Active TopicsActive Topics  Display List of Forum MembersMemberlist  CalendarCalendar  Search The ForumSearch  HelpHelp
  RegisterRegister  LoginLogin  Old ForumOld Forum  Twitter  Facebook
Advertisement:
         

Interfaith Dialogue
 IslamiCity Forum - Islamic Discussion Forum : Religion - Islam : Interfaith Dialogue
Message Icon Topic: IS MOHAMMED A DESCENDENT OF ISHMAEL?(Topic Closed Topic Closed) Post Reply Post New Topic
<< Prev Page  of 23 Next >>
Author Message
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2253
bullet Posted: 23 April 2011 at 3:26pm
OK, so here we are.  Shibbo has challenged anyone to present evidence of the corruption of the Bible.  As part of his defense, he has appealed to Vatican 1209, also known as Codex Vaticanus.  Shibbo claims:

What about your assertion that the Biblical Gospels were altered in order to suppress certain accounts of Jesus’ life? Is there any evidence that the Gospel of John, for example, was altered in the fourth century to distort the facts? To answer this question, we need to bear in mind that one of the key sources of the modern Bible is the fourth-century manuscript known as Vatican 1209. If our Bible contains changes made in the fourth century, then these changes would be reflected in this manuscript. Happily, another manuscript that contains most of Luke and John, known as Bodmer 14, 15 (P75), dates from 175 C.E. to 225 C.E. According to experts, it is textually very close to Vatican 1209. In other words, no significant changes were made to the Biblical Gospels, and we have the Vatican 1209 to prove it.


Here are some fun facts about Codex Vaticanus, which Shibbo is either not aware of or has completely ignored:

1.  It omits Matthew 16:2, Luke 22:43 and John 5:4 among others.
2.  The Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8.
3.  The Gospel of John does not contain the Pericope de Adultera. 
4.  The codex ends at Hebrews 9:14 and does not contain 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the Book of Revelation.
5.  The Codex does contain some apocryphal books such as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. 

Taking these facts into account, a "King-James only" Christian website proclaims (I spit on your request for no links as I prefer to backup my claims with supporting evidence and not blind blabbering Tongue):

"
But alas! this manuscript, like its corrupt Egyptian partner Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph) is also riddled with omissions, insertions and amendments.  [...]

It was corrected by revisers in the 8th, 10th, and 15th centuries.

In the Gospels it leaves out 749 entire sentences and 452 clauses, plus 237 other words, all of which are found in hundreds of other Greek manuscripts. The total number of words omitted in Codex B in the Gospels alone is 2,877 as compared with the majority of manuscripts.

Similar to Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Vaticanus identifies itself as a product of gnostic corruption in John 1:18, where “the only begotten Son” is changed to “the only begotten God,” thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son of God Jesus Christ from God Himself by claiming that the Word was not the same as the Son. John’s Gospel identifies the Son directly with the Word (John 1:1, 18), but by changing "Son" to "God" in verse 18, this direct association is broken.

Codex Vaticanus contains the false Roman Catholic apocryphal books such as Judith, Tobias, and Baruch, while it omits the pastoral epistles (I Timothy through Titus), the Book of Revelation, and it cuts off the Book of Hebrews at Hebrews 9:14 (a very convenient stopping point for the Catholic Church, since God forbids their priesthood in Hebrews 10 and exposes the mass as totally useless as well!)." [1]

What a surprise!  How little it takes to refute Shibbo!  We can stop right here, as everything Shibbo has claimed about the textual reliability of the Bible, using certain manuscripts, has been proven to be untrue.  But there is one more important point to make and here it is:

There exists not a single manuscript which can be dated with absolute certainly to the 1st century of the Common Era or within the lifetimes of the disciples of Jesus. 

I challenge Shibbo to prove me wrong.  This is my counter-challenge. 

My response to your 6 ad nauseum questions will be forthcoming, inshaAllah.  It should not be too hard as they have all been answered already numerous times. 
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
bullet Posted: 24 April 2011 at 1:14am

 To Shibb

 You didnot address the chronological contradictions in the Gospels.Let me describe another difficult conflict in the Gospels.

 In the story "A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman," when the Jairus first came to Jesus & knelt down to him to ask him to cure his daughter, was the daughter dying or already dead?


 Mark's Gospel

 The Jairus' daughter was dying:

 Mark 5:21-23:

 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake.Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.”So Jesus went with him.


 Matthew's Gospel

 The Jairus' daughter was dead:

 
Matthew 9:18:

 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”


 Second Problem

 There is another problem with the accounts besides the one mentioned above. It has to do with the context. Mark claims that Jesus was approached by Jarius when Jesus and his disciples got out of their boat in Capernaum, as the crowds rushed towards Jesus.
 



 
IP IP Logged
Mansoor_ali
Male  Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 September 2008
Location: Pakistan
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 584
bullet Posted: 24 April 2011 at 1:25am


 To Shibb

 You didnot address the chronological contradictions in the Gospels.Let me describe another difficult conflict in the Gospels.

 In the story "A Dead Girl and a Sick Woman," when the Jairus first came to Jesus & knelt down to him to ask him to cure his daughter, was the daughter dying or already dead?


