Jesus In Islam

[reepicheep]

Anyabwile wrote:


> You clearly agree the Bible is corrupt in your


> detailed response to me.


No, I don't agree.


If you wish to continue this discussion, then please provide me with an example of a passage from the bible which you know is corrupted.

[Anyabwile]

No, I don't agree.

No no no, hold on a minute, you <b>do</b> agree, this is simple and plain fact. Because it's seen you agree that the bible is a <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct</i> in your response to me, one section of which i plucked out and highlighted. So you do agree. The only disagreement we have in this respect is if 1) you have a different definition of the word Corrupt than i (And the marriam webster dictionary) Or 2) you wish to change what you originally said in your response to me. Which is fine, we all change our minds. But if we're discounting those two factors, you have agreed with me that the bible is a <i>departure from the original or from what is pure or correct</i> in your previous response. This is plain and simple for <b>everyone </b>who reads this topic to see. Perhaps you should have thought a bit more about what you was writing in your response to me fine, but going by your response, you do agree the bible is corrupt. We've established i'm not talking about translations, although holding on to this one would be your escape route out of this, so i wouldn't be suprised if we go back to it, but you do agree with me if i'm to go by your previous response. The only reason you'd want to end this discussion is because you've ended up agreeing with my in your response. But i don't mind carrying on with this...we'll get there in the end.

[reepicheep]

Anyabwile wrote:


> you agree that the bible is a departure from the original


> or from what is pure or correct


No, I agree that some of the early manuscripts are a departure from the original. Totally different idea from what you wrote.


Let me repeat my earlier request. Please provide me with a sample passage from the bible which you know is corrupted. If you are unable to provide me with such a passage, then I'll be forced to conclude that you don't know of any places where the bible is corrupted.

[Anyabwile]

Anyabwile wrote:
> you agree that the bible is a departure from the original


> or from what is pure or correct


No, I agree that some of the early manuscripts are a departure from the original. 

Wow thank you, thank you....this is great...


I say....

you agree that the bible is a departure from the original

You say...

No, I agree that some of the early manuscripts <b>are a departure from the original.  </b>

So you're confirming again, that the parts of the bible written by hand (All of it) i.e <b>Manuscripts </b> are a <i>departure from the original</i>. The defenition of this is.....


C..O....R....R....U....P....T


Until we can get past this and establish together exactly what corruption means than <b>any corrupted verses i present to you, will not be accepted as being corrupted </b>obviously. I'm happy to discuss this corrupted verses etc, but you'll agree theres no point in me bringing a corrupted verse to you, if we have different definitions of the word corrupted. Let's handle this situation first...stop trying to escape your error. We all make errors what's the problem?


But don't forget until we move on by you either 1) wanting to change your current responses to me (which is fine) 2) Admitting you have a different defintion of corrupt to me and the Merriam Webster dictionary of English Language. Then you are agreeing with me, that the Bible is corrupt.


My suggestion would be go away and have a think about what your responding with before you post. This topic and page and me will all still be here a bit later or tommorow Insha Allah. Honestly, just think before you respond next time, give your self a second to think about what you're typing. Because it looks like i'm tricking you into looking stupid, which is not what i am trying to do. Just trying to move on from this little snag we're caught at so we can continue.

[reepicheep]

Anyabwile wrote:


> So you're confirming again, that the parts of the bible


> written by hand (All of it) i.e Manuscripts are a


> departure from the original.


No, I'm confirming that if two early hand written manuscripts of a book of the bible differ, then obviously one of them is a departure from the original.

[ronniv93]

Are the other Arabic manuscripts of the Quran that differ in terms of the wording a "departure" from the "original" Quran?


As a matter of fact, what IS the "original"? Since Muslims claim that the Quran was revealed in 7 different ways or versions, which one is considered to be THE original? (And actually, people who really study these ancient manuscripts count up to 10 or 14 different "variants" as they call it).


So, then using the same reasoning that is applied to the Bible, does it then follow that only 1 of these can be the "original"? If so, does that mean Islam and the Quran are therefore corrupt and must be replaced by a new religion or revelation?


Just questions....


Oftentimes I feel that the demands Muslims place upon Christians and the Bible cannot be met by even the Quran, so then why have a double-standard?

[Anyabwile]

Are the other Arabic manuscripts of the Quran that differ in terms of the wording a "departure" from the "original" Quran?
As a matter of fact, what IS the "original"?  Since Muslims claim that the Quran was revealed in 7 different ways or versions, which one is considered to be THE original?  (And actually, people who really study these ancient manuscripts count up to 10 or 14 different "variants" as they call it).

