Because of this debate, Muslims everywhere will now know none of these claims are true. Bassam has tried to defend the Qur'an by saying "Hey, it's okay if none of those statements are true - God planned it that way." As you will see me say in the debate, it's fine with me if you want to give a theological reason explaining the basic problems with the Qur'an - at least you're acknowledging them! This is a far cry from the average Muslim's position.
Well, I'm really looking forward to the comments on this debate! I'll be reading them carefully and researching what you have to say. Without further ado, here it is!
456 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 456 Newer› Newest»Learner said: "I solemnly swear in the name of my risen Lord Jesus that:"
Learner, are you not aware that a large percentage of Christians believe that Yeshua explicitly forbids swearing of oaths? (Matt. 5:34-37)
Hie Yahya Seymour... thankes for your advice... eben iff that's whate I feel about learned-Christian (because he is nor "learned" neither "Christian"), I shoulde nott call him thate... perhaps you're right: I hebe a mountain in my eyes... butt this mountain as been placed there by whate I see as insults made by thate blogger... Butt neber teh less I say nott to do the same in the future... butt Eben your brother Zacaria admited thate some muslimes are doing bery rude comments here...
p.s.: brother shafsha was nott exposed... please: read all the comments withe care... thankes
Educating said: "Does everlasting mean “EVERLASTING”?
Or does EVERLASTING mean until a false prophet called Paul comes along and says:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”
(Galatians 5:2)"
Paul is talking about Salvation here. He was refuting a group amongst the Galatians that was saying circumcision was required as a prerequisite for Salvation. Paul's position, of course, agrees with Torah. Circumcision never saved anybody. Try a little context for a change please.
I see our Muslims guest has moved on to Paul-basing now. Why not? He has already poked fun and called names toward the living Jews on this blog....I guess he figured it was time to work his way to some dead ones that can't respond back now. Classy.
Sepher Shalom: Firstly, there was no such place as "Palestine" 18 years after the Resurrection. It was known as Judea and Samaria. It wasn't called "Palestine" until after 70ad when the Romans exiled most of the Jews and renamed the area Philistia as a slap in the face.
Not quite brother. You are right that the name Palestine was unknown 18 years after Yeshua, but it would take another 100 years before the ROMAN Emperor would rename that area "Palestine". It was only after the revolt of Shim'on bar Kochba in 135 AD that the name was changed.
Shalom bro.
@ Educating Christians, you need some educations yourself. I will respond later to show how your post is hopelessly flawed about almost everything you say. And to think that you skipped the BULK of my replies to you....
Nakdimon
Learner said:
[Which court of law in which country accepts as evidence testimony of individuals who only provides their first names and don’t ‘remember’ their last names?]
So u dont accept testimonies from people unless u know their last names ... great .. who is the father of Amr Ibn El Ass ?! dont u know that his other was the famous Meccan prostitute ?!
And the Who is Muhammed's Father ?! Do u know that he was born after his claimed father died by 2-4 years ?! which is ok according to muslim belief, muslims accept that the woman can get preganat for 4 years, and some scholars agreed up to seven years !!! And the Funny thing what tehy called his father Abd-Allah ... which Allah, they were worshiping, was his father a muslim ? LOL !!
And the Surprise, qhat is the real name of muhamed ?! th name muhamed was never mentioned in the meccan surahs, and in the medina surahs, other names were used like Taha, Ahmed ..etc ... so some tsaid that his real name was Kathm ..
So anyway, why do u caccept testimony of persons like these , which their roots are quite suspicious, and their names are not proven to be their real names !!
Yahya Hayder Seymour said...
Educating Christians,
[I applaud you for exposing Shafsha, whilst it can be understandable to lose one's cool every so often, just look at Shafsha's behaviour.
Unable to deal with your points, we witness a plethora of Red Herrings and irrelevant questions, phrased in the rudest of ways]
Is that your answers sir to my questions ?!
Yes I can feel u , u are sitting on fire now, cause u can disprove any of my points as the evidence are just too strong for you, but Thats your religion babe, u have to accept it as this .. u cant change all these (....) !!
And it is really so nice u are commenting on my response by saying exposing me , will u explain to me how I am exposed ?! I think the one who is really expose is thiis pedophile we all know him , dont u agree ?!
Zakaria:
[Dear Learner and Educating_Christians
I think you can ignire shafsha from now on. Her list of innuendo questions clearly shows that she has to resort to insults due to running out of arguments. ]
Tell em which poitnyou consider an insult, and I will give u the refernce
If u consdier what I asked as INSULT, then dont BLAME ME, GO BLAME YOUR PROPHET< AND THE BOOKS WHI RECORDED SUCH SCANDELS !!
Again, let me know which point is realy irritating you, and I will provide you with evidence
Thanks
Educating:
I wanna Elect someone for you, someone u really would like, but please dont hold onto his behaviour, he is pedophile, epileptic, theif, Serial Killer, Illiterate, Deeply ignorant, He enjoys three things in Life (woman , Pefume and food), he enjoys lots of porn (so keep an eye on your wife, so u dont lose her), and people claimed that he is lier, crazy, hallucinations, ....etc
I think u should help him out!!
I didnt want to say his name in public, I will keep it a secret babe
Zakaria:
[.S I want to appeal to shafsha to not insult our prophet. ]
Would u please tell me where did I ever insulted him ?!
First what is insulting ?!
Wasnt he illiterate, and ignorant as u claim (btw I doubt this)
Didnt he marry more than 4 , when the quran said 4 ?!
didnt he use 3 stones.. and u r supposed to follow him
etc ... So HOW IS THIS INSULTING ????????
........................
[He lived in the 7th century and in that time eligibility for marriage was determined by the onset of puberty. You can't apply modern values on a man that lived 1400 years ago. If you do then be consistent and apply it on the people described in your bible D.S]
WHO IN THE IBEL WAS above 5o and married a 6 years KID ?!
Aisha never reached puberty, go read the hadith well, she was allowed to play with her dolls cause she never reached puberty , should I trust u or the hadith ?!
evidence:
Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151
'A'isha reported that Allah's Apostle married her when she was seven years old, and (s)he was taken to his house as a bride when she was nine, and her dolls were with her; and when he died she was eighteen years old.
Sahih Muslim 8:3311
(i have more evidence, and will be happy to share if u asked :-) )
- Second he is supposed to be the best moral example, if he is not going to show himself as a good example to all humanity as uclaim, then why he condemened Wine, porc, he should had let these things go.. if u will accout everything to tribal factors.
- Puberty never meant that A gurl is ready to marriage, it is just the start. He should have taught that marraige is not just the ability to have children.
In fact the early menstraul cycles are not very fertile.
-Also he body of a 9 years old gurl , to have sex witha 52 years old monster, is not compatble in any way !!
- Mentality of kids, cant take responbility of marraige, and cant raise up kids !!
Kids are liable to do all sort of mistakes, without being responsible, so how on earth u give them the resposbility of getting married ?!
- Kids in that age are not grown up, can make good choices, so where is freedom of will to chose her spouse ?!!
- He small body an pelvis, if she got pregnant at that young age, will severly hrt her, and her baby as well , so didn Rasul allah knew that ?!
- also dont you acknowledge this huge age difference ?! more than 40 years of difference , is this the perfect example to humanity ?!!
Wasnt she widowed early ?! what about if she had children, werent they ge orphaned early in their life ?!
This issue is real the worst one can do, So I imagine if someone claimed to be a prophet did this, how can we trust him ?!!
Thats is enough for now, unless u wanna take it further, I would be more than happy, NO MUSLIM WOULD WIN THIS DEBATE about Pedophilia allowed in islam Setted by Muhammed !!
Zakaria:
[You can't apply modern values on a man that lived 1400 years ago.]
I love , actually I admire you honesty
100% true, thats why you should not follow him, and should not listen to any of his outdated teachings, as simply as you said, you can apply these to our modern value, It is really incopatible with everyone, with huan rights, with peace, ...etc
So I 1000% agree with you, I think his is a good start point for every muslim to think from this prospective. How you apply the rules of 7th century arabia ( that u say not comaptible with modern life) and try to force applying it everywhere. I would like if you started telling this to your fellow muslim brothers as well .
THANKS A MILLION
Educating Christians I think you have been schooled.
So can you tell me why muslims practice circumsision, why pigs are unclean, and if you can eat Monkeys and apes, if not then why not?
Yehya said about me:
[Unable to deal with your points]
really ?! I wondered if just muhmed was th only illiterate in islam , but it looks we still have more till now, one of them is talking here ... why wont u take a rapid look above, and see how many much of his points have been refuted ?!!
And since his name is educating christina, why not ask him some of the questions that are really bothring all Non Muslims, and I think muslims as well?! I dont know how you feel abot your teacher who did all sort of bad things , do u feel proud about him, and that u wanna follow him ?!
u call it rude when I ask questions ?! go back .. and re-read them carefull , and tell me which one is rude ?!
By the way , if they were false claims, any muslims would have been able to refute them , but being true claims with strong evidence, muslims choose to ignore answering, which weaken their position further ... Islam is expose nude infront of the word !!
You are correct Nakdimon. It's 135ad. I don't know why 70ad is the year my brain came up with. My brain must have spit out the date for the destruction of Beit HaMikdash for some reason. Thanks.
Hello Shafsha:
You know alot about the hadiths.More than I ever will.But I have read from a book by an ex-Muslim that the hadith often quoted by Western "experts" who think there is no relation between the ideas in the Koran and the Tradition about Mohammed and terrorism,and that says that there is a GREATER JIHAD and a LESSER JIHAD.
WEAK HADITH
It's the one where the LESSER JIHAD is war for Islam.The GREATER JIHAD is self-improvement in a spiritual sense.You see it quoted by those Western journalists and intellectuals(I guess Karen Armstrong is one of them) who say there is nothing to fear.
Would that be correct that it's a WEAK(high probably of falsity) hadith?Could any Muslim or non-Muslim here confirm if the thing is as stated.
BAD IMPRESSION
If so,as it appears,then the Muslim organizations that always bring it out,and the Muslims in the West who put in their books on Islam,then they are not being 100% honest.They would know it's weak.They should say so.They shouldn't use it.
Hello Minoria:
Thats is very simple ti check for authenticity of Hadith, through Al Sheikh Al-Albany, and now can be done through a program, where u can check the degree of the authenticity of the hadith.
Give me the refernce , and will see how authentic it is
:-)
Yahya Seymour: If the Qur'an's preservation for you were such a trivial issue, then why even bother posting in this blog entry and why even watch the debate just out of interest?
What prohibits me from doing so, Yahya? Whenever I see unfounded claims being made, I comment, regardless if the topic is trivial or not. Besides, I thought it was interesting to see a Muslim finally discussing the textual history of the Quran. I commend Bassam for that!
Brother shafsha commenting on our friend Zakaria, who saide tahte «You can't apply modern values on a man that lived 1400 years ago», saide: «I love , actually I admire you honesty. 100% true, thats why you should not follow him, and should not listen to any of his outdated teachings»... yes, I undestand whate you mean... thates a key pointe: we, for a point, can follow, with any problem, all the aspects off Jesus, our core model... more: yes, iff quotting muslim sources is an insultt, the soluttion is to destroy them: nott only this or that hadith or ayat (and in this latter the compillers off quoites off the muhammad did their jobb; and in the latter uthman did his), butt all... more: does muslim know how offensive are theire sources to all non-muslims? in a cort off law, iff it's author woulde to be judged by theire own hermeneitical rules, woulde be accused off crimes agains humanity...
Uneducated said:
[Why not compare the NT to another book that ALSO claims to be the word of God like...err..... THE QURAN??
The NT has about 5,500 Greek MSS...
Yet 14,000 MSS of the Quran were discovered in the loft of the Sana Mosque in 1972.
That means we have **MORE THAN DOUBLE** the number of Quran MSS in just **ONE LOFT**, than you have Greek NT manuscripts IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!]
LOL , Are you really that ignorant Sir ?!
This difference in number doesnt mean anything, in fact go take a look , on the state to the ictures of Sanna MSS, and the state they found them on, it is just a shred, SO yes, if u tear the Greek MSS into peieces u can have (by your concept) million MSS !!
SO if u wnna be a lil sane, tell u, what was the complete MSS found in Sanaa ?!
What did the Sanaa Showed ?! DId it sow that the quran is perfectly preserevd?!
I have more than the double yes , but Your were just garbage shred peices !!
I would love to have evidence
Fernando sid:
more: can you, please, present...
Fernando if you want to play ignorant then go ahead. I'm not talking about whether other people think the quran is true. That's irrelevant to the point i'm making. The two most fundamental beliefs in the bible are the divinity of jesus and his suffering for mankind. I've already mentioned these. You could easily refute my arguments by showing that among islamic scholars and even non-islamic scholars there is the same amount of debate regarding two of the most fundamental beliefs conveyed by the quran namely tawhid and the prophethood of Muhammad.
From an objective point of view all religions have their advantages and disadvantages. So to an objective observer christianity and islam are equal in that sense. However, Islam is superior in terms of its consistency regarding it's two most fundamental tenets of beliefs.
How can an objective observer determine whether this is true.
He can read the Bible (without Fernando's famous commentary) and see wether the Bible is consitent in its description of jesus. He can do the same regarding the bible's account of the passion of christ and his crucifiction. Moreover since the passion of christ and subsequent crucifiction are supposed to be historical events he can check against what we know about Roman customs and Jewish customs regarding the treatment of convicted felons. For instance we know from the Talmud that a trial of a suspected blasphemor does not agree with the biblical account. We know that the Roman's weren't in the habit of releasing 1 prisoner every passover.
The reason I adopt this approach is that we can list arguments and counterarguments for different aspects in our respective religions in all eternity with out reaching a consensus. I therefore tried to find a common ground we both could agree on. That's why I postulated an 'objective observer' and limited my points to the two most fundamental beliefs in christianity and islam. You don't have to agree with my conclusions but if you are a honest person you know very well that religious debates seldom lead anywhere because of the two opponents not sharing a common ground. It's not like we're discussing wether the earth is flat (although maybe we should since that's what the bible says :). We're discussing theological aspects. Whether the bible is consistent regarding the two aspects I talked about can be checked. Whether christian scholars debate this two issues among each other as a result of the bible's inconsistency can be checked. Just as we can emperically check wether the earth is flat or round.
Fernando said:
I know you did nott spoke to me, butt teh problem is nott iff muhamamd had sex with a pre-pubescent girls.....
Aisha reached puberty before the consumation of marriage and nothing else.
Norms and habits change. Christians change their morality according to the specific time they live in. Nowadays you have gay priests, gaymariages, womenpriests etc. In islam marriage is allowed at the onset of puberty. It has been a widely practised tradition in all cultures. The modern concept of adulthood starting after a certain age is historically speaking a fairly recent tradition. According to Christian sources Mary married Josef at an age that today would be considered illegal. Even if you say that the tradition is false it still reflects the norms of christians at that time. Jesus ministry was different from prophet Muhammad's. He never married. Moreover, since he criticised many jewish traditions he felt were wrong, if he had anything against so-called child marriages he would have said something. His silence is not proof that he didn't accept it as a normal tradition (if anything the contrary is true).
This will inshallah be my last comment on this ungodly site.
With kind regards,
Zakaria
Zakaria saideZakaria, thankes for your wordes…
You saide thate I was playing ignorante aboutt «The two most fundamental beliefs in the bible are the divinity of Jesus and his suffering for mankind»…
ok, now I grasp whate you saide about the cruxifiction… there are a lott off aspects tahte people ignorante off the Bible argue aboute the cruxifixion: a) the day itt happened; 2) the hour itt happened; 3) who was with Him att the time; 4) which was His last wordes and so on… I needed to understand whate you meant… now, as I saide, its clear…
butt we still habe a problem: can you presente ebidences, from the Bible (thate must be read as an all and in it’s context), thate Jesus was nott God? Or thate His dead was nott for the salvation off mankind? More: and as you saide thate these aspects are disputed by Christians, can you presente a single denomination of Chriatianity thate denies these aspects? Since you wanted me to present ebidences thate the tawhid and the prophethood of Muhammad is nott disputed (and I grant thate, off sure), please do the same with your claims about the Bible (Jesus nott being God and thate Chrsitian scholars do nott agree on the divinity off Jesus or the soterological dimention off his dead). Thankes.
You saide: «Islam is superior in terms of its consistency regarding it's two most fundamental tenets of beliefs»… please: do nott go arounde: on wich substract off evidences you fundament those claimes? In the text off the qur’an itself; and here, as I saide, we habe a problem: the qur’an cannot be a profe for itself. Kurt Godel explained that bery weel.
You saide: «since the passion of christ and subsequent crucifiction are supposed to be historical events he can check against what we know about Roman customs and Jewish customs regarding the treatment of convicted felons»… well… that’s a new information for mee… or you’re talking about the peculiar aspects surrounding Jesus’s trial? Is this the case? All off those (including the release off a prisioner on ebery passover) can be easily explained, as several non-Christian schoolras habe done in the past, from historical ebidences. Butt: can you, please, elaborate onn this subject? Thankes. An please: do nott talk aboutte the Talmud thate is centuries (2 to 5, too bee more precisely) latter than the NT to say whate was the costume around the time off Jesus. Tahnkes.
You saide: «the Bible say the earth is flat»… no it does nott… I know to whate you’re reffering, since this is a commun lie present around muslim sites, butt thate’s nott whate the biblicat text says… sorry to disappoint you…
You saide: «but if you are a honest person you know very well that religious debates seldom lead anywhere because of the two opponents not sharing a common ground»… yes, I considere myself to bee an honest person… and that’s why I do beliebe thate all debate, eben in religious matters, can reach a commun goround iff bouth debaters are open to question theire believes, open theire minds to the truth… the truth is an object reality… butt iff you cannot presentte ebidences about you claimed («thate Jesus was nott Go; thate His dead was nott for the salvation off mankind; and a single denomination of Chriatianity thate denies these aspects») our debate is, from the start based on a lack off honesty from one side… buut ounce you present those ebidences, the debate can start… thankes…
By the way: for me, the Bible is absolutely consistent of those aspects: Jesus is man and God, and His dead as a stoteological dimention to mankind…
(will continue)
(continuation
You saide: «Aisha reached puberty before the consumation of marriage and nothing else»… well, we all know that’s nott the case, and brother shajsha, eben quoted some ebidences from your muslim sources… butt can you present A SINGLE ebindece from them thate she as reached full puberty? Remember: puberty is nott a static reality: its is a dynamic porogress thate starts by the grown off the breast, and,a fetr passing for the first menstruation, only finalizes by the reaching off full size off the utherus to allow a good and healthy accommodation off a baby, tahte, for you information, only happens 2 to 3 years after the first menstruation… woulde you say, then, thate, iff Muhammad consummated marriage with poor baby Aisha when she was 9, she had had her first menstruation when she was 7????
You saide: «Norms and habits change»… oh, yes, I agree… to sad thate, as I saide, following the example off Muhammad, muslims around the world still resiste to evolve and persist to be stopped in tha habbits off a bedouin off the 6th century… lets hoppe that’ll change…
You saide: «Christians change their morality according to the specific time they live in»… really? I thought our morality was based on Jesus actions and wordes only… iff someone aparts from His wordes is no more a Christian, no matter wahte they say… woulde you consider a muslim someone thate woulde nott follow the words and deads off Muhammad? I do nott thin so…
You saide: «It has been a widely practised tradition in all cultures. The modern concept of adulthood starting after a certain age is historically speaking a fairly recent tradition»… Yes, I agree… please: do beliebe: I agree. Butt can all the moral habbits off someone like Muhamamd bee adopted nowadays? Woulde you say so? I do nott habe a single problem to say: I follow ALL the moral habits off Jesus.
You saide: «According to Christian sources Mary married Josef at an age that today would be considered illegal»… really? I habe to disappoint you… can you present a single ebidence from Christian souces off thate fact? Iff you can, I promise to everyone: I’ll become, oune againe, a muslim…
You saide: «He never married. Moreover, since he criticised many jewish traditions he felt were wrong, if he had anything against so-called child marriages he would have said something. His silence is not proof that he didn't accept it as a normal tradition (if anything the contrary is true) »… No mie friend: according to the Old Testament (see, for instance, Song off Songs) it was forbidden to marry or habe sex with someone who habe not reached puberty. And someone is only a child iff he/she has nott reached puberty… Thate’s why I say Aisha was still a childe…
Please Zakaria: do nott leave this site… I see thate some wordes can bee hard to read, eben mines, butt beliebe I habe my heart opened to the truth… May God, the Holy Trinity, blesses you and your family…)
Brother Fernado:
[does muslim know how offensive are theire sources to all non-muslims?]
Actualy it is not only offensive to non muslims, but muslims themselves, dont wanna hear what is inside their books !! they feel irritated and insulted when u quote them their own Hadiths , which is really weird !!
Every muslim try to ignore/ reinterpret all these SCANDELS that full up and overflow their ISLAMIC books !!
If it werent for the sowrd, islam would have vanished as soon as it started!!
But Let it will never last, like what Muhammed said about his own religion:
Islam started Strange and it would revert to being stranger the sam way it started (like snake from the holes)
So if muslims looking for a muhamadenian prophecy to prove their religion true, I all honestly would suggest them to use this Hadith !!
Also I would encourage Muslims to read this letter to Allah :
http://www.wikiislam.com/wiki/Letter_To_Allah
Here is the evidence that islam will end Strange As it started :
Abû Hurayrah relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Islam began strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers.” [Sahîh Muslim (1/130)]
`Amr b. `Awf relates that Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “The religion will SHRINK back to the Hijâz like the SNAKE shrinks back into its hole. It will cling to the Hijâz like the mountain goat clings to the mountaintop. The religion began strange, and it will become strange again just like it was at the beginning, so blessed are the strangers who restore what the people CORRUPT of my Sunnah.” [Sunan al-Tirmidhî (#2630)] Al-Tirmidhî grades it as good and authentic (hasan sahîh).
Zakaria:
[The modern concept of adulthood starting after a certain age is historically speaking a fairly recent tradition.]
Again clear islamic ignorance.
Where did u get recent from ?!
it has been established for many several centuries, that in non islamic counties, and not a recent tradition.
The average age of marriage in the late 1200s into the 1500s was around 25 years of age.
source:
^ Schofield, Phillipp R. 2003. Peasant and community in Medieval England, 1200-1500. Medieval culture and society. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan. p 98.
Beginning in the 1500s it was unlawful for a woman younger than 20 years of age to marry
source:
1. Spitz, Lewis (1987). (The Rise of modern Europe) The protestant Reformation 1517-1559.. Harper Torchbooks. p. 9. ISBN 0061320692.
2. marriage.about.com
So Do u have any bit of evidence for your claims sir, , that we can check for ?!
And this is really intersting, u will see a timeline with trend change in age of marriage:
http://www.google.com/search?q=history+of+age+of+marriage&hl=en&tbs=tl:1&tbo=u&ei=gMR5Sp3aFJz8tgfY7diWCQ&sa=X&oi=timeline_result&ct=title&resnum=11
SO , Sir, on what basis u are saying it is just a recent change of tradition ?????/
......................
About Age of Mary, I would be happy to have your sources.
Remeber two thing if u gonna use The Catholic encyclopedia, that it was written in year 1900
however I have two eveidences that mary was about age of 6 when She was married to Joseph ( I will get into this later if you provided us any bit of eveidence for your claims)
........................
Aisha, already proven not to reach puberty by that time, can u show us the opposite ?!
Thanks
Zakaria Said:
[The two most fundamental beliefs in the bible are the divinity of jesus ]
Not only the Bible Sir. But the quran gave jesus all attributes of God as well, as I previously discussed oin commenting on other videos.
Let me say them again:
Word of God
Spirit Of God
Who is his father in Quran ?!
His miracuolus Life
Creation capabilities( an attribute given only to Allah in islam)
raising the people from death
knowing the future and hidden (attribute only for God)
The Judge on the last day
Speaking at birth !
Never had a sin
Satan fears him (unlike muhammed)
Healing people
etc etc ..
So who else can do these things ?! is this the people Norm ?!
arent these Divine attributes, or regular human atributes that u can do on daily basis ?!!
typo: i meant age of mary was 16 not 6
sorry
SHEPHER..
<< Firstly, there was no such place as "Palestine" 18 years after the Resurrection. It was known as Judea and Samaria. >>
Oh I see.. Well I beg your pardon.
Although, since you’re so concerned with historical anachronisms, it’s funny how your seem to take no notice of the multitude of them in your O.T such as calling the rulers of Egypt Pharaoh’s at the times of Abraham and Joseph before ‘Pharaohs’ even existed then.
Funny how you only chastise me, a fallible human being, for making the same mistake as your infallible God.
<< That's an extreme misrepresentation of the Messianic faith that also belies you complete lack of understanding of orthodox Jewish theology. The Messianic faith doesn't have "multiple personalities" for G-d. That is a straw-man of the most absurd order. >>
With all due respect you can see how busy I am here, and so I don’t have the time to pander for every strange sect of the Judo-Christian faith such as “Narazene Jews” who apparently believe everything that Evangelicals Christians do, but yet don’t want to call themselves that..
I don’t have a clue what YOU believe, and (with respect) I’m not really interested. We all now that real (sorry, I mean orthodox) Jews think the same thing about the trinity as Muslims do.
<< "And while you’re scratching your head over that, why don’t you find me where this verse is in the Old Testament that Jesus quotes: “He who believes in me, AS THE SCRIPTURE HAS SAID, ”out of his heart will flow rivers of living water.”(John 7:38) Looks like that’s gone missing too!!"
Wow. That was by far your most absurd and misinformed comment in this thread. In this passage, Yeshua was paraphrasing a concept that is written about in the Tanach. There is absolutely nothing that indicates he is directly quoting a verse. When Yeshua quotes verses, He says "It is written....". "As the Scripture has said" is an entirely different speech pattern that conveys an entirely different meaning. >>
Wow.. Ive heard a few desperate responses to this is my time, but that one takes the cake..
As much as you try to hide it, you cannot escape the fact that Jesus quotes a very specific sequence of words that convey a specific meaning. Otherwise known as a ‘quotation’.
