Muslims: The testimony of a man who said he heard an angel while alone in a cave

[-Peacemaker-]

Same thing that is compelling about a man who was struck blind on the road by a guy who had died on a cross. Or the guy who liked to talk to burning bushes.

Ultimately, the Christian's faith hinges on the life of Jesus, not Paul. Paul also never contradicts Jesus or the Gospels. The Koran absolutely does contradict the Gospels by saying that Jesus did not actually die. The Muslims charge that the Bible was altered but a simple examination of NT texts from all over the ancient world reveals that they are the same. If the texts had been corrupted, some of the fragments found would exhibit the corruption but there would still exist copies that had descended from the originals in other places. Even many of their imams are able to see that it would be an impossiblity to completely extinguish the original NT



This was taken from a post by a Muslim named A-manESL:


1 Syed Ahmad Khan:
”As far as the text of the Bible is concerned, it has not been altered. No attempt was made to present a diverging text as the authentic one.”
From: M.H.Ananikian, “The Reforms and Religious Ideas of Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan”,
The Moslem World 14 (1934) p.61

2 Muhammad Abduh:
”... the charge of corruption of the Biblical texts makes no sense at all.
It would not have been possible for Jews and Christians everywhere
to agree on changing the text. Even if those in Arabia had done it,
the difference between their book and those of their brothers,
let us say in Syria and Europe, would have been obvious.”
From: Jacques Jomier, “Jesus, The Life of the Messiah”, C.L.S., Madras, 1974, p.216

3 Abdullah ibn ‘Abbas (Mohammed pbuh's cousin and one of his companions)
“The word “Tahrif” [corruption] signifies to change a thing from its original nature; and there is no man who could corrupt a single word of what proceeds from God, so that the Jews and Christians could corrupt only by misrepresenting the meanings of the word of God.''
From: Imam Muhammad Isma'il al-Bukhari in Dictionary of Islam, T.P.Hughes,
Kazi Publications, Inc, 3023-27 West BelmontAvenue, Chicago Il. 60618, 1994, p.62

4 Fakhruddin Razi on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed pbuh:
"The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation." (I could not find the source for this from the internet)

5 "The early commentators of the Koran and doctors of Islam who did not have a firsthand knowledge of the Bible believed in "Tahrif-I-Manawi" (corruption in meaning) only. (Abdul-Haqq, Sharing Your Faith with a Muslim, p. 38).

Imam Bukhari explains Surah 4:46 as follows; ‘displace words from their right places…means misinterpreted'. On similar lines Imam Ghazali made many analysis of various aspects of Christianity based on the assumption that the Gospels are genuine.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Ultimately, the Christian's faith hinges on the life of Jesus, not Paul. Paul also never contradicts Jesus or the Gospels.

Of course he does. The bible itself is nothing but a huge collection of contraditions.

The Koran absolutely does contradict the Gospels by saying that Jesus did not actually die. The Muslims charge that the Bible was altered but a simple examination of NT texts from all over the ancient world reveals that they are the same. If the texts had been corrupted, some of the fragments found would exhibit the corruption but there would still exist copies that had descended from the originals in other places. Even many of their imams are able to see that it would be an impossiblity to completely extinguish the original NT

Now that is funny. There is a tremendous collection of evidence that the New Testament has tons of alterations. How can you even suggest that it hasn't been?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Of course he does. The bible itself is nothing but a huge collection of contraditions.



Now that is funny. There is a tremendous collection of evidence that the New Testament has tons of alterations. How can you even suggest that it hasn't been?

Many people like to talk out of their a**es when it comes to the NT, which is to be expected of something that convicts people for their sin. Most of them have done absolutely no research whatsoever on the subject. They just like repeating the same bs they've heard from other people who talk out of the a**es. Try studying some scholars that actually have some integrity. You'll see that the NT would be taught as history in secular classes if it weren't for the fact that it presents an account of history that doesn't jive with a naturalistic worldview. The NT is also estimated to be 99.5% intact

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Many people like to talk out of their a**es when it comes to the NT which is to be expected of something that convicts people for their sin. Most of them have done absolutely no research whatsoever on the subject. They just like repeating the same bs they've heard from other people who talk out of the a**es. Try studying some scholars that actually have enough integrity. You'll see that the NT would be taught as history in secular classes if it weren't for the fact that it presents an account of history that doesn't jive with a naturalistic worldview. The NT is also estimated to be 99.5% intact

Ah, but I have studied the topic and my scholars can beat up your scholars. In fact, I would like to hear just who your scholars are as all the biblical scholars I've ever heard of agree that the New Testament text has many alterations in it due to the process of monastic copying of scripture. Text has been added. Text has been left out. Text has been forged. Text has been buried and destroyed. All of this is proven fact, get over it.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Ah, but I have studied the topic and my scholars can beat up your scholars. In fact, I would like to hear just who your scholars are as all the biblical scholars I've ever heard of agree that the New Testament text has many alterations in it due to the process of monastic copying of scripture. Text has been added. Text has been left out. Text has been forged. Text has been buried and destroyed. All of this is proven fact, get over it.