I am not aware of Arabic Manusripts of the Qur'an that differ in terms of wording, the arabic of the Qur'an as the Prophet (Peace be upon him) revealed it that is. There has only been one Arabic original of the Qur'an. The original that came from the Prophets (Peace be upon hims) lips, the one which was given to him through Jibreal from God. The one Muslims have memorised and have available to read today (haven't we recently just gone through this?)

Since Muslims claim that the Quran was revealed in 7 different ways or versions

I don't claim this, have never heard of it either..ever. So can you provide me with some links from <b>Muslim</b> sources so i can look into these 7 different versions of the Qur'an? If this is something newly discovered that is.

(And actually, people who really study these ancient manuscripts count up to 10 or 14 different "variants" as they call it).

"people"? Hmm people....what people Christians? I don't think this Christian Theology course you're studying is doing a good job, you're coming out with some real unusual stuff. I swear they're teaching you some dodgy facts on Islam. Get your money back!


But we've established the Bible is corrupt then...good, ok that was the main point i was interested in here.

[ronniv93]

Whoaaa.... slow down, Anyabwile.


We have NOT established that the Bible is corrupt. You seem to keep wanting to put those words in my mouth and in reepicheep, but neither of us has said that.


And yes we did recently go through this issue of Quranic variants and frankly, no sufficient response was given then, and so the issue remains open.


I gave links then to information that supported it FROM MUSLIM SOURCES and as usual, when I did that, it was ignored and not addressed. No one had an answer for that.


Nonetheless, I will post the link again.


Ulum Al-Quran


And here is just an excerpt from the book:

In Sura al-baqara, which I take as an example, there are a total of 101 variants. Most of them concern spelling, some also choice of words (synonyms), use of particles, etc.

I hope to find another book that goes into more detail on this subject.


As for my theology course, believe me, they have NOTHING to say about Islam. We learn THE BIBLE, pure and simple, not other religions.

[ronniv93]

Found another brief account:


What is the Koran?

9. The collection methodology used to compile Uthman's Musshafs was to confirm the words of each verse by at least two people who were trustworthy, of great knowledge of the religion, and were ear and eye witnesses to the Prophet himself. <b>When variants appeared for some verses, in wording, spelling and/or pronunciation, the different versions were reported.</b> These variants are still available today, and are called different readings: "Kera'at". No other existing religious book, which is still available in the mother tongue of its founder, went through such scrutiny during its collection and preservation.

A variant in WORDING means that they are not all the same. I don't care how people try to dismiss it and make it seem like it's not a big deal. If one says it's not a big deal because SIMILAR words are used, then that same person must also conclude the same about the Bible . . . . it's not a big deal.


If one wants to say that because some variations exist in ancient manuscripts, then that means the Bible is corrupt, fine. Then that same individual must be willing to acknowledge the variations in the Quran and ALSO admit that the Quran is corrupt, too.


So, I guess that person will go searching for the next, newest religion.

[umm Zachariah]

Ronniv,


Truly you have been give MANY different threads to read about the Qur'an but you seem to have lost them. But if you don't bother to READ them, then it is not hardly accurate to put the blame on the Qur'an for being insufficient. I think the insufficiency in that case lies elsewhere. When you do want to check something out, it could be better to do it properly or leave it as it is. Since I do recognize you have the same comments as in the beginning, and that means - no updating on your part. You have chosen to stay on the same platform. Only YOU know why.


''Qirâ'a pl. -ât recitation, recital
(especially of the Koran); reading
(also, e.g., of measuring instruments); manner of recitation, punctuation and vocalization
of the Koranic text.'' [1


[1] J M Cowan (Editor), Hans-Wehr Dictionary Of Modern Written Arabic, 1980 (Reprint), Librairie Du Liban, Beirut, p. 753.


You could try to read the emphasized words, says nothing about what YOU say, ''this issue of Quranic variants
''. In what BOOK or source have you found this expression? You say it is ''an open issue'' - well it is beacuse you prefer to take it no longer. But then it WILL stay an open issue for you, no matter what anyone tries to do to help you take another step to find that issue out.


So what do you say - will you stop hiding behind your words and stop exposing them as being the right ones and instead start to learn, or is it time to close down this, since it has either nothing to do with the issue here? Your choice. Truly it is leading nowhere if you are NOT willing to learn of Islam from Muslim sources.


Regards