He is not generally REFERNCEING to scripture as he does in, say, Mark 14 where says
“The Son of Man will go just as it is written about him”
This is a QUOTATION:
AS THE SCRIPTURE HAS SAID, “out of his heart will flow rivers of living water”
See that?
Now you say he’s referring to Isiash 49..
Where in Isaiah 49 is there ANYTHING about any “River of living water” “flowing out” of anyone’s “heart?”
There isn’t, so you are wrong.
Secondly, look at what your buddy “Fat man” said about it..
<< Proverbs 18:4
4The words of a man’s mouth are(A) deep waters;
the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook.
Proverbs 20:5
5The purpose in a man’s heart is like(A) deep water,
but a man of understanding will draw it out. >>
So you say Isaiah 49, and he says Proverbs 18:4 OR Proverbs 20:5 (he hasn’t made his mind up, you see)
While I think his answer is much closer than yours, it’s still not the same quotation, so no pie for the Fat Man.
My question now is, if it’s as simple as you make out, why the disagreement? It’s not like I’m asking a deep theological question is it? I’m merely requesting a biblical reference.
And why do SCHOLARS on the issue, such as Lee Martin McDonald claim it’s a quote from the apocrypha, hence saying that you’re BOTH wrong?
Why can’t you just admit your God LOST verses from his bible?
Regards..
NIKDIMON…
[part 1 of 2]
<< Mohammed said you can only read any **ONE** of the 7 dialects that is easiest for you.
Did Jesus ever say you can only read any **ONE** of the four gospels you want?
Wow. Are you serious or is this a joke? Yeshua didn’t tell us how many Gospels we should have period! So your argument is pure desperation. >>
How much more ignorant can you get?
Of course Jesus didn’t tell you how many gospels you should have, since they were all partly made-up by anonymous people decades after him.
The whole point of what I was saying is to refute your pathetic analogy of liking the seven dialects to the four gospels..
Let me remind you of the absurdity of your original argument:
<< you have just buried everything that Bassam said in the debate to validate the Quranic variants by way of Ahrufs. YES, we take the position that the last 12 verses of Mark aren’t needed because Matthew, Luke and John give us those details. Therefore, the fact that Mark misses 12 verses to explain what the other sources already say, is of no significance! >>
Are the 7 dialects like the 4 fours gospels?
Since Mohammed TOLD US we have seven dialects, and we can read ANY of the dialects we chose, and since you just ADMITED that:
<< Yeshua didn’t tell us how many Gospels we should have period >>
Then clearly your analogy fails miserably, and so you cannot excuse the loss (or addition) of any part of any gospel in the same way that we can the lost of an excess dialect. Period.
<< Allah reveals 7 ahrufs and Muhammad says one is enough. So BY YOUR OWN LOGIC Allah shouldn’t have bothered to reveal the other 6 ahrufs. This is exactly what you told Sepher Shalom, remember? >>
Again your ignorance is breathtaking..
Mohammed didn’t say “one is enough”, GOD SAID THAT TO HIM:
..He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right.
(Sahih Muslim, Book 04 Number 1789)
What’s wrong with you?
And God bothered to reveal seven dialect as an initial learning aid to help the different tribes learn the Quran for the very first time.. Once they had served that purpose and Islam has spread over two different continents, they were no longer required for that purpose so some of them were destroyed by Uthman.
The preservation of the Quran is maintained since the Quran is ANYONE of the 7 dialects- not all 7together.
Any BTW, since your criteria for NT preservation is “only what we need for salvation”, then why did the Holy Spirit BOTHER to “inspire” 27 books in the NT?
Are they ALL required for salvation?
If ‘salvation’ comes through belief in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, by your logic all you need is the Gospel of Mark since that’s all in there right?
So why BOTHER to inspire 27 books, when he could have just inspired ONE!
In fact let’s take this a bit further, shall we?
Most of Marks Gospel is just about Jesus going around here and there performing a few miracles around the place… We don’t need THAT for salvation do we?
So all we really need of Marks gospel are the meaty bits in chapters 15 and 16 where he gets killed and risen, so why bother with the rest?
Or let’s take this EVEN FURTHER!
Since this so-called “gospel” of salvation can be spread by oral tradition as it was in the 1st century.
WHY DO YOU NEED A NEW TESTAMENT AT ALL??
What’s the point of having one???
Why not just have one long ‘oral tradition’ from the 1st century till today of “Jesus rose from the dead so believe in him and be saved!”
At least that way you won’t have to deal with the likes of Muslims, atheists, and Bart Erhman telling you how hopeless your God is preserving his own “inspired words”.
NIKDIMON..
[PART 2 OF 2]
<< Do you know what textual scholars say about the longer ending of Mark and the most likely reason how it got there? Of course not, who am I kidding? When you finally have done your homework you would know that they conclude that it’s a strong possibility that the person who added the longer ending drew from what is known of the disciples in Acts! >>
It depends what textual scholars and Christians you ask!
Some say yes, some say no!
That’s the problem, and that’s just today!
Most today will say no, but most a couple centuries ago said yes!
So much for “the Word of God”!
What a mess..
<< Even IF the 4 Gospels are NOT the words of God, then STILL, they are a reliable account of what happened in the first century! >>
Does the NT claim to the inerrant word of God or not?
Straight answer please..
If yes, and yet we find textual variant to the point where we can’t say for sure what God said and what some scribe said, then it is not inerrant.
If no, then you claim it’s still a ‘reliable’ account?
PROVE IT...
Did EVERYONE in the first century believe that Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead??
Your NT itself says no, as do numerous other historians writing in that time and place, so why should I believe the NT, and not them?
My Review of the Debate
or, Why People in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones...
I had the privilege of moderating this fascinating debate.
Objectively, I felt that Bassam had a better grasp of the primary sources. This is due in part because he can actually read them in Arabic whereas Nabeel has confessed (in his debate with me) that he cannot understand the language.
to read the rest of my review go here:
http://bloggingtheology.wordpress.com
Hey Uneducated Muhammadan can you repost your reply to me since I want to tear it to shreds dmismantle it much like the umma of Muhammad tore the Quran to shreds?
And to unlettered, err I mean the unlearned, I have said this before I will say it again. I maybe Shamoun, his mother, sister, wife, husband, nephew. WHAT'S TI TO YOU?
And Christians don't swear to Jesus but you Muhammadans do. So can you or uneducated Muhammadan swear by the black stone which Muhammad licked that you are not Usman Sheikh that hilarious cartoon figure? Or you can swear by any of the objects that Allah swore by in the Quran that you are not the cartoon kid?
Part 1
Fernando said:
Please Zakaria: do nott leave this site
Ok I feel generous today. I gather you miss your teachers Learner and Educating Christians. Ok I will be your substitute teacher today. But no more nice guy. Being nice to you and shafshaitan is like throwing pearls to pigs.
Fernando and Shafshaitan the two hadits you refer to do not prove that Aisha was pre-pubescent.
Sahfsha said:
Aisha never reached puberty, go read the hadith well, she was allowed to play with her dolls cause she never reached puberty , should I trust u or the hadith ?!
Shafshaitan now you're being dishonest again. The hadits only mention she played with dolls. Many girls to this day who have reached puberty play with dolls. Maybe you still do shafshaitan :). The sentence within brackets is Al-Khattabis commentary. I gather it was very convenient to leave that piece of info out. So please be my guest trust islamic hadiths. I for one do not trust the Bible.
I suggest you stop playing with dolls for a moment shafshaitan and check this lesson out and try to learn something:
Since you have learning difficulties let me repeat the sentence within brackets are Al-Khattabis commentary.
Al-Khattabi said: In this Hadith playing with dolls is not like playing with other images/statues that are prohibited. It was permissible to 'Aisha because she was still pre-pubescent.
I say (Ibn Hajar): affirmation of this opinion is questionable, but it is possible because 'Aisha was at the time of Khaibar more or less 14 years old, while at the time of Tabuk she had certainly reached puberty. So the narration of Khaibar is preferred/accepted and combined with the view of al-Khattabi to avoid contradiction.
to be continued :)
Part 2
Some points to note...
1) It wasn't Ibn Hajar's view, it was Al Khattabi's.
2) Interestingly see how Ibn Hajar didn't agree with Al Khattabi.
3) The reason for this is because in Sunan Abu Dawud we have the following narration...
Book 36, Number 4914:
Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin:
When the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) arrived after the expedition to Tabuk or Khaybar (the narrator is doubtful), the draught raised an end of a curtain which was hung in front of her store-room, revealing some dolls which belonged to her.
He asked: What is this? She replied: My dolls. Among them he saw a horse with wings made of rags, and asked: What is this I see among them? She replied: A horse. He asked: What is this that it has on it? She replied: Two wings. He asked: A horse with two wings? She replied: Have you not heard that Solomon had horses with wings? She said: Thereupon the Apostle of Allah (peace_be_upon_him) laughed so heartily that I could see his molar teeth.
Sheikh Albani declared the above narration to be authentic in Sunan Abu Dawud, Hadith no. 4932.
Note: she still played with dolls at least at the age of 14.
Is that enough for you. I have much more in store:).
P.S I rather believe the catholic encyclopedia than you dear shafshaitan. Please enjoy! LOOL
Regarding the Marriage of Mary to Joseph, Catholic Encyclopaedia ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08504a.htm), says:
"When forty years of age, Joseph married a woman called Melcha or Escha by some, Salome by others; they lived forty-nine years together and had six children, two daughters and four sons, the youngest of whom was James (the Less, "the Lord's brother"). A year after his wife's death, as the priests announced through Judea that they wished to find in the tribe of Juda a respectable man to espouse Mary, then twelve to fourteen years of age, Joseph, who was at the time ninety years old, went up to Jerusalem among the candidates; a miracle manifested the choice God had made of Joseph, and two years later the Annunciation took place."
Note: That article on Catholic Encyclopaedia obtains its information from early.
Christian writing including apocryphal writings.
Take care hatemongers.
P.P.S Fernando said: Please Zakaria: do nott leave this site… I see thate some wordes can bee hard to read, eben mines, butt beliebe I habe my heart opened to the truth… May God, the Holy Trinity, blesses you and your family…)
If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to convert to Paulinism. LOOOOOOOOOOL D.D.S
So Lets see how was Zakria response to us:
1. He ignored the rest of the point I discussed , and is just focusing to prove that Aisha reached puberty
2: In fact the refernce he used shows us that Aisha never reached puberty even till 14, and not the opposite, where did it ever mentioned that she sstarted mentsruating in one way or another ?!!
So How do u disprove that muhammed was a pedophile ?!!
We need eveidence that aisha reached puberty .. the one u mentioned didnt even mention the word puberty !!
3: As I guess hes i going to use the catholic encyclopedia, which is written about two mellineum after Jesus LOL.
Well I am not saying trust me or not, but First is the catholic encyclopedia by anyways compared to early islamic writing like al bukhari..etc ?!
no first it is very lat, second it is not part of the christina believe or even father writing like Al bukhari.
So when using it to get the eact specific age, one should be curious.
Also Al bukhari is a tstimony by aisha herslef, but catholic encyclopedia who is saying that
then he said from apocaryphal book, thanks for admitting that.
Now lets get what the encyclopedia actaully said:
(Here in this article about The blessed Virgin mary:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm ) under the subtitle: Her betrothal to Joseph
"When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage."
Sir isnt this your same source,
So she was sent home first, for marriage.
So how long she satyed in her home first ?! then men will propose to her ?! then after that she get married ,??! and then she got pregnant ?! remeber she was at home and then went to visit elizabeth and All were done when she was 14 ?! of course not, things take time..
I guess she was 16, based on the fact that pregnancy is 9 months, and the angel prepared for this
so on what basis do u compare the marriage of a 7 years or pre-pubescent gurl to a 16 mature gurl ?! also remeber that according to christian and islamic belive Mary is a complete virgin who never had intecourse
I still havent shown u all the evidence of mary's age, waiting to see your objection against mine !! also will hope if u commented of the rest of the points
Educating said: "With all due respect you can see how busy I am here, and so I don’t have the time to pander for every strange sect of the Judo-Christian faith such as “Narazene Jews” who apparently believe everything that Evangelicals Christians do, but yet don’t want to call themselves that..
I don’t have a clue what YOU believe, and (with respect) I’m not really interested. We all now that real (sorry, I mean orthodox) Jews think the same thing about the trinity as Muslims do."
I advised you to read the sources that orthodox Jews draw their theology from, to which you apparently don't have the time to learn about....but then in the next breath you appeal to orthodox Jews for doctrinal issues? Talk about inconsistent. It's pointless for anyone to expect to have any semblance of a lucid dialogue when you behave in such a manner. By they way, since you admitted you "don't have time" to learn what Jewish sources actually say about the nature of G-d, let me just inform you that the corpus of sources that orthodox Jews accept absolutely contradicts your Islamic view. That is to say, it is impossible to reconcile with Tawheed.
Educating said: "so I don’t have the time to pander for every strange sect of the Judo-Christian faith such as “Narazene Jews” who apparently believe everything that Evangelicals Christians do, but yet don’t want to call themselves that.."
I suggest you stop being intellectually lazy. This is the whole reason why I originally informed you that I am not an Evangelical >> I do not "believe everything" that they do. You are illogical, rude, arrogant, and apparently happy to remain ignorant, and on top of that you clearly have no desire whatsoever to interact with anyone. You just want to get on your soapbox and use people as a venue to amuse yourself by the ways you rhetorically bash whatever they happen to believe. Not only that, but you have also repeated your original insult towards me that you [barely] apologized for. I, suggest you try showing the slightest bit of class, and if your mother didn't teach you proper manners now would be the time to learn them, or buy them, or borrow them if you must. I learned how to play nice with others in elementary school. You seem to have missed those basic social skills.
(cont)
Part 2
Educating said: "Wow.. Ive heard a few desperate responses to this is my time, but that one takes the cake..
As much as you try to hide it, you cannot escape the fact that Jesus quotes a very specific sequence of words that convey a specific meaning. Otherwise known as a ‘quotation’."
Actually you are wrong. There is nothing there that demonstrates the verse is supposed to be a direct quote of a specific verse. You provided no evidence that is a direct quote, and on top of that you didn't even bother interacting with the verses I pointed you to. Restating your original claim is not a compelling response. Furthermore, since as I already pointed out, Yeshua is summarizing a concept found in the Tanach, the verses provided by The Fat Man and myself are not mutually exclusive. After a cursory review of Proverbs, I will be adding that verse to my list along with Isaiah and Ezekiel.
Quite cleary, the verse you quoted is simply one of your "pet verses" that you like to use to try to stump Christians. Also, quite cleary, you have absolutely no exegetical skills and no concept of proper hermeneutics. I'm sorry to tear one of your favorite verses out of your bag of tricks, but it happens sometimes. I'm glad your error has been corrected. I suspect it is long overdue.
Educating said: "Where in Isaiah 49 is there ANYTHING about any “River of living water” “flowing out” of anyone’s “heart?”
There isn’t, so you are wrong."
Nice try, but no. I already pointed out that Yeshua's words here were a synthesis of at least 2 passages from the Tanach [in Isaiah and Ezekiel]. Read both passages again, and you will find it DOES mention living water. The water described in both is moving non-stagnant water. In Hebraic thought, this is "living water". Flowing out of the "heart" is also there. Water flowing from The Temple is described, and The Temple is metaphorically both the "heart" of the earth, and the focal point of G-d's heart here on earth [it was His 'dwelling place' after all...the location of the Shekhina glory], and the focal point of the heart of YHWH's people. As I said before, you are swimming in deep waters that you are clearly unprepared to handle.
Educating said: "My question now is, if it’s as simple as you make out, why the disagreement? It’s not like I’m asking a deep theological question is it? I’m merely requesting a biblical reference."
I never said it was "simple", and actually, it IS a deep theological question. This is considered one of the more difficult sayings of Yeshua. The fact that you can't recognize the depth of this issue marks you as completely unqualified to even discuss it. You are starting from a false assumption.
Educating said: "And why do SCHOLARS on the issue, such as Lee Martin McDonald claim it’s a quote from the apocrypha, hence saying that you’re BOTH wrong?"
I wouldn't expect someone that specializes in a mainly Gentile perspective, dominated by western thought to be properly grounded in Hebraic thought, or to be equipped to handle the Kabbalistic sayings of any of the authors. This is why our Scriptures encourage Jews and Gentiles to be "one new man" in Messiah. Our book is set up so we need each other.
Educating said: "Why can’t you just admit your God LOST verses from his bible?"
Why can't you admit that you are wrong, and it's time for you to drop this verse from you repetoire? I know this is what you want to believe this verse shows, but it doesn't. You have given a very facile argument. You have given no meaningful exegesis to show that I am incorrect. Instead, you repeated your original claim, and then made an appeal to authority, which was from a source that is also in error. Not convincing in the slightest.
Zakaria Said :
[Fernando and Shafshaitan the two hadits you refer to do not prove that Aisha was pre-pubescent.]
Re-read the hadith
[Many girls to this day who have reached puberty play with dolls.]
I am not talking about these day, these day we dont have idolators for instance !!
[The sentence within brackets is Al-Khattabis commentary]
So what is wrong with it , is it my own commentary, or a muslim commentary included and approved in your books ?! on what basis u wanna go against him ?!
[the sentence within brackets are Al-Khattabis commentary.
Al-Khattabi said: In this Hadith playing with dolls is not like playing with other images/statues that are prohibited. It was permissible to 'Aisha because she was still pre-pubescent.]
Thanks for admiitting she was pre-pubescent
[I say (Ibn Hajar): affirmation of this opinion is questionable]
Now after 14 centuries, it is questionable ?! is this because we started asking questions, and ppl started readin those books ?! ON WHAT BASIS THIS IS QUESTIONABLE? IS THIS ISSUE OF PLAYING WITH DOLLS RELATED TO ISLAMIC DOCTRINES TO BE QUESTIONABLE OR HE WAS TALKING ABOUT TRADITIONS ?! HEKNOWS THE TRADITIONS MOR THAN U SIR , HE WOULDNT WRITE A LIE IN HIS COMMENTERY , wha will be the reason for writing this false commentry ?????
[ but it is possible because 'Aisha was at the time of Khaibar more or less 14 years old, while at the time of Tabuk she had certainly reached puberty. So the narration of Khaibar is preferred/accepted and combined with the view of al-Khattabi to avoid contradiction. ]
Why u say (certainly), go review the age of puberty, it goes up to 16 years of age, and the average is 12-14, so yes she could be 14 without reaching puberty and is still normal, specially this lines up perfectly with other hadith.
And again, here depends also on how u calculate the age of aisha as well (but that is less relevant).
So untill u disprove h point of playing with dolls or strongly prove she reached puberty then we can talk.
Part 1
Shafshaitan said
Also Al bukhari is a tstimony by aisha herslef,
Yes and she never said she was pre-pubescent. Al-khattabi said so.
I don't have to prove anything you have since the one who makes the accusation must prove his case.
Can you prove that you are not a pedophile?
Regarding the encyclopedia it says 12-14 and that joseph was ninety. Let's say for arguments sake that she was 12-14 when she got married and that he waited until she gave birth.
Since he is not G-d he did't know beforehand that his wife would become pregnant. Therfore his intentions was to consumate marriage with a 12-14 year old girl.
Shafshaitan the burden of proof is on you give me one hadith in which Aishah says she was pre-pubescent.
Furthermore can you please explain the following contradictions in your bible. You seem to be very fond of textual evidence. So enjoy:
MT 1:6-7 The lineage of Jesus is traced through David's son, Solomon.
LK 3:23-31 It is traced through David's son, Nathan.
(Note: Some apologists assert that Luke traces the lineage through Mary. That this is untrue is obvious from the context since Luke and Matthew both clearly state that Joseph was Jesus' father.)
MT 1:16 Jacob was Joseph's father.
LK 3:23 Heli was Joseph's father.
MT 1:17 There were twenty-eight generations from David to Jesus.
LK 3:23-38 There were forty-three.
MT 1:18-21 The Annunciation occurred after Mary had conceived Jesus.
LK 1:26-31 It occurred before conception.
MT 1:20 The angel spoke to Joseph.
LK 1:28 The angel spoke to Mary.
MT 1:20-23, LK 1:26-33 An angel announces to Joseph and/or Mary that the child (Jesus) will be "great," the "son of the Most High," etc., and ....
MT 3:13-17, MK 1:9-11 The baptism of Jesus is accompanied by the most extraordinary happenings, yet ....
MK 3:21 Jesus' own relatives (or friends) attempt to constrain him, thinking that he might be out of his mind, and ....
MK 6:4-6 Jesus says that a prophet is without honor in his own house (which certainly should not have been the case considering the Annunciation and the Baptism).
MT 1:23 He will be called Emmanuel (or Immanuel).
MT 1:25 Instead, he was called Jesus.
MT 2:13-16 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary flee to Egypt, (where they stay until after Herod's death) in order to avoid the murder of their firstborn by Herod. Herod slaughters all male infants two years old and under. (Note: John the Baptist, Jesus' cousin, though under two is somehow spared without fleeing to Egypt.)
LK 2:22-40 Following the birth of Jesus, Joseph and Mary remain in the area of Jerusalem for the Presentation (about forty days) and then return to Nazareth without ever going to Egypt. There is no slaughter of the infants.
MT 2:23 "And he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: He will be called a Nazarene.'" (This prophecy is not found in the OT and while Jesus is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", he is seldom referred to as "Jesus the Nazarene.")
MT 3:11-14, JN 1:31-34 John realized the true identity of Jesus (as the Messiah) either prior to the actual Baptism, or from the Baptism onward. The very purpose of John's baptism was to reveal Jesus to Israel.
MT 11:2-3 After the Baptism, John sends his disciples to ask if Jesus is the Messiah.
Part 2
Some more fun for you shafshaitan:
MT 3:12, 13:42 Hell is a furnace of fire (and must therefore be light).
MT 8:12, 22:13, 25:30 Hell is an "outer darkness" (and therefore dark).
MT 3:16, MK 1:10 It was Jesus who saw the Spirit descending.
JN 1:32 It was John who saw the Spirit descending.
MT 3:17 The heavenly voice addressed the crowd: "This is my beloved Son."
MK 1:11, LK 3:22 The voice addressed Jesus: "You are my beloved Son...."
MT 4:1-11, MK 1:12-13 Immediately following his Baptism, Jesus spent forty days in the wilderness resisting temptation by the Devil.
JN 2:1-11 Three days after the Baptism, Jesus was at the wedding in Cana.
MT 4:5-8 The Devil took Jesus to the pinnacle of the temple, then to the mountain top.
LK 4:5-9 First to the mountain top, then to the pinnacle of the temple.
MT 4:18-20, MK 1:16-18 (One story about choosing Peter as a disciple.)
LK 5:2-11 (A different story.)
JN 1:35-42 (Still another story.)
MT 5:1 - 7:29 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the mount.
LK 6:17-49 Jesus delivers his most noteworthy sermon while on the plain. (Note: No such sermons are mentioned in either MK or JN and Paul seems totally unfamiliar with either the sermon on the mount or the sermon on the plain.)
MT 5:16 Good works should be seen.
MT 6:1-4 They should be kept secret.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus underscores the permanence of the law.
LE 10:8 - 11:47, DT 14:3-21 The law distinguishes between clean and unclean foods.
MK 7:14-15, MK 7:18-19 Jesus says that there is no such distinction.
1TI 4:1-4 All foods are clean according to Paul.
MT 5:17-19, LK 16:17 Jesus did not come to abolish the law.
EP 2:13-15, HE 7:18-19 Jesus did abolish the law.
MT 5:22 Anyone who calls another a fool is liable to Hell.
MT 7:26 Jesus says that anyone who hears his words and does not do them is a fool. (Note: The translation now prevalent, "like a foolish man," in MT 7:26 is a dishonest attempt to alleviate the obvious inconsistency here in that the oldest Greek manuscripts use the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and "like a foolish man" in MT 7:26.)
MT 23:17-19 Jesus twice calls the Pharisees blind fools.
MT 25:2, 3, 8 Jesus likens the maidens who took no oil to fools. (Note: This is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
1CO 1:23, 3:18, 4:10 Paul uses "fool" with regard to Christians becoming fools for Christ. (Note: Again, this is the same Greek word translated "fool" in MT 5:22 and MT 23:17-19.)
MT 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
EP 4:26 Anger is not necessarily a sin.
MT 5:22 Anger by itself is a sin.
MT 11:22-24, LK 10:13-15 Jesus curses the inhabitants of several cities who are not sufficiently impressed with his mighty works.
MT 21:19, MK 11:12-14 Jesus curses a fig tree when it fails to bear fruit out of season.
MK 3:5 Jesus looks around "angrily."
Shafshaitan you trust our hadiths. Well this a few reasons why i don't trust your bible. Enjoy!!
There is more where this came from:) LOOOOOL
MT 5:32 Divorce, except on the grounds of unchastity, is wrong.
MK 10:11-12 Divorce on any grounds is wrong.
MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Jesus says: "Do not resist evil. Love your enemies."
MT 6:15, 12:34, 16:3, 22:18, 23:13-15, 17, 19, 27, 29, 33, MK 7:6, LK 11:40, 44, 12:56 Jesus repeatedly hurls epithets at his opponents.
MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
LK 19:27 God is likened to one who destroys his enemies.
MT 5:39, MT 5:44 Do not resist evil. Love your enemies.
2JN 1:9-11 Shun anyone who does not hold the proper doctrine.
MT 5:43-44, MT 22:39 Love your enemies. Love your neighbor as yourself.
MT 10:5 Go nowhere among the Gentiles nor enter a Samaritan town.
JN 8:58-59 Jesus hid himself, apparently to avoid being stoned.
MT 5:45, 7:21 God resides in heaven.
MK 13:32 The angels reside in heaven
AC 7:55, HE 12:2 Jesus is at the right hand of God, in heaven.
1PE 1:3-4 Believers will inherit eternal life in heaven.
MT 24:35, MK 13:31, LK 21:33 Heaven will pass away.
MT 6:13 God might lead us into temptation and it is better avoided.
JA 1:2-3 Temptation is joy.
MT 6:13 Jesus' prayer implies that God might lead us into temptation.
