspired by God but written by man" it is still not "inerrant".  What would be the purpose of "inspiration" if the "inspired" text is still full of errors? 

Also, what does "inspiration" have to do with whether the text has been preserved or not?  Isn't that the central issue here?  The evidence suggests that the Bible, the so-called "inspired" word, has been altered.  So far, not one Christian on this forum has offered any evidence to the contrary.

Do I detect a little "sarcasm and subtle abuse"? 

Did you even read my response to you?  Puin found no evidence of alteration.  Yet you still continue to gnaw at that old bone.  Please do share the examples of "mans [sic] influence" on the Quran.  I have been asking you to provide these examples, yet so far you have ignored my requests.  I wonder why...

For a Christian who admits that his own Bible is not the "literal, inerrant, divine, perfectly preserved, and infallible word" (how do the other Christians on this forum feel about this assessment, I wonder!) while criticizing the Muslim belief in the Quran's infallibility is certainly ironic.  For sure, we believe the Quran is the perfectly preserved word of God.  If you disagree, then please (for God's sake!) provide the evidence I have been asking you for, instead of making vague claims!

What on earth does this have to do with the topic? 

Either try to refute what Ehrman has said or admit that you cannot.  Pontificating on unrelated topics such as the experiences of "free thinkers" is a desperate red herring.

What does this have to do with Ehrman's views on the New Testament?  Why are you so afraid to deal with his views?  Why do you so desperately want to change the topic? 

By the way, Ehrman has admitted that he does not know Arabic, so any attempt by him to comment on the Quran or Islam would be futile.  He even admits that when he needed to translate a 13th century Arabic copy of a work of the 3rd-century Neoplatonic philosopher Porphyry, he asked a colleague to translate for him!

"I doubt if any of the New Testament scholars who refer to this statement of Porphyry's has actually read it, since it is, after all, in Arabic, and most New Testament scholars don't read Arabic.  I don't either.  But I have a colleague who does, Carl Ernst, an expert in medieval Islam." (Forged: Writing in the Name of God - Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are, p. 130)

Either you are deliberately altering what Ehrman actually said or you are just repeating what you heard from someone else.  He was answering a question referring to Bruce Metzger's assertion that the textual variants do not challenge "any essential Christian beliefs...".  Here is what he actually said:

"What he [Metzger] means by that (I think) is that even if one or two passages that are used to argue for a belief have a different textual reading, there are still other passages that could be used to argue for the same belief.  For the most part, I think that's true.

But I was looking at the question from a different angle.  My question is not about traditional Christian beliefs, but about how to interpret passages from the Bible.  And my point is that if you change what the words say, then you change what the passage means.  Most textual variants...have no bearing at all on what a passage means.  But there are other textual variants...that are crucial to the meaning of a passage.  And the theology of entire books of the New Testament are sometimes affected by the meaning of individual passages." (Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, pp. 252-253)

Nice to know that you can be counted on to give the full facts (sarcasm fully intented!).

It needs to be pointed again out that you have yet to offer a reasonable response Ehrman's claims about the New Testament.  What are you afraid of?

And your response is the usual Christian polemic, replete with special pleading.  There are no 1st-century manuscripts, so the appeal to "120 manuscripts from the first 300 years" is deceptive at best.  The rest, as I said, are from medieval times, and they are simply copies of copies.  So, if the earliest copy was defective and it was this copy that the subsequent manuscripts were based on, then all of the manuscripts are defective by default.  The only way to prove that they are not defective would be compare them either to the originals or to copies that were produced within a reasonable amount of time from the originals.  Christianity has neither.

Huh? 

The point, which you failed to respond to, is that P52 (which is a very small fragment) is not dated to the year 125, as Blomberg deceptively claimed.  the usual date range is 125-150, but as Nongbri has stated, even a later date can be considered.  Your response to this was...nothing except the same tired appeal to "other ancient works". 

What?  "First Century NT testimony exists"?  That's a new one to me!  Can you name such "testimony" from the 1st century? 

This argument is fallacious since scholars do not accept all the "details" of the ancient documents, such as the "Iliad" or sources on the life of Alexander the Great.  For examples, scholar may agree on the central topic of the "Iliad", the Trojan War.  They may agree that this war actually happened.  But, they would not accept the claims of divine intervention in the war, would they?  If you have ever read the Iliad, you would know that it speaks of various gods being involved in the war, such as Apollo and Aphrodite.  These stories are not considered to be historically accurate.  You would be hard-pressed to find a scholar who actually believes that the Iliad is historically accurate.  The same can be said about Alexander the Great.  Scholars would agree that he defeated Darius at the Battle of Gaugamela, but they would not accept some of the other "details" of his life, such as Plutarch's claim that he was descended from Hercules:

"It is agreed on by all hands, that on the father's side, Alexander descended from Hercules by Caranus, and from Aeacus by Neoptolemus on the mother's side." [1]

Talk about "special pleading". 

Regarding the Quran, there are numerous 1st-century manuscripts.  In addition, the Quran was memorized by thousands of people.  Your Bible has neither advantage!  Sorry to disappoint you.

I had a feeling you would refer to these non-Christian writers by copying the claims of Josh McDowell.  Most other lay Christians refer to them as well, without bothering to actually do the research.

I will not waste time refuting your claims about each author, so I will refer you to a good refutation of this silly Christian polemic.  Read Louay Fatoohi's "The Mystery of the Crucifixion", specifically pages 69-86.  Fatoohi refutes the appeal to each author.  

"The Quran makes it clear that Christians have strayed from Jesus' message."

The word prejudice (or foredeeming) is most often used to refer to preconceived, usually unfavorable, judgments toward people or a person because of gender, social class, age, disability, religion, sexuality, race/ethnicity, language, nationality or other personal characteristics. It can also refer to unfounded beliefs and may include "any unreasonable attitude that is unusually resistant to rational influence." Gordon Allport defined prejudice as a "feeling, favorable or unfavorable, toward a person or thing, prior to, or not based on, actual experience."

Those who practice “institutionalized religion,” which focuses more on social and political aspects of religious events, are more likely to have an increase in prejudice. Those who practice “interiorized religion,” in which believers devote themselves to their beliefs, are most likely to have a decrease in prejudice.

Prejudice and discrimination are negative manifestations of integrative power. Instead of bringing or holding people together, prejudice and discrimination push them apart. Ironically, even prejudice and discrimination imply some sort of relationship, however. If there is no relationship people would be completely unaware of another person's or group's existence. When there is any relationship at all--even a negative one--there is some integration. (http://www.colorado.edu/conflict/peace/problem/prejdisc.htm)

"When you read Ehrman, he clearly has an agenda.  But if Muslims take what he[Ehrman] has to say to their logical conclusion, you would have to abandon Islam too.  Why use a scholar who employs arguments which damage Islam?"

"the Quran has extant manuscripts from the 1st century of the Islamic calendar and the Quran has been memorized from its inception."

"Moreover, don't tell me about my own religion.  Stick to your own. "