Islam Bible v Quran

[Limo]

If the Gospel was translated to Hebrew Aramaic it would have an Hebrew Aramaic name and so far I’ve not seen one of those translations made.

Do you think it's logical that the owner of the book "Gospel" didn't name it with the 2 languages he has practiced Hebrew and Aramaic?
Is it logical that the Gospel has no copies with owner's 2 languages ?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Exactly, to agree with Quran, to makes these "Good news" books looks like the inspired books Torah, Injeel, and Quran
They should've done like any other language and call it "Good news" البشارة

What is your point? Gospel in English means good news. Injeel means good news. Quranic translators translate Injeel as Gospel. Are they mostly wrong and you alone right? How does this address my central concern? What is the point of this line of argumentation?

After more readings, Nicaea didn't issue a canonical list but start it
If we drop Jerom's words who is born 23 years after Nicaea, then no other scholars word's are creditable,

I didn't drop Jerome's word I merely offered an alternative understanding of what he was talking about. Is he the only witness for this supposed discussion?

Quran's words are are facts for Muslems to believe in.

Unless we've some evidences outside Quran, There is nothing to discuss.

There are evidences that agrees with Quran:

• Textual criticism : possibilities of Q, R, S, T, and Proto book
• Historical evidences by Non-Muslim scholars that the scriptures have been changed
• Disputes between Churches on Books, Chapters, Pages, Statements, and translations means they some of the New Testimony are not genuine and people have played with

Right ?

None of this agrees with the Quran. Your Quran states there was a Gospel that Christians during the time the Quran was written should read and judge thereby. Historically we know exactly what Christians believed and used as their gospels by the time of the Quran's writing.

When the Quran tells the people of the Gospel to judge therein, it is asking Christians to judge by their Gospel. The problem comes when the Quran presents the Gospel as if it was a book given to Jesus who in turn gave it to someone else. The problem also exists if you insist on the Gospel Christians have being corrupted that the Quran tells Christians to judge by a text that cannot be trusted. It's almost as if the author of the Quran didn't know what he was writing about.

So how do you address this? I maintained from the outset this is a problem Muslims cannot address because the history simply doesn't back up Islamic claims and any attempt results in the sort of conversation we're having now. I don't think you yourself understand the problem I have with the Quran here. Who is the Quran talking to in 5:46-47?

 

[Limo]

Thank you my friend never heard it so plainly

My question would be then do you believe OT is true or do you believe it has been corrupted

My opinion on OT and NT are built on 2 concepts:

• From Islamic point of view:
  • If there is no concrete contradiction with Islam. We don't say it's false or wrong or corrupted. Example:
    • Any thing wrong about Allah or prophets, we say for sure this is not Allah's words like Trinity, Crucifixion, shame story about prophet like committed adult
    • Anything is just for info. Something historical like name of Mosa's mother. Historical stories are fine to study even
  • The other point of view is the science and history. We don't have sources about history of Christians and Jewish people & cults and history of books & manuscripts other than Christian (specifically western) studies

From this perspective, I see the OT testimony is more protected and genuine although there are some rejected stories like as far as I remember, examples :

• Allah rested on seventh day: Allah never get tired
• Shame stories about prophets like they committed adult or stolen or lie
• The sacrifice was Yaqoob not Ismail

NT I presume you say has been charged to this I ask if the NT isn't the Word of God thus can be changed why then did the false church not change it? I ask this because the NT blatenly says the things the false church teaches is not true the false church is the ones who rounded up all copies of the Bible they could then they hid them so only their eyes could read it and they used to teach and still do that people should trust them and not read the Bible.

The problem is in the definition of word of god.
Word of Allah : is the word that Allah said himself. He either speaks directly to the messenger like Mosa or via Gebril like Ibrahim, Dawoo, Al-Maseeh, Mohamed and rest of messengers.
If you read the Torah you find that all are God says

But If you read Gospels you find a few of God says (when Jesus says your father says ...), a few of Jesus sayings then the rest are either stories/history of Jesus life like (he went, he sit, he ate,,,) or apostles/disciples/saints saying.
For the discussion seek, If we presume that all in Gospels about God sayings (Your father says...) are well narrated from Jesus and recorded honesty and accurately and nobody touched it, It's still very few. In my opinion, It's less than 5%

 

[mindlight]

Read Sarah Ali Imran 3:47 3:44 3:49 3:73

Then read 3:83 and right after that read John 4:7-26

John 1:1-5
John 1:6-14
John 1:29-34
John 1:41
John 3:3
John 3:14-15
John 3:18
John 5:6-9

Etc etc its best to just read the whole NT and take notes

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the Quran echoes Christian stories , distorting their meaning somewhat. That the Quran affirms the Injil (The Gospel stories) but apparently misquotes them. That there is good reason in the Quran to believe that Muslims were familiar with the gospels as they stand and indeed affirmed them. That people of the book might even be saved to heaven at the end of time?