JA 1:13 God tempts no one.
MT 6:25-34, LK 12:22-31 Take no thought for tomorrow. God will take care of you.
1TI 5:8 A man who does not provide for his family is worse than an infidel. (Note: Providing for a family certainly involves taking "thought for tomorrow.")
MT 7:1-2 Do not judge.
MT 7:15-20 Instructions for judging a false prophet.
MT 7:7-8, LK 11:9-10 Ask and it will be given. Seek and you will find.
LK 13:24 Many will try to enter the Kingdom but will be unable.
MT 7:21 Not everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:21, RO 10:13 Whoever calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.
AC 2:39 Those God calls to himself will be saved.
MT 7:21, LK 10:36-37, RO 2:6, 13, JA 2:24 We are justified by works, not by faith.
JN 3:16, RO 3:20-26, EP 2:8-9, GA 2:16 We are justified by faith, not by works.
MT 8:5-12 The centurion himself approaches Jesus to ask to heal his servant.
LK 7:2-10 The centurion sends elders to do the asking.
MT 8:16, LK 4:40 Jesus healed all that were sick.
MK 1:32-34 Jesus healed many (but not all).
MT 8:28-33 Two demoniacs are healed in the Gadarene swine incident.
MK 5:2-16, LK 8:26-36 One demoniac is healed in this incident.
MT 9:18 The ruler's daughter was already dead when Jesus raised her.
LK 8:42 She was dying, but not dead.
MT 10:1-8 Jesus gives his disciples the power to exorcise and heal...
MT 17:14-16 (Yet) the disciples are unable to do so.
MT 10:2, MK 3:16-19 The twelve apostles (disciples) were: Simon (Peter), Andrew his brother, James the son of Zebedee, John his brother, Philip, Bartholemew, Thomas, Matthew the tax collector, James the son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus (Labbaeus), Simon, and Judas Iscariot.
LK 6:13-16 The above except that Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, and Judas the son of James is added (and Judas Iscariot remains).
AC 1:13, 26 Same as MT and MK except that, like LK Thaddaeus (Labbaeus) is excluded, Judas the son of James is included, and Mathias is chosen by the others to replace Judas Iscariot.
MT 10:2, 5-6 Peter was to be an apostle to the Jews and not go near the Gentiles.
AC 15:7 He was an apostle to the Gentiles
remeber she was married 6-9 , so u have to prove she reached puberty by the time of marriage. and not just say hey this commentery is questionable.
thanks
Zakaria:
[Also Al bukhari is a tstimony by aisha herslef,
Yes and she never said she was pre-pubescent. Al-khattabi said so.
I don't have to prove anything you have since the one who makes the accusation must prove his case.]
LOL, yes I proved it , The khattabi, who is WRITING IN YOUR BOOKS sir, said so, do u allow false things written in your books ?!
So far what did u do, to disprove his testimony which is IN YOUR BOOK ?!! nothing.. asking me for more prove
Here are the evidence agai:
1: she was 6 when she married him, and 9 had sex, is this anywhere in the range of reaching puberty NO
2: She was playing with dolls , which was allowed only before puberty
3: Pedophilia is not prohibited in islam , can u prove it is prohibited , I can prove it is not prohibited , istead it is allowed
so what have u provided so far ?! nothing, thanks
[ Can you prove that you are not a pedophile?]
1st it doesnt matter with you if i am pedophile or not, since u r not obliged to follow me, and i doubt if u set me as your perfect example in life
second It looks like that u dont know what is pedophilia:
A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger).
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies caused marked distress or interpersonal difficulty.
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
Note: This does not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.
PsychiatryOnline - Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition
So does this apply to muhamad ?! yes . Why?!
1-In Islam, doll-playing girls are pre-pubescent according to the doll-playing exegesis of Ibn Hajar and Islamic laws and customs.
2-using Ibn Hajar's doll-playing exegesis that Aisha remained a pre-pubescent child when she was married and had sexual intercourse with Muhammad.
3-Aisha remained pre-pubescent as late as 6 or 7 years after her marriage to Muhammad.
....................
[Regarding the encyclopedia it says 12-14 and that joseph was ninety. Let's say for arguments sake that she was 12-14 when she got married and that he waited until she gave birth.
Since he is not G-d he did't know beforehand that his wife would become pregnant. Therfore his intentions was to consumate marriage with a 12-14 year old girl]
Sir re-read what I said, and the link I provided, U havent addressed the point I issued, and I dont wanna repeat them, but in point:
1: She was 14 when the priest though to send her home
2: sending her home , doesn mean she got married right away
(evidence she was at her home when she visited Elizabeth, which mean she stayed in he home for awhile)
3: there is engaement period
4: marriage
5: Pregnancy is 9 month
So still u ahevnt addressed any of this point
.....................
Why U are asking me to explain the condradiction is those verses ?!
Have u read my name as (Educating mUslims) ?!!
are those point smentioned reated to a topic we are discussing ?!
So by doing this, You declared you Dont have single answer to our previous disscusions (Sanna MSS, then Translation Errors in quran , And now Age of AIsha )
Thank you
and remeber you were talking earlier About copy /paste !!
Double standard muslim
Zakaria also dont forget the fact that she was 9 lunar years, which means less than 9 years !!
Part 1
Shafshah said
So does this apply to muhamad ?! yes . Why?!
1-In Islam, doll-playing girls are pre-pubescent according to the doll-playing exegesis of Ibn Hajar and Islamic laws and customs.
2-using Ibn Hajar's doll-playing exegesis that Aisha remained a pre-pubescent child when she was married and had sexual intercourse with Muhammad.
3-Aisha remained pre-pubescent as late as 6 or 7 years after her marriage to Muhammad.
Do you know the difference between
A) do you know the difference between ibn hajjaj and al khattibi?
b) do you know the difference between a hadith and a commentary?
You still haven't proved that there is a hadith that says she was pre-pubescent. Playing with dolls proves nothing.
Shafshaitan said:
The khattabi, who is WRITING IN YOUR BOOKS sir, said so, do u allow false things written in your books ?!
There are numerous commentaries which are false. Regarding the issue of whether Aishah had reached puberty when marrying i follow the majority opinion.
Shafshaitan said:
Now lets get what the encyclopedia actaully said:
(Here in this article about The blessed Virgin mary:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm ) under the subtitle: Her betrothal to Joseph
"When she was fourteen, the high priest wished to send her home for marriage."
You confuse commentary with hadiths you confuse the encyclopedia with the source it relies on. You can cut and paste all you like but make sure you know what it is you're referring to.
The evangelical site you referred me to regards the the infancy gospel of james as a reliable source on Mary. So let's look at what the source actually says:
And her parents went down marvelling, and praising the Lord God, because the child had not turned back. And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.
9. And Joseph, throwing away his axe, went out to meet them; and when they had assembled, they went away to the high priest, taking with them their rods. And he, taking the rods of all of them, entered into the temple, and prayed; and having ended his prayer, he took the rods and came out, and gave them to them: but there was no sign in them, and Joseph took his rod last; and, behold, a dove came out of the rod, and flew upon Joseph's head. And the priest said to Joseph, Thou hast been chosen by lot to take into thy keeping the virgin of the Lord. But Joseph refused, saying: I have children, and I am an old man, and she is a young girl. I am afraid lest I become a laughing-stock to the sons of Israel. And the priest said to Joseph: Fear the Lord thy God, and remember what the Lord did to Dathan, and Abiram, and Korah; how the earth opened, and they were swallowed up on account of their contradiction. And now fear, O Joseph, lest the same things happen in thy house. And Joseph was afraid, and took her into his keeping. And Joseph said to Mary: Behold, I have received thee from the temple of the Lord; and now I leave thee in my house, and go away to build my buildings, and I shall come to thee. The Lord will protect thee.
She was twelwe when she married Joseph. There was no waiting as you said. The only waiting was when he went away for six months and came back an found here pregnant. She was then 12 and six months old.
With kind regards
zakaria
I like Nabeel Qureshi. Nabeel, your part of my wolfpack.
So what have we got so far from Zakaria:
1: did he address in of the first point about muhammed setting best example for humanity ?! Not at all
He just craving to prove that Aisha reached puberty , avoiding all other issues.
2: Did he showed us that she ever reached puberty no
again:
she was 6 when married, and 9 when she had sex
( remember those are lunar years, so, she will be less than 9 years by about 100 days. so she was 8 and half)
Does any normal hgrl reach ppuberty by that time ?! we havent got an answer
Do I need to have a hadith to say that an 8.5 years gurl reaches puberty ?! no . the norma are kids reach puberty from strating from 12-18
yet we confirmed this fact with this playing with doll story. you wanna refuse it, tell us why , not just because you dont like it.
..............
[There are numerous commentaries which are false]
So how do differentiate what is true and what is false ?!
U just choose what u like ?!
so far u havent provided strong evidence to reject this commentary as false, thanks.
........................
About the age of Mary:
Dont you feel ashamed when you are quoting an Apocryphal book to a christian, in order to prove ur point ?! Am I quoting to you a bahai or ahamdiya book ?! or an authentic islamic book.
1st: do u believ what is written in those books are true ?! no.
So christian belives what is written there is true ?! No
So on what basis you are using them as a refernce ?! Do you want me to get you non muslims books and try sticking them into you ?! if u want me do the same let me know!
Everyone Here take a a look at this clear deception and double standard, When dont like a Hadith, he says it is questionable, or weak, or forinstance IBN isaac, they say well we dont agree, then Now, he is bringing me a book, which is a clearforgery trying to used as evidence .. WOW .. fantastic Logic .. So it not even among our books (like your weak hadith) , but any way let me address it tou below to show your deception
2nd : u havent shown us your source, u just said site I acknowledge, please let me know where did I say I acknowledge a whole site ?!
3rd: since u like using apocryphal book:
look at this one:
The Protevangelium of James.
Chap. 8. - Now it came to pass, when she was fourteen years old, and on this account there was occasion for the Pharisees’ saying that it was now a custom that no woman of that age should abide in the temple of God, they fell upon the plan of sending a herald through all the tribes of Israel, that on the third day all should come together into the temple of the Lord.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.iv.html
(The History of Joseph the Carpenter.
)Another apocryphal book said she was she stayed 2-3 years engaged
to joseph:
Jesus is saying: "my mother, the blessed Mary, was entrusted to him by the priests, that he should keep her until the time of her marriage. She spent two years in his house; and in the third year of her stay with Joseph, in the fifteenth year of her age, she brought me forth on earth by a mystery
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.vii.vii.html"
So what evidence to you have to us she was a kid ?! any strong evidence Sir ?! even Apocryphal book said she was 14, and engaged for 2 years ?!
Sir Look at your sources
Typos Sorry:
Do I need to have a hadith to say that an 8.5 years gurl havent reached puberty ?! no . the normal, kids reach puberty strating from 12-18
Shafshaitan said:
Dont you feel ashamed when you are quoting an Apocryphal book to a christian, in order to prove ur point ?! Am I quoting to you a bahai or ahamdiya book ?! or an authentic islamic book.
You referred to a site that relies on apocryphal sources when talking about the age of Mary. The catholic encyclopedia relies on that source I quoted that's why they say between 12-14. You youself rely on apocryphal sources when you say that she was fourteen. Don't you feel ashamed miss?
Shafshaitan said:
Everyone Here take a a look at this clear deception and double standard, When dont like a Hadith, he says it is questionable, or weak, or forinstance IBN isaac, they say well we dont agree, then
Why are you lying? Oh sorry you are shafshaitan it's your nature to lie and twist things.
Please provide a quote where I refute the hadith. I'm simply saying that the commentary is not part of the hadith. Since you yourself rely on commentaries let's see if you're honest enough to rely on these also:
Al-Dawoodi said: ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) was reached physical maturity (at the time when her marriage was consummated).
Al-Nawawi said:
It should be noted that al-Shaafa’i and his companions said: It is preferable for fathers and grandfathers not to marry off a virgin until she reaches the age of puberty and they ask her permission, lest she end up in a marriage that she dislikes. What they said does not go against the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah, because what they meant is that they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty if there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it, as in the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah. In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away.
If it is allowed to marry pre-pubescent girls in islam please provide the sources. If indeed as you say it is allowed and practiced by our prophet why is there not a hadith that explicitly says so. Why would muslims at that time beat around the bush regarding this issue if it was allowed?
Shafshaitan said:
Do I need to have a hadith to say that an 8.5 years gurl reaches puberty ?! no . the norma are kids reach puberty from strating from 12-18
yet we confirmed this fact with this playing with doll story. you wanna refuse it, tell us why , not just because you dont like it.
First period can very well start before that age. If your point of departure is normal then you should use the same criteria on your Bible.
Do you even know what fact and confirmed means?
Yes you do need to have a hadith to prove that Aishah didn't get her first period when marrying.
You yourself use hadiths when it suits you. So which is it will you rely on hadiths or not?
If yes, then stop beating around the bush and provide me with a hadith that says she was pre-pubescent. I'm a muslim I follow authentic hadiths and the majority opinion.
Shafshaitan the deceiver said:
2nd : u havent shown us your source, u just said site I acknowledge, please let me know where did I say I acknowledge a whole site ?!
This is the site you referred to:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm ) under the subtitle: Her betrothal to Joseph
I haven't said that you acknowledge the whole site. My point simply being that in that section they rely on apocryphia.
Oy vey! Here come the "Bible contradictions". I was wondering how long that would take. As far as I can tell from briefly scanning your list, these have all been answered ad nauseum, Zakaria...and judging by your complete off-hand rejection of the correct explanations of your geneiological issues, even if someone took the time to go through them, you don't care to listen.
Rather than waste both our time, I prefer to point out that even if, for the sake of argument, all of those are actual 'contradictions' it still does nothing to impact the preservation of your Quran, nor does it help your Quran with it's MASSIVE historical problems. The Gospels as a source are still the most historical, and earliest account of the life of Yeshua and His Disciples. The fact that your Quran repeatedly fails historical investigation isn't changed at all, and even if the Gospels are not the inspired word of G-d, they still disprove the Quranic claims about Yeshua and the Disciples. The only reason any historian would possibly consider the Quran as the more historical account is if he is already a Muslim and using circular reasoning.
Shafshaitan said:
second It looks like that u dont know what is pedophilia:
A. Over a period of at least six months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children
Thank you shafshaitan your criteria confirms that our prophet wasn't a pedophile.
recurrent:
First among all his wifes only one was below 17 at the time of marriage. If he had intense recurrent urges for children he could have married as many nine year-olds as he wanted.
'Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could."
involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children.
Aisha was not prepubescent when marrying the prophet. Based on the textual evidence that's the opinion of the vast majority of our scholars if not all of our scholars.
Zakaria,
This issue with the age of Mary and the age of Aisha has been debated around this blog until it is pretty much a dead horse. If you want to see some of the rationale behind why what you are saying doesn't hold up, search around the blog.
You have also failed to take into account a serious bias of your catholic encyclopedia source. Catholic doctrine is that Mary remained a virgin until the day she died. So you see, there is a bias in their acceptance of the information about Joseph's age and his supposed previous marriage the yielded offspring. If offers an explanation for the presence of siblings in the family of Yeshua while still allowing for Mary's life-long virginity.
Bottom line is: The two issues are not comparable. Even if the age you cite is accurate [and I maintain it's not], there is absolutely no Sunnah of Joseph that any of us are commanded to follow. On the other hand, Muhammad is taken by Muslims to be the perfect example of the best Muslim for all time, so you have Muslims acting on his behavior and marrying girls as young as 9 years old, even when it does damage to them in various ways [both physical and mental]. This is a completely absurd comparison you are trying to make. It is the lasting impact of Muhammad's actions and their effect on Muslims today that is at the primary core of the non-Muslim's objection to Muhammad's consummation with Aisha.
Let me give some advice:
Zakaria-- its not worth fighting with these people, let it go. Oh and yes Mary was 12 years old, stop trying to hide it.
Sepher Shamlom said:
The Gospels as a source are still the most historical, and earliest account of the life of Yeshua and His Disciples.
I say: Early yes, but true, NO. The Gospels are based off fictional forms, they contain many historical errors, they are based off unreliable oral traditions, etc, etc. We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels moreover no scholar in their right mind will ever say the Gospels are historical biographies-- rather the Gospels reflect the hope and faith of early Christianity--- not history of Jesus.
ANYWAYS, I've been doing a lot of thinking and I am beginning to question why I hang out here. I honestly don't know, so sorry to anyone I offended, espeically you David Wood, but for now I am out of here.
I am still willing to discuss religion with only Sepher Shalom, Royal Son, Nabeel Qurehsi, Hogan and Mary Jo Sharp as well as Osama Abdullah, Zakaria and Bassam Zawadi--- and that's it. The rest of the people here on this blog, May Allah-- the only God who exists-- guide them, but its just not worth it.
Again this blog made me less like the intelligent Richard Carrier and more like the dumb Ali Sina, therefore to avoid becoming more like people like him--- I am out.
Welcome Back, again, let evaluate the kind of response we had from Zakaria (away from his immoral behavious not respecting my name, but anyway, that expected from a muslim)
[You referred to a site that relies on apocryphal sources when talking about the age of Mary. The catholic encyclopedia relies on that source I quoted that's why they say between 12-14. You youself rely on apocryphal sources when you say that she was fourteen. Don't you feel ashamed miss?]
Com'on is it me who is relying on apocryphal sources ?! I am just replying you from the same sources you are using , no more !! thought the church reject these sources, but I am showing your deception, how u select the passages u like.
So what are the evidence u have to say she was 12 and not 16 , Sir ?!
.......................
[Why are you lying? Oh sorry you are shafshaitan it's your nature to lie and twist things.]
No Sir, Lying is only allowed in islam , as I already showed in the same blog. Not me. Pin point one lie in my comments.
But using apocryphal when u reject just a weak hadith, is a clear DECEPTION, no-one would accept such a logic, if u have one !!
................
Did I ever said that the coomentary is part of the Hadith ?! No, but u are trying to reject the commentery , so I am asking u on what basis u wanna do so ?! just because u dont like it , and u think ur own commentery is better ?! or u reall have strong evidence against it ?!
.....................
Who is Al Dawoodi , would u provide a source / reference ?!
....................
You are really funny, have u read what Al Nawawi that u are quoting said: in the very firs words [IT IS PREFERABLE] Do u know what that means ?! that shows clearly that pedophilaia is not prohibited in Islam, thanks a million for proving my point.
and secondaly: [they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty IF there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it]
Sir Do u understand what u r quoting ?! it said IF !! do u know what does that mean ?! let me make this sentence simple for you: if there is an obvious interestto be served that they dont want to miss it, then they can marry her before puberty. And that indeed perfectly lines with what we are saying, that she married the Prophet (that is the biggest interest for any muslim!)
Thats why he completed saying: [In that case it is preferable to go ahead with the marriage because the father is enjoined to take care of his child’s interests and not to let a good opportunity slip away.]
I would be glad if u provided me with the complete refernce of this, so I will be using it in my future debates, thanks.
.......................
Yes it is allowed to marry pre-pubescent, but lets settle Aisha first .. then we can open up Pedophilia in islam.
[Why would muslims at that time beat around the bush regarding this issue if it was allowed?]
Thats only in the west, go to pakistan, and other islamic countries and u will know they dont have a problem. But they do this trying to be respectful in modern western countries!
............................
[First period can very well start before that age. ]
Yes it can , but it will be a disease called precocious puberty, and it has its own feature, is that what Aisha had ?!
[Yes you do need to have a hadith to prove that Aishah didn't get her first period when marrying. ]
She was 8 and half years, and the hadith and its Commentary poited to this fact, what else do u want ?!
Sir, it is your role to disprove what the Hadith and it commentery accused Aisha and the prophet of , and these things are well documented with scieentific facts.
Let me ask, this question clear, hope u might understand this time, on what basis do u consider Aisha has started having her period ?! Dont u know her age ?! dont u know the hadiths and their commenteries ?! So can u provide for us anything to disprove any of these ?! or we are supposed to add your own commentery to the hadith so ppl wil understand it better ?!
Zakaria:
probably u have a deinite problem understanding, That is not a site that I acknowledge. That is the Catholic encyclopedia you are quoting from ( Iguess your just copying your previous comments without investigating, u r exposing yourself)
So I was just showing you that the same source u r using; the encyclopedia, said that she was 14 when They though about this !!
And I told u already before u use this encyclopedia, that we dont acknowledge , it is written late, and sources and not given so much weight !!
..........................
Sir, (recurrent) means several repeadted times, so dont u now that he married her, which mean he is going to have several repeated times od pedophilic sex with her ?!
..........................
Zakaria, I like your quoting very much, they expose the islam for us more and more, I really doubt if u comprehent what u are quoting. look what u just said:
['Aisha said: "Whenever Allah's Apostle wanted to fondle anyone of us during her periods (menses), he used to order her to put on an Izar and start fondling her." 'Aisha added, "None of you could control his sexual desires as the Prophet could." ]
First didnt he say in the quran, that menstruation is a harm, so avoid it ?! so why he is the first one to get close to it ?!
Didnt he have other wives, why the mesntruating wife specially ?! is he obssesed with mestruation, that why he used to wash in Bedaa well ?!
Havent u noticed that Aisha is talking about her sexual realtion with the prophet, is that ok with you guys in islam ?!
Complete deception of translation: Actually she said Erb ارب : which is Dick or more politely Penis. She saif in the hadith: None of you could control his penis , that is the literal translation !!
So, is that normal that a respectful wife Um il mumeneen, speaks about the Penis of Rasul Allah , and how good he is , that he is the best to control it among Mecca ?!
Also, isnt Aisha supposed to be the only Virgin wife amond his wifes, and lacks other sexualexperince so how would she know if he is better than others in Mecca ?! I believe that goes reeally against her, specially she was accused of committing adultery with Safwan !!
[Aisha was not prepubescent when marrying the prophet. Based on the textual evidence that's the opinion of the vast majority of our scholars if not all of our scholars.]
which scholars, recent or old scholars ?! why dont you provide us with this strong evidence, that will refute our claims, r u keeping them for yourself ?!
what textual evidence?! dont u understand what the texts says or what ?!
............
Sir if you have one comentery that said somthin in your book, in order to disprove it , u have to get something, that goes against it, thanks.
.....................
So far u didnt answer ti earlier points how this could be our best example ?!
And About age of puberty Aisha was 8 and half, which is enough to prove she never had a period, supported by the fact of the Hadith, pedophilla in islam, and your own quotes
and u r claiming That Mary was 12 when Marrying Joseph, without any evidence, so i will drop it from my account untill u show us something.
Zakaria: If I were You (i mean a muslim) i would listen to ehteesham advice, he is experienced, and he knows that there is no way a muslim would win this debate (about pedophilia).
Another advice : if u just claiming that I have to get the evidence that an 8.5 years gurl has not started mentstruating, u r making fool of yourself here on the blog, honestly everyone will read what u say will laugh, saying look at this .... he saying that every 8.5 years old gurl is menstruating, which is false, so u will be just expsoing yourself , and islam more and more
If you want to forfeit, I would acknowldge your trial to defend muhammed from being pedophile(though it failed) but at least u tried. I am sorry , I am not sure if I can wish u good luck next time, cause i am not sure if it will even work with you, since the case you are arguing is really hopeless.
Ehteshaam said: "its not worth fighting with these people, let it go. Oh and yes Mary was 12 years old, stop trying to hide it."
Can you please explain to me how it is that you know this to be a fact, and why it is that the claims from the infancy gospel of James that provide a foundation for this age speculation should be taken as accurate? I guess no comment so far on what I correctly pointed out about the clear bias of the conclusions made by the catholic encyclopedia.
Ehteshaam said: "I say: Early yes, but true, NO. The Gospels are based off fictional forms"
You have repeated this claim before. Please explain upon what basis you determine that the authors of the Gospels were using "fictional forms"? There is typology and metaphor in the subtext, but I don't see where they are "fiction" other than based on naturalistic presuppositions of some historians that everything supernatural is fiction.
Ehteshaam said: "they are based off unreliable oral traditions, etc, etc."
They are still sources closer to the life of Yeshua than all of your Hadith materials about Muhammad, and based on the Historical Method, we have more reliable information about Yeshua than you have about the life of Muhammad. Please be cosistent if you are going to appeal to scholarship, such as the scholarship of historians.
Ehtheshaam said: "We don't know who wrote any of the Gospels"
We have oral tradition from early testimony as to who wrote them. Irenaeus, who was the disciple of Polycarp, who was the disciple of John the Apostle told us who wrote them. That's a very short "isnaad" Ehteshaam, and based on the chain I find it to be "sahih" ;)
Ehteshaam said: "moreover no scholar in their right mind will ever say the Gospels are historical biographies-- rather the Gospels reflect the hope and faith of early Christianity--- not history of Jesus."
That's an over-generalization. Many scholars have said that the authors of the Gospels intended their writings to be historical accounts of the events. The issue is, that many of them have a naturalistic world view, so they reject all the occurrences of supernatural events contained in these historical documents. Those same historians would reject that portions of the Quran that Muslims believe are accurate history [i.e. the Noah and the flood, Abraham, Moses, etc]. So once again, please be consistent, and realize that the reason some historians reject the historicity of the Gospels is because they have no room for the supernatural within their worldview, and this same thing causes them to reject [supposedly] historical narrations in the Quran.
My friend Zacarian... thankes for calling me a pig... it's a good example off how kind and human and truthloving muslims are...
1) The Catholic encyclopeadia is nott a Christian source... sorry aboiutte thate: our only normative source is the Holy Bible... more: this article is nott saying thate Mary was 12 and Joseph was 91... its saying thate according to some apocryphal texts (thate were neber recognized as independent valuable source off information since they were written by gnostic movements thate denyied the teachings off the Holy Bible) thate was the case... the article is nott giving an information od the age off the fathers off Jesus, rather an information on whate was beliebed to be theire age an egypction gnostic movement thate despised the materiaol world... sorrie aboutte thate Zakaria...
