Where is the Evidence?

Quote honeto

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 11 February 2014 at 6:32pm

neil wrote:

For years and years, I have heard claims from Islam that the Bible is corrupted.

NOT ONCE have I seen one shred of evidence to persuade me of this claim.

Who can dispel my view that corruption claims are merely Islam's way of trying to prove, conveniently for themselves, that the Quran harmonizes with the Bible when it obviously doesn't.

Peace,
this subject has been studied in depth several times over, you can do a subject search and find a lot of debate about it.
For me it is simple:
On the three most important aspects, God, Jesus, and Salvation, the Bible is inconsistent. And if you know your Bible you know exactly what I mean.
Christians like you say, God is a trinity. Father, son and the holy ghost. Surprisingly, this concept is inconsistent with the belief taught by all the previous prophets in the old Testament.
Jesus (peace be upon him)is believed to be God in a trinity by most Christians. The Bible on the other hand shows that Jesus prayed, cried and called for help to God. Only God does not pray to, call or cry for help.
Christians say Jesus died for their sins, and some part of the Bible that Jesus paid for the salvation of not just his followers but for all the world. That contradict the same Bible who quotes Jesus himself saying that every idle word that a man speaks he will give an account of it on the judgement day. Also he is quoted to say that if your hand commits a sin cut it off so your whole body would not be thrown in to the hell fire.
This is just a superficial but very important evidence of the current state of the Bible. And it is still going through changes.
I assume you are advance in your study of the scripture to know exact quotes I am talking about, otherwise let me know and I will go over each.
Hasan

The friends of God will certainly have nothing to fear, nor will they be grieved. Al Quran 10:62

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-christian-about-biblical.html

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 11 February 2014 at 7:55pm

1914 wrote:

For instance, you insist that Ishmael was not a teenager when indeed he was although not strong as one and needed to be carried. In fact, they both gave out according to the account.

But, the Hebrew word ye′ledh here rendered �child� also means �young man� and is so translated at Genesis 4:23 . It was said of the youth Joseph (17 at the time) that he was sold into slavery over Reuben�s protest, �Do not sin against the child [bai�ye′ledh].� Lamech likewise spoke of �a young man [ye′ledh]� as having wounded him at Genesis 42:22

So, Isaac was indeed born and was the primary attention of Abraham�s sacrifice that Muslims vehemently tries to deny, not Hagar. He was the �only son� of Sarah as was promised her when Hagar was dismissed. Genesis 17:16, 19, 21 I will bless her and also give you a son by her; I will bless her and she will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.� 19 To this God said: �Your wife Sarah will definitely bear you a son, and you must name him Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant to his offspring after him. 21 However, I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.�

I have posted a response to your claims on my blog:

Your attempted refutation of my original article suffers from serious flaws which I address in my response.

I am also working on a response to your claims about the Biblical canon and its alleged preservation.

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)

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 12 February 2014 at 8:47pm

1914 wrote:

Another problem with the Muslims faith as per this blog is that they feel that the church counsel of the Roman Catholic (1^st mistake ) or historians like Josephus and others (2^nd mistake) validate the integrity or canonicity of the inspired word of God, they do not. By the direction of God�s Holy Spirit the traditional Jews, Jesus and the first century Judo-Christians had already accepted them. Also, did the church counsel preserve the �Dead Sea Scrolls?� No. The complete canon of the Hebrew scriptures preceded the Christian church and the church was established on them. (How the church used them is a different story) The eight Jewish writers of the remaining books of the complete Holy Scriptures always referred to and quoted from those Hebrew Scriptures, never from the apocryphal books added to the Greek Septuagint. In short, the deciding of what was the canon or authoritative catalogue of the genuine inspired Hebrew Scriptures was not left to the Christian church as your blog suggests. The Great Synagogue of Jerusalem fixed this canon in the days of Jewish Governor Nehemiah in the fifth century B.C. or shortly afterward. Read it for yourselves here at Nehemiah 10:1-28

The preservation of the Holy Bible is to be credited to no religious organization of the church of Rome. It was accepted by Christ Jesus and the early, early Christian congregation. Luke 24:44 He then said to them: �These are my words that I spoke to you while I was yet with you that all the things written about me in the Law of Moses and in the Prophets and Psalms must be fulfilled.�

