Why do muslims think Bible is corrupted and Islamic texts are well preserved?

[Muffled]

I did not say the Qur'an itself is meaningless to Christians. It is meaningful in that the text explicitly denies at least two central tenets of Christian belief. (The incarnation and the crucifixion). What I did say is that for Christians the integrity of the Quranic text is a meaningless concern as to remain Christian is to reject Muhammad's claims to a superseding divine revelation.

Christianity makes no claims about the state of the Quranic text beyond rejecting it. As obviously you could not accept the Qur'an as divine revelation and remain Christian.

I believe I can accept the divine origin of the Qu'ran and remain a Christian. Even the elders who called me on the carpet because of this never questioned my Christianity. They didn't believe I was right though.

 

[Muffled]

A very subjective hypothetical claim based your belief.

My believe is based on what Jesus says about the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me

 

[Shakeel]

They believe the Bible is corrupted because a) it says so in the Qur'an and b) the Bible contradicts the Qur'an.

Why do they believe the Qur'an is uncorrupted? Because they believe in it and in Islam and they can see the proof in the Qur'an itself. It is prefect, without any flaws or mistakes. Something men could not have done.

 

[shunyadragon]

My believe is based on what Jesus says about the Holy Spirit.

John 14:26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me

Sure, but it remains a subjective hypothetical claim based on the belief,and your interpretation of scripture. Too many others who believe in the scripture have a different interpretation. It is unknown who the 'helper?' is.

There is absolutely no evidence that these scriptures date to the life of Jesus.

 

[ChristineM]

I love the written word. And I spend significant time with it. The important point is that being an atheist in no way grants you an intellectual high ground.

I never said it does, and i must say, though you are not unique in your love if words, many religious folk cannot say the same

And when people used the bible and Qur'an as a weapon or means if justifying any atrosities they do tend to earn a reputation

 

[firedragon]

Just been thinking. Now some argument is people deviated the texts is probably the argument that i can think of, to why retcon happend.

But just logically speaking. If people have bad memory of a text. Since muhammad in Islam was sent to unlettered people.... wouldnt this just be repeating the same mistake? Some can try to argue "Well it was collected by a reliable person, or reliable people". But does that qualify as legit? If one argues that memory forgets certain things over the years? Just mildly curious?

1. What do you mean by your term "Islamic Texts"?
2. What do you think "unlettered" means, where did you get that from, and what are the nuances and what are the contexts this "word" is used?
3. What do you mean "collected by reliable people"? What are you referring to? Who are these reliable people?

When someones assertions are so vague, its a definite sign of lack of knowledge. I dont mean to offend you, but that's always a fact when people take texts and theologies into their so called expert opinions with such vague assertions.

So lets see if there is any substance in anything you have said above.

 

[Lars]

They believe the Bible is corrupted because a) it says so in the Qur'an and b) the Bible contradicts the Qur'an.

Why do they believe the Qur'an is uncorrupted? Because they believe in it and in Islam and they can see the proof in the Qur'an itself. It is prefect, without any flaws or mistakes. Something men could not have done.

Isnt that more a argument from dominance? Since thats one thing i noticed reading islamic texts, its focused on dominating the reader and being dominant. Atleast with how they want the reader to feel.

 

[Lars]

1. What do you mean by your term "Islamic Texts"?
2. What do you think "unlettered" means, where did you get that from, and what are the nuances and what are the contexts this "word" is used?
3. What do you mean "collected by reliable people"? What are you referring to? Who are these reliable people?

When someones assertions are so vague, its a definite sign of lack of knowledge. I dont mean to offend you, but that's always a fact when people take texts and theologies into their so called expert opinions with such vague assertions.

So lets see if there is any substance in anything you have said above.

What do you mean with what you said?

 

[firedragon]

Obviously, to gain authority for their claims of being the "one true religion". And I don't think this is limited to Islam only. Christians say the New Testament supersedes the "Old Testament" of the Jews, Muslims say the Koran supersedes both the "Old" and the New Testament. AFAIK the only religion that also claims that (only) the Koran is "uncorrupted" are Baha'is, because their religion developed from a Shi'ite Muslim background, but it seems that Muslims especially in Iran hate and persecute them them nevertheless, because Baha'is believe that their own saviour Baha'ullah made Mohammed and his claim to be the "seal of the prophets" (final prophet) obsolete.

Hmm. Tell me Sirona, when you say "Bible" what do you refer to? Is it 73, 66, 75? Which one? Is it with the pericope adultarae? Or is it without? Is it with comma johanneum or without? Is it the textus receptus? Is it Sinaiticus? Is it Alexandrinus? Is it Vaticanus? Which canon? When was it canonised? What is the oldest and earliest NT manuscript found ever? Whats the methodology of dating used? Who wrote it?