P.P.S Fernando said: Please Zakaria: do nott leave this site… I see thate some wordes can bee hard to read, eben mines, butt beliebe I habe my heart opened to the truth… May God, the Holy Trinity, blesses you and your family…)
then mie fried Zakaria saide: «If I were you I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for me to convert to Paulinism. LOOOOOOOOOOL»... yes, I wolde be bery pleased to see you open your heartte to the truth an the truth God... butt it woulde be, for me, good enought iff you became a muslim coherent to all your sources... then you'ld realize how unhuman amd anti-God is the islamic ideology... and whie are you talking about paulinism? everything thate Paul sayide are theological consequences off the life and words off Jesus... can you say the same withe the amputations and manipulations to the text off the qur'an Uthman did?
Aboutte Aisha: can you provide ANY source thate she was pos-pubescent? Thankes... please: remebrer thate the myth that Aisha was more than 14 years old is only thate: a myth invented several centuries latter to, as you eben recognized, avoid incopabilityes in testimonies...
Ehteshaam Gulam said: «Oh and yes Mary was 12 years old, stop trying to hide it».... please: Ehteshaam Gulam... ONE evidence for thate... juste one... thankes...
Zakaria: making sex withe a pre-pubescent girl is a paedophilicus act, whether the person sufferes from the psychological desiese called paedophilia or nott... and please: search this blogg: this debatte as been made several times and the evidences thate muhammad not only comitted a paedophilicus act, butt thate he also WAS a paedophlicus according to modern psychological definition off paedophilia (and remebrer thate it was you thate came withe thate point)...
Zakaria... please: do nott twist brother shafsha wordes... he was nott using apocryphal bokks to prove anything... he was usinf the same ebidences thate you valurated from those kind off non-christian sources to prove thate iff you accepted them, then you need to accept also the other ebidences they present aboutt Mary nott being 12... sorry aboutt thate...
ounce again: were is, in a Christian source thate Mary was 12? Butt eben iff she was 12, she's nott our model, as muhammad is to muslims, and she did nott ahbe sexual intercoirse withe God, as muhammad did withe poor baby Aisha...
Mie friend Zakaria... none off the texts you presente constitute any contradiction... sorrye aboute thate... let's just pike, by hazard, one or two examples.
Aboutte MT 4:5-8 and LK 4:5-9 (and let's forgett the literary and theological dimentions thate BOTH authors putt in these texts...)... there woulde onlie be a contradiction iff Jesus was nott taken to bothe places... using your basic knowledge and logic, lets say thate in 40 days Jesus was, obviously, takken several times to those places (the text says crearly: He was tempted for 40 days)... M - (P - M) - P - [M - P] - M... and so onn... so: one author referes the sequence in () and the other in []... where is the contradiction???
Aboutte MT 7:1-2 and MT 7:15-20... in the first case ther'rs an explicit referrence to "judge" (krinô)... thates nott the case in teh second case where we only find the notion off "recognize" ("epiginoscô")... so: the first case is an interior, an mental process thate implies an subjective inference; in the second case is the recognition off an objective external ebidence... where is the contradiction???
Aboutte MT 5:1 - 7:29 and
LK 6:17-49 (aboutte the "lack" off this sermon in other authors... Paul did nott wrotte an "gospel" and Mark centranted is account on other aspects off Jesus liffe... woulde yoy say, for instance thate iff Sahih Bukhari does nott say X tahte is saide by Sahih Muslim thate X did nott acoour???)... ounce again let's ignore the literary and theological dimentions thate BOTH authors putt in these texts (I reconne those elements are too difficult to an non knwolegble off the Bible person)... two things thate are soooo evidentt thate it hurts to me to reffer them to you:
1) to a person who lives in Galilee (MT) a hill off 300 meters may be considered a Mountain (and thate term bee used in Galilean people) since he might tot know heigher and proper mountains; for awell travelled person likke LK, tahte knows major maountaisn, the 300 meters hill is just a plainn...
2) whow mani plains do you not know tahte are in mountains? hum?
(will continue for more a whille...)
(continuation)
ABoutte MT 8:5-12 and LK 7:2-10 (ouce again: lets forget the theological preocupation inherent to these texts)... it's obvious: the centurion first send his servents, and then, when Jesus was nearer, he whet himself to speak to Him... one author spoke abotte one aspect and the other in the other... so: were is the contradiction?
Aboutt MT 8:16, LK 4:40 and MK 1:32-34... oh..., my Lord, oh vacuus can bee one claim? plese: "many" is an hebrainism (somem sort off an idiomatic expression) thate means, precesely, "all"... period... sheck itt out for yourself in any NT dictionary... so: were is the contradiction?
one last example... MT 5:16 and MT 6:1-4 in the fist case Jesus is reffering to "workes" thate as nott referrence explicetely to an religious dimention; in the second He clearly is refferring to thate kind off actions: practicing "justice" (and, in MT 6,5-6, praying)... the previous, since does nott habe an conotation off self-justification in front off others, can, and must be expressed; the latters, mustte be done in absolutte gratuity nott to gibe the impression off, precisely, thate self-justification thate would ebee against the free grace off God... so: were is the contradiction?
I hoppe you'll writte to those biblical ignorant muslim sites thate present these pseudo-contradictions and ask them to bee taken out...
p.s.: I woulde bee more than pleases to habe the time to expliann all the other cases... no time for thate, butt I'll gibe you, mie friend Zakaria teh chance to choose 2 or 3 in order nott to bee saide itt was I thate picked the texts I wanted...
May God (thete for mee is the Holy Trinity), bless you and yopur family!
To EC #1
Well i was hoping the Ben Malik will get back to me, but since he seems to have dropped out my class, ill have to deal with Nikdimon instead
Well, let me tell you, your not dealing with me that well.
Everything doesn’t ‘mean’ the Quran, everything INCLUDEDS the Quran.
Its a very, very simple concept.
The tablet in heaven contains a record of all events that will ever occur on earth- including the Quran. God writes or blots out form that tablet as he pleases. What he writes occurs, what he doesn’t or blots out does not.
The tablet would thus include ALL revelved variation of the Quran, so none of them contradict the tablet.
Where is the contradiction between me a Bassam?
The contradiction is not only between you and Bassam, but between Bassam and his prophet as well. The claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of Allah is unfounded from the ahadith you posted. One said that “First of all, there was nothing but Allah”. (#414) If this is the case, then where was the tablet? If there was no tablet, then there was no Quran either. Then #416 goes on to say “He wrote everything in the Book”. You yourself said that EVERYTHING means EVERYTHING. So if first there was nothing but Allah, then there was no tablet or book and if there was no tablet or book, then there was no Quran either! Therefore it cant be contained in an eternal tablet in heaven. The other hadith says “When Allah completed the creation, He wrote in His Book which is with Him on His Throne”. (#416) Since Bassam said in the debate that the Quran is eternal speech of Allah, this hadith blatantly contradicts him. Your position is just contradictory, since you believe both this hadith that you posted from Sahih Bukhari Volume 5, Book 54 AND hold to the position that the Quran is eternal. Yet your position and the hadith are mutually exclusive and thus contradictory. So either you and Bassam spread falsehoods or your prophet spreads falsehoods. Which one is it?
What he writes occurs, what he doesn’t or blots out does not.
The tablet would thus include ALL revelved variation of the Quran, so none of them contradict the tablet.
So does Allah write novels? Since he writes things and then abrogate them. And are the abrogated verses also written in the heavenly version of the Quran? Or, better yet, is the verse of stoning also included in the heavenly version that is with Allah? Or did the heavenly goat eat that one too?
Absolutely! Well done! You go to the top of the class above Ben Malik. :-)
Because God is All-knowing, then there was never a time where he didnt know EVERYTHING, including about us or the Quran.
Now what’s your point?
Oh my, it seems that you can’t figure out a simple 1+1=2! If what you have just confirmed is TRUE, then your either your premise about the Quran is FALSE or you are claiming that WE AND EVERY OTHER BOOK ALLAH KNEW OF IS ALSO ETERNAL! THAT is my point! Are you following the logical line of reasoning that I’m pointing out to you now?? You have just said “absolutely! well done!” to a point that I made that excludes your position on the eternal nature of the Quran from being true! I repeat: IF according to the saying of your prophet, that you yourself tried to build your argument on (and contradicts your position btw), there was nothing but Allah first this means that the tablet was created. And if the tablet was created, then the Quran was created after that, which means that the Quran was NOT eternal! And if you want to claim that the Quran was not created BECAUSE it was all in Allah’s mind from eternity past and therefore you can say its eternal, then WE, [I.E. YOU AND ME!] ARE ALSO ETERNAL BY THAT SAME LOGIC because we also existed in Allah’s mind from eternity past! Are you now able to follow the logical flaw of your argument?
cont.
To EC #2
Only Jews circumcised? lol
I think you’ve just embarrassed yourself... Ever read your Bible?
“ This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised. You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner— those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant.”
(Genesis 17:10-13)
So Ishmael is a “Jewish Boy” now?
Ouch! You must be SO embarrassed right now..
Can you even read? Ishmael was circumcised because he was from Abraham’s household, just as the commandment said! So my argument still stands. Hey EC, if you have never read the Scriptures properly other than some standard passages that Muslims blindly use for the sole purpose of trying to discredit the Bible, then please don’t use it.
And by the way, when God said:
“My covenant in your flesh is to be an **EVERLASTING** covenant.”
What does everlasting mean?
Does everlasting mean “EVERLASTING”?
Or does EVERLASTING mean until a false prophet called Paul comes along and says:
“Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all.”
(Galatians 5:2)
LOL! Ok everybody reading this should pay close attention how this brainless guy has just condemned Muhammad to be a false prophet! Let me first explain Paul and then go to Muhammad.
EC, the entire letter to the Galatians is written as a response to a false teaching that was taking root in the Congregations in Galatia, namely, that observing the Torah and circumcision were means of salvation! Everything that Paul writes in that letter is to debunk this position. So what Paul here in 5:2 is saying to the Galatians is that they either depend on their own righteousness and salvation through the Torah and circumcision or they trust in the salvation provided by the Messiah. If you chose Torah and circumcision the Messiah’s work will indeed profit you nothing. Paul in no way abolishes circumcision! This is evident of the fact that he circumcises Timothy in Acts.
Now to your false prophet! I quote you and will hold your false deity, your false book and your false prophet to the same standards that you just used. You said:
“Does everlasting mean “EVERLASTING”? Or does EVERLASTING mean until a false prophet called Paul comes along and says…”
If you hold Paul to this standard, then what about your false deity claiming that Muhammad came to make lawful what was prohibited? YHWH, in the Torah, says that the covenant He made with Israel was FOREVER, THROUGH ALL THEIR GENERATIONS! Last time I checked, the generations of Israel ARE STILL HERE WITH US TO THIS DAY. Yet for 1400 years Islam has been claiming that the everlasting Covenant between God and Israel was null and void and that Islam was the way to go now. WHO IS THE FALSE PROPHET HERE?
Jeremiah then comes along and foretells a New Covenant that would be made with the House of Israel and the House of Judah. This New Covenant would be FOREVER! Along comes the Allah/Muhammad combo and claim otherwise. WHO IS THE FALSE PROPHET HERE?
Since Paul is infinitely more knowledgeable than your ignorant Illiterate, he knew that abolishing the Torah was contrary to what the prophets have spoken! That’s also why Yeshua said “DO NOT THINK that I came to abolish the Torah and the Prophets…”. But Muhammad was totally ignorant of what the prophets have spoken, therefore he openly violated the Torah and the prophets in almost every way. Therefore, rabbi Sha’ul from Tarsus is a much more reliable witness than Muhammad, in spite of your constant attacking him, trying hard to discredit him. You guys have nothing on Paul!
cont.
To EC #3
Sorry, I need a reference for that.
I want his exact words were he says that’s the SOLE reason.
Here is the nonsensical Muslim claim again. “show me the EXACT WORDS”. Well, show me THE EXACT WORDS to support your position! You do that with the Bible too: “Show me the exact words where Jesus says I am God worship me”. But where do you have the words in the Quran “You must say the Shahadah to be a Muslim”, or show me the EXACT word “tawheed” in relation to Allah. Again… because these things are not EXACTLY stated in the Quran, your beliefs are non-existent. Great logic!
Hello!?!
Where have you been for the last few days? Please pay attention.
Ive just given you ONE example of Mark 16:9-20.
1) Was the original ending of Mark lost like Metzger (who you quoted says), and how do you know?
2) Is Mark 16:9-20 the original “Word of God” and words of Jesus or not?
3) How do you know?
4) Have Christians always seen it that way for the last 2000 years, and if not, why not?
5) And do all Christians TODAY agree with your decision? And if not, why not?
I have already dealt with Mark 16. First we don’t know if Mark wrote any more than verse 8. As far as all the evidence is concerned we have no reason to assume he did. It is YOU that operate under the assumption that we miss critical data because we don’t have a “longer version” of Mark, assuming (again, an assumption on your part) that Mark wrote more than the 8 verses in chapter 16. And since the other testimonies have the additional details that lack in Mark, we have all the data we need. Second, Mark already has the data that supports everything we believe and that we need for assurance of salvation, the divine Sonship, vicarious death, justifying resurrection and the return in heavenly glory of the Messiah. We don’t need the longer ending for our salvation. So that deals with point 1 and 2. Point 3 is pointless in light of my answer points 1 and 2. Point 4, Christians for the past 2000 years have never questioned the authenticity of Mark, with or without the longer ending. Point 5, it is no question to any Christian today that is aware of the facts that Mark is a reliable source, with or without the longer ending. You seem to be under the assumption that every single Christian should have a saying in what is part of the original Mark and what isn’t. Where did you get that idea from?
And I feel like a broken record here. I have challenged you over and over again about giving us ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of a text where we have a variant where we don’t know what the original should be THAT WOULD DAMAGE OUR FAITH! So far, after some 6 challenges you haven’t produced even ONE example. Mark 16:9-20 is attested in 3 other sources. No matter how you slice it, the Gospel of Mark ends with the resurrection, which is the finalization of our faith.
Here we go again with the concocted “no doctrine affected” argument.
You have dealt with nothing, pal. I have showed that your argument destroys Bassam’s entire opening presentation, rebuttal periods and closing statements if you consistently apply your objection to the Quran as well. Bassam contended that nothing is lost as far as the argument goes that verses are missing in the Quran, because others talk about what verses are missing that should be in it. Bassam contended that the other 6 Ahrufs are not needed because one Ahruf says is enough to know what Allah wanted to communicate. Your argument nails Bassam’s position, since we also agree that if you have multiple witnesses to one event or story, then you don’t need all the information in every witness for that event. If you would have 4 Ahrufs and one Ahruf lacks some information that the other 3 have, how is that damaging to your faith as a Muslim?
cont.
To EC #4
I wrote:
If destroying 6 OF ALLAH’S 7 “MIRACLES” IN THEIR ENTIRETY makes no difference because 1 SOURCE saying the same thing (according to Bassam) and is more than sufficient for Muslims to know what Allah wanted to communicate. (thereby making you upset, since that means that 6 wonders of Allah are DISPOSIBLE, just like you objected to Sepher Shalom, which you obviously have a problem with), then HOW PRAY TELL to you object to the NT, when it comes to the NT missing merely 12 verses in 1 SOURCE while 3 SOURCES say the same thing?????
Can you explain this logic to all of us?
Best attested compared to what?
Compared to the likes of Josephus, Homer and Tacitus that have about 3manuscripts each for them??
Wow, im SOO impressed!
Maybe you would be more impressed if you would just know the facts instead of adjusting the facts to your assumptions! It is the best attested mss in antiquity, what part of this sentence don’t you understand? If it is the best in antiquity then it is compared to everything we know from antiquity! Does that even make sense to you???? Can you at all think logically? And I challenge you to bring us the source that say anything about those sources having just 3 mss each.
Obviously the NT would have more MSS then those works because no one belived them to be the Word of God, so why copy them?
How does this make any sense to anyone? Can you support this thesis with a logical explanation as to how one is to come to this conclusion?
Why not compare the NT to another book that ALSO claims to be the word of God like...err..... THE QURAN??
The NT has about 5,500 Greek MSS...
Yet 14,000 MSS of the Quran were discovered in the loft of the Sana Mosque in 1972.
That means we have **MORE THAN DOUBLE** the number of Quran MSS in just **ONE LOFT**, than you have Greek NT manuscripts IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!
And that just one collection, so dont even go there, dude...
Regards..
I guess ignorance compels you to make errors like this. Let’s go just there shall we? Let me just start with saying that because you are ignorant of basic facts (reminds me somewhat of the man you follow that claimed to be a prophet) you don’t know the claims you just made are entirely wrong!
When we speak of the Greek MSS for the NT the number is more than 5700 (your number of 5500 is outdated!). And when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! (and this is even less than there actually are. The exact number of mss is actually higher than 5700!)
When you speak about the Sana documents you speak of a miserly 40000 PAGES of the Quran.
A simple calculation shows that you are 1.1 MILLION PAGES short! Where do we find those? What manuscripts do you have to fill that gap? How many more lofts do you have, EC?
Conclusion: The Quran falls short to the NT in every category: Number of attestation, number of mss, historical data, theological claims, substance, reliability!
Besides that, Mrs Lincoln, how did you like the play?
Nakdimon
PS: I am still waiting for that one example from our Gospels of a text that damages any of our doctrines. The fact that those documents are “error-ridden” it comes as surprise to me (and to the other readers as well) that you haven’t been able to provide even one single example to support your claim.
David/Nabeel
I and Nak have noticed that the numbers change but the posts dont show up. Is something wrong?
Part 1
Shafshaitan said:
You are really funny, have u read what Al Nawawi that u are quoting said: in the very firs words [IT IS PREFERABLE] Do u know what that means ?! that shows clearly that pedophilaia is not prohibited in Islam, thanks a million for proving my point.
and secondaly: [they should not marry her off before she reaches puberty IF there is no obvious interest to be served that they fear will be missed out on if they delay it]
Sir Do u understand what u r quoting ?! it said IF !! do u know what does that mean ?! let me make this sentence simple for you: if there is an obvious interestto be served that they dont want to miss it, then they can marry her before puberty. And that indeed perfectly lines with what we are saying, that she married the Prophet (that is the biggest interest for any muslim!)
Miss do you understand the difference between marriage and consumation?
If marriage is preferable after the first period it only proves that consumation is allowed only after the first period.
Your logic doesn't make sense if he married her when she was 6 or 7 why on earth wait 2 or 3 years.
Where is the hadith that says he consumated marriage before her first period?
Until you have proof you are bearing false witness.
Shafshaitan said:
Did he showed us that she ever reached puberty no
again:
she was 6 when married, and 9 when she had sex
( remember those are lunar years, so, she will be less than 9 years by about 100 days. so she was 8 and half)
Does any normal hgrl reach ppuberty by that time ?! we havent got an answer
Here's your answer:
1) Imam Ash-Shafi’e said:
“During my stay in Yemen I have come across girls at the age of nine who
menstruated so often.”(Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’, 10/91)
2)He (Ash-Shafi’e) also said: “I have seen in the city of Sana’a11 a grandmother while she was twenty one. She
menstruated at the age of nine and gave birth at the age of 10”. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi Al-Kubra, 1/319)
Abbad ibn Abbad Al-Muhlabi said:
“I have witnessed a woman from Muhlabah who become a grandmother at the age of
eighteen. She gave birth (to her daughter) at the age of nine and her daughter gave
birth to her child at the age of nine (as well), so the woman became a grandmother at
the age of eighteen.”Tahqeeq Fi (Ahadeeth Al-Khilaf, 2/267)
Take care
Shafshaitan said:
No Sir, Lying is only allowed in islam , as I already showed in the same blog. Not me. Pin point one lie in my comments.
Is it now miss? :) :)
"What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision? Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God. What if some did not have faith? Will there lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness? Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: 'So that you may be proved right when you speak and prevail when you judge.'
But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? that God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.) Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world? Someone might argue, 'If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increase his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?' Why not say -- as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim we say -- 'Let us do evil that good may result'? Their condemnation is deserved." (Romans 3:1-8)
Take care
[Nakdimon wrote:
When we speak of the Greek MSS for the NT the number is more than 5700 (your number of 5500 is outdated!). And when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! (and this is even less than there actually are. The exact number of mss is actually higher than 5700!)]
5700 complete NT Codices! Two simple questions for you to answer please:
1.From which academic reference is this information from? (academic journal article/ or an academic book citation)
2.How many of those COMPLETE NT CODICES date before 500 years or 1000 years of Christianity?
Regards
Brother Sepher... your responses to Young Ehteshaam are too difficultt to his totally lack off willing not too repeat his errors more thousand times again... you're, obviously coorect: everything he says is a bullet in his own feet, butt he thinkes he's saying amazing things... how can someone bee so obtuse? let's just trie to help him find the truth: and youre efford to do soo is a goog and examplar way. May God help you.
[Minoria said:.. the fact your Koran says Mohammed is in the Gospel.He's not.It's a fact….Examine the evidence carefully.That in itself is enough to prove Islam false.]
Talking about examining the evidence carefully- Since you can’t find Mohammed(pbuh) in the Gospel, what does it indicate? Have you set up different standards/inconsistent criteria to look for Jesus(pbuh) in the Old Testament and Muhammad in the Bible? Would you be kind enough to tell us where in the whole of Old Testament Jesus is mentioned or prophesized even once by this name? Being consistent, we should say ‘Jesus is not in the OT. It’s a fact!’
May I also ask anyone here to answer this question: Why is Jesus not mentioned by name in the OT?
Thanks
Shafshaitan:
I'm smelling double standards:
Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Since you guys like reversed burden of proof. Please prove that pedophelia was not ordained by your trinity G-d in your Bible?
Two can play that game!
LOOOL LOOL :) :)
Take care Shafshaitan
Oh by the way you don't seem to mind me calling you Shafshaitan is it because it's your real name?
;)
Shafshaitan said:
If you want to forfeit, I would acknowldge your trial to defend muhammed from being pedophile(though it failed) but at least u tried. I am sorry , I am not sure if I can wish u good luck next time, cause i am not sure if it will even work with you, since the case you are arguing is really hopeless.
If this is a genuine trial then it's the accuser who must prove his accusation.
Sorry my bad maybe this is a christian trial á la the inquisition where a reversed burden of proof applies. :)
[Alforreca wrote: Why should someone believe in a religion that is so full of lies and tactics not to assume the true? Rather be an atheist than believe in a false god that dictated a book that even a child could do better: in general knowledge and in logical structure.]
A child could do better: in general knowledge and in logical structure! Sounds like Ali Dashti or Salomon Reinach, the heroes of Quranic literary criticsm as cited by uneducated Christians.
I recommend to my Muslim readers the following books by Dr Hussein Abdul Raof, who in my opinion, using even modern linguistic theory has buried such superficial claims to rest:
Consonance in the Quran: a conceptual, intertextual and linguistic analysis, Muenchen: Lincom Europa, 2005
Qur’anic Stylistics: A Linguistic Analysis. Muenchen: Lincom Europa, 2004
What I learnt from Shafsa. It will be not worth my name if I did not learn anything while discussing here. Here is some of many things that I learnt:
Recognise when to stop talking to a brick wall;
Some people here need to learn to walk before they run;
Don’t talk to cyber missionaries who live in a virtual reality, not even aware of a physical library down the block. My hyper tip for the cyber editor: if AMAZON doesn’t help, try ATHENS or JSTOR. You need to UPGARDE your systems. Start with REBOOT.
Zakaria:
[Miss do you understand the difference between marriage and consumation?]
Yes Sir, I understand, but probably Al Naway u r qioting doesnt understand, so he didnt talk about those separate things, and So u are trying to put your own words into his writings, Sorry. Where did he talked about separated things ?!
[If marriage is preferable after the first period it only proves that consumation is allowed only after the first period.]
No , Sir, it proves that u are pedophiles, who allow Minors to get married!! minors cant take any decison, yet we find muslims marrying them !!
[Your logic doesn't make sense if he married her when she was 6 or 7 why on earth wait 2 or 3 years.]
Sir, the reason obvious, it is not waiting to start mensis, but ill she learns some basic life skills, like talking with other, respecting adults, not just a kid who is running around.
[Where is the hadith that says he consumated marriage before her first period?
Until you have proof you are bearing false witness.]
Sir, u trying to get into this without providing any bit of evidence, ignoring the commentery in your own Hadith, and adding you commentery , Sorry I'd rather trust the commentery better than you, unless u will add your own commentery in the hadiths books as well, thanks.
...............
Again I really doubt that u comprehend what u saying:
[He (Ash-Shafi’e) also said: “I have seen in the city of Sana’a11 a grandmother while she was twenty one. She
menstruated at the age of nine and gave birth at the age of 10”. (Sunan Al-Bayhaqi Al-Kubra, 1/319)]
Look what Al Bihaqy also Said (1588)
'The earliest I have ever heard, a woman had her first period at 9 years.'
So he was reporting abnormal cases, not the normal age. Just freak of natures. That's why they were reporting single cases. So Does that by anyway is the normal to apply for everyone including Aisha ?! NO.
[Imam Ash-Shafi’e said:
“During my stay in Yemen I have come across girls at the age of nine who
menstruated so often.”(Siyar A’lam Al-Nubala’, 10/91)]
this talking like a visitor who have seen wonders in yemen, Like I am telling You I have seen in Lare pyramis in Egypt !! is that the normal , baseline, No. Even More did he say gurls in yemen, but accross gurls in yemen (which means some, not all) Menstruate at 9 ?! NO, he said across gurls. Also SO often here, could refer to the Frequency or amount of bleeding. And lastly, was Aisha in Yemen , among this group, No. So return to Al Bihaqi, who said the ealriest he ever seen was 9 years, are u implying that this was Aisha ?!
And reread what I quoted from a bihaqi as well.
So I dont know how this applies to Aisha ?! do u mean that she was a freak of nature as well ?!
All the things you have quoted are actually evidence against you, as it clearly means that the baseline and normal never at Nine, but They have witnessed some cases, which according to medicne now is called Precoios Puberty. Did Aisha have that ?! No, otherwise it have been reported as well.
So Conclusion:
We have seen Zakria desperately rying to prove Aisha had her first period before consummation. Ignoring the question is this our best example ?!
And in his trial to do so:
He ignored commentires in his own hadith!