 Mark's Gospel

 The Jairus' daughter was dying:

 Mark 5:21-23:

 When Jesus had again crossed over by boat to the other side of the lake, a large crowd gathered around him while he was by the lake.Then one of the synagogue leaders, named Jairus, came, and when he saw Jesus, he fell at his feet. 23 He pleaded earnestly with him, “My little daughter is dying. Please come and put your hands on her so that she will be healed and live.”So Jesus went with him.


 Matthew's Gospel

 The Jairus' daughter was dead:

 
Matthew 9:18:

 While he was saying this, a synagogue leader came and knelt before him and said, “My daughter has just died. But come and put your hand on her, and she will live.”


 Second Problem with the Accounts

 There is another problem with the accounts besides the one mentioned above. It has to do with the context. Mark claims that Jesus was approached by Jarius when Jesus and his disciples got out of their boat in Capernaum, as the crowds rushed towards Jesus.But Matthew states that Jarius approached Jesus in Matthew's house as the disciples of John the Baptist were talking to Jesus.

 

 

 
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2253
bullet Posted: 24 April 2011 at 11:27am
OK, so now we come to the last part of my response.  Shibbo asks several questions which have been answered before, but can be answered again.

1) What historical and or archeological evidence do you have regarding the account of Muhammad in the cave and who eye witnessed it to confirm its authenticity?


We have already discussed this.  No one was there  to witness the initial encounter.  However, there were many people who witnessed his many miracles and prophecies.  This will be shown in the answer to question 2.

The fact that there was no one to confirm the initial encounter is not a problem.  It is like how no one witnessed Moses' encounter with God when he was called to prophethood.  It is like how no one witnessed Mary's encounter with the angel who told her that she would give birth to a son despite the fact that she had not has sexual relations with a man.  It is like how no one witnessed Jesus' trek into the desert to fast and his subsequent encounter with Satan. 

2) Who can vouch for Muhammad’s revelations, miracles and prophecies besides Muhammad?


Haven't I answered this question before?  Anyway, there were numerous people.  Here is an incomplete list of names:

Anas ibn Malik
Qatada ibn Al-Numan
Jubayr ibn Mutim
Hudhayfa
AbdAllah ibn Abbas
AbdAllah ibn. Umar
Abd Allah ibn Masud


There are many others but this will suffice.  But I know how Shibbo will respond.  He will dsmiss these witnesses and demand secular evidence!  But when the same demand is made for proof of Jesus' miracles or those of the apostles, he will say that the Bible is enough.  Isn't that right, Shibbo? 

3) Okay – You can use the Quran or Bible in the next two questions so I can verify it myself. Show in the Quran where it says Ishmael was the one that Abraham was about to sacrificed?


This has been discussed ad nauseum as well by others.  It is already well-known that the Quran does not actually name the son who was supposed to be sacrificed.  While which son it was is not an important matter for Muslims, as it is the moral of the story which is most important, we can deduce from the verses that it was Ishmael (pbuh) and not Isaac (pbuh).  Here is why:

Surah 37, verse 100 quotes Abraham (pbuh) as saying:

""O my Lord! Grant me a righteous (son)!""


The fact that he is asking for a son implies that he is at the time childless.  Since Ishmael (pbuh) is known to be the firstborn, it is clear that he is the son implied here.  Then verse 102 states:

"Then, when (the son) reached (the age of) (serious) work with him, he said: "O my son! I see in vision that I offer thee in sacrifice: Now see what is thy view!" (The son) said: "O my father! Do as thou art commanded: thou will find me, if Allah so wills one practising Patience and Constancy!""

This is once again referring to the son whom Abraham (pbuh) asked for in verse 100.  It cannot be Isaac (pbuh) because once the narrative of the sacrifice is over and Abraham (pbuh) is glorified (verses 102-111), then the Quran states in verse 112:

"And We gave him the good news of Isaac - a prophet,- one of the Righteous."

Hence, the son spoken of in verse 102 cannot be Isaac (pbuh) given the obvious separation from the sacrifice incident and his birth. 

4) Which ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of Mohammad or any Prophet in their family?


I have mentioned this already.  However, upon doing some more research, there are points I would like to make.  First, the "historical twelve tribes of Ishmael" have various branches.  So for instance, the Bani Tamim are one branch.  Were there any followers of Muhammad (pbuh) from among the Bani Tamim?  Yes!  Among the first was Khabbab ibn Al-Aratt. 

Another related tribe was the Bani Kinanah.  One of the branches of Bani Kinanah was the Quraysh, who we know was the tribe that the prophet belonged to.  We also know that many among the Quraysh accepted the prophet early on, and eventually the whole tribe accepted him. 

We can go into much more detail than this but this should suffice. 

5) Did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him since they were already completed?


The Quran was revealed to him.  Among the ayats revealed were some which alluded to the past scriptures.  Obviously, the allusion was to the original, uncorrupted versions.   

6) What historical and archeological evidence that was around during that time or later do you have to disprove the Gospel account?