Apply the same scrutiny to the Qur'an as well.

 

[firedragon]

Isnt that more a argument from dominance? Since thats one thing i noticed reading islamic texts, its focused on dominating the reader and being dominant. Atleast with how they want the reader to feel.

See, you have never read the whole text you keep talking about.

 

[Lars]

See, you have never read the whole text you keep talking about.

I read Quran, Sunni muslims 1-6 and on ibn kathir. Tell me. How much do you read? Oh thats right.

 

[firedragon]

What do you mean with what you said?

I asked some questions to clarify what you are talking about. So if you could answer, it will shed light on what you really are talking about or if you are actually talking about something substantial.

If you dont know the answers, say you dont know. No problem.

 

[Lars]

Hmm. Tell me Sirona, when you say "Bible" what do you refer to? Is it 73, 66, 75? Which one? Is it with the pericope adultarae? Or is it without? Is it with comma johanneum or without? Is it the textus receptus? Is it Sinaiticus? Is it Alexandrinus? Is it Vaticanus? Which canon? When was it canonised? What is the oldest and earliest NT manuscript found ever? Whats the methodology of dating used? Who wrote it?

Apply the same scrutiny to the Qur'an as well.

The methodology of dating is just made up though. Circulating opinions by reliable people is still just circulation.

But usually scholars relies on earliest texts. If its Old Hebrew bible, its hebrew. If its New Testament its greek.

 

[Lars]

I asked some questions to clarify what you are talking about. So if you could answer, it will shed light on what you really are talking about or if you are actually talking about something substantial.

If you dont know the answers, say you dont know. No problem.

But your question makes no sense to begin with. What do you mean by food? You can read cant you?

 

[firedragon]

I read Quran, Sunni muslims 1-6 and on ibn kathir. Tell me. How much do you read? Oh thats right.

Okay. So you have read the Quran right? Great. And you say "Sunni Muslims 1-6"? There is nothing like that. You mean the Sahih Sittha. Lol. Thats not Sunni mate. Even Shii's use it. They have a different methodology of accepting them.

If you dont know the subject just ask rather than making such blunders.

So since you have read the Qur'an, can you tell me what it says about what kind of clothes are the best? Since you only talk about some kind of dominance etc etc, but also claim you have "read the book", please do provide some information.

Thanks.

 

[Lars]

Okay. So you have read the Quran right? Great. And you say "Sunni Muslims 1-6"? There is nothing like that. You mean the Sahih Sittha. Lol. Thats not Sunni mate. Even Shii's use it. They have a different methodology of accepting them.

If you dont know the subject just ask rather than making such blunders.

So since you have read the Qur'an, can you tell me what it says about what kind of clothes are the best? Since you only talk about some kind of dominance etc etc, but also claim you have "read the book", please do provide some information.

Thanks.

Probably not silk. Do you wear silk? Something about hell if you wear them in this life (if a guy wears it)

Good enough for you?

Either case, your blunder is your answers. Since you always ask more questions than answer the subject. So seems more like you are defensive

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

many religious folk cannot say the same

Most people don't give a crap about reading books now, so what's your point in singling out religious people? Just trying to bash again?

 

[firedragon]

The methodology of dating is just made up though. Circulating opinions by reliable people is still just circulation.

But usually scholars relies on earliest texts. If its Old Hebrew bible, its hebrew. If its New Testament its greek.

Well, you are wrong, and you are answering for someone else.

What did you say? Methodology of dating is "just made up"? Really?

Again, rather than giving just absolutely vague statements, can you specifically speak of the earliest manuscript that I just ask about, and the dating methodology. Just for curiosities sake since you just said "its just made up", lets see if you have any validity in saying something like that.

And please dont speak about languages because we are speaking about a manuscript dating of the NT. Its obviously in Koine Greek, so that's just a useless statement.

Also, address the whole post.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I believe I can accept the divine origin of the Qu'ran and remain a Christian.

So you reject the Trinity, the crucifixion and the resurrection of Christ? You accept Mohammad as a prophet? How exactly are you still a Christian in your view, then?

 

[firedragon]

Probably not silk. Do you wear silk? Something about hell if you wear them in this life

Nope. If you dont know, say you dont know. If you have not read it, just say you have not.

Either case, your blunder is your answers. Since you always ask more questions than answer the subject. So seems more like you are defensive

If you dont know, say you dont know. If you have not read up, say you have not read up. pretty simple. You cant expect people to "answer" when you dont know what you are even asking about.