He tried to report Abnormal case report, in a trial to set this as the normal!
He tried to included Aisha among this diseased portion of women, whi had precocious puberty !
He ignores The fact that she was married at 6 years , where she dont have a will to choose !!
Stopped to compare this TO VIRGIN Mary, after his great failure to prove so !
I guess Now we have all the evidence that Muhammed was a pedophile, with the evidence he tried to use to defend him !!
Now about this passage of paul.
Sir this is one of the easiest passges to interpret. It is actually a dialogue between paul, and an Imaginary jewish person, trying to show him ther is no difference between person who is Jewish by birth or no non Jew.
j:What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?
Paul: 2Much in every way! First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.
J: 3What if some did not have faith? Will their lack of faith nullify God's faithfulness?
Paul: 4Not at all! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written:
"So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge."[a]
J: 5But if our unrighteousness brings out God's righteousness more clearly, what shall we say? That God is unjust in bringing his wrath on us? (I am using a human argument.)
Paul: 6Certainly not! If that were so, how could God judge the world?
J:7Someone might argue, "If my falsehood enhances God's truthfulness and so increases his glory, why am I still condemned as a sinner?"
Paul: 8Why not say—as we are being slanderously reported as saying and as some claim that we say—"Let us do evil that good may result"? Their condemnation is deserved
J: 9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better[b]?
Paul: Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
So without getting deeper, who said this in the dialogue ?! was it Paul Sir ?! or the Jew whom Paul making a dialogue with ?!
Now, You havent answered your question that Islam allows Lying, You Just tried to point a finger to the bible with out trying to defend your Lier Prophet !! So I would consider that u didnt answer that islam encourgaes lying as a confirmation , which Confirms FALSEHOOD OF ISLAM, since it is based on lying, allowed by Allah, and his messenger.
[ben malik wrote:...And to unlettered, err I mean the unlearned, I have said this before I will say it again. I maybe Shamoun, his mother, sister, wife, husband, nephew. WHAT'S TI TO YOU?]
Dear ben mailk, wife(?)of Sam Shamoun: You both are a perfect match. You are made for each other :)
If you are Sam Shamoun's husband- oh, no more comments, sorry. It has nothing to do with me.
By the way, I am NOT Sam Shamoun either, neither do I have (or wish to have) his alleged behavioural, psycho-social and cognitive problems. Just let him alone. We all have our weaknesses. I forgot to mention that in my last post of clarification.
End of Joke :) Not funny and surely boring.
You certainly LOVE your 'enemies' with expressive foul language(I dare not repeat or recall the filth here)--this mannerism cannot be a teaching of noble Christ. I hope I am not wrong here.
Enough said. Move on.
Has the Qur'an been perfectly preserved? In my opinion, yes. Reasons are to be found in the debate. If you think not, that's your opinion too. You are also welcome to discuss this here in a civilised manner.
Lets See what Zakaria is trying to Do here:
[Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Since you guys like reversed burden of proof. Please prove that pedophelia was not ordained by your trinity G-d in your Bible?]
First Am I under the covenant of Moses ?! If yes, then why I call my self a christian ?! But If u want to juddge me, bring the covenant that I am under now (the Taching of Jesus and his disciples)
2: Zakria desperately bring a verse that said Women who havent slept with men.
Then as usual he is trying his own word and cocnept to from pedophilia:
this include: they should be prepubescent, and Isreal men should have sex with them, and should have the desire , and do it recuuren. Would u please explain to us , how the definition of pedophilia perfectly matches these two verses ?! thanks
........................
And since u wanna discuss pedophilia, ( though I really ried to save you the embaressment) nut:
1st: we discussed Muhammed as perfect Pedophilicus examples, who sets himself as example to all muslims should follow (muslims should marry gurls at the age of 6 and have sex with them before 9, then we dont use the Lunar calender)
2nd: The quran itself:
a: Qur'an 33:49:
'O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon. But content them and release them handsomely.'
From the verse above it is understood that Iddah (stipulated waiting period) is required if sexual contact has occurred within the marriage. If a woman is not touched by her husband, she should not have to observe any waiting period at all.
After mentioning of women who have not had their marriage consummated, the Quran goes further - discussing the women who need to observe the 'iddat, and the span of time required.
b: We see in Quran 65.4:
'Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same): for those who carry (life within their wombs), their period is until they deliver their burdens: and for those who fear Allah, He will make their path easy. '
Here the 'Iddah is prescribed to three categories of women. First the phrase: “Yaisna min al-maheedhi” means “those women who are desperate of menses”= is an indication to women who reached the stage of menstruation but do not menstruate and of those who reached menopause. Desperate of menses underlines that it concerns women who though reached the age, fail to menstruate too. Their 'Iddah period is three months. Next comes, “Wallaee Lam yahidhna” = “those who have not menstruated yet” This group of women is pre-pubescent girls who have not menstruated yet. Here the Iddah prescribed for them is the same as the previous group of women (ie. three months). Lastly, the women who are pregnant - their prescribed 'iddat is until they have given birth.
The above translation of the verse masks the real meaning, so the verse has to be studied in Arabic. The true meaning of this verse and its implications are explicitly endorsed by Tafsir's if you wanna take it futherr, I would be glad to make a dialogue on it.
School drop-out Ben Malik,
<< Hey Uneducated Muhammadan can you repost your reply to me since I want to tear it to shreds dmismantle it much like the umma of Muhammad tore the Quran to shreds? >>
So you lost the last homework assignment I gave you, and now you want a new one?
Why not get someone else to teach you how to use a mouse, then maybe you can find it for yourself on this thread?
I’m not reposting anything.
Swear on whether im Usman or not?
As you say on whether you’re the Shamoun or not... What’s it to you?
Regards
SHEPHER
<< By they way, since you admitted you "don't have time" to learn what Jewish sources actually say about the nature of G-d, let me just inform you that the corpus of sources that orthodox Jews accept absolutely contradicts your Islamic view >>
And coming from a Jew rejected by his own orthodox comminty, that means.. ZERO to me. Sorry.
(And isn’t it funny how you can freely type the name ‘Yeshua’, but cant bring yourself to say ‘G-d’ even though ‘Yeshua’ IS supposedly ‘G-d’?)
Perhaps “G-d” isn’t as special anymore when he comes down to earth?
Or let me guess.. Yeshua being God isn’t a part of YOUR special Judo- Christian hybrid?
Please exaplain..
<<< Nice try, but no. I already pointed out that Yeshua's words here were a synthesis of at least 2 passages from the Tanach [in Isaiah and Ezekiel]. >>
Shepher, I suggest you read that to yourself again in a quite corner and think about how unbelievably desperate your being.
By that logic I could say almost ANYTHING is ‘Scripture’ and then find you a mish-mash of jumbled up words scattered around different books and then say ‘ah but this is a synthesis of different verses!’
Nice try.. But that’s just Pathetic.
<< I wouldn't expect someone that specializes in a mainly Gentile perspective, dominated by western thought to be properly grounded in Hebraic thought, or to be equipped to handle the Kabbalistic sayings of any of the authors. >>
Of course not. People like Professor Macdonald Just to understand the mystical depths of your Kabbalists saying! How silly of them to spend year and years studying the O.T!
No personal offense intended here, but im beginning to see why your Jewish credentials are so ‘questioned’ (shall we say) by orthodox Jews.
<< Why can't you admit that you are wrong, and it's time for you to drop this verse from you repetoire? >>
Oh, believe me my Jewish friend the fact that you’ve shown me just how low people have to sink to defend this means its staying firmly at No 1!
Not to mentioned the fact that at no point did you actually post the revlvant verses to show us how the mastery of this “synthesis” EXACTLY works.
Too embarrassed are we?
I would be too..
NIKIDMON
[PART 1 OF 2 ]
<< Well, let me tell you, your not dealing with me that well. >>
I actually feel sorry for you..
The fact you’re supposed to be some kind of top apologist is even worse.
That’s why im really sad that Ben Malik Shamoun dropped out my class. At least he was smart enough to see he was out of his depths. You just LOVE getting publicly schooled over and over and over again, despite the fact that you look more and more ignorant each time round.
Just keep reading all you see…
When will you ever learn?
<< “First of all, there was nothing but Allah”. (#414) If this is the case, then where was the tablet? If there was no tablet, then there was no Quran either >>
Unbelievable.
Why cant you understand such a basic concept?
The Tablet is CREATED.
The Quran is NOT the Tablet.
The Quran existed in God’s knowledge from eternity passed.
The Quran (along with everything else) was then W-R-I-T-T-E-N on that tablet AFTER the tablet was created.
Understand now?
It really is like talking to a 4- year old.
< I repeat: IF according to the saying of your prophet, that you yourself tried to build your argument on (and contradicts your position btw), there was nothing but Allah first this means that the tablet was created. And if the tablet was created, then the Quran was created after that, which means that the Quran was NOT eternal! And if you want to claim that the Quran was not created BECAUSE it was all in Allah’s mind from eternity past and therefore you can say its eternal, then WE, [I.E. YOU AND ME!] ARE ALSO ETERNAL BY THAT SAME LOGIC because we also existed in Allah’s mind from eternity past! >>>
Yes I know!
I already gave you a gold star for pointing that out, so what more do you want??
Both you and me, and the Quran and the everything else in existence PRE-EXISTED in God’s knowledge because God is all knowing.
SO WHAT??
What has that got to do with the preservation of the Quran from Mohammed till today?
You’re seriously confused bro..
NIKDIMON
PART 2 OF 2
<< Can you even read? Ishmael was circumcised because he was from Abraham’s household, just as the commandment said! So my argument still stands. >>
Well now youre just a liar.
Your original argument was:
< In the Torah, when the Gentiles were among the chosen people (yes, the REAL chosen people) they didn’t have to be circumcised either. Circumcision was only obligated for the Jewish boys.>
( August 3, 2009 5:32 PM )
So you’re argument was destroyed.
I rest my case, so you can stop lieing now.
<< “Does everlasting mean “EVERLASTING”? Or does EVERLASTING mean until a false prophet called Paul comes along and says…”
If you hold Paul to this standard, then what about your false deity claiming that Muhammad came to make lawful what was prohibited? >>
Muhammad never claimed to follow your corrupted OLD TESTMENT.
Paul did. Sorry.
On Bart Ehrmans reason for Rejecting the NT:
<< I want his exact words were he says that’s the SOLE reason.
Here is the nonsensical Muslim claim again. “show me the EXACT WORDS”. >>
Ok lets sort this out… You originally said:
<< Ehrmann rejects the Divine inspiration of the NT because we don’t have the ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS! >>
That’s ANOTHER LIE..
Read misquoting Jesus.
He rejects its inerracy because IN ADDITION to not having the orginals you also have late MSS with SERIOUS variants.
<< I have already dealt with Mark 16. First we don’t know if Mark wrote any more than verse 8. >>
LOOOL!!
EXACTLY!! HALLEUJAH!!
You DON’T KNOW what the Word of your God IS and IS NOT because of textual variants!
Case closed!
Have a nice day..
P.s. Sorry even though you just self-destructed there, I couldn’t let this one slide..
Its just TOO funny!:
<< And when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! (and this is even less than there actually are. The exact number of mss is actually higher than 5700!) >>>
LOOOOOOOOOL!!!
Who told you that rubbish??
Trust me my friend… every educated Chrstains on this board holding their head in their hands over that one right now...
There are only about 50 or so COMPLETE NT manuscripts!
Your “5700” figure include EVERY MS regardless of its size.
It included p52 as ONE manuscript and codex Sanitucus as ONE manuscript.
Im sorry you’re just beyond help bro…
I really don’t think I can tutor you anymore.
[Sepher Shalom wrote: Learner, are you not aware that a large percentage of Christians believe that Yeshua explicitly forbids swearing of oaths? (Matt. 5:34-37)]
Yes. Even if ben malik was of those minority of Christians who considers it to be OK (ben malik does not fall in that group), he would not have affirmed what I asked for, I suspected, and his response demonstrated that.
Shafshaitan said:
Now, You havent answered your question that Islam allows Lying, You Just tried to point a finger to the bible with out trying to defend your Lier Prophet !! So I would consider that u didnt answer that islam encourgaes lying as a confirmation , which Confirms FALSEHOOD OF ISLAM, since it is based on lying, allowed by Allah, and his messenger.
The problem with you shafshaitan, which you seem unable to see, is that whatever islamic sources you or I refer to, from your point of view, either proves your point or can be explained by you as not proving my point.
Every christian source you or I refer to, from your point of view, either proves your point or can be explained by you as not proving my point.
I have without commentary from me shown:
that the absolute majority of islamic scholars think that the prophet consumated the marriage after aishas first period.
that nine-year-olds in arabia at that time very well got their first period at nine (that is lunar years ;)).
The only way around this problem is that you provide a hadith that clearly says the prophet consumated the marriage before the first period of aisha (as you claim based on your interpretations).
Or that you provide a hadith that clearly shows that it was allowed to marry a girl before her first period (as you claim based on your interpretations)
If you fail to do so you bear false witness.
I'm not interrested in your evangelical interpretations.
So for the last time either you provide a hadith showing that the prophet consumated the marriage with aisha before her first period or I will take Gulam's advice and stop debating with you. It's no use debating with someone who puts up her own criteria for judging the meaning of christian and islamic sources.
By the way please explain your criteria for interpreting your and my sources. I think I deserve a good laugh when reading Shafshaitan's scholarly criteria for interpreting christian and islamic sources.
Take care
P.S One piece of advice: please reduce the amount of venom that comes through your mouth, you might accidentally swallow it yourself (if you haven't already). D.S.
[Sepher Shalom wrote:….nor does it help your Quran with it's MASSIVE historical problems. The Gospels as a source are still the most historical, and earliest account of the life of Yeshua and His Disciples. The fact that your Quran repeatedly fails historical investigation isn't changed at all,…]
Using the historical method that you are using, do you consider the ANET narratives of creation or flood as attested in Enuma Elis, Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, all predating the OT, to be MORE historical than the Bible? If not, why not?
I think, using this historical method one can say there are MASSIVE historical problems with the Old Testament. The OT disagrees with the ancient near eastern texts substantially, as it also agrees to these.
Like you indicated elsewhere, we Muslims believe in a supernatural source for the Qur’an, which the historical method may not find tenable, but here is our paradigm: Revelation corrects earlier errors and rumours , be they MASSIVE or otherwise.
Regards
Shafshaitan said:
The above translation of the verse masks the real meaning, so the verse has to be studied in Arabic. The true meaning of this verse and its implications are explicitly endorsed by Tafsir's if you wanna take it futherr, I would be glad to make a dialogue on it.
You still don't understand the difference between marriage and consumation of marriage do you?
I'll take you up on your challenge.
Provide me with a tafsir that clearly says that consumating marriage before the girls first period is allowed.
to marry a girl
Sorry I meant consumate marriage.
Again, Zakria is trying to Take his last breaths in the dabate, lets see how.
1: Did he provide any answer regarding Islam permits Lying ?! No, the only thing is that he poited to the bible , and With the Grace of Our Lord, I answered Him.
yet he is saying:
[The problem with you shafshaitan, which you seem unable to see, is that whatever islamic sources you or I refer to, from your point of view, either proves your point or can be explained by you as not proving my point.
Every christian source you or I refer to, from your point of view, either proves your point or can be explained by you as not proving my point.]
Is this true ?! No... thats the problem of your religion Sir, so week to stand argument !!
Havent shown us if lying is not allowed in islam ?! I provided u the evidence, and the only answer we got is that u quoted paul !! WOW, great response !!
2: He claimed Virgin Mary was 12, and severly failed to prove his claims again!!
3: Regarding Aisha's Age:
[that the absolute majority of islamic scholars think that the prophet consumated the marriage after aishas first period.]
Again which scholars Sir, havent told Us so far ?! old scholar like Ibn Kathir , El tabari ?! any of the seera ?! WHAT SCHOLARS ARE U TALKING ABOUT, THAT AGREED ?!
[that nine-year-olds in arabia at that time very well got their first period at nine (that is lunar years ;)).]
Sir, I doubt if u understood what u presented !!probably you dont know what is a case report !! Thats really weird, that muslims are just throwing to us any quotation, without even bothering readina nd understanding them!!
Sir, those u mentioned, for instance Al-Bihaqy, was not saying : the average age for menstruation in Arabia is 9!! he just pointed to certain cases, and he clearly said, that the earliest age of mesntruation he ever heard of was 9 !!
Do u reallt understand what that mean. It is like I have seen a woman aged 120 years, and that is the oldest I have ever heard of !! and some woman live over 100 by few years. Am i talking about average her?! or going to the extreme to prove my point ?!
So what u quoted clearly means that the noram age of menstruation was never 9, and it is just an exception, that is worth reporting ( and by the way that how medical diseases are discover, first thing is a case report, then serial cases report, till u have enough data), and thats doesnt mean by any way that the whol populaionare all diseased!
[The only way around this problem is that you provide a hadith that clearly says the prophet consumated the marriage before the first period of aisha (as you claim based on your interpretations).
Or that you provide a hadith that clearly shows that it was allowed to marry a girl before her first period (as you claim based on your interpretations)
If you fail to do so you bear false witness. ]
Clear Deception, over and over, trying not to defend his prophet after his severe failure showing a single evidence that aisha started menstruation by 9 !!
[So for the last time either you provide a hadith showing that the prophet consumated the marriage with aisha before her first period or I will take Gulam's advice and stop debating with you. It's no use debating with someone who puts up her own criteria for judging the meaning of christian and islamic sources. ]
LOL, I told u , u wanna forfeit, go ahead, no way to win this.
U want eveidence:
Open the Hadith, (al-Bukhaari, 6130; Muslim, 2440.) I mentioned earlier, and see the commentery on it, the cases u reported which showed that this not the normal age, and also al-Nawai u quoted clearly stated she Got married when she was prepubescent. Besides that Islam allows pedophilia !!
So lets understand what Zakaria is Doing again:
He is doing th same old trick, show me the exact passage !! Sir, is that how u make sharia ?! is this how Science of Fiqh based on ?! do u mean if u dont have clear text, u will not try to understand anything, and cease your brain from thinking ?! if you wanna take this pathway, then trust me I can backfire this against u, asking u for clear text for a lot of things, especially u have a lot of discripancies in every verse !!
So , Mr Zakria, again ignoring his clear hadiths that Aisha was still prepuubescent !! --- sir if shcolars really dont agree upon this, why dont you deleted it from your books instead of bothering everyone ?! So he reads the Hadith, and when comes to this poitn, e reject it, on no basis, just he dont like it.
Also the texts u showed, showed us clearly, that this is not the normal age !!
Also u forgot to tell us how is this the best example for humanity, when a 52 year old muslim, marries a 6 yr gurl , and have sex with her before 9 ?!! - u are clearly avoiding this important point
So conclusion:
Zakaria just ignores:
1: human rights and children rights
2: his hadith and commentery
3: the muslim scholars who showed this no the norma age of menstruation
4: all scientific facts
5: his own thinking as a human
6: fact that quran and muslim scholars well attested allowance of pedophilia in islam
and yet what did he provide?! nothing !! he just claims she reached puberty !! on what basis ?! nothing, just using prcocious puberty as an example !! does tha prove anything ?! NO , just claims that goes against every single evidnce
....................
[P.S One piece of advice: please reduce the amount of venom that comes through your mouth, you might accidentally swallow it yourself (if you haven't already). D.S.]
I dont understand what u mean exactly, if u mean my word are venom, that ur own book. or r u saying venom, because u started suffering from what i said so far ?! If u dont wanna suffer anymore from this venom, I al honestly would encourage u instead of ceasing your brain to function, to leave Islam with all your heart, and then u will not suffer from this islamic venom anymore.
talking about venom, dont u know that Muhammed died poisoned , after eating a poisoned goat ?! even worse, he told his followers that his body will stay as is, but few day, started putriefied, so he was lying over and over up untill his death. By the way muhamed as a lier is mentinedin the quran as well !!
Aisha never reached puberty at 9 according to hadith:
1: Narrated 'Aisha: The Prophet was screening me with his Rida' (garment covering the upper part of the body) while I was looking at the Ethiopians who were playing in the courtyard of the mosque. (I continued watching) till I was satisfied. So you may deduce from this event how a little girl (who has not reached the age of puberty) who is eager to enjoy amusement should be treated in this respect.
Sahih Bukhari 7:62:163
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/062.sbt.html#007.062.163
2: Narrated 'Aisha: I used to play with the dolls in the presence of the Prophet, and my girl friends also used to play with me. When Allah's Apostle used to enter (my dwelling place) they used to hide themselves, but the Prophet would call them to join and play with me. (The playing with the dolls and similar images is forbidden, but it was allowed for 'Aisha at that time, as she was a little girl, not yet reached the age of puberty.) (Fateh-al-Bari page 143, Vol.13)
Sahih Bukhari 8:73:151
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/073.sbt.html#008.073.151
3: immature:
Narrated Aisha:
. . . That night I kept on weeping and could not sleep till morning. In the morning Allah's Apostle called Ali bin Abu Talib and Usama bin Zaid when he saw the Divine Inspiration delayed, to consul them about divorcing his wife (i.e. 'Aisha). Usama bin Zaid said what he knew of the good reputation of his wives and added, 'O Allah's Apostle! Keep you wife, for, by Allah, we know nothing about her but good.' 'Ali bin Abu Talib said, 'O Allah's Apostle! Allah has no imposed restrictions on you, and there are many women other than she, yet you may ask the woman-servant who will tell you the truth.' On that Allah's Apostle called Buraira and said, 'O Burair. Did you ever see anything which roused your suspicions about her?' Buraira said, 'No, by Allah Who has sent you with the Truth, I have never seen in her anything faulty except that she is a girl of immature age, who sometimes sleeps and leaves the dough for the goats to eat.' . . .
I was a young girl and did not have much knowledge of the Quran. I said. 'I know, by Allah, that you have listened to what people are saying and that has been planted in your minds and you have taken it as a truth. Now, if I told you that I am innocent and Allah knows that I am innocent, you would not believe me and if I confessed to you falsely that I am guilty, and Allah knows that I am innocent you would believe me.
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:829
http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/048.sbt.html#003.048.829
4: and many other hadith all said she was a young gurl like:
Sahih Bukhari 3:48:805
Sahih Bukhari 6:60:274
Sahih Muslim 37:6673
Zakria is asking for Tafseer, avec plaisir!
1: Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi
Here, one should bear in mind the fact that according to the explanations given in the Quran the question of the waiting period arises in respect of the women with whom marriage may have been consummated, for there is no waiting-period in case divorce is pronounced before the consummation of marriage. (Al-Ahzab: 49). Therefore, making mention of the waiting-period for the girls who have not yet menstruated, clearly proves that it is not only permissible to give away the girl in marriage at this age but it is also permissible for the husband to consummate marriage with her. Now, obviously no Muslim has the right to forbid a thing which the Quran has held as permissible.
↑ Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi: Tafhim al Quran. Commentary on Quran Chapter 65:4
http://www.islamicstudies.info/tafheem.php?sura=65
2: Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen
Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen Quran. Surah al-Talaaq 65:4: If a woman does not menstruate, either because she is very young or old and past menopause, then her ‘iddah is three months, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the ‘Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their ‘Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise.
↑ Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Uthaymeen, Majmoo’at As’ilah tahumm al-Usrah al-Muslimah, p. 61-63
http://www.islamqa.com/en/ref/12667
3: 'Ibn Kathir
The `Iddah of Those in Menopause and Those Who do not have Menses Allah the Exalted clarifies the waiting period of the woman in menopause. And that is the one whose menstruation has stopped due to her older age. Her `Iddah is three months instead of the three monthly cycles for those who menstruate, which is based upon the Ayah in (Surat) Al-Baqarah. [see 2:228] The same for the young, who have not reached the years of menstruation. Their `Iddah is three months like those in menopause. This is the meaning of His saying
↑ Tafsir 'ibn Kathir 65:4
http://www.tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=65&tid=54196
4: Al-Jalalyn
And [as for] those of your women who (read allā'ī or allā'i in both instances) no longer expect to menstruate, if you have any doubts, about their waiting period, their prescribed [waiting] period shall be three months, and [also for] those who have not yet menstruated, because of their young age, their period shall [also] be three months - both cases apply to other than those whose spouses have died; for these [latter] their period is prescribed in the verse: they shall wait by themselves for four months and ten [days] [Q. 2:234]. And those who are pregnant, their term, the conclusion of their prescribed [waiting] period if divorced or if their spouses be dead, shall be when they deliver. And whoever fears God, He will make matters ease for him, in this world and in the Hereafter.
↑ Tafsir Al-Jalalyn - Quran 65.4
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=74&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
5: Ibn Abbas
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation) because of old age, (if ye doubt) about their waiting period, (their period (of waiting) shall be three months) upon which another man asked: “O Messenger of Allah! "What about the waiting period of those who do not have menstruation because they are too young?” (along with those who have it not) because of young age, their waiting period is three months." Another man asked: “what is the waiting period for those women who are pregnant?” (And for those with child) i.e. those who are pregnant, (their period) their waiting period (shall be till they bring forth their burden) their child. (And whosoever keepeth his duty to Allah) and whoever fears Allah regarding what he commands him, (He maketh his course easy for him) He makes his matter easy; and it is also said this means: He will help him to worship Him well.
↑ Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs - Quran 65.4
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=73&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
6: Al-Tabari
The interpretation of the verse "And those of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the 'Iddah (prescribed period), if you have doubt (about their periods), is three months; and for those who have no courses [(i.e. they are still immature) their 'Iddah (prescribed period) is three months likewise". He said: The same applies to the 'idaah for girls who do not menstruate because they are too young, if their husbands divorce them after consummating the marriage with them.