Which Gospel account?  One which comes to mind is the account of the Gospel of Luke which speaks of a census in the Holy Land.  According to Luke, the census occurred in 6 AD at the order of Augustus.  However, according to the funerary inscription of Augustus (the Res Gestae Divi Augusti), he ordered separate censuses in the years 28 BC, 8 BC and 14 AD (1 - see line 8)  This contradicts the account of Luke. 

There are of course other examples we can discuss, but let's take it one step at a time.  So here you go Shibbo.  I have once again answered all of your questions.  Will you now answer my questions?  I will wait for your response.


Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Shibboleth
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 281
bullet Posted: 25 April 2011 at 12:30pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

The dates of the two manuscripts you mentioned are not accepted by the vast majority of scholars.  No scholar would give an exact date for any manuscript, so the pathetic attempt to date P52 exactly to 125 CE is a farce. The date range given by real scholars is 125-50 CE. 

So you agree nonetheless that they are accepted, even by scholars and higher-critics. You love to play word games to support your false claim by using adjectives as if that takes away from its credibility, the fact of the matter still remains and that is the New Testament is authentic and part of the Bible canon. The canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed about 98 C.E according to the last surviving Apostle, John. The Holy Bible stands by its own merits and doesn’t need to base its facts on uninspired scholars and critics but on inspired Bible writers such as Jesus Christ Apostles. We’re right back where we started, 600 years before any Muhammad the Bible was completed. You still have yet to show how it was remotely even possible giving what your response was (125-50 CE) that Muhammad had a corrupted version of the Bible. By the time he came on the scene the Bible had already been distributed throughout those regions. In fact as Muslims love to say, when did this corruption begin and by whom which you still cannot answer?  You just continue to dig yourself a bigger hole.  

Originally posted by islamispeace

Regarding the Magdalen papyrus, it has been dated to 200 CE, not 65/66 CE.  There is unanimous consensus on these dates.  So, your claims once again miss the nail and deserve to be added to "Shibbo's Follies, Part II".

Let me repeat myself again, no archeological findings have any one shown to disprove the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’ of the Gospel let alone that the book of Acts has been distorted, that was my claim which you or anyone else has yet to prove wrong. On the other hand, Muslims themselves don’t even agree on how Muhammad received his so called revelation in the cave or who his father was, Muslims, your own brothers. Yet you somehow expect uninspired scholars and higher critics to agree when it comes to the writings of God’s Holy Word, you got to be kidding!   

Originally posted by Shibboleth

Magdelene Manuscript:
The Magdalene Manuscript fragments matches all four, and in fact is almost a twin to the papyrus found in Oxyrynchus, which bears the date of 65/66 AD Thiede concludes that these papyrus fragments of St. Matthew's Gospel were written no later than this date and probably earlier. That suggests that we either have a portion of the original gospel of Matthew, or an immediate copy, which was written while Matthew and the other disciples, and eyewitnesses to the events were still alive. This would be the oldest manuscript portion of our Bible in existence today, one which co-exists with the original writers!

No wonder Muhammad and his book says “After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47.

Anyone with an open mind can read and see even during Muhammad’s time the New Testament was 100% uncorrupted, the same scriptural facts in which we use today to establish the NT! You believing otherwise are not going to change that FACT!  

In any event there is general agreement that all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written during the first century C.E, no one protested otherwise to say they were corrupted when people were still around who eye-witnessed the events could still confirm. Add that as well to Part ll

Originally posted by islamispeace

Regarding your foolish challenge about showing examples of corruption in the NT, it has already been shown many times.

I would love to see what facts in the Bible were corrupted and how it relates to Islam. In order to do that with any accuracy you would have to show Bible documents or passages before and after the fact to show its corruption. Scholars can’t even do that because there were none.

As always, you have nothing to show to support your inaccurate statements about the Holy Bible being corrupted. Your problem is with the dating of these documents but you have yet to shown any corruption, just like I thought!



Edited by Shibboleth - 25 April 2011 at 4:35pm
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)
IP IP Logged
Shibboleth
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 281
bullet Posted: 25 April 2011 at 4:30pm

Originally posted by islamispeace

Here are some fun facts about Codex Vaticanus,..

Well, I’m glad you amused yourself; I hope you had fun searching for the wrong answers to the right questions I proposed. What facts about the NT were changed and what did you compare it with to confirm these changes? You listed none, zilch! Again, if our Bible contains changes made in the fourth century, then these changes would be reflected in this manuscript. Show me the beef! I showed you almost a dozen respected scholarly references in support of the NT and its canonicity, Vatican 1209 being included not exclusively and your best is to show a few versus, not BOOKS but verses out of the whole Gospel that you think should be included? Let me see, four Gospel accounts to your few verses giving you the benefit. That’s not even a discussion! Yes, you are wasting your time. Now, if you did that same scrutiny with your Quran with several surahs, not just verses but chapters being left out altogether and books being burned and suppressed then you will be on your way, son.    

But still, what Biblical Gospels were altered in order to suppress certain accounts of Jesus’ life, his resurrection and death or anything? You showed us none!

What evidence is there that the Gospel of John, for example, was altered in the fourth century to distort any of the facts?

Again, as always you showed us none!! Just a lot of irrelevant mumbo jumbo.

