originally posted by JJWhite
I was just thinking that I should have said something about Supreme's use of the word 'corrupt'. I don't think I used the word myself.
You probably didn't; but I do see that Supreme brought it up because this is a highly established view of most Muslims. It is used to discredit the parts of the Bible that don't agree with the Qu'ran. In that way, Muslims never have to feel threatened by Biblical passages or have to think of the implications of those passages.
Good!
I know... there are different opinions among Muslim scholars regarding whether the text of the Torah is in tact or not.
Yes, but none of them can indict all of Christendom or Jewry. If anything, those groups Mohammad encountered were fringe groups. I say that because the heretical groups of both Jews and Christians were either pushed out of the mainlands or they decided to relocate to avoid being confronted for their heretical beliefs. Orthodoxy of both groups remained closer to their roots Jerusalem and spread outwardly to the east and north mainly--not the south.
Please reread what I wrote to Supreme.
First, I never mentioned anything about the Torah.
Second, I was just saying why I THINK SOME Muslims do that. Next time, maybe I should let everyone speak for himself.
I think that he was asking the question and included the Torah as evidence of no corruption.
peaceful soul said:
Now, that is what is called cherry picking. By this standard, all other non Qu'ranic texts are from God since each text can claim to be from God and have some common agreements with other scriptures. That doesn't make the Qur'ran true because of some points of agreement. All this does is indicates that the Bible and Qu'ran agree in principle on certain points.
The Torah and Injeel are mentioned by name though.
I don't understand how this answers the statement I made.
I hate dishonesty. I mentioned what appears to me to be the correct understanding at this time. It's not about parts... what I meant is that the Qur'an is a further testimony to that Judaism and Christianity originated from God.
You seem to be a very honorable person. I didn't mean to suggest that you were being dishonest, but that it was one of the possibilities, thus I stated it as one. At least now I know.
If the parentheses represent the thought at that time, then what about at other times? I am inclined to believe that the understanding of the earlier scholars and commentators of Mohammad's life and the Qu'ran had the better understanding of what he meant; therefore, I am inclined to ignore others, especially modern explanations.
As far as I know, Muslims didn't have a need to claim Biblical corruption until the Bible became widely distributed in Arabia in Arabic. That is when the average Muslim could see contradictions between the two books and start to make such allegations. Confirming parts of the Bible with the Qu'ran is a logical mistake to start with for the reasons I have already given. Confirmation has to be taken in entirety; else, we have no confirmation, rather a contradiction if both do not agree completely. At that point, we must seek to confirm both or perhaps reject both if no method can be found that can authenticate one of them. Most likely the primary source would be the correct one since it is the first account of Jesus known. It is unlikely that those who were contemporary with Jesus would invent a lie that could be unchallenged and yet remain central to Christianity. You will be challenged to find any credible historian, whether secular or religious, who will deny the death and resurrection of Christ, which is of course, at odds with the Qu'ran. That one point is sufficient to deny that the Qu'ran can confirm the Bible. Even if Muslims think that the Bible is corrupted, they still have to deal with certain things within the Bible that would contradict the Qu'ran historically. Remember, confirmation means having identical messages as a minimum requirement. One text could have more information than the other, but cannot contradict on the common points and cannot contradict with regards to other text having extra information. In other words, the additional information would have to not contradict the other text.
I look at it as a matter of what was preserved better.
That doesn't get around the issue I raised. Being better preserved does not necessarily equate to truthfulness, integrity, or any other standard you want to use. Confirmation means agreement. Anything less than 100% agreement is not a confirmation.
I need details to better envision what you are saying.
OK. In literary criticism, it is generally accepted that an earlier source, especially separated by a large amount of time, is more likely to be a more reliable representation of the subject than a latter text. Before the test for confirmation is made, both text are considered true for the sake of comparison. It there is any discrepancy, more credibility is given to the former text due to its earlier dating which is normally closer to the contemporaries, which implies that its content is more likely to reflect the actual events. The more time that passes between events, the greater the likelihood that information becomes compromised, unless well preserved. In that regard, the Bible, especially the NT, has been documented as being well preserved through the technique of higher criticism.
This is the way I've always understood it. If a prophet is sent to a people then that is his focus group.
You believe that Jesus was only sent to the Jews; so, that means that if he is not prohibited to teach others outside of Jerusalem, for example, He is not specifically sent to the Jews. Does that make sense? As you say, He may have been sent to focus on the Jews, but He wouldn't be only confined to the Jews, which makes my point. Would there be anything preventing Him from going to the Jews and then going out to the rest of the world at a later time?
KJV:
Mat 28:15 So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.
Mat 28:16 Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them.
Mat 28:17 And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Mat 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
Now, this passage is straight forward and shows that Jesus told His Disciples to teach His message to all of the world; but, Muslims will call this part corrupt because it denies an Islamic claim. This is part of the logical fallacy that I mentioned before.
What kind of prophet would refuse showing ANYONE he met the way to God though???
And, it's not only about people, but time, too.
I would have to agree with you, but you miss the point that Jesus was not excluded from preaching anywhere else after He was finished with His ministry to the Jews specifically. Even if you say that Jesus was sent only to the Jews, He gave authority to preach His message world wide. Either way, His message was for everyone--not just for Jews.
That's reasonable.... except I don't know what Oracle means.
I am glad that you agree.
An oracle is a sign that usually points to a deity for the purposes of revelation. That is my definition, but you can use a dictionary to get another definition. In this case, the sign was initiated through Abraham and ended with Jesus via the tribe of Judah (Jews). He made a covenant with Abraham that would reveal His oracle via Isaac and the line of Jacob and his 12 sons whose descendants are known as the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The oracle was later narrowed to Judah, meaning law giver. This is where Jesus comes from--the Law. That is why I mentioned about there being a means by which we can help to determine that certain things cannot be true. On example would be a law coming from Arabia (Sharia via Islam) and a prophet named Mohammad. Through this oracle, God revealed to us Jesus, our Savior.
I need to look more into that.
OK.
KJV:
Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
Notice that God's begotten son (Jesus) was sent to save the world. If He were just for Jews, then the statement wouldn't say 'world'.
Yup.
I know I am not infallible in my beliefs or statements. I learn new things every day, and I change my mind on a few things once in a while too.
All of us have that problem. Welcome to the club.
I am not trying to undermine what you say, but I see too many Muslims use this statement to avoid certain issues. There are too many things that we don't understand and have no other option but to say 'God knows best". I just don't like for that statement to be used to hide from either answering a problematic concern or to take liberty with the text by trying to make the text say something that it may not warrant. Either way, the person is freed from having to concede that they can't answer or that the other person has a legitimate point.
I'm bad with pre-Islamic history. I hope to learn more on this site.
Everyone of us should try to learn; otherwise we will remain in our ignorance.