 

[mindlight]

It's not possible in Al-Maseeh time when the temple was there and used for prayer.
For sure they were using Hebrew holy-books praying. I don't know anything in your Gospels saying that your Jesus spoke Latin or any other language, Please share
The issues is these books have been written after tens of years of Al-Maseeh's era. It's story books not holy....

Not true
John has been debated by scholars since at least the 2nd century AD.
Authorship of the Johannine works - Wikipedia

The people of Jesus time mainly spoke Aramaic. The language of the temple and religion was Hebrew. But the written language of the day and the language of trade and commerce in the region was Greek. Peters brother Andrew had a Greek name as did the apostle Philip and they were just fishermen so the Greek influence is quite clear. As I said before the main source of quotes for the NT was Septuagint (a Greek translation of the OT dating to between 2-400BC). Masoretic (Hebrew Text) fragments are far less common although complemented by the Dead Sea Scrolls find. Even exclusive religious cults like the Essenes (DSS) had Greek texts in their collection. Though they mainly spoke Hebrew. The common man spoke Aramaic and wrote and traded in Greek. Josephus and Philo who were contemporaries of the Gospel writers both wrote in Greek and Josephus noted the widespread use of Greek in his works.

The destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans did two major things.
1) It may have resulted in the destruction of Aramaic or Hebrew texts relevant to the early church in Jerusalem.
2) It reduced the primacy of Jerusalem in the church.

St Paul spoke Greek and Latin and understood the Hebrew (as he studied under Gamaliel a Pharisee) and was probably also conversant in Syriac Aramaic. We know this from his various encounters in the book of Acts with Roman officials and around the empire. He wrote his letters in Greek cause they were mainly addressed to Greek speaking churches. Interestingly he even wrote Romans in Greek. This was the main scholarly language of the empire. The Greek is sometimes criticised as being a sort of low Greek , common Greek rather than the richer forms used by many scholars. But this and the fact of writing in Greek was because the apostles wanted to reach as many people as possible. The Gospels had an evangelistic purpose.

There may have been Aramaic or even Hebrew versions of the scriptures somewhere. But they would not have been preserved with the same zeal as a Greek text cause they were not as useful. The destruction of Jerusalem probably resulted in the destruction of these and the Romanisation / Hellenisation that followed the destruction of the temple would also have helped to purge out remaining copies. Also any preserved copies of these would have been made into Greek for the same evangelistic reasons of reaching as many people as possible.

 

[mindlight]

You can talk about English, Hebrew, Latin,,,, That new testimony means "Good news" but not Arabic.
Tell my why your Arabic early Church fathers have chosen to use the Arabic name "Injeel" إنجيل in naming of New Testimony books ?
Why they didn't use the English, Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Even Coptic word of Gospel ?
They abandon all of these and chose the Quranic name of Al-Maseeh's book.
Another 10,000 USD for answering this question.


I advocate nothing. Bye the way all my readings and references are Western Christians. You know how these thoughts are totally opposing each other.
If you see whoever advocates the idea of Nicaea discussed/decreed a version canonical books then Jerome is one of the foolish
In Jerome's Prologue to Judith,he claims that the Book of Judith was "found by the Nicene Council to have been counted among the number of the Sacred Scriptures", which some have suggested means the Nicene Council did discuss what documents would number among the sacred scriptures, but more likely simply means the Council used Judith in its deliberations on other matters and so it should be considered canonical.

This is from Jerome,


I know that many of scholars are tuned to atheists after hard study. The bottom line is that they're not Muslims. They were grown up in west from Christian fathers. Right ?

It's clear there were a complete book revealed to prophet Al-Maseeh from Allah.
This book was subject to changes, cut from it, add to it till it became hundreds of books. These 4 are just 4 books out of 300 (as some scholars say).
I'm not saying also that all in these 4 books or even the 27 books are false and wrong but it contains a small potion of the original book.

A major difference between how Uthman handled different texts and how Nicea did is that these texts exist to this day in the Christian case. Uthman simply destroyed contradictory evidence. So we have the possibility to test the conclusions of Nicea for ourselves. The fact is the 66 books of the Protestant canon are affirmed in all the churches and were clearly embedded in the churches which chose them then also. Additional books are in circulation outside of the Roman area of influence to about 80 in the case of the Ethiopian canon. But this canon also includes the 66 books of the Protestant canon which were also accepted by churches based on the Peshitta. All of these books are available for scrutiny.The major creeds of the Christian churches of Nicea and Chalcedon are based on the scriptures about which there is no controversy.