Tafsir Al-Tabari, 14/142
7: Al-Wahidi
(And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) [65:4]. Said Muqatil: “When the verse (Women who are divorced shall wait, keeping themselves apart…), Kallad ibn al-Nu‘man ibn Qays al-Ansari said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, what is the waiting period of the woman who does not menstruate and the woman who has not menstruated yet? And what is the waiting period of the pregnant woman?’ And so Allah, exalted is He, revealed this verse”. Abu Ishaq al-Muqri’ informed us> Muhammad ibn ‘Abd Allah ibn Hamdun> Makki ibn ‘Abdan> Abu’l-Azhar> Asbat ibn Muhammad> Mutarrif> Abu ‘Uthman ‘Amr ibn Salim who said: “When the waiting period for divorced and widowed women was mentioned in Surah al-Baqarah, Ubayy ibn Ka‘b said: ‘O Messenger of Allah, some women of Medina are saying: there are other women who have not been mentioned!’ He asked him: ‘And who are they?’ He said: Those who are too young [such that they have not started menstruating yet], those who are too old [whose menstruation has stopped] and those who are pregnant’. And so this verse (And for such of your women as despair of menstruation…) was revealed”.
↑ | Asbab Al-Nuzul by Al-Wahidi - Quran 65.4
http://altafsir.com/Tafasir.asp?tMadhNo=0&tTafsirNo=86&tSoraNo=65&tAyahNo=4&tDisplay=yes&UserProfile=0
Zamakshari - 65:4
The bold text means “Those who have not menstruated” are young girls.
Tabrasi :
They are those who haven’t reached the age of menstruation”. Tabrasi comments on the phrase “Wallaee Lam yahidhna” = “Those who have not menstruated yet” in the verse
Al-Shoukani :
Those who have not menstruated yet” are young girls who have not reached the age of menstruation
Abu-Hayyan :
Those who have not menstruated yet” denotes those not menstruated because of being young.
Sir, Yes I understand differnce between consummation and marriage according to islam, but review verse :
Qur'an 33:49
Iddah (stipulated waiting period) is required if sexual contact has occurred within the marriage. If a woman is not touched by her husband, she should not have to observe any waiting period at all.
If Quran 65.4 specifies that pre-pubescent females must observe a 3 month 'iddat then clearly sexual intercourse is halal to Allah.
Shalom Learner,
I have my information from here: http://www.csntm.org/
“The K-Liste, as we abbreviate the title, contains detailed information on each of the more than 5,700 manuscripts including its Gregory-Aland number (the number assigned to each manuscript to identify it to the scholarly world), its dimensions AND NUMBER OF LEAVES, its date and contents, its last known location and local shelf number, and other useful information.”
So the 5700 mss have a number of leaves each. They are not 5700 pages. Your brother EC made the erroneous comparison between the 5700 complete mss of the NT with the 40000 PAGES of the Quran, calling them 14000 Qurans. The average number of 200 pages and that they are complete catalogued MSS I have from Dr James R White, who has been studying NT MSS for almost 3 decades. If you want to contend with that, I suggest you call in on his radioshow The Dividing Line (aomin.org) today because his guest is Daniel Wallace, whose website I have given you above.
Nakdimon
EC since you are constantly contradicting yourself and bring nothing substantial to the table I am not going to continue this conversation any further. I mean “tablet is created, BUT ITS ETERNAL!” is just one among many contradictions. You have brought nothing when I challenged you on your claim about our NT being error ridden. However, you made this claim
Muhammad never claimed to follow your corrupted OLD TESTMENT.
It doesn’t matter if he claimed to follow it (even if he didn’t follow it and still claim he did, you would still believe him) it matters that he told the Jews NOT to follow it.
But I will address this one and demonstrate that he appealed to the same Torah that we have today. Since your prophet was an ignoramus and didn’t know what our Scriptures said, he was dumb enough to claim that he was mentioned in our Torah. Your black stone idol did that too:
007.157 Those who follow the messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described IN THE TORAH AND THE GOSPEL (WHICH ARE) WITH THEM. He will enjoin on them that which is right and forbid them that which is wrong.
So let me get this straight:
Since you claim that the Scriptures are corrupted, your god revealed the Torah and the Gospel, he lets them get corrupted while he knows that he will need them later to reference to as proof that Muhammad was foretold, then refers to a false book (according to you) to prove his true prophet is foretold, which is by then already corrupted out of the Gospel and Torah. Is that what you want people to believe?
Here are some tafsirs that state that the Torah and Gospel with Muhammad mentioned in them were still present at the time of Muhammad:
Al-Jalalayn: those who follow the Messenger, the uninstructed Prophet, Muhammad (s) whom they will find INSCRIBED IN THEIR TORAH AND GOSPEL, in name and description,
Ibn Abbas: (Those who follow the messenger) the religion of the Messenger, (the Prophet who can neither read nor write) i.e. Muhammad (pbuh) (whom they will find) with his traits and description (described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) WITH THEM.
Ibn Kathir: (Those who follow the Messenger, the Prophet who can neither read nor write whom they find written with them in the Tawrah and the Injil,) This is the description of the Prophet Muhammad in the Books of the Prophets. They delivered the good news of his advent to their nations and commanded them to follow him. HIS DESCRIPTIONS WERE STILL APPARENT IN THEIR BOOKS, AS THE RABBIS AND THE PRIESTS WELL KNOW. Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Sakhr Al-`Uqayli said that a bedouin man said to him, "I brought a milk-producing camel to Al-Madinah during the life time of Allah's Messenger. After I sold it, I said to myself, `I will meet that man (Muhammad) and hear from him.' So I passed by him while he was walking between Abu Bakr and `Umar, and I followed them until they went by a Jewish man, WHO WAS READING FROM AN OPEN COPY OF THE TAWRAH. He was mourning a son of his who was dying and who was one of the most handsome boys. The Messenger of Allah asked him (the father),
(I ask you by He Who has sent down the Tawrah, DO YOU NOT FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF ME AND MY ADVENT IN YOUR BOOK) He nodded his head in the negative. His son said, `Rather, yes, by He Who has sent down the Tawrah! WE FIND THE DESCRIPTION OF YOU AND YOUR ADVENT IN OUR BOOK. I bear witness that there is no deity worthy of worship except Allah and that you are the Messenger of Allah. ' The Prophet said (to the Companions),
cont
(Stop the Jew (the father) from (taking care of) your brother (in Islam).) The Prophet then personally took care of the son's funeral and led the funeral prayer on him.''' THIS HADITH IS SOUND AND IS SUPPORTED BY A SIMILAR HADITH IN THE SAHIH NARRATED FROM ANAS. Ibn Jarir recorded that Al-Muthanna said that `Ata' bin Yasar said, "I met `Abdullah bin `Amr and asked him, `Tell me about the description of Allah's Messenger in the Tawrah.' He said, `YES, BY ALLAH! HE IS DESCRIBED IN THE TAWRAH, JUST AS HE IS DESCRIBED IN THE QUR'AN
So tell me, EC, which Torah and Gospel was in circulation that mentions Muhammad? Historically speaking there were no other Torah or Gospel available then that which we read today that you claim is corrupted. So therefore you should be able to find Muhammad’s description in the Torah (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy) and Gospel (Matthew Mark Luke and John) we have today. Your own book says that you can depend on our Scriptures!
So I’m done wasting my time with you.
Nakdimon
Zakaria: I'll take you up on your challenge.
Provide me with a tafsir that clearly says that consumating marriage before the girls first period is allowed.
I have been getting this a lot from Muslims. They always make this baseless claim that "girls at that time in that climate mature much faster" and "Ayesha already had her menses when they consumated the marriage".
Is this your position also, Zacharia?
Nakdimon
Educating,
You already admitted you have no clue what I believe and you don't want to know. The fact that you are digressing so far off topic shows you have nothing meaningful to say. Most of what you typed was just insults, sarcastic remarks, and off topic blithering. I will, for my own amusement, take a moment to engage even some of your off topic shenanigans.
Educating said: "(And isn’t it funny how you can freely type the name ‘Yeshua’, but cant bring yourself to say ‘G-d’ even though ‘Yeshua’ IS supposedly ‘G-d’?)"
It's primarily a habit to type G-d rather than God. I have been doing that for so many years, that is how my fingers automatically type the word. If you were paying attention you probably noticed I have not problem typing 'YHWH', and 'Adonai', and 'Elohim'. It's called muscle memory buddy....and boy are you about million miles off topic. You don't having meaningful to say, so you are clearly trying to increase the length of your response as a substitute for lack of substance.
Educating said: "Shepher, I suggest you read that to yourself again in a quite corner and think about how unbelievably desperate your being. By that logic I could say almost ANYTHING is ‘Scripture’ and then find you a mish-mash of jumbled up words scattered around different books and then say ‘ah but this is a synthesis of different verses!’"
You continue to reveal that you have no idea how to properly interact with our Scriptures. I am still waiting for you to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong rather than just repeat it over and over.
Educating said: "Of course not. People like Professor Macdonald Just to understand the mystical depths of your Kabbalists saying! How silly of them to spend year and years studying the O.T!"
I suggest you write to him and ask him if he has any experience whatsoever handling Kabbalistic literature. As far as my cursory online search reveals, I can find no evidence that he has any knowledge on the topic. You can mock all you like, but it's quite apparently that you are not mentally equipped to handle the subject matter, nor do you have knowledge of the methodology to do so. That's why you are not providing even the slightest refutation of my claims. Just repeating that you believe I am wrong doesn't cut it. You have to demonstrate it.
(cont)
Part 2
Educating said: "Oh, believe me my Jewish friend the fact that you’ve shown me just how low people have to sink to defend this means its staying firmly at No 1!"
Drum banging seems to be a hobby of yours. Simply stating a claim over and over is not evidence. It is clear that you are not willing or able to interact with my claims, so instead you volley thinly veiled insults and off topic comments. Very unappealing. Very unconvincing.
Educating said: "Not to mentioned the fact that at no point did you actually post the revlvant verses to show us how the mastery of this “synthesis” EXACTLY works. Too embarrassed are we?"
Don't be ridiculous. There is a limit on the length of posts here. Also, I'm not going to clutter the blog by posting entire chapters of the Bible in text. I gave you the references, and I explicitly told you where in the text that metaphors are found, and why it supports my claim. The chapters in question are available to read online. What did you offer as a rebuttal? Nothing but insults and off topic filler to cover your lack of content. What is clear is that you are incapable of responding, incapable of exegesis, and of course you claim I am wrong because you start from the false presupposition that that verse is a direct quote and your only criteria for a good response is if I can show you the quote from the Tanach. This is nothing more than begging the question.
If you can't find a link to read the chapters from Isaiah and Ezekiel online I would be more than happy to provide you with a link. If you would like to examine them in the original language, I would be happy to provide you a link to that too. It would be nice if you would back your claim by demonstrating it, but I won't hold my breath on this one, as I think it's clear to everyone that you are not capable of doing such.
Hello:
Just right now found these new comments.Thanks for the advice Shafsha.I will see if I can find the greater jihad,lesser jihad reference.Thanks again.And I hope the person who calls you Shafshaitan ceases it.
MARY'S AGE WHEN SHE HAD JESUS
I was surprised Ehteshaam is 100% convinced Mary was 12 when she had Jesus.I had addressed that before.I had even said his own scholar Richard Carrier accepts the possibility that due to Joseph's poverty and his obligation to accumulate a dowry consumation of the marriage could well have taken years.
CONCUSION:we don't have enough info.To say she was 12,ignoring all the other evidence,in not scholarly.Carrier would never affirm it.He would say we just don't know.
CONSISTENCY
It is true,that often Muslims in their arguments aren't consistent.One has to use,as much as possible,the same method in all matters.
Perhaps Ehteshaam was unaware of Carrier's analysis of the matter,but if by chance he was,and he is certainly one who has read him alot,then his argument is not consistent.
JOHN 7:38
True,the exact words aren't in the OT.Jesus was paraphrasing.It was common.And accepted.Proof?
TARGUM(around the time of Jesus)
Much of it is paraphrase of the OT,not exact translation.
SEPTUAGINT (250 BC)
First translation of OT into another language.It is a paraphrase translation.The Jews saw nothing wrong as long as the essence was shown.
SOURCE OF CITATION IN JOHN 7:38
My friend,Educating Christians,it's vital to know the Jewish customs.In my Bible PROVERBS 18:4/20:5 don't appear as the source of the paraphrase.But they are good,thanks to the person who gave it.
ISAIAH 12:3 says:"You will draw water with joy from the source of salvation." I think it's also another source for the paraphrase,according to my Bible.Again,Educ.Christians,Jesus was following the Jewish tradition of paraphrasing.
GENEALOGY OF JESUS
It was a matter that troubled me alot.But a good explanation exists.In fact it comes from a SKEPTIC,JAMES TABOR.He wrote THE JESUS DYNASTY.It's there.
His explanation is based on the Greek language used.So it's by one who is an unbeliever,who doesn't believe in the virgin birth,that Jesus was God,that he resurrected.I will give it later.But it's good.It's simple and convincing.
@ LEARNER AND EDUCATING CHRISTIANS.
Just listened to The Dividing Line, the radio show of Dr James R White. And I have to correct the numbers of pages that I mentioned earlier.
You guys surely remember that I calculated "a whopping" 1.14 MILLION PAGES of MSS earlier on. That number is...well...not entirely correct. Dr Daniel Wallace of the NT Research Centre said that the number is actually around 2.6 MILLION PAGES of text! Sorry for the minor lapse.
So break out your lofts and search for some Quranic MSS pages!
Nakdimon
Sepher Shalom: ....and boy are you about million miles off topic. You don't having meaningful to say, so you are clearly trying to increase the length of your response as a substitute for lack of substance.
Isnt that how the Quran is written though?
When Allah has nothing meaningfull to say he exclaims "Allah is all Wise, Merciful!" or threatens people with "painful doom" constantly. It makes absolutely no sense! He talks about burning off the skins of the people of hell and replacing it with other skin and then burning it off again and follows that with "that is easy for Allah, Allah is Wise!". What on earth does burning off skin have to do with wisdom? Or he tells a story and all of a sudden jumps to "you will be one of the losers!". What kind of nonsense is that? NO substance whatsoever! Thats why Muslims hammer on the eloquence of the Quran, because the book just falls short when it comes to substance. Thats why they reject any other eloquent recitation as inferior to the Quran and since the eloquence is supposed to be a miracle, they have already decided that the so-called eloquence of the Quran is superior to anything else and therefore the Quran cant be matched in eloquence no matter what.
To give you a perfect example. The Quran is supposed to be a miracle in Arabic, while the overwhelming majority of Muslims actually speak Arabic. Earlier this week, me and Radical Moderate went into a Muslim revert room on Paltalk, where they were playing Arabic recitations of the Quran. So Radical went up there and played a recording of a recitation in Arabic which actually curses Muhammad and Allah. The reverts thought it was SO BEAUTIFUL, since they thought this was a recitation of the Quran. They couldn't distinguish between a Quranic recitation and a recitation of an Arabic curse on Muhammad and his alias Allah, just as Muhammad couldnt distinguish between a revelation of Allah and that of Satan. (maybe, just MAYBE, because there is no difference there?) And Muslims keep claiming that no one can produce a Surah like it. It has been done time and again and has even been surpassed and proven so. Reverts are the ultimate test, since they cant understand either the Arabic of the Quran and anything else in Arabic that sounds like or better than the Quran and thus cannot be biased. Yet Muslims have already made up their minds that this isnt possible so therefore they wont concede the point since if the Quran is matched or superceded, they can throw out the Quran and Islam is a sham.
But then again, we already knew that!
Nakdimon
[Nakdimon wrote:
Isnt that how the Quran is written though? When Allah has nothing meaning full to say he exclaims "Allah is all Wise, Merciful!" or threatens people with "painful doom" constantly. It makes absolutely no sense! … Or he tells a story and all of a sudden jumps to "you will be one of the losers!". What kind of nonsense is that? NO substance whatsoever!...]
Nakdimon: you aptly demonstrate your superficial reading of the Qur’an. Why don’t you give 1 or 2 examples (chapter, verse) where we can demonstrate to you how wrong you are?
[He talks about burning off the skins of the people of hell and replacing it with other skin and then burning it off again and follows that with "that is easy for Allah, Allah is Wise!". What on earth does burning off skin have to do with wisdom? ]
God reminds us here of His wisdom, even so for individuals like yourself (and me) who may be reading His book superficially. What on earth does burning off skin have to do with wisdom? Let’s look at the verses to find out:
Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56, Yusuf Ali trans.)
First proof of your superficial reading: The verse does not follow with ‘that is easy for Allah’.
2nd: the wisdom is not linked to mere burning of skins, but with recreating fresh skins. For what reason? So that they may taste the continuous suffering in full. If the skin was burnt off once, do you think they would feel pain in the skin anymore? NO. Why? Since the nerve endings for pain that are located on the skin would have been burnt off and destroyed leaving them INCAPABLE of feeling any pain and suffering there. Did you even know that? This is where the power and wisdom of God is highlighted in recreating fresh skins every time that skin is burnt off.
O Allah! You are indeed All-Powerful, All-Wise. Save us from the fire prepared for those who reject your signs!
[Nakdimon wrote:…And Muslims keep claiming that no one can produce a Surah like it. It has been done time and again and has even been surpassed and proven so]
I had gone through sites such as surahlikeit, personally analysed more than 2/3rds of ‘true furqan’ a few years back, read literary analysis of ‘true furqan’ in Arabic forums----Yet in my ignorance never seen an objective, critical, literary analysis anywhere to show that it has been SURPASSED and PROVEN so. May be you can direct me to those linguistic-literary analysis and examination of the Arabic Quran with Arabic counter texts. We could then possibly submit those texts to Arabists (in academia ) of your choice and see how they comment on the observations made. Mind you, I have seen some passionate Christians without the understanding of the nature of the Qur’anic challenge throwing at me a translation of Psalm 23 in English as a counter text!:)
oops a grievous typo in my previous post:
while the overwhelming majority of Muslims actually speak Arabic
should be
while the overwhelming majority of Muslims actually DOES NOT speak Arabic
@ LEARNER #1
Learner: Using the historical method that you are using, do you consider the ANET narratives of creation or flood as attested in Enuma Elis, Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, all predating the OT, to be MORE historical than the Bible? If not, why not?
As I explained to your brother Bassam before when he brought this up in an attempt to try to salvage the Quran’s many plagiarized stories, I have no problem with non-scriptural accounts predating Scriptural accounts. In fact, that is what you would expect if an event is historical! However, there are a few things that one needs to consider when stumbling on such things.
EITHER this is a historical event
OR it is fabricated and thus a fable
There is no other option. If this is a historical event, one would expect to have multiple accounts of this event, such as Gilgamesh, Enuma, etc. What you have to do is prove that this story cannot be a historical event. In the case of the flood we accept it through faith although there are theories that are for it and against it. Since there is no conclusive evidence, this story cannot be labelled as a fairy tale and thus is eligible to be historical, in which case, again, we would expect multiple sources that attest to this event. Could it be a fabricated story and therefore plagiarized? Sure, but if you think it is, then what is it doing in the Quran as well?
But still, in order to prove that the Bible plagiarized this story, one must do a few additional things:
1 = Link Moses (or any other Biblical character accused of plagiarism) to the population of Gilgamesh, Enuma and all the Atrahasis Epic from which he might have gotten this story
2 = One must prove that Moses actually spoke their language so that he could have understood them when they supposedly told him the story
You have NOTHING to link either Moses or anyone else in the Bible to any of these sources on any of these points! This actually builds the case for Moses having received this account by revelation and not through plagiarism.
CONT.
@ LEARNER #2
Now let’s apply these same criteria to Muhammad! (unlike Muslims who continually and unashamedly use double standards left and right) Muhammad tells these stories in the Quran that we find all over the place in and around Saudi Arabia. The criteria were
EITHER this is a historical event
OR it is fabricated and thus a fable
There is no other option. If it’s a historical event we would expect to see these stories attested in other sources. Do we find them elsewhere? YES! What are those sources? These sources are all known as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated stories from Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and pagan sources. These sources are known NOT to be historically reliable but just folklore and fables. We know for certain that the Jewish sources are not historical because we know for what purpose those sources are written and that they are based on the original version which the writers knew as the Torah, the Prophets and the Writings, which is in short the Tenach. But as if that is not sufficient to accuse Muhammad of plagiarism, we go to the next step, which we did with Moses. Just like in the case of Moses, we have to
1 = Link Muhammad (or the author of the Quran that is accused of plagiarism) to the population of Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians from which he might have gotten this story
2 = One must prove that Muhammad actually spoke their language so that he could have understood them when they supposedly told him the story
We not only can link Muhammad to these people, but we know that they spoke his language and that he had his companion Zayd bin Thabit study the Books of the Jews! This opens the door wide to the charge of plagiarism of those sources that are in no way shape or form historical, told only for the purpose of storytelling and to communicate moral truths, yet have found their way into the Quran as historical events.
THAT, MY FRIEND, IS THE DIFFERENCE! If we would find 2 or 3 such stories in the Quran, it would have been no problem because it could occur that people tell make up a story without knowing such a thing actually really happened. But in the case of the Quran it is patently clear that Muhammad plagiarized them, because we see story after story after story over and over again that can be linked to a fable that was told in and around the area of Saudi Arabia before and during the time the Quran was “revealed”.
Any more questions?
Nakdimon
Wow!!!! I can't believe the number of posts here!!! I kept waiting for my posts to appear not realising that I had to click on the next page. Anyway, I think I found Johnny Bravo/Usman Sheikh a.k.a. uneducated Muhammadan's reply:
Why cant you understand such a basic concept?
The Tablet is CREATED.
The Quran is NOT the Tablet.
The Quran existed in God’s knowledge from eternity passed.
The Quran (along with everything else) was then W-R-I-T-T-E-N on that tablet AFTER the tablet was created.
Understand now?
Before I further expose your illiteracy here Im just want to mkae sure that these were points in response to me? If there are more then please point them out so I can begin my task of educating an illiterate who doesn't know his own religion.
EC,
First I got those passages out of the ESV in reference to the passage you quoted. Secondly Sempher is correct when he stated that when Jesus is giving a direct quote he says “As the Prophets said” etc… When he is giving the totality of the scriptures he says things like “As it is written in the scripture.” And finally even if Jesus is referencing an apocrypha work, or a book or passage that has since been lost, it really doesn’t matter. We Christians do not believe in the false assertion that you need an exact copy of scripture to have preservation. That’s a Muslim fallacy not a Christian one. A fallacy that is begging to fall apart as this debate clearly shows. We Christians believe that the Text was preserved in the uncontrolled rapid transmission of the text, in a language that everyone at the time who could read did read.
I also noticed EC that you or any other Muslim in this forum has not even attempted to answer my questions on Muslim circumcision, and the prohibition on Pork for Muslims. Could it be that you Muslims don’t know what makes a pig unclean, or why you are to circumcise your male’s, because Mohamed I mean Allah didn’t know? It is so obvious that Mohammad ripped off and copied from the Jews never understanding why it is that they do what they do. As Jesus said the Pharisees “YOU BLIND GUIDES’. You Muslims do what you do with out even knowing the reasons why you are doing what you do. As Jesus said “YOU HYPOCRITES…. You are just White Washed Tombs, clean on the outside but inside you are filled with decay and death.”
Now for Ehteshaam Gulam. I know I for one have busted your chops over the past few months on this blog, something that if you leave, I really won’t miss doing. But all ribbing and joking aside.
You have threatened a few times to leave us, but yet you are still here. I’m begging to think that the reason why you threaten to leave so much is because you are experiencing what the bible calls “Hot coals being heaped on your head”. It is one thing to spout your accusations against God, his word and his people to unknowledgeable Muslims and the Praise Jesus crowd. But it is another thing to actually come up against Knowledgeable Christians, who will not let the tiniest slight, insult, or accusation slide.
It’s like being the smartest kid in a class full of mentally challenged people. Sure your smart compared to your environment but when you are put up against those who are not mentally challenged, you are inadequate, and slow to respond. Or like thinking you are a champion wrestler because you can pin your younger brother or sister with out any effort. But when you come up against a real wrestler you are easily choked out or pinned under his skill.
Ehteshaam this is a blog for adults, sure we get childish and goofy at times, but the scholarship is sound and the knowledge is very impressive. You have encountered people who actually read their bible, understand the history and the textual transmission. So either man up, and quit your crying and respond in adult way to those in the blog. Or go and pout and come back when your are actually adult enough to handle it. I for one and I know a few others are tired of your crying, whining, complaining and pouting.
Ehteshaam Gulam one more thing. You have been given a seat at the adults table. No one cares if you don’t eat your vegetables, and no one is going to make sure you chew your food properly. So quit throwing your temper tantrums over things that nobody cares about or go back and sit at the kiddies table with Nadir Ahmed.
Nakdimon
You wrote: << And when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! (and this is even less than there actually are. The exact number of mss is actually higher than 5700!) >>>
(You subsequently corrected that number to even greater: 2.6million pages of text.)
The point disputed was: 5700 COMPLETE NT Codices!
Educating _Christians replied: <<... Who told you that rubbish??>>
(you provided http://www.csntm.org/)
Educating_Christians contd..<< Trust me my friend… every educated Chrstains on this board holding their head in their hands over that one right now...There are only about 50 or so COMPLETE NT manuscripts!... Your “5700” figure include EVERY MS regardless of its size. It included p52 as ONE manuscript and codex Sanitucus as ONE manuscript. Im sorry you’re just beyond help bro… I really don’t think I can tutor you anymore.>>
Learner now comments:
Nakdimon: Having established that
a)you have no credibility in discussing NT manuscripts;
b) you only read superficially, being unable to grasp what you read
c) you will make the countless many who read this blog having used your information that you have provided only to return face down in deep embarrassment and shame for making gross errors in basic facts;
I am kindly correcting you. Learn to walk before you run- an advice most appropriate for you.
In a footnote no.80 on page 51 of the 4th edition of Metzger & Ehrman's ‘The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration’ you will find:
‘Lest, however, the wrong impression be conveyed from the statistics given above regarding the total number of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it should be pointed out that most of the papyri are relatively fragmentary and that only about 60 manuscripts (of which Codex Sinaiticus is the only majuscule manuscript) contain the entire New Testament. The great majority of the other manuscripts contain only the four Gospels, or only the Epistles.’
In case, you misread the above, let me repeat the relevant statement:
‘only about 60 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament’
Regards
Learner said... to Nakdemon
only about 60 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament’
Learner, no where did Nakdemon say that those manuscripts were complete NEW TESTMENT manuscript. He said they were “COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH.” In other words complete books of the New Testament. Not a complete collection of those books.