Originally posted by islamispeace

What a surprise!  How little it takes to refute Shibbo!  We can stop right here, as everything Shibbo has claimed about the textual reliability of the Bible, using certain manuscripts, has been proven to be untrue. 

Dude, we are talking about the Bibles corruption! This Vatican codex contains a complete text of the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, except for a few minute portions that were lost over time, hello, we’re talking time here, the Bible is much, much older, your book is the youngest out of them all. But, what is the Qurans excuse for not having all its chapters and verses in it and burning copies of it, what were they hiding that they didn’t want anyone to see? In fact the Quran was completed after Muhammad’s death and they still can’t recall all of it surahs.  

Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)    

We find this same narration cited in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an:

Said Abu ‘Ubaid:
Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Ibn Warraq, Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book [Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 1998], Part Two: The Collections and the Variants of the Koran, 9. Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran, by Arthur Jeffery, p. 151: bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)

So, as I suspected you were not able to compare not even ONE Bible Fact or statement; what’s true and what is false according to the ancient manuscripts available, just verses that are missing; that’s all. Like always, you and many others misinterpret Bible verses thinking somehow it should apply to Muhammad, not!   

“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)
IP IP Logged
islamispeace
 Islam
Senior Member
Senior  Member
Avatar

Joined: 01 November 2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2253
bullet Posted: 28 April 2011 at 2:03pm
Yet again, we get a bumbling response from Shibbo.  It should be obvious to anyone reading these debates that Shibbo only responds with vain repetition, factual inaccuracies and most of all diversions (as with his attempts to divert to the Quran when the issue is the Bible!).  Anyway, on to the rebuttal:

So you agree nonetheless that they are accepted, even by scholars and higher-critics. You love to play word games to support your false claim by using adjectives as if that takes away from its credibility, the fact of the matter still remains and that is the New Testament is authentic and part of the Bible canon. The canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was completed about 98 C.E according to the last surviving Apostle, John. The Holy Bible stands by its own merits and doesn’t need to base its facts on uninspired scholars and critics but on inspired Bible writers such as Jesus Christ Apostles. We’re right back where we started, 600 years before any Muhammad the Bible was completed. You still have yet to show how it was remotely even possible giving what your response was (125-50 CE) that Muhammad had a corrupted version of the Bible. By the time he came on the scene the Bible had already been distributed throughout those regions. In fact as Muslims love to say, when did this corruption begin and by whom which you still cannot answer?  You just continue to dig yourself a bigger hole.


Wrong!!  The "Bible" was not "completed" until at least the 3rd century.  Why, you ask?  Because up until the 3rd Century, scribes were making routine changes to the text.  The fact that the Codex Vaticanus, the earliest extant (yet still incomplete) codex of the Christian Bible has so many glaring variants, omissions and additions is proof of this.  As always, Shibbo has no response to this except for vain repetition and rhetoric. 

Regarding P52, I have already shown that it is not dated to 125 CE, as you claimed, but rather to the first half of the 2nd century (125-150 CE).  Do you acknowledge that?  If so, you can see that it is not proof-positive that the NT is perfectly preserved.  We don't even know when the gospel was even written.  Furthermore, you make it sound as if P52 is a complete copy of the Gospel of John.  The reality is much different.  Let us see a picture of P52, shall we?  Drum-roll please...



Oh boy...What a disappointment!  Cue the music!  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5atPYaxX0lM&feature=related

Obviously, this manuscript is a fragment, so it does not reveal much about the textual reliability of the Gospel of John.  In addition, if we consider that John supposedly died around c. 100 CE, this would mean that P52 was written sometime between 25 and 50 years after his death.  Therefore, it is not even an original copy. 

Let me repeat myself again, no archeological findings have any one shown to disprove the ‘Dead Sea Scroll’ of the Gospel let alone that the book of Acts has been distorted, that was my claim which you or anyone else has yet to prove wrong. On the other hand, Muslims themselves don’t even agree on how Muhammad received his so called revelation in the cave or who his father was, Muslims, your own brothers. Yet you somehow expect uninspired scholars and higher critics to agree when it comes to the writings of God’s Holy Word, you got to be kidding!


"Dead Sea Scroll of the Gospel"?  What?  Please don't tell me you are referring to the 7Q5 fragment and the hopeless ramblings of Jose O'Callaghan!  Although, if you are, I would hardly be surprised.  The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence of any Gospel fragments being found in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

As far as any evidence of corruption of the Book of Acts, there is plenty.  I think the best way forward is to show an example of corruption from each gospel as well as the Book of Acts.  Look at that Shibbo!  You got five for the price of one! 

Gospel of Mark: 

16:9-20

These verses are not present in the earliest surviving MSS, including Codex Vaticanus.  As Ehrman points out, "...the writing style varies from what we find elsewhere in Mark" (Misquoting Jesus, p. 67).

Gospel of Matthew:

27:34

This verse states that Jesus was given wine mixed with gall while he was on the cross.  But other manuscripts say that he was given vinegar, which is seen by scholars to be either an attempt to conform the story of Jesus more closely with alleged prophecies in the OT or to eliminate a contradiction since in Matthew 26:29, where Jesus specifically "states that he will not drink wine again until he does so in the kingdom of the Father" (Ibid., p. 204).  