The real argument here concerns the evidence trail. We are told by Muslims to blindly accept Uthman's decision as to which was the authentic text. But we know that there were alternative versions (from the find at Sana and indeed from Uthman's decision). But we cannot test these alternatives for ourselves cause most of them have been destroyed. Even the chaos of Haddiths are not really helpful here containing apparently contradictory information to the Quran in many cases. Also the selection process of Haddiths has resulted in a great many that might have revealed alternate suras and conclusions being excluded or destroyed.

 

[mindlight]

The term "True Christians" means people who believed in Al-Maseeh the true prophet and person who is human born from a virgin who is neither god nor son of god.
He spoken while he was one day old.
Also Allah never called "O Christians" Allah called you and Jews "People of the book"

Also, Islamic believe is simple.It's one religion Jewish, True Christianity, Muslims.
They're just following a different prophet.
The role is simple, once a new prophet comes. previous prophet followers should beleive him.

It means once Al-Masseh was there, all Jews should have believed Al-Maseeh.
Once Mohamed is there, true Christians should have follow him.

It's one Creator who has send several messengers but one message, there is no god but Allah.

So you guys regard Arians as true Christians people like Mormons or Jehovah Witnesses? People who claim that Jesus is a created being not the Son of God.

 

[mindlight]

No they haven't. You've said they have. Find me even one disinterested (i.e., scientific) Biblical scholar or epigrapher or whatever who states, unambiguously, that such a thing as is assumed by the Islamic belief in an Islamic gospel given to Jesus ever actually existed.

You will not be able to find one. Such people don't exist because Q and other earlier hypothesized sources are certainly not such a gospel, and neither do they exist.

Good point there is empirical evidence for the existence of the Gospels (Injil) as every person remotely familiar with the Christian church would have understood in the days of Mohammed and back to the First Century. But there is no evidence an alternate text existed. Also there is no agreement on what such an alternate lost Gospel (Injil) would say or even look like. Its a fabrication designed to get out of the fact that the Quran quotes or alludes to the bible repeatedly, affirms it in several places but clearly contradicts it in others. They have to say the bible is corrupted because otherwise the Quran is a clear lie full of misquotes and misunderstanding of the earlier Christian texts.

 

[dzheremi]

I remember how Muslim apologists used to say that late Islamic forgeries like the Gospel of Barnabas were evidence of this "original gospel" given to the Islamic Jesus/'Isa. They don't say that as often anymore. Hmmm...

 

[Gregory95]

Not sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the Quran echoes Christian stories , distorting their meaning somewhat. That the Quran affirms the Injil (The Gospel stories) but apparently misquotes them. That there is good reason in the Quran to believe that Muslims were familiar with the gospels as they stand and indeed affirmed them. That people of the book might even be saved to heaven at the end of time?

My point is this the foundation of their entire religion is the Quran

The Quran says the the Gospel is true (we all can get wraped up in the silliness but we ALL know what its saying it blaten to all who have not had a human standing over them telling them what it means to them)

The Quran says we the followers of the book are to look at the followers of Mohammed and tell them if they error

Since the Quran says Gospel is true ( some say its story and not Word of God IF those people would READ the Gospel they would SEE it literally says THE WORD WAS MADE FLESH )

Now those people if they TRULY seek the ONE and ONLY TRUE God of Abraham the creator of EVERYTHING

They would turn to the Gospel and they would see the TRUTH

 

[Gregory95]

But sadly most people on earth seek not God

 

[Gregory95]

If one truly seeks God he will find Him

Seek and you shall find
Knock and it shall be opened for you

Followers of Mohammed say Gospel is not Word of God

Those who read Gospel know the Word of God IS Christ!

 

[Barney2.0]

I remember how Muslim apologists used to say that late Islamic forgeries like the Gospel of Barnabas were evidence of this "original gospel" given to the Islamic Jesus/'Isa. They don't say that as often anymore. Hmmm...

Probably because it’s been debunked so many times that I can’t count anymore, if they like to portray the garbage Gospel of Barnabas as the original Gospel of Christ then the True Furqan must be the original Quran.

 

[football5680]

Probably because it’s been debunked so many times that I can’t count anymore, if they like to portray the garbage Gospel of Barnabas as the original Gospel of Christ then the True Furqan must be the original Quran.

Yeah, I find it hilarious when they bring that up because it shows that they haven't done any research at all and it doesn't even prove the point that they are trying to make. If the Gospel of Barnabas is true then Islam is false as well because for some reason Muhammad didn't know that he was actually the Messiah. But their desperation and willingness to accept the weakest possible evidence is understandable when you realize that they cannot really leave Islam without putting their life at risk.