Learner you also said towards my Brother Nakdimon "Learn to walk before you run- an advice most appropriate for you."
Learner I believe it is YOU WHO NEEDS TO LEARN HOW TO READ, BEFORE YOU START TYPING. Definitely advice most appropriate for you.
NIKDIMON..
[part 1 of 2]
<<< So the 5700 mss have a number of leaves each. They are not 5700 pages. Your brother EC made the erroneous comparison between the 5700 complete mss of the NT with the 40000 PAGES of the Quran, calling them 14000 Qurans. >>
There you go lying again…
Where did I ever say they were “14,000 Qurans”?
I said they were 14,000 MANUSCRIPTS.
Again, why are you so dense?
It MUST be deliberate since I honestly don’t believe someone can be this ignorant.
Manuscripts are counted in the singular regardless of there size or which codex they come from FOR BOTH THE NT AND THE QURAN.
The tiny scrap called P52 counts as ONE MANUSCRIPT.
Codex sinaiticus that is huge book also counts as ONE MANUSCRIPT.
The same goes for the Quran.
Some small fragments of the Sana Qurans count as ONE MANUCSRIT.
Others that have dozens of folios also count as ONE MANUCSRIPT.
You have 5,700 Greek manuscripts in the whole world.
We have 14,000 quran manuscripts in Sana.
<< The average number of 200 pages and that they are complete catalogued MSS I have from Dr James R White, who has been studying NT MSS for almost 3 decades. If you want to contend with that, I suggest you call in on his radioshow The Dividing Line (aomin.org) today because his guest is Daniel Wallace, whose website I have given you above. >>
Really? Lol
So if I phone up James White and read out your original statement to him of:
<< ..when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! >>>
Would he agree with that or not??
Would Dr James R White agree that there are 5,700 “COMPLETE NT CODECES”??
LOL!
James White, like every semi-educated Christian here, is EMBARRASSED by you saying that…Trust me..
Finally why don’t you ask the ‘learned’ James White how many of those “5,700 MSS” date from the 1st and 2nd centuries?
According to him it’s a grand whopping total of….[Drum roll]..…12!!
An amazing 0.21%!
And even THAT figure is going on the datings that his fellow missionary Dan Wallace told him to say as Erhman exposed in their debate.
Missionary scratching the back of missionary, because they both know that hardly any REAL NT scholar (like Erhman) would date some of those MSS to the 2nd century.
Nevertheless since the NT is in such a desperate and needy state, let’s play along with James and Dan and ‘pretend’ there are 12 MSS from the 1st AND 2nd centuries.
Do you know how many Quran MSS there are from within just 88 years of Mohammed??
An absolute MINIMUM of 45…
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/hijazi.html
And unlike James and Dan, we don’t need our fellow Muslim Apologists to date them for us, because that has already been done by NON-MUSLIMS scholars and Carbon-14 dating.
So I wouldn’t pin your hopes too much on James White who is only SLIGHTLY less ignorant on textual issues of the Quran and NT than you are.
Regards.
NIKDIMON
[PART 2 OF 2]
<< You have brought nothing when I challenged you on your claim about our NT being error ridden >>
I bought Mark 16:9-20, to which you then admitted:
<< First we don’t know if Mark wrote any more than verse 8 >>
So you admit you don’t even know whether the original end of the ‘inspired by the Holy Sprit’ Mark’s Gospel were lost or not
So much for inerrant..
<< I mean “tablet is created, BUT ITS ETERNAL!” is just one among many contradictions. >>
Again with the amazing ignorance..
What does ‘eternal’ mean?
Some thing can be eternal in the PASSED AND FUTURE (like God), or it can be created yet eternal for the future (i.e. indestructible)
Again, I don’t think I can tutor you anymore.
You need to be demoted to a special class.
<< Muhammad never claimed to follow your corrupted OLD TESTMENT.
It doesn’t matter if he claimed to follow it… >>
Yes it does.
Look at the context of the original argument.
Firstly it was about abrogation. First God told you to circumcise, now you don’t. That’s abrogation (and please spare me your evangelical word games of “but Jesus died so its ‘fulfilment’ rubbish. If you don’t you will be ridiculed)
Secondly, Paul claims to follow the Biblical Torah you do, yet he tell people that if they practise circumcision than “Christ will prophet you nothing”, even though that VERY SAME TORAH (that he claims to follow) says that circumcision is to be an EVERLASTING covenant in the flesh between the God of Abraham and his people.
So Paul is a bogus Prophet for breaking God’s everlasting covenant, and you are very, very gullible for believing in him.
Now if you read the Quran you’ll see that the Torah it speaks of is not the corrupted Biblical Torah, so Muhammad doesn’t have to follow everything therein.
This is proven by the fact that when the same stories in your corrupted error-ridden biblical Torah are re-told in the Quran, they are done so without the laughable historical errors therein, such as the one regarding “Pharaohs” in the time of Abraham to name but one…
And you have ZERO evidance that your torah was the only one in Arabia in the 7th century.
How many of your OT MSS, or of your 5,700 Greek NT MSS, or Arabic Bible MSS date to Arabia in the 7th century?
How many of the latter are even pre-islamic?
Not a single one.
SHEPHER..
<< It's primarily a habit to type G-d rather than God. I have been doing that for so many years, that is how my fingers automatically type the word. If you were paying attention you probably noticed I have not problem typing 'YHWH', and 'Adonai', and 'Elohim'. It's called muscle memory buddy....and boy are you about million miles off topic. >>
That’s ok..
I had noticed that your brain can’t control what your fingers type from your many posts ages ago, so don’t worry about that. ;-)
And I know it was off topic which is why I put it in brackets.
<< You continue to reveal that you have no idea how to properly interact with our Scriptures. I am still waiting for you to DEMONSTRATE that I am wrong rather than just repeat it over and over. >>
There is nothing for me to demonstrate since you cower away from copy/pasting me the mastery of this amazing synthesis between Isaiah 49 and Ezekiel.
Since you refuse to “DEMONSTRATE” where EXACTLY the quote comes from then there is nothing for me to refute.
Let me remind you:
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, “streams of living water will flow from within him."
A very, very simple quote.
Now, im sorry, but your claim that it's some long winded synthesis of two chapters based on some Kabbalistic decree that New Testament Professors are oblivious to is beyond pathetic, not to mention desperate.
And I have read your two chapters by the way and they only show me why you are too embarrassed to show us.
Finally you need to understand (as the professor does) that your NT testament has a habbit of quoting missing verses.
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
(James 4:5)
Where’s that in OT?
Or let me guess Shepher…
Its just an amazing mish-mash syntheses of various books that only the amazing Kabbalists will understand..
Nice try..
FAT MAN..
<< Learner, no where did Nakdemon say that those manuscripts were complete NEW TESTMENT manuscript. He said they were “COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH.” In other words complete books of the New Testament. Not a complete collection of those books. >>
Since you were honest enough to admit that Nabeel lost the debate (and honest enough to admit that you have a weight problem), I will assume this is an honest miss-sight on your part.
Why invent desperate alibis for Nikdom when we all know EXACTLY what he meant?
Nikdimon, in his amazing ignorance, meant that there are 5,700 compete NT manuscripts.
If you think he actually meant “complete books of the NT”, then please, please tell us which ONE of the 27 books of the NT requires “an average of 200 pages” to contain its text?
Which book in your NT is THAT long?
Again, ill treat this as an honest mistake, so don’t worry.
We’re all human.
Thanks again for your honesty over the debate.
Regards.
BEN MALIK..
<< Before I further expose your illiteracy here Im just want to mkae sure that these were points in response to me? If there are more then please point them out so I can begin my task of educating an illiterate who doesn't know his own religion. >>
Boy, you really MUST be Sam Shamoun..
No one else could be so arrogant as to write two posts IN PREPARATION for a long awaited grand master ‘rebuttal’ that never seems to show up..
You really think you’re THAT special?
Now since you are Sam Shoumoun, I prophesy that you will probably post me anything but a Quran verse or Sahih hadith to prove im wrong, but rather send a flurry of (mis)quotes from ANYBODY with a Muslim sounding name who has probably been dead for a few centuries after the Prophet ‘proving’ im wrong?
Just the usual rubbish, then..
And isn’t it funny how you can’t respond to any of the main points i said on the topic of Quranic preservation or that of the NT, but instead insist on focusing on the red-hearing middle-aged Salafi/Ashari theological debate of “is the Qu’ran created”?
Shame you lost the real debate days ago. Now you’re just going for the consolation prize.
It’s just sad bro..
Aren’t you supposed to be one of the best Evangelical apologists in the world?
Dear Shafshaitan
I'm still standing:)
I thought your job as shaitan was to lure people from islam not to educate them and thereby strengthen their iman.
I hereby admit that I lost my debate with Shafshaitan. This is because as you all know my point of departure was islamically speaking incorrect.
I was wrong regarding the impermissiblity to consummate marriage with a girl before bulogh.
Instead Islam has a far more superior criteria for when sex is allowed namely:
It should not harm anyone and the girl must be sexually mature.
A girl may well have reached menarche but still be sexually immature.
Regarding the prophet and his marriage to Aishah my standpoint is that she was sexually mature.
If anyone want's to have a dialogue with me regarding whether the two above points really is what islam teaches I would be happy to.
However, I will only engage in such a dialogue with two conditions:
That only islamic sources are provided without any non-muslim commentary.
And most importantly that no offensive language is used. I can't engage in debate or dialogue with someone who insults our prophet. Moreover, I won't accept any excuses for anyone insulting the prophet e.g. i'm only saying the truth etc.
You can insult me if you want to but not my prophet and his companions and Allah.
Those are my conditions anyone willing to have a dialogue based on those two conditions is welcome to respond to my comment.
With kind regards,
Zakaria
EC,
Do you know the difference betweent these two words
Cannon and Codex?
I will give you a hint, a cannon contains Codexies, but a codex is not nessasarly Cannon.
Educating said: "Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
(James 4:5)
Where’s that in OT?"
Please explain why you believe this must absolutely be a word for word quote of some passage from the Tanach?
You still haven't done that with the last verse you quoted. Before there is any point in me answering you further, I would like you to explain on what basis you determine this is a direct quote?
You are begging the question again. Your whole argument is based on your belief that these are meant to be direct quotes. Show us how you arrive at that conclusion please.
EC, since you muslims only have one book or one witness to Mohamed known as the Koran. You also said you have 14,000 manuscripts found at Sana. Now you say that you dont have 14,000 Korans found at Sana. Then can you please tell us what other books are contained in those manuscripts?
And finaly, why is it that muslims are so un willing to allow anyone to study these manuscripts? What are you muslims hiding?
And yes I did say that Bassam one the debate, becasue you cant argue with the fact that there are Textual variants found in the ancient quranic manuscripts, Scribal errors, and even missing and added surahs and aya's. Nope cant argue with that at all.
That sound you hear is the wall tumbling down on the myths of islam. I sugest you run before you are crushed by the truth.
EC one more thing, why havent you answered my questions regarding Circumcision, and the prohibition on Pork? Why is that could it be your allah didnt know why he was telling you to do or not to do things, and mohamed I meen allah could only copy cat from the Jews.
I will ask the questions again.
1) Please show us from the quran the reason why musims are to Circumsise there male children?
2)Please show us from the Quran why pork is unclean and forbidend?
3)Is monkey and ape meat forbidden in the quran?
Nakdimon
My question to Sepher Shalom which you seemed to have misunderstood was not to do with whether OT plagiarised from the ANET narratives or not. My specific question was :
[Using the historical method that you are using, do you consider the ANET narratives of creation or flood as attested in Enuma Elis, Gilgamesh and the Atrahasis Epic, all predating the OT, to be MORE historical than the Bible? If not, why not?]
The emphasis is on the word ‘MORE’.
I commented that:[ I think, using this historical method one can say there are MASSIVE historical problems with the Old Testament. The OT disagrees with the ancient near eastern texts substantially, as it also agrees to these.]
My point was that OT narratives may be said to have problems with true historicity as they DISAGREE in places with earlier ANET narratives substantially.
Yet you jumped on the wagon trying to defend OT against plagiarism and also accusing Qur'an of plagiarism!
[Nakdimon wrote:
However, there are a few things that one needs to consider when stumbling on such things.
EITHER this is a historical event
OR it is fabricated and thus a fable
There is no other option. If this is a historical event, one would expect to have multiple accounts of this event, such as Gilgamesh, Enuma, etc.]
I disagree. There can be other options- eg’., a mixture of both. True history mix with misinterpretations/exaggerations/falsehood/fabrications /fables etc. Take the example of alleged crucifixion of Christ. Is it historical? I say NO. Is it a fable? I say NO as well. It is misinterpretation of the events, some thought they perceived this event and this rumour subsequently spread as true history.
[If this is a historical event, one would expect to have multiple accounts…]
Are you denying then the historicity of the following account?
52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (Matthew 27:52-53)
To my knowledge, it has no multiple attestations. If this was a historical event, why is it not reported in multiple accounts, in multiple sources as, one should expect?
[But still, in order to prove that the Bible plagiarized this story, one must do a few additional things:
1 = Link Moses (or any other Biblical character accused of plagiarism) to the population of Gilgamesh, Enuma and all the Atrahasis Epic from which he might have gotten this story
2 = One must prove that Moses actually spoke their language so that he could have understood them when they supposedly told him the story.
You have NOTHING to link either Moses or anyone else in the Bible to any of these sources on any of these points! This actually builds the case for Moses having received this account by revelation and not through plagiarism.]
Sorry to disappoint you here. ANET scholars have long shown and written about the links, contacts, contexts and ‘plagiarisms’ of OT narratives from the ANET narratives.
According to W G Lambert, in: 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis', who is extremely careful with regard to the Mespotamian influence on the Genesis Creation story and does not admit the Hebrew borrowing from the Babylonian 'Creation' story, 'Enuma elish', too easily, concludes, "the flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend. While flood stories as such do not have to be connected, the episode of the birds in Gen 8:6-12 is so close to the parallel passage in the XIth tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic that no doubt exists." (p.101. Lambert: A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis)
I recommend you have a look at this paper:
W G Lambert. A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis., in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood. Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic approaches to Genesis 1-11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. (Eisenbrauns, Indiana, 1994).
[Muhammad tells these stories in the Quran that we find all over the place in and around Saudi Arabia. …. If it’s a historical event we would expect to see these stories attested in other sources. Do we find them elsewhere? YES! What are those sources? These sources are all known as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated stories from Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and pagan sources. These sources are known NOT to be historically reliable but just folklore and fables.]
‘These sources are all known as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated stories..’! Words from a critical historian? :)
Educating said: "Now, im sorry, but your claim that it's some long winded synthesis of two chapters based on some Kabbalistic decree that New Testament Professors are oblivious to is beyond pathetic, not to mention desperate.
And I have read your two chapters by the way and they only show me why you are too embarrassed to show us."
I suggest you read again. I explicitly showed you. In those two chapters we find that non-stagnant water (which is known as "living water" in Hebraic thought) flowing out of The Temple is described. Additionally, "as Scripture says" the bodies of the believers are The Temple of G-d. So, we have living water flowing out of The Temple found in the Tanach, and we have Yeshua saying living water will flow out of the believers. Is this parallel really that hard for you to grasp?
By the way, the new Scripture you provided is exactly what we would expect to find if my assertion is correct. We have the same phraseology, "as Scripture says" being used by James this time, and what he presents after that clause is not a direct quote of the Tanach. Both authors are using a Hebraism. When someone says, "as Scripture says" it is a Hebraism that indicates to the listener they are about to paraphrase or synthesize a concept that can be found in the Tanach.
So please, do tell us exactly how you determine that both these verses have to be direct quotes. You have yet to explain your assumption and your begging the question.
You have also demonstrated you have no clue what the word "Kabbalah" means. To "Kabbal" means "receive" in Hebrew. Kabbalah is simply "received knowledge". Many of the saying of Yeshua and the writers of the Brit Chadasha/New Testament are a giving of knowledge for us to receive [Kabbalah], that are meant to fill up and explain the meaning of various things in the Tanach. Even someone as arrogant as yourself surely must be able to admit that there is much symbolism, metaphor, and mystical meaning in the text. But then again, you proudly stated you are completely ignorant of my beliefs and expressed a complete desire to remain ignorant, so that defeats most of the point of us even talking about such things.
Zakraria said:
[Dear Shafshaitan]
again impolitness !
[I'm still standing:)]
hope not on the false side as usual !
[I thought your job as shaitan was to lure people from islam not to educate them and thereby strengthen their iman.]
God Bless you !
[I hereby admit that I lost my debate with Shafshaitan.]
thanks for trying to be honest
[ This is because as you all know my point of departure was islamically speaking incorrect.]
hope u realized that in agood time
[I was wrong regarding the impermissiblity to consummate marriage with a girl before bulogh.]
so it is permissable , great
[Instead Islam has a far more superior criteria for when sex is allowed namely:]
superior ?! yeh right.. very funny
[It should not harm anyone and the girl must be sexually mature.
A girl may well have reached menarche but still be sexually immature. ]
are u going against all hadiths and scholars I mentioned ?! may be u know better than them !
[Regarding the prophet and his marriage to Aishah my standpoint is that she was sexually mature.]
really , how mature was she ?!
any credit for mentailty or it is just sexuality ?!
[If anyone want's to have a dialogue with me regarding whether the two above points really is what islam teaches I would be happy to.]
I have been here with your for about 3 or 4 consecutive days and you really showed nothing !!
[However, I will only engage in such a dialogue with two conditions:
That only islamic sources are provided without any non-muslim commentary.]
what do u mean by that ?! is ibn kathir non muslim ?! or el tabari ?! who was the non muslim scholar i quoted above ?!
[And most importantly that no offensive language is used.]
it is not the language , it is the fact thats is offending u, and u r trying to ignore!! and u consider anyone who asks about those islamic scandels as offensive ?! not our fault Sir..
[ I can't engage in debate or dialogue with someone who insults our prophet. Moreover, I won't accept any excuses for anyone insulting the prophet e.g. i'm only saying the truth etc.]
show me the insults here ?! show me something that u really consider as an insult, which didnt have a reference in your books ?!
[You can insult me if you want to but not my prophet and his companions and Allah.]
we dont insult anyone as a christians. we just pointing the wrong acts and abnoraml behaviour
[Those are my conditions anyone willing to have a dialogue based on those two conditions is welcome to respond to my comment.]
sure... tell us how Aisha was mature and perfect match to the prophet, and dont forget the pedophila in islam ...r u escaping these issues or what ?!
[With kind regards,
Zakaria]
greeting
Learner said: "Nakdimon
My question to Sepher Shalom which you seemed to have misunderstood..."
Sorry, I missed your question the first time around. As much as I would love to respond and interact with your question, I have to state that I do not know enough about any of the sources you mention to make a meaningful or useful response. This is simply an area I do not know anything about.
Shafshaitan said:
sure... tell us how Aisha was mature and perfect match to the prophet, and dont forget the pedophila in islam ...r u escaping these issues or what ?!
I will not engage in any further debate with you. Read my previous comment. This will be my last response to shafshaitan. If you wan't to become a good apologetic try to understand the principles of islamic jurisprudence. I did'nt that's why I lost the debate.
Now I do which forces you to regurgerate old arguments that were effective against my incorrect view of islamic jurisprudence.
My point of departure is different.
You on the other hand repeat old arguments, namely:
Tafsirs and hadiths that now only support my current point of departure (see my last comments).
I repeat this will be my absolute last response to shafshaitan.
With kind regards,
Zakaria
SHEPHER..
<< Educating said: "Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?
(James 4:5)
Where’s that in OT?"
Please explain why you believe this must absolutely be a word for word quote of some passage from the Tanach? >>
Who said it has to be exactly word for word? Now who’s making assumptions?
Hardly any of the OT quotes are EXACT matches, but at least there is a close matching of key words in one place to know that that the origin of the quote.
<< By the way, the new Scripture you provided is exactly what we would expect to find if my assertion is correct. We have the same phraseology, "as Scripture says" being used by James this time, and what he presents after that clause is not a direct quote of the Tanach. Both authors are using a Hebraism. When someone says, "as Scripture says" it is a Hebraism that indicates to the listener they are about to paraphrase or synthesize a concept that can be found in the Tanach. >>
Very funny, nice try!
Unfortunately you are refuted by the very next verse in James!
But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
(James 4:6)
Is that a “paraphrase or synthesize” from the OT.??
NOOO! Its found almost exactly in proverbs:
He mocks proud mockers but gives grace to the humble.
(Proverbs 3:34)
And its not word for word, but am I complaining? No, because any reasonable person can see that’s what he was quoting.
Or heres another example just to rub it in….
As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame."
(Romans 10:11)
Which is quoted quite clearly from:
“..the one who trusts will never be dismayed”
Isaiah (28:16)
So now that your home-made concocted Kabbaistic “scripture says” theory has been shot down in flames, I return to the original question:
Were do the scriptures say anything about the spirit inside an individual being envious?
Why is that such a hard question for you?
On John 7:38, it says:
*INDUVIDUAL* faith in the Messiah will lead to ‘living water’ that flows from THAT BELIVERS heart.
Again, you refuse to even SHOW US where this is written in your magical hocus-pocus synthesis, so you lose.
Ive read the chapters and they have nothing to do with any living water flowing from any believers heart- you know that- which is why you are too ashamed to present it.
All you have to do is COPY/PASTE for God’s sake, how hard is that?
Here ill even make it easy for you since you’re so lazy…
Here is the link to Isaiah 49:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah49;&version=31;
Here is the link to Ezekiel:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2047;&version=31;
So its high time you either “put-up or shut-up”, on this my friend.
Just show us….. I DARE YOU!
Regards.
FAT MAN
[PART 1 OF 3]
YOU ORIGINALLY SAID:
<< Learner, no where did Nakdemon say that those manuscripts were complete NEW TESTMENT manuscript. He said they were “COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH.” In other words complete books of the New Testament. Not a complete collection of those books. >>
I REPLIED:
<< If you think he actually meant “complete books of the NT”, then please, please tell us which ONE of the 27 books of the NT requires “an average of 200 pages” to contain its text?
Which book in your NT is THAT long? >>>
NOW YOU SAY:
<< Do you know the difference betweent these two words
Cannon and Codex?
I will give you a hint, a cannon contains Codexies, but a codex is not nessasarly Cannon. >>>
The fact that you completely ignored my simple direct question proves that you are just as ignorant, dishonest and unwilling to learn in a sincere manner as Nikdimon is.
I will try you one more time…
If Nikdomn really meant that these 5,700 MSS are of complete NT books with “AN AVERGAGE OF 200 PAGES” each, then which book in the NT requires an average of 200 pages for its text?
STRIAGHT ANSWER PLEASE.
Why cant you just do the decent thing and admit you are both wrong.
Any idiot who has done some basic research into the NT MSS knows that the 5,700 figure does not refer to “complete” ANYTHING.
It refers to ALL Greek manuscripts regardless of their size or content.
You really, really don’t do Christianity any favors when you try and lie like this to cover your own ignorance, or that of your ‘brother in Christ’, Nikdimon.
Just be a man and admit youre wrong, to which i will reply "dont worry about it, we all make mistakes".
Regards.
FAT MAN
[PART 2 OF 3]
<<< And finaly, why is it that muslims are so un willing to allow anyone to study these manuscripts? What are you muslims hiding? >>
Oh, ignorant, ignorant man.
When will you ever learn to desist from spreading your evangelical lying propaganda?
Don’t you know that various western Scholars long after Puin and Bothmer have been allowed full access to the Sana collections by decree of the president of Yemen?
Of course you don’t!
How could you know that when you keep your head buried in “answering Muslims” and “Answering Islam”, as opposed to keeping up-to-date with the latest academic liteurate like myself and (evidently) “The Learner” do?
Didn’t you cath his last post:
1) About 300 or so folios from the Sana MSS have been published on the UNESCO CD
2) French schaolar Francios Derchoe was allowed access to the Sana MSS after Puin, and he was allowed access for 5 years to one of the best and earliest collections in the world- the Turkish museum of Islamic art (TIEM):
[. Déroche, "The Qur'ān Of Amāgūr", Manuscripts Of The Middle East, 1990-1991, Volume 5, p. 59.]
3) Publication of such material often takes time. Look at the Dead Sea scroll. They were discovered in 1947-56 yet not FULLY published till 1991!
4) The Italian Arabic and Islamic scholar Prof. Sergio Noja Noseda was given full access to the Sana MSS in 2002 by decree of the President of Yemen himself.
He was even allowed to cut samples from some MSS (including the palimpsest) for Carbon-14 dating. This has now been carried out on it and we are awaiting results (no idea when).
Would the pope ever allow a Muslim scholar into the Vatican library to cut away at NT MSS and take them back to Saudi Arabia for Carbon dating!
Noseda managed to secure a:
” ...partnership contract devoted to the publication of the series of Quranic manuscripts including the famous palimpsest kept in Sana Dar al Makhtuta”. It was supported by the president of The Yemieni Republic, financed by the French academy and co-organised by Prof Christian Robin. Serjio Noja was caught by the idea of the “virtual restoration” of the palimpsest and the publication of the scriptio inferior [i.e the under text].
The above quote was taken from his obituary in this journal:
Efim Rezvan “From Russia with love”: Prof. Sergio Noja Noseda (1931-2008), Manuscripta Orientalia, June 2008, Volume 14, Number 1, p. 72.]
5)Further more, Elizibeth Puin (G. Puin’s wife) very recently studied more folios of the under text and has published them in Germany.
See how wrong you are now?
Apology accepted.
FAT MAN
PART 3 OF 3
<< And yes I did say that Bassam one the debate, because you cant argue with the fact that there are Textual variants found in the ancient quranic manuscripts, Scribal errors, and even missing and added surahs and aya's. Nope cant argue with that at all. >>
Yep! Just as there are in Quran MSS before Sana.
What’s your point?
Which Muslim Scholar ever said that Quranic Presvation means that:
“when someone copies a quran they can never ever, ever make a single mistake or the Quran has been corrupted!”
LOL! What’s wrong with you?