Gospel of Luke:

Luke 22:17-19 describes how Jesus broke the bread at the Last Supper and said "this is my body given for you" and "this cup is the new covenant in my blood which is shed for you".  This rendering appears in most MSS.  However, at no other place does Luke's Gospel ever link Jesus' death with salvation and the payment of sins, nor does it ever say so in the Book of Acts (Ibid., p. 166).  In addition, when reproducing the text from the Gospel of Mark (the main source for Luke's Gospel) which linked Jesus' death with salvation, "...Luke changed the wording of the text (or eliminated it)" (p. 167).  Therefore, it is certain that the verses were altered by scribes.

Gospel of John:

The Pericope de Adultera has already been mentioned.   

Book of Acts:

Acts 20:28 says "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood."  This verse suggests that Jesus was divine and gave His own blood.  However, "...in Codex Alexandrinus and some other manuscripts, the text instead speaks of 'the Church of the Lord..."  The change from "Lord" to "God" was made to make Jesus appear divine (Ibid., p. 114).  By making Jesus divine, the scribes could also argue that his death served as payment for sins, something Luke probably did not intend, as shown above.

And what about your favorite manuscript, Codex Vaticanus?  Let's take a look at an example of scribes randomly changing the text whenever they felt like it:

In Hebrews 1:3, a scribe changed the Greek word "pheron" (meaning "bears") to "phaneron" (meaning "manifests").  Then, another scribe noticed this change and rewrote the original word (pheron).  But then another scribe came along and changed it back to "phaneron"!!  On top of that, this third scribe left a marginal note aimed at the second scribe, which read:

"Fool and knave!  Leave the old reading, don't change it!" (Ibid., p. 56).

Ironically, the third scribe did not realize that he was actually contributing to the change by erasing the original word used!  LOL  And so, we have the verse claiming that Jesus "...manifests all things..." instead of "...bears all things..." 

In any event there is general agreement that all the books of the Christian Greek Scriptures were written during the first century C.E, no one protested otherwise to say they were corrupted when people were still around who eye-witnessed the events could still confirm. Add that as well to Part ll


Duh!  The corruptions occurred decades and centuries after!  You also have not provided any evidence that "no one protested otherwise..." There are no 1st century accounts!  This will certainly be added to Shibbo's Follies! 

Here are examples from the writings of the Church fathers showing conclusively that Christians were changing the scriptures at whim:

1.  Bart Ehrman mentions in his book how a bishop named Dionysius condemned his followers for changing his letters.  The bishop wrote:

"When my fellow-Christians invited me to write letters to them I did so.  These the devil's apostles have filled with tares, taking away some things and adding others.  For them the woe is reserved.  Small wonder then if some have dared to tamper even with the word of the Lord himself, when they have conspired to mutilate my own humble efforts" (as cited in "Misquoting Jesus", p. 53).

2.  The famous Christian apologist Origen wrote the following:

"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" (Ibid., p. 52).

3.  Ironically, Origen contradicted himself (or perhaps he was flat-out lying) when he responded to the criticisms of the Roman philosopher Celsus who made the same observations.  Ehrman notes:

"...when confronted with an outsider's [Celsus] allegation of poor copying practices among Christians, [Origen] actually denies that Christians changed the text, despite the fact that he himself decried the circumstance in his other writings" (Ibid., p. 52).


Of course, Origen was all too happy to accuse those he deemed as "heretics" of changing the texts, but when faced with the criticisms of a non-Christian, he flat-out denied any such changes, even though he made the same observation in another work.  All I can say is "wow." 

I would love to see what facts in the Bible were corrupted and how it relates to Islam. In order to do that with any accuracy you would have to show Bible documents or passages before and after the fact to show its corruption. Scholars can’t even do that because there were none.


For one thing, Jesus never claimed that his blood would serve as payment for our sins.  See the example of the corruption of the Gospel of Luke.

Once again Shibbo, we see what a sorry state your argument is in.  You ignored my challenge to you, so I will repeat it again.  I challenge you to produce just one manuscript of any book of the canonical NT that can be dated with certainty to the 1st century CE (ideally, we would want a codex containing the entire NT but I will make it easy for you and ask of only book)

I also challenge you to refute any of the points I have made here about the Bible's corruption.  I even gave you specific examples, as you requested.  Try to offer an actual response this time. 