As far as evidence of the Bible�s corruption, your blog presented none. The books that do not appear in the canon obviously were not produced under inspiration so who said they were ever lost? They were just historical writings available back in the period when the prophet Jeremiah and Ezra wrote the accounts that we have in the Bible. One Bible encyclopedia suggests that the contents of those books may have been �the familiar oral repertoire of professional singers in ancient Israel who preserved Israel�s epic and lyric traditions.� Unfortunately you assume just because certain books were mentioned in the Bible as usable sources that they too were inspired. They were not, they were historical writings/sources that people back then were very much aware of. So to compare the preservation of the Bible/biblia which consists of 66 little books, written over a time period of 1,600 years and starching back nearly 6,000 years to the Koran written less than 1,400 years ago and written over a time period of 23 years and about one fourth as large as the Bible, there is no comparison, at ALL. The Dead Sea Scroll and other sources can attest to that.

Also, before the end of the second century, there is universal acceptance of the four Gospels, Acts, and 12 of the apostle Paul�s letters. Only a few of the smaller writings were doubted in certain areas because such writings were limited in their initial circulation and took longer to become accepted as canonical. It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept.

Therefore, your thesis on the Tanakh and New Testament are totally inaccurate and needs to be recanted or retracted. And your archives and posts from what I�ve seen are seriously flowed with conjectural statements and allegations.

Here is my response to your claims about the Tanakh and New Testament:

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-christian-on-history-of.html

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)

1914

Groupie

Male
Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50

Post Options

Quote 1914

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 15 February 2014 at 10:26pm

1914 wrote:

"...you insist that Ishmael was not a teenager when indeed he was although not strong as one and needed to be carried. In fact, they both gave out according to the account."

islamispeace wrote:

Our esteemed Christian detractor is resorting to the same tactics by making hollow assertions with no supporting evidence.

What tactics? What is there to figure out, they were in the wilderness of Be′er-she′ba, lost their way, ran out of water and fell out from exhaustion. Hellooo! Let us be reasonable, okay.

1914 wrote:

"But, the Hebrew word ye′ledh here rendered �child� also means �young man� and is so translated at Genesis 4:23."

Emphases on the word ye�ledh.

islamispeace wrote:

the word referred to a very young child, or even an infant,

Is that so? It is clear you must not understand/read Hebrew.

#3206.
יֶלֶד
yeled (409b); from 3205; child, son, boy, youth:�
NASB - boy(7), boys(3), child(32), child's(2), children(27), lad(2), lads(1), young(3), young men(6), youths(5).

So, indeed the Hebrew word ye′ledh can be used for child, young man or even youth as I said http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3206.html"> solid proof right here.

Again, verses that were interpreted wrongly by Muslims and then blame the Bible as being corrupt/tampered. The child indeed is Isaac, the one of choice!

1914 wrote:

Genesis 17:16, 19, 21 I will bless her and also give you a son by her; I will bless her and she will become nations; kings of peoples will come from her.� 19 To this God said: �Your wife Sarah will definitely bear you a son, and you must name him Isaac. And I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant to his offspring after him. 21 However, I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah will bear to you at this appointed time next year.�

Edited by 1914 - 15 February 2014 at 10:59pm

iec786

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 February 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 508

Post Options

Quote iec786

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 17 February 2014 at 12:34pm

My friend for years i have been posting and not one Christian has been able to refute that the Bible is not the word of God and that it has been corrupted beyond repair.I stand by that statement.If you are ready to start a dialog show yourself up.I notice you put up a topic and then hide behind your keyboard.Come forward my boy let us talk man don't hide.

1914

Groupie

Male
Joined: 06 July 2013
Status: Offline
Points: 50

Post Options

Quote 1914

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 17 February 2014 at 5:39pm

Other verses that are constantly misapplied by Muslims and then blame the Bible as being corrupted or tampered with.

islamispeace wrote:

Here we see that our Christian friend did not explain anything but instead again resorted to unsupported assertions

Well, let see if yet another accusation is true on a Muslims part.