Yeah like you'd be in a position to judge their credentials

 

[connermt]

Please tell me what is so compelling about a man who claims to have heard an angel speak to him while he was alone in a cave. Why is everybody supposed to just take his word for it? Even if he did hear an angel, there are spirits of truth and deception, that is if you believe in the Bible. Why are we to believe it was an angel of good as opposed to evil?

People see faces in all sorts of objects: Pareidolia
Same things with sounds - people hear all kinds of sounds. You'll hear what you want to hear.
All this is assuming that someone heard something at all.
Seems faith is built on faith.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah like you'd be in a position to judge their credentials

The beauty of his post is that he needn't judge their credentials at all. Tis enuf to note that those with vaunted credentials disagree about
interpreting scripture, & admit that different translations & different bibles say different things. No expertise is needed to see this. And
I am an expert in not having expertise.

 

[connermt]

Christianity/the worship of Jesus, is at the very least built on historical events witnessed by hundreds and thousands of people. Those eyewitness accounts are what the Gospels are based on. The interesting thing is these accounts would be taught in history class if the events weren't so "out of the ordinary" or sound so "outlandish" to some. That's how strong the evidence exists in the form of the manuscripts left behind. Using accepted practices of authenticating ancient documents, the Gospels easily pass the test. People toss them out because the account doesn't jive with a "naturalistic" world view

Hundreds and thousands of witnesses....yet only a handfull of book detailing these wonderous things?
And some of the books that record these wonderous things can't even agree on all these wonderous things.
:faint:

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Yeah like you'd be in a position to judge their credentials

At least I would know they exists. I will repeat. All Biblical scholars agree that the text of the New Testament has been altered. If you wish to dispute this fact, please, lets see some evidence.

New Testament Alterations - The Order of Nazorean Essenes
Who changed the Bible and why? Bart Ehrman’s startling answers : Dangerous Intersection
The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls - Insights - Volume 20 - Issue 6

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Hundreds and thousands of witnesses....yet only a handfull of book detailing these wonderous things?
And some of the books that record these wonderous things can't even agree on all these wonderous things.
:faint:

The NT is unmatched compared to other ancient literature of the time, in both number of copies as well as accuracy. You're comparing the amount of information recorded about Jesus from 2000 years ago, to the amount of information available today on famous contemporary people.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

The NT is unmatched compared to other ancient literature of the time, in both number of copies as well as accuracy.

In what universe? Give us just one source that agrees with this statement, just one.

 

[darkendless]

The NT is unmatched compared to other ancient literature of the time, in both number of copies as well as accuracy. You're comparing the amount of information recorded about Jesus from 2000 years ago, to the amount of information available today on famous contemporary people.

What do you mean by accuracy? It talks about spritiual things that cannot be proven as accurate?

Based on the normal definition of accurate I think there are many more accurate texts out there.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

What do you mean by accuracy? It talks about spritiual things that cannot be proven as accurate?

Based on the normal definition of accurate I think there are many more accurate texts out there.

Compared to the original copies. Even though the originals don't exist, scholars are able through linguistics and the existing copies to recreate the original.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

In what universe? Give us just one source that agrees with this statement, just one.

How about actually reading the apologetic I put together? You might find that I already addressed that as well as perceived "contradictions". YOu'll see those divergencies actually testify to the Gospel's authenticity. I also wasn't aware that this was a debate on the inerracy of Scripture

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

The NT is unmatched compared to other ancient literature of the time, in both number of copies as well as accuracy. You're comparing the amount of information recorded about Jesus from 2000 years ago, to the amount of information available today on famous contemporary people.

The Rig Veda the oldest scripture still in use today.

Prodigous energy was expended by ancient Indian culture in ensuring that these texts were transmitted from generation to generation with inordinate fidelity...

That these methods have been effective, is testified to by the preservation of the most ancient Indian religious text, the Ṛgveda (ca. 1500 BCE), as a single text, without any variant readings.[4] Similar methods were used for memorizing mathematical texts, whose transmission remained exclusively oral until the end of the Vedic period (ca. 500 BCE).