Abdullah b. `Umar reportedly said, 'Let none of you say, "I have got the whole of the Qur'an." How does he know what all of it is? MUCH OF THE QUR'AN HAS GONE. Let him say instead, "I have got what has survived."' (Jalal al Din `Abdul Rahman b. Abi Bakr al Suyuti, al-Itqan fi `ulum al-Qur'an, Halabi, Cairo, 1935/1354, Volume 2, p. 25)    

We find this same narration cited in Abu Ubaid’s Kitab Fadail-al-Qur’an:

Said Abu ‘Ubaid:
Isma’il b. Ibrahim related to us from Ayyub from Nafi‘ from Ibn ‘Umar who said – Let none of you say, “I have learned the whole of the Koran,” for how does he know what the whole of it is, WHEN MUCH OF IT HAS DISAPPEARED? Let him rather say, “I have learned what is extant thereof.” (Ibn Warraq, Origins of the Koran – Classic Essays on Islam’s Holy Book [Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY 1998], Part Two: The Collections and the Variants of the Koran, 9. Abu ‘Ubaid on the Verses Missing from the Koran, by Arthur Jeffery, p. 151: bold, capital and underline emphasis ours)


LOL Why do we always come back to the Quran when the issue is the Bible?  Your desperation in this regard manifests (phaneron, Big%20smile) itself time and time again.  Your response to the missing parts of the Bible (in addition to the anonymous additions) is to divert to your ignorance of the history of the Quran's compilation?  Bravo!  Clap 

Had you actually done some real research, you would have realized that these narrations are talking about abrogation, what is known as "naskh al-hukm wa al-tilawah" or "abrogating the ruling and its recitation" (Al-Imam, "Variant Reading of the Quran", p. 32).  If true, it was done at the order of the prophet himself (and not after his death).  Unfortunatelt for you, the scholars of Islam do not even agree if the narrations are authentic!  If they are authentic, then we know that the abrogations were done during the prophet's time and not after.  This is a far cry from the missing parts of the Bible which were removed by anonymous scribes centuries after Jesus (pbuh).  But as I said, the scholars of Islam do not even have consensus on these narrations.  Most consider them to be weak and fabricated narrations.  As Al-Imam writes:

"...many reasons exist for objecting to both kinds of abrogation [as there are two forms]:

1.  All of the examples given are inauthentic, contradictory, or isolated reports in many different versions.

2.  The examples differ from the Quran's style... [yes, the alleged abrogated verses have been preserved in the writings of the scholars!]

3.  All usulis (usul al-fiqh scholars) agree that the Quran is substantiated only by successive reports, whereas the examples given are isolated reports" (Ibid., p. 36).


Therefore, there is no actual evidence that parts of the Quran were lost due to abrogation.  Even if there was any evidence, it would be an example of recitations which were replaced with subsequent revelations during the prophet's time. 

Here is your third challenge.  Provide one specific example of any verse being added or lost due to deliberate changes by scribes.  There are thousands of these examples in the Bible.  I am asking you for just one in the Quran! 


Edited by islamispeace - 28 April 2011 at 2:25pm
Say: "Truly, my prayer and my service of sacrifice, my life and my death, are (all) for Allah, the Cherisher of the Worlds. (Surat al-Anaam: 162)

IP IP Logged
Shibboleth
 
Guest Group
Guest Group
Avatar

Joined: 06 August 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 281
bullet Posted: 01 May 2011 at 4:42pm

As we proceed to give you what you need… your past claims islam as I suspected are grossly unfounded and misrepresented as I have proven. At best you can only show what “Verses” are missing or not counted for out of the 27 “Books” of the Christian Greek Scriptures, yes I did say BOOKS. However, you presented no corruption, and as you already know the Bible is the oldest and most ancient Holy book around, some portions were lost over time although the facts are still clearly presented which is like a needle in a hay stack compare to several surahs of the Quran being left out intentionally and whole Qurans being burned and destroyed for the public eyes not to see, what were they hiding? The Quran is the youngest compared to all holy books, what is its excuse for its missing “BOOKS n’ SURAHS” was it lost over time like the Bible, the most ancient Holy book and world’s BEST seller or was they purposely destroyed? I don’t think you want to go down that road buddy, you may never recover! 

Fortunately for me and unfortunately for you, you even ignore what credibility is left of the Quran in acknowledgement of the Gospel. This is what’s disturbing if you believe what your holy book says!

“After those prophets We sent forth Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Torah already revealed, and gave him the Gospel, in which there is guidance and light, corroborating that which was revealed before it in the Torah, a guide and an admonition to the righteous. Therefore let the followers of the Gospel judge in accordance with what Allah has revealed therein. Evil-doers are those that do not base their judgements on Allah’s revelations.”—Sura 5, Al-Ma’ida [The Table], verses 46, 47. You are showing your true colors, this is what your book said repeating what the Holy Bible had already said before it!

In the one hundred fourteen Surahs, or chapters, of the Qur’an, at least sixty-two verses point out that these three writings come from God. And at least twelve other verses say that the Qur’an was written for the purpose of confirming these books. There is nothing in the Quran that say’s the Gospel were corrupted in fact it says quite the opposite!

Why else would the Qur’an say to judge by it, observe it, and call it God’s revelation if the copy in existence during Muhammad’s day was corrupt? Would that not make Muhammad a false prophet? Modern day Muslims have been duke into believing a lie regarding the Gospel of Jesus! You rather believe in Ahmed Deedat a modern Muslim apologist and his 50, 000 lies instead of your own holy book and messenger, shame on you for not doing your studies and reading the Gospel like you were told to!

As Sura 40:70 says “you will be judged for rejecting it.”                                                                 Muslims were told to believe it in Sura 3:84 and 4:136!                                                                                When in doubt you were to refer to it according to your Quran in Sura 10:94.                            Ask yourself, why would Muhammad say the “Quran confirms the Gospel” in S 2:91 if the one he had was corrupted? Is there another Gospel floating around somewhere?  