1914 wrote:

He was the �only son� of Sarah as was promised her when Hagar was dismissed. Genesis 17:16, 19, 21

Supported Chapter and verse identified and explain but you also need to do your reading and gather the whole text not part of a text. In Genesis 18:10 it explains. Look! Sarah your wife will have a son.� Now Sarah was listening at the tent entrance, and it was behind the man.

#1 Sarah, not Hagar was Abraham�s wife. #2 The promise was made to them as a married couple. #3 Isaac was the �only� son of Abraham with Sarah. #4 The covenant which islamispeace does not deny was �only� with Isaac, not Ishmael. #5 It was after Hagar and Ishmael was dismissed from Abraham�s household the promise and or covenant was made, who at that time the �only� son of Abraham and Sarah was Isaac.

islamispeace wrote:

The question was why it referred to Isaac as Abraham�s �only� son when Ishmael was also his son. The Christian did not answer this question.

The scriptures never said Ishmael was Abraham�s only son either, it�s when and who the promise was made to and when he said it. I gave you five logical scenarios in understanding the explanation of �only� son, why not accept it? Unless, you�re trying to manipulate and change the meaning of the scriptures to support your Quran. Which is what Muslims like Deedat and others have been doing for centuries as I�ve said.

islamispeace wrote:

We pointed out in the article that God clearly referred to Ishmael as Abraham�s son (or offspring) in Genesis 21:13, so why would He then refer to Isaac as the �only� son later on? It is a contradiction, plain and simple.

Look at the scripture and when the statement was made, Genesis 22:2 �Take, please, your son, your only son whom you so love, Isaac� Ishmael and Hagar was no longer part of the family and had left never to return. That is a major reason why it would not have been Ishmael that was to be sacrificed as Muslims suggests, Ishmael was no longer around. In fact, when Ishmael perished, he was not even buried along with Abraham and his family. Here, from this point on he is rightly called �only son�

This should direct the reader�s attention to point #5. Another failed castration attempt on God�s Holy Word, the Bible. But it does shows the contradictions of the Quran when compared with the Bible. Muslims cannot even prove to themselves that Ishmael was the child of sacrifice, why? Because it is not even written in the Quran!!! Why isn't it in your Koran? Clearly, Muhammad was aware. The Quran however, does point to Isaac. I would be happy to show you if you�re truly interested.

So, I gave you not one, not two points but FIVE points why �only son� was appropriately used in regards to Isaac. And that Muhammad himself had no problem with it. Will islamispeace false and inaccurate post be removed from his site? Time will tell but truth will prevail.

1914'

Edited by 1914 - 17 February 2014 at 5:48pm

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options

Thanks(0)

Quote

Posted: 17 February 2014 at 6:46pm

1914 wrote:

1914 wrote:

"...you insist that Ishmael was not a teenager when indeed he was although not strong as one and needed to be carried. In fact, they both gave out according to the account."

islamispeace wrote:

Our esteemed Christian detractor is resorting to the same tactics by making hollow assertions with no supporting evidence.

What tactics? What is there to figure out, they were in the wilderness of Be′er-she′ba, lost their way, ran out of water and fell out from exhaustion. Hellooo! Let us be reasonable, okay.

1914 wrote:

"But, the Hebrew word ye′ledh here rendered �child� also means �young man� and is so translated at Genesis 4:23."

Emphases on the word ye�ledh.

islamispeace wrote:

the word referred to a very young child, or even an infant,

Is that so? It is clear you must not understand/read Hebrew.

#3206.
יֶלֶד
yeled (409b); from 3205; child, son, boy, youth:�
NASB - boy(7), boys(3), child(32), child's(2), children(27), lad(2), lads(1), young(3), young men(6), youths(5).

So, indeed the Hebrew word ye′ledh can be used for child, young man or even youth as I said http://lexiconcordance.com/hebrew/3206.html"> solid proof right here.

Again, verses that were interpreted wrongly by Muslims and then blame the Bible as being corrupt/tampered. The child indeed is Isaac, the one of choice!

1914 wrote:

Here is my response:

http://quranandbible.blogspot.com/2014/02/response-to-christian-about-biblical_17.html

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)

islamispeace View Drop Down

Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 01 November 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 2187

Post Options