Vedic chant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[connermt]

The NT is unmatched compared to other ancient literature of the time, in both number of copies as well as accuracy. You're comparing the amount of information recorded about Jesus from 2000 years ago, to the amount of information available today on famous contemporary people.

Not at all. If hundreds and thousands of people saw the same wonderous thing, wouldn't there be at least a few copies of this happening? If it was so wonderous, surely more than one guy would have written it down - or at least told the story to someone else who could have.
I noticed you didn't speak to the four gospels, which tell the same story, but not all in agreement.
Funny really....

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Not at all. If hundreds and thousands of people saw the same wonderous thing, wouldn't there be at least a few copies of this happening? If it was so wonderous, surely more than one guy would have written it down - or at least told the story to someone else who could have.
I noticed you didn't speak to the four gospels, which tell the same story, but not all in agreement.
Funny really....

Do you realize that the NT is a compilation of all those accounts?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

How about actually reading the apologetic I put together? You might find that I already addressed that as well as perceived "contradictions". YOu'll see those divergencies actually testify to the Gospel's authenticity. I also wasn't aware that this was a debate on the inerracy of Scripture

You mean Norm Geisler's scholarly view. Let's look at what he says about it.

Note on the Percent of Accuracy of the New Testament Text

By Norman L. Geisler​

Some have challenged the accuracy of the New Testament (NT) manuscripts based on a statement in our book A General Introduction to the Bible that inadvertently attributed to Bruce Metzer the figure that the NT is copied with 99.5 percent accuracy. However, this is an inconsequential criticism for several reasons. First, NT textual authorities Westcott and Hort estimated that only about one-sixtieth rise above "trivialities" and can be called "substantial variations." In short, the NT is 98.33 percent pure. Second, Greek expert Ezra Abbott said about 9/20 (95 percent) of the readings are "various" rather than "rival" readings, and about 9/20 (95 percent) of the rest make no appreciable difference in the sense of the passage. Thus the text is 99.75 percent accurate. Third, noted NT Greek scholar A. T. Robertson said the real concern is with about a "thousandth part of the entire text." So, the reconstructed text of the New Testament is 99.9% free from real concern.

Philip Schaff estimated that of the thousands of variations in all the manuscripts known in his day, only 50 were of real significance and of these not one affected "an article of faith." Even agnostic NT critic Bart Ehrman admits that "In fact, most of the changes found in early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes pure and simple-slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort of another" (Misquoting Jesus, 55).

Famous British manuscript expert Sir Frederick Kenyon summed up the matter well when he declared that: "The interval between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established" (Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology, 288).

Consider the following message: Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION. DOLLARS. Notice that even with the error in the text, 100% of the message comes through.

Consider also this message with two lines and two errors.

• Y#U HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
• YO# HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS

Here we are even more sure of the message with two errors in it. In fact, the more errors like this, the more sure one is of the message since every new line brings a confirmation of every letter except one. The NT has about 5700 manuscripts. which provides hundreds, in some cases even thousands of confirmations, of every line in the NT.


As a matter of fact, there can be a high percent of divergence in letters and yet a 100% identity of message. Consider the following lines:

1. YOU HAVE WON TEN MILLION DOLLARS
2. THOU HAST WON 10 MILLION DOLLARS
3. Y'ALL HAVE WON $10,000,000

Notice that of the 27 letters and numbers in line two only 7 in line three are the same. That is little more than 25% identity of letters and numbers, yet the message is 100% the same. They differ in form, but they are identical in content. The same is true of all the basic teachings of the NT.

To me, this means, yeah, the text is different now but it doesn't matter because we think the meaning is still the same. Circular logic at its best.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You mean Norm Geisler's scholarly view. Let's look at what he says about it.



To me, this means, yeah, the text is different now but it doesn't matter because we think the meaning is still the same. Circular logic at its best.

Geisler's not a scholar last I checked. He along with Strobel and anyone else for that matter that's serious about making an argument base their conclusions off scholars and always give credit to those who's work they cite. In that way they basically compile scholarly arguments into easy to access references for us nonscholars

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Geisler's not a scholar last I checked. He along with Strobel and anyone else for that matter that's serious about making an argument base their conclusions off scholars and always give credit to those who's work they cite. In that way they basically compile scholarly arguments into easy to access references for us nonscholars

That way you can claim him as a source without actually listing a scholar at all. And I'm supposed to take this seriously? And how do you explain all the misdirection in the article that Geisler wrote? The NT is 100% accurate because he feels that what is in it means the same thing as what was originally written while admiting that it has indeed been altered? That's your proof that the NT is 100% accurate? If you wish to take the NT on faith that is your right but you can't hold your faith up and demand we accept it as proof.