Even by giving you the benefit of the doubt using your example below you still showed no corruption, just missing verses that were lost over time. Well, let’s deal with the 99.9 % of the Gospel we do have, shell we. The Gospel still shows Jesus to be the “Son of God”, did you find anything otherwise? No, of course not just some missing verses. Did the 12 Apostle’s all agree with Jesus’ birth, his life, ministry, death, resurrection and so on. Nothing, I repeat nothing you have yet to show says otherwise, just some missing verses, which counts for 1 % of the Gospel. So the point that you have made thus far is that some verses are missing and dates are 2 -6 years off, big deal! How do these missing verses and some secular scholars disagreeing on some of its dating contribute to a corrupt Gospel? It’s interesting to note, these same scholars that you yourself quoted didn’t say anything about the Apostles, Paul, Timothy, James and other Bible writers disagreeing with Jesus’ teachings. Why it is that Muslims disagree with the Gospel and the Quran does not according to its verse, you fail to show us that. As well as when did this alleged corruption exactly take place, that is the million dollar question that !!!!!!  

Originally posted by islamispeace

Here are some fun facts about Codex Vaticanus, which Shibbo is either not aware of or has completely ignored:

1.  It omits Matthew 16:2, Luke 22:43 and John 5:4 among others.
2.  The Gospel of Mark ends at 16:8.
3.  The Gospel of John does not contain the Pericope de Adultera.

…what about the whole 28 Chapters of Matthew to your measly one verse in Matthew 16:2, the whole 24 Chapters of Luke to your pathetic one verse, the whole 16 Chapters of Mark and the whole 21 Chapters of John? Even using your own argument (Codex Vaticanus aka 1209) there are overwhelming evidence that still support the authenticity of the Gospel, even by giving you the benefit of doubt. Although Vatican 1209 is NOT the only evidence I brought to the table, there were almost a dozen more.

Although over time these verses were lost or damaged because of the material that it was written on (600 yrs. later the Quran had that same problem) I bet you’re hoping somehow, someway that these few lost verses said something about a Muhammad? Well let me assure you, the fact that Muhammad and his Quran does not acknowledge Jesus as the “Son of God” and disagrees with the Gospels most fundamental teaching the crucifixion,  you have nothing to worry about, it says not one word of Ishmael, Mecca, Medina, Islam, Muhammad etc…….         

Regarding your answers to my questions:

Originally posted by Shibboleth

1) What historical and or archeological evidence do you have regarding the account of Muhammad in the cave and who eye witnessed it to confirm its authenticity?

Islam’s answer: No evidence. No eye-witnesses.

The Bibles answer: Galatians 1:8However, even if we or an angel out of heaven were to declare to YOU as good news something beyond what we declared to YOU as good news, let him be accursed.”

Not a Prophet of Jehovah (YHWH) the God of Israel.

The fact that Moses’ face emitted rays as Jehovah’s glory had just passed by according to Exodus 33:22 is solid proof for all to see. You showed no archeological proof of Muhammad’s so called miracles; even so, Pharaohs magicians turned their rods into snakes, big deal. Moses split the Red Sea and performed 9 more plagues, receives the 10 commandments in stone by God, made water come from a rock are all historical.  

Also, according to Bible law since the Torah up until now in the NT, in order for ANY matter to be firmly established it HAD to be confirmed out of the mouths of TWO or more witnesses. Jesus himself as well as Moses brother Aaron and Miriam confirmed Moses as a Prophet. Joshua succeeds him, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John confirmed it in the Gospel as well as the Apostle Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:7and others confirmed it, that has never changed and is still in effect as we speak.   

Most importantly, there are historical and archeological evidence to support Moses, Mary and Jesus miracles down to this day why else would your book speak of them but the Bible in no way, shape or form speaks of or support anyone name Muhammad. No wonder your answers are so vague.

What historical and archeological evidence is there to Support Muhammad’s miracles and prophecies?

If Muhammad is the last and final messenger he has to come better than that.

Originally posted by Shibboleth

2) Who can vouch for Muhammad’s revelations, miracles and prophecies besides   Muhammad?

I call this section “names without a faces.” For Muhammad to be greater than Jesus as Muslims love to fantasize about, who, what, and where are your references from, is it from Islam? Why am I not surprised. I gave you plenty of “secular” references outside the Bible of people who did not even follow Jesus, can you do the same with Muhammad? Give us something to work with sssson, and why are you so vague all of a sudden? What did they see and hear? Did they see and hear these things together or separately, just curious? Did it make history? Everyone knows that Jesus’ miracles and prophecies are world renowned with historical with archeological backings to support them as I gave you plenty. It is obvious that when you want to bash or attack me you have so much to say but when it come to truth you don’t have a leg to stand on.

 

Originally posted by Shibboleth

  3)
Okay – You can use the Quran or Bible in the next two questions so I can verify it myself. Show in the Quran where it says Ishmael was the one that Abraham was about to sacrificed?

Islam’s answer: Simply the Quran does not say. This would have lay down at least the foundation of your belief, instead it contradicts totally what Geneses and the Torah and the Psalms and the Gospel had to say about this incident.

The Bibles answer: Geneses 17:21 However, my covenant I shall establish with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.”

Another very important event like the revelation in the cave but no name is giving in the Quran so you only assume, once again hoping that this somehow, someway fits Muhammad and not Isaac.

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17330&PN=1

So far not “one” historical or archeological reference to support these claims!

              

Originally posted by Shibboleth

  4) Which
ONE of the historical twelve tribes of Ishmael made mention of  

               Mohammad or any Prophet in their family?

The Bible and the Quran mentions none. Now you see why I asked these questions again, this is where the one who has an ear listens. I asked for what tribe “mentioned” or prophesied about a Muhammad, and what does islamispeace do? Talks about the branches of these 12 tribes and cleverly tries to change the wording to who followed Muhammad, a totally different question from who prophesied about Muhammad. 

Ishmael married an Egyptian by whom he had 12 sons (Nebaioth, Kedar, Adbeel, Mibsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, Tema, Jetur, Naphish, Kedemah) none of these “historical 12 tribes” mentioned anything about Muhammad or any prophet, in fact according to the Psalms it says at Psalms 83:2, 5, 6  “And the very ones intensely hating you have raised [their] head”… Against you they proceeded to conclude even a covenant, 6 The tents of the … Ish′ma·el·ites, So, why in the world would Abrahams God, Jehovah use a nation that hated him and his nation the Nation of Israel? You are really grabbing at the wind now.

Originally posted by Shibboleth

  5)
Did Muhammad have the uncorrupted or corrupted version of the Torah, the Psalms and the Gospel revealed to him since they were already completed?

 Islamispeace million dollar answer was

Originally posted by islamispeace

Obviously, the allusion was to the original, uncorrupted versions”

Now, he sounds like a politician. He refuses to say outright either or but from his past post islamispeace gives the “allusion” that they were corrupted. This brings us right back to the beginning of this thread which is the Gospels canonicity and what support it received, be it scripturally using the Bible or the Quran and using secular history or archeological findings that have been excavated.

As I continue to ask, where is the uncorrupted version of the Bible that Muslims claim if the one we have is not it? As shown and proven by secular and biblical facts, it is the one you and I, the one we have all along. It has not been proving otherwise not even by scholars, scholars don’t even say we have a corrupted version of the Gospel or the NT, only Islam.

[quote=Shibboleth] 6) What historical and archeological evidence that was around during that time or later do you have to disprove the Gospel account?

 

Islam’s answer: They have no evidence, the problem they feel is with the dating and missing verses of the Gospel. So since the dating does not match up according to how Islam think it should, the Gospel must be corrupted, how ridicules. Also, Islam has no data outside Islam to prove the Gospel corruption, just assumptions and accusations based on their lack of knowledge and misinterpretations of the Holy Scriptures.

 

Far as the census in the Holy Land that you made mention of, that was mainly for the purposes of taxation and conscription of men for military service, what fact or point is lost or gained here? Going out on the edge are we Isse?

 

Anyhow, this was the second registration under Quirinius, for inscriptions discovered at and near Antioch revealed that some years earlier Quirinius had served as the emperor’s legate in Syria. (The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, by W. Ramsay, 1979, pp. 285, 291) Many scholars locate the time of Quirinius’ (Res gestae divi Augusti) first governorship as somewhere between the years 4 and 1 B.C.E., probably from 3 to 2 B.C.E. Their method of arriving at these dates, however, is not solid, and the actual period of this governorship remains indefinite. Again, I’ll stake my life on the Bibles chronology than man chronology anytime.

 

So historian and Bible writer Luke was correct when he said concerning the registration at the time of Jesus’ birth: “This first registration took place when Quirinius was governor of Syria,” distinguishing it from the second, which occurred later under the same Quirinius and to which Gamaliel makes reference as reported by Luke at Acts 5:37.

 

How’s that for answering your question!

 

Romans 3:4 let God be found true, though every man be found a liar, even as it is written: “That you might be proved righteous in your words and might win when you are being judged.

 

 

ليكن الله صادقا وكل إنسان كاذبا، حتى أنه مكتوب : "قد يثبت ان كنت الصالحين في كلماتكم وربما الفوز عندما يتم الحكم لك.

 

 



Edited by Shibboleth - 02 May 2011 at 3:45pm
“If you doubt what we have revealed to you, ask those who have read the Scriptures before you.” (Sura 10, Yunis [Jonah], verse 94) & (Surah Al ‘Imran: 84-85)
IP IP Logged
<< Prev Page  of 23 Next >>
Post Reply Post New Topic
Printable version Printable version

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot create polls in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.

Note: The 99 names of Allah avatars are courtesy of www.arthafez.com

Advertisement:



Sponsored by:
Islamicity Membership Program:
IslamiCity Donation Program  http://www.islamicity.com/Donate
IslamiCity Arabic eLearning http://www.islamiCity.com/ArabAcademy
Complete Domain & Hosting Solutions www.icDomain.com
Home for Muslim Tunes www.icTunes.com
Islamic Video Collections www.islamiTV.com
IslamiCity Marriage Site www.icMarriage.com