And as for “missing and added” Surahs, you can buy Quran’s from Islamic bookshops today with “missing Surahs”.
They are called partial Qurans, just as I can buy a partial NT that only contains only the four gospels.
I have a printed Quran at home that only has about 30 surahs in it.
What’s your point?
You see this is why Nabeel got so creamed by Bassam.
Because he went into the debate with all the retarded misconceptions and straw men fallacies that you have just so vividly expressed now, Which Bassam so easily smacked out the ball-park.
I guess we know where he got them from now!
Regards
Zakaria said: «Now I do which forces you to regurgerate old arguments that were effective against my incorrect view of islamic jurisprudence».
Great! Hope you, Zakaria, that are sooooo ignorant of biblical hermeneutics will stop talking about Christianity. That would be a great step for mankind.
Someone recommended muslims to read Hussein Abdul Raof... who? The same Hussein Abdul Raof that said that the qur'an was the best preserved book in the world, and that it does not have a single contradiction? Hummmm... that's what I call a vacuum attempt to conceal the truth... like someone writing a book trying to defend that a painting made by a 2 years old baby is the best accomplished work of art in the world... sorry: that will only stick on those who have psychological needs to defend their weak faith...
My friend Zakaria: where are th texts you wantt me to explain?... and please: follow this blogg older texts and you'll habe reached the text you reffer about the supposed allowence off God to kill boys and habe girls to themselfs (Numbers 31,17s)... butt, trying to talkk to someone who crearlie does nott ahbe a single clue aboutte wahte is Biblical revelation I'll explainn tahte here ounce again...
1) That's nott God speaking, rather Moses... no where in the text it's sayide thate this precise order made bie Moses was directly inspired by God... butt then: Christians are nott under the mosaic law, neither Moses is our role moral model...;
2) no where is sayid they're to takke the young women in order to habe sex withe them... no where!!! sex withe non marriage women as totaly forbidden, and no one coulde marry a pre-pubescent girl as I stated beffore... there were harsh penalties to both realities...
3) the meanning off these text is, never the less, well clear... in the middle off war, and in the context off these circunstancial an descriptive passge, every boy was an inminet enimy... the girls (non-marriagde ones) who had had sex were also a danger, since they coulde be pregnate and no one coulde support them and their sons in the middle off a war, butt those thate were nott inn danger off being pregnate SHOULD be protected, and, iff someone, eventually, wahted them to theire wifes, they could do thate latter...
so Zakaria, wahte you tryied to present as an ebidence thate stated paedophilia in the Bible resulted in a defence agains it...
butt ounce again: no Christian follows thate words off Moses: our law is the law off love off Jesus... more: eben in the OT and for our Jewish brothers, that wordes off Moses were clearly denounced as an abuse of zeal from him (see the jewish commentarys on thate passage)... more: no where a circunstancial determination can overrulle an universal law such as: "you shall nott kill"...
Ehteshaam Gulam said: «Oh and yes Mary was 12 years old, stop trying to hide it».... please: Ehteshaam Gulam... ONE evidence for thate... juste one... thankes...
Sepher Shalom
[Learner said: "Nakdimon
My question to Sepher Shalom which you seemed to have misunderstood..."
Sorry, I missed your question the first time around. As much as I would love to respond and interact with your question, I have to state that I do not know enough about any of the sources you mention to make a meaningful or useful response. This is simply an area I do not know anything about.]
That's fine. I appreciate.
Thanks
Edcuating said: "Ive read the chapters and they have nothing to do with any living water flowing from any believers heart- you know that- which is why you are too ashamed to present it."
For the third time now, the concept Yeshua is speaking of is something revealed in multiple places throughout the Tanach. It's a metaphor that he is applying. I'm not about to clutter the blog by posting two entire chapters here. I already directed you to the exact relevant words where the concept Yeshua goes on to apply to the believers is found. You have posted links to the chapters, so clearly you have access to them. Take your little eyes and go find the words I quoted to you repeatedly. I will assist you since you seem to be saying you need help. Let me walk you through it verse by verse: Isaiah 49 is a Messianic Psalm. In v10 we are shown Mashiyach "will guide them to springs of water". So we have revealed here that Mashiyach will guides His people to springs of water. As I already mentioned, moving water like a spring is known as "living water". This is a general concept that is not specific to only the verse you mentioned, but is one of the verses that provides the foundation for the many times in which Yeshua speaks of quenching people's thirst, and providing them living water. Now, move on to Ezekiel. In chapter 47 v1-8 we have the description of living water flowing out of The Temple. v9 shows that "so everything will live where the river goes". This whole passage is a prophetic vision given to Ezekiel. We have all the key elements taught in these passages; Mashiyach leads His people to living water, living water flow out of The Temple [the dwelling place of The Spirit of YHWH], Scripture teaches our body is the temple and dwelling place of The Spirit of YHWH [1 Corinthians 6:19-20]. You have to be a believer in order to be a dwelling place for the Ruach HaKodesh [so even your 'individual faith' requirement is satisfied] What is so difficult for you to grasp about this metaphor and typology? It's all there: Living water flowing out of The Temple, and the body of a believer who has 'individual faith' in Mashiyach is now typologically the temple of YHWH's Spirit. Hence, by applying the Messianic promise of Isaiah 49, and the vision of Ezekiel Yeshua revealed the Sod level of meaning as an application of living water flowing from us based on our individual faith in Him and the indwelling of the Ruach HaKodesh in "The Temple" of our bodies. Now move on to what The Fat Man pointed out [I believe that's who mentioned it]. The verse of Isaiah 12:3 was read during The Feast of Succot by the Cohen Gadol during the water offering ceremony. This is the context of the events when Yeshua spoke the words recorded in John. They were at Succot for this event. Yeshua was further stating that the water offering was symbolic of the greater living water He would give to believers. All The Feasts of YHWH found in the Tanach are prophetic revelations about Mashiyach. You keep rejecting my interpretation, but you still have not in any way interacted with what I am saying. I don't think you are capable of doing so? Stop running and demonstrate where I am wrong.
[Alforreca wrote: Why should someone believe in a religion that is so full of lies and tactics not to assume the true? Rather be an atheist than believe in a false god that dictated a book that even a child could do better: in general knowledge and in logical structure.]
[I replied: A child could do better: in general knowledge and in logical structure! Sounds like Ali Dashti or Salomon Reinach, the heroes of Quranic literary criticsm as cited by uneducated Christians. I recommend to my Muslim readers the following books by Dr Hussein Abdul Raof, who in my opinion, using even modern linguistic theory has buried such superficial claims to rest: Consonance in the Quran: a conceptual, intertextual and linguistic analysis, Muenchen: Lincom Europa, 2005]
[To which Alforreca replies: Someone recommended muslims to read Hussein Abdul Raof... who? The same Hussein Abdul Raof that said that the qur'an was the best preserved book in the world, and that it does not have a single contradiction? Hummmm... that's what I call a vacuum attempt to conceal the truth... like someone writing a book trying to defend that a painting made by a 2 years old baby is the best accomplished work of art in the world... sorry: that will only stick on those who have psychological needs to defend their weak faith...]
I do not know where Dr Hussein Abdul Raof said these words but guess what Alforreco? To my knowledge, The Qur’an is the best preserved religious text in the world and that it does not have a single contradiction. I believe in that too. So does countless many other Muslims. What does that prove or disprove?
Throwing ad hominem would not help your argument here. You are appealing to the emotions of your crowd with a red herring.
You seem to assess the Qur’an to be a work of a child; no! a child can do better, you scream. In what way? In general knowledge and logical structure.
I brought up Hussein Abdul Raof’s work, not his belief. His work entitled ‘Consonance in the Qur’an’ is an academic publication, a scholarly resource for linguists. Here is publisher’s part description:
'...This book is a vital source for linguistics and Islamic studies students and for researchers. It provides empirical textual, grammatical, semantic, stylistic, and phonetic analysis of Arabic. Detailed analysis of the notions of conceptual sequentiality and intertextuality are given with numerous examples. Consonance in the Qur’an investigates linguistic structuring at the micro and macro levels of Arabic. In order to show the reader how conceptual and intertextual links are maintained within a text, this book provides a textual bird’s-eye view of the thematic and leitmotif compartments which are the constituent units of the macro text. '
Why don’t you read that book and engage with the analysis therein? If after reading this work of a linguist, you still think Qur'an is incoherent, not logical in structure- then we can have a meaningful and useful discussion on this subject.
LEARNER: The point disputed was: 5700 COMPLETE NT Codices!
Learner now comments:
Nakdimon: Having established that
a)you have no credibility in discussing NT manuscripts;
b) you only read superficially, being unable to grasp what you read
c) you will make the countless many who read this blog having used your information that you have provided only to return face down in deep embarrassment and shame for making gross errors in basic facts;
I am kindly correcting you. Learn to walk before you run- an advice most appropriate for you.
In a footnote no.80 on page 51 of the 4th edition of Metzger & Ehrman's ‘The Text of the New Testament: Its transmission, corruption, and restoration’ you will find:
‘Lest, however, the wrong impression be conveyed from the statistics given above regarding the total number of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament, it should be pointed out that most of the papyri are relatively fragmentary and that only about 60 manuscripts (of which Codex Sinaiticus is the only majuscule manuscript) contain the entire New Testament. The great majority of the other manuscripts contain only the four Gospels, or only the Epistles.’
In case, you misread the above, let me repeat the relevant statement:
‘only about 60 manuscripts contain the entire New Testament’
Regards
Learner, to think that you are the one that draws these conclusions, telling me that I shouldn’t talk about NT manuscripts, when you have no clue what I meant when I said what I said. First of all, manuscript P52 is NOT a manuscript PAGE but a manuscript FRAGMENT. Second, I said what I said and I stick by it. When I spoke about the 3500 COMPLETE NT MSS, I quoted Dr James White verbatim. Now what he meant with 3500 complete NT MSS, I don’t know. And YOU yourself don’t know it either, yet you draw your conclusion without the slightest idea of what he meant. I understand him to mean that there are 3500 complete copies of the GOSPELS alone. Now anyone that has a little knowledge of the NT MSS history knows that the 3500 cannot be entire NT MSS from Matthew to Revelations, since there are no 3500 copies of the book of Revelations found, which is the book that has the smallest number of copies we have in the MSS tradition. I assumed that you and EC would have been informed enough to know this.
But regardless, the numbers stand as they are. Dr White, who is very knowledgeable about the NT MSS tradition, mentioned those exact numbers that I mentioned earlier. There are 3500 complete NT MSS which average about 200 pages each, making up the total of 1.14 million MSS PAGES. This was confirmed and even upped by Dr Daniel Wallace of the CSNTM to 2.6 million MSS PAGES, considering all the MSS we know of to this day, whether those are complete books or not. So anyone taking those numbers that I put on the blog can be confident that those numbers are correct. There was no gross error made on my part, but there was a gross misrepresentation of that I said from your part.
But now lets see how consistent you actually are. You claimed that I have no credibility in discussing NT MSS. But your brother EC claimed earlier on that there were 14.000 MSS of the Quran found in the loft in Sana. When in fact there were 40.000 PAGES of the Quran discovered. So what does this do to the credibility of your muslim brother according to the standards? What scholarly work were his numbers based on? Either he thought that there were only 5500 PAGES of the NT ever discovered, or he deliberately lied about the numbers.
Nakdimon
@ EC 1/2:
So if I phone up James White and read out your original statement to him of:
<< ..when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! >>>
Would he agree with that or not??
Would Dr James R White agree that there are 5,700 “COMPLETE NT CODECES”??
LOL!
James White, like every semi-educated Christian here, is EMBARRASSED by you saying that…Trust me..
Trust YOU? LOL! I have the recording of him saying it! Why don’t you just call him up and ask him about it? Again, try putting your money where your mouth is sometimes. And I take it you have seen my correction, upping the tally to a whopping 2.6 million mss pages, right?
Finally why don’t you ask the ‘learned’ James White how many of those “5,700 MSS” date from the 1st and 2nd centuries?
According to him it’s a grand whopping total of….[Drum roll]..…12!!
An amazing 0.21%!
And even THAT figure is going on the datings that his fellow missionary Dan Wallace told him to say as Erhman exposed in their debate.
Missionary scratching the back of missionary, because they both know that hardly any REAL NT scholar (like Erhman) would date some of those MSS to the 2nd century.
Nevertheless since the NT is in such a desperate and needy state, let’s play along with James and Dan and ‘pretend’ there are 12 MSS from the 1st AND 2nd centuries.
Do you know how many Quran MSS there are from within just 88 years of Mohammed??
An absolute MINIMUM of 45…
You STILL don’t get it, do you? You make this a contest about who has the most documents, which is totally irrelevant. You seem to think that the number of pages makes your religion true! Even IF there are only 12 mss discovered from the 1st and 2nd century, they all have the same text. When we compare them with mss from the 4th century, when parchments were used, we still have the same text. When we compare those with mss from the 10th century, we still have the same text. When we compare them with mss from the 13th century, we still have the same text! So we know what those texts should look like going back to the 1st and 2nd century. The mss were distributed through multiple lines of transmission. Point of illustration:
Multiple people would visit Israel in the 1st century, bump in to the Gospel of Mark. They want to copy that book and take it with them to their own communities in Africa, Europe, Asia, etc. They would make multiple copies of it and take it with them to their own communities. So lets say 10 people would visit Jerusalem, 3 people would copy that mss and take it with them to Europe, 3 people would take it to Asia and 4 to Africa. They would each copy those mss 10 times for communities in the region. Those regions would get visitors who would copy those documents too and take them with them to their own countries. In other words, you would have an explosion of the number of that mss and no controlled distribution of the texts. Centuries later we find ancient mss of Mark all over the place which ALL HAVE THE SAME TEXT, with their number of variants. What does this mean? This means that THERE WAS NO TAMPERING WITH THE TEXT, and certainly not to the degree that the Muslim position requires it to be! Since that is the case, your entire book is FALSE, no matter if you had 14 Million pages of the Quran FROM THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD! Cuz if there was this kind of tampering with those texts, those changes would stick out like a sore thumb! You would have complete different copies of the Gospel of Mark which say total different things. But they DON’T! NOT ONE indicates alteration or deletion of either the Gospels or the Epistles.
cont.
@ EC 2/2
Finally, we have to take into consideration the reality of the historical fact in the life of the early Messianic Congregation. They were a persecuted community until the early 4th century. They were hunted down by the authorities and smitten down with brute force and their mss destroyed by the droves. It is amazing that we even find those papyri mss at all, considering also the fact that papyri disintegrates over time. These factors have led to the state of the early mss tradition of the papyri findings. Yet STILL, the texts are perfectly reliable based on the above mentioned evidence, saying the same thing.
And since you give the impression that you have listened to the debate between White and Ehrman, can you explain what Ehrman said when White challenged him to give an example about a variant that changes the entire meaning of a book? Since this is the challenge that I have repeated 8 times now, without you being able to provide a single example to that regard, maybe your hero Ehrman can help you out.
Nakdimon
@ EC: Any idiot who has done some basic research into the NT MSS knows that the 5,700 figure does not refer to “complete” ANYTHING.
It refers to ALL Greek manuscripts regardless of their size or content.
Why do I hurt myself replying to your, and I have to say it eventually, stupid logic.
You think that comparing manuscripts is not about how many pages of works you find. So let me get this straight. You seem to think that when you have 14000 findings of single page manuscripts (which makes 14000 manuscripts) is better than 2 findings with 20000 pages each?? (which makes 2 manuscripts)
Nakdimon
Fernando said:
That's nott God speaking, rather Moses... no where in the text it's sayide thate this precise order made bie Moses was directly inspired by God... butt then: Christians are nott under the mosaic law, neither Moses is our role moral model...;
If it's not inspired by your trinity g-d then why does he not admonish moses for it?
If he does please provide a source.
no where is sayid they're to takke the young women in order to habe sex withe them... no where!!! sex withe non marriage women as totaly forbidden, and no one coulde marry a pre-pubescent girl as I stated beffore... there were harsh penalties to both realities...
Proof please
with kind regards,
zakaria
@ EC
If Nikdomn really meant that these 5,700 MSS are of complete NT books with “AN AVERGAGE OF 200 PAGES” each, then which book in the NT requires an average of 200 pages for its text?
you seem to forget that in those days, people didn’t have 8 point fonts. They would write their codices by hand. Even with minuscule mss you would only have 20-25 lines on one page. And, depending on the manuscript, pages would frequently have a single column on a page.
I have a bible here that has 60 lines per column with 2 columns per page. The Gospel of Mark (considered the shortest of all the Gospels) alone is still about 21 pages long! A handwritten document with even 2 columns per page will easily cover between 150-200 pages for Mark.
@Learner 1/2
The emphasis is on the word ‘MORE’.
I commented that:[ I think, using this historical method one can say there are MASSIVE historical problems with the Old Testament. The OT disagrees with the ancient near eastern texts substantially, as it also agrees to these.]
My point was that OT narratives may be said to have problems with true historicity as they DISAGREE in places with earlier ANET narratives substantially.
Yet you jumped on the wagon trying to defend OT against plagiarism and also accusing Qur'an of plagiarism!
Learner, I really don’t think your problem went away with this response. In the case of the above mentioned accounts, we cannot know which details of which account is the true account, since we have no concluding evidence for those details. However the accounts in the Quran are more problematic, since we know that those aren’t historical.
I disagree. There can be other options- eg’., a mixture of both. True history mix with misinterpretations/exaggerations/falsehood/fabrications /fables etc. Take the example of alleged crucifixion of Christ. Is it historical? I say NO. Is it a fable? I say NO as well. It is misinterpretation of the events, some thought they perceived this event and this rumour subsequently spread as true history.
And based on what unbiased scholarly work or historical method or personal research do you conclude that the crucifixion is not historical? What is your position on the crucifixion? Are you of the Swoon camp or the Swap camp? (no offence intended, btw)
Are you denying then the historicity of the following account?
52The tombs broke open and the bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53They came out of the tombs, and after Jesus’ resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many people. (Matthew 27:52-53)
To my knowledge, it has no multiple attestations. If this was a historical event, why is it not reported in multiple accounts, in multiple sources as, one should expect?
Learner, did I say that we MUST have multiple sources or did I say that we would expect to have multiple sources? In other words, what I meant by that is that we shouldn’t be surprised to have multiple attestation of a historical event. That is what we should expect. That doesn’t mean that if we don’t have multiple attestation, that we can conclude that an event didn’t happen. Btw, I am not denying the event of the tombs opening.
@Learner 2/2
Sorry to disappoint you here. ANET scholars have long shown and written about the links, contacts, contexts and ‘plagiarisms’ of OT narratives from the ANET narratives.
According to W G Lambert, in: 'A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis', who is extremely careful with regard to the Mespotamian influence on the Genesis Creation story and does not admit the Hebrew borrowing from the Babylonian 'Creation' story, 'Enuma elish', too easily, concludes, "the flood remains the clearest case of dependence of Genesis on Mesopotamian legend. While flood stories as such do not have to be connected, the episode of the birds in Gen 8:6-12 is so close to the parallel passage in the XIth tablet of the Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic that no doubt exists." (p.101. Lambert: A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis)
I recommend you have a look at this paper:
W G Lambert. A New Look at the Babylonian Background of Genesis., in I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood. Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic approaches to Genesis 1-11. Edited by Richard S. Hess and David Toshio Tsumura. (Eisenbrauns, Indiana, 1994).
And what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. All this shows is that this event might have been historical and then recorded by different people. This still doesn’t link Moses to those people who knew those stories and it also doesn’t prove that he spoke anyone in that region that proves he knew their language or they knew his tongue. So you still have no case to that regard.
These sources are all known as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated stories..’! Words from a critical historian?
No, words from a Messianic Jew who read the Jewish sources and knows what they were written down for and by whom they were written.
Nakdimon
Nakdimon said: "This means that THERE WAS NO TAMPERING WITH THE TEXT, and certainly not to the degree that the Muslim position requires it to be! Since that is the case, your entire book is FALSE, no matter if you had 14 Million pages of the Quran FROM THE TIME OF MUHAMMAD!"
This is what I pointed out several days ago, but matching what seems to be the operating procedure of Educating, it was buried in a flury of insults, sarcasm, and attempts at humor.
In order for Islam to be true, since it claims Yeshua and all His Talmidim were pious Muslims and Allah gave Him the Injeel, they need a completely different textual platform, not just variant readings, scribal errors, glosses, etc. Where is the evidence of this separate textual platform? I don't think any Muslims have an answer.
As usual Zakaria didnt answer a single question !! even more resigned !! ..
Anyway, Just wosh u good luck finding this submissive debater who would agree and follow to all what u say .. so u u would be happy !!
@ Learner
[Nakdimon wrote:
Isnt that how the Quran is written though? When Allah has nothing meaning full to say he exclaims "Allah is all Wise, Merciful!" or threatens people with "painful doom" constantly. It makes absolutely no sense! … Or he tells a story and all of a sudden jumps to "you will be one of the losers!". What kind of nonsense is that? NO substance whatsoever!...]
Nakdimon: you aptly demonstrate your superficial reading of the Qur’an. Why don’t you give 1 or 2 examples (chapter, verse) where we can demonstrate to you how wrong you are?
Oh sure:
5:39 Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is AllPowerful, AllWise
22:52 Never did We send a Messenger or a Prophet before you, but; when he did recite the revelation or narrated or spoke, Shaitân (Satan) threw (some falsehood) in it. But Allâh abolishes that which Shaitân (Satan) throws in. Then Allâh establishes His Revelations. And Allâh is All-Knower, All-Wise
What is the wisdom in these verses? To me, Allah is talking about punishing people and declares himself wise because of that.
God reminds us here of His wisdom, even so for individuals like yourself (and me) who may be reading His book superficially. What on earth does burning off skin have to do with wisdom? Let’s look at the verses to find out:
Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise. (4:56, Yusuf Ali trans.)
First proof of your superficial reading: The verse does not follow with ‘that is easy for Allah’.
I was referring to sura 33:19 and 30. According to Allah he can easily double the punishment for Muhammad’s wives if they show misconduct and Allah says he can easily nullify good deeds.
2nd: the wisdom is not linked to mere burning of skins, but with recreating fresh skins. For what reason? So that they may taste the continuous suffering in full. If the skin was burnt off once, do you think they would feel pain in the skin anymore? NO. Why? Since the nerve endings for pain that are located on the skin would have been burnt off and destroyed leaving them INCAPABLE of feeling any pain and suffering there. Did you even know that? This is where the power and wisdom of God is highlighted in recreating fresh skins every time that skin is burnt off.
O Allah! You are indeed All-Powerful, All-Wise. Save us from the fire prepared for those who reject your signs!
Well, if that is the case, Allah would have done a better job in making the suffering full, by leaving the skin off and have them burn without skin!. That way the body an open wound in its entirety. Now THAT’S painful! So the wisdom of Allah isn’t that impressive.
Nakdimon
Nakdimoron:Well, if that is the case, Allah would have done a better job in making the suffering full, by leaving the skin off and have them burn without skin!. That way the body an open wound in its entirety. Now THAT’S painful! So the wisdom of Allah isn’t that impressive.
You really are a moron.
SHEPHER
<< will assist you since you seem to be saying you need help. Let me walk you through it verse by verse: Isaiah 49 is a Messianic Psalm. In v10 we are shown Mashiyach "will guide them to springs of water". So we have revealed here that Mashiyach will guides His people to springs of water. As I already mentioned, moving water like a spring is known as "living water". This is a general concept that is not specific to only the verse you mentioned, but is one of the verses that provides the foundation for the many times in which Yeshua speaks of quenching people's thirst, and providing them living water. Now, move on to Ezekiel. In chapter 47 v1-8 we have the description of living water flowing out of The Temple. v9 shows that "so everything will live where the river goes". This whole passage is a prophetic vision given to Ezekiel. We have all the key elements taught in these passages; Mashiyach leads His people to living water, living water flow out of The Temple [the dwelling place of The Spirit of YHWH], Scripture teaches our body is the temple and dwelling place of The Spirit of YHWH [1 Corinthians 6:19-20].>>
Im all my days of dialoguing with Christians (or whatever you want to call yourself), i have never come across such a desperate, desperate response.
You really have out done yourself.
First, you take Isaiah 49 that is about the servant of God defined as ISRAEL in the text itself, and then lie that it’s taking about Jesus.
Then you find some mention of ‘water’ and then say that this is now actually somehow “living water” that is not mentioned in the text, but somewhere else entirely.
Then you combined this with Ezekiel 47 that is talking about rivers following from the 3rd future temple that has yet to be built in which animal sacrifices for atonement shall be resumed (which single handily refutes Christianity since Jesus supposedly replaced that system on the cross), which should also not even exist at all, since Revelations says that there will be no temple in the New Jerusalem!
Finally you throw in a pinch of Paul (!!) who saying that the body is like a temple, even though Paul is NOT EVEN IN THE O.T!
How were the Jews Jesus was quoting this to meant to know about “1 Corinthians 6: 19-20 that hadn’t even been written yet, and hence clearly not what Jesus meant by SCRIPTURE.
Even after all this scriptural circus gymnastics, there is no mention of any believer’s heart.
So let me help you out...
Did you know that Psalm 22 mentions a heart!
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
(Psalm 22:14)
Now since psalm 22 is SO CLEARLY talking about the messiah, and since it mentions a heart, AND since it mentioned water too, which is OBVIOULSY “living water” (because its being ‘poured’ out you see, so it must be alive), AND it mentions bones which are part of a persons body, (and we all know that a body that is like a messianic temple!), then this MUST BE what Jesus meant in John 7:38!!
See that Shepher!!
I’ve solved it for you!
You’re very welcome!!
Isn’t it just amazing how many of your biblical errors we can clear up if we only forgo all logic and reason and let our imaginations run wild?
Now all you have to do is that same thing with that other missing O.T verse in the NT, James 4:5!
NIKDIMON..
<< Trust YOU? LOL! I have the recording of him saying it! Why don’t you just call him up and ask him about it? >>
YOU SAID:
..when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH,
JAMES WHITE’S OWN BLOG SAYS:
<< There are over 5,000 manuscripts in the form of near-complete codices (the codex being the earliest form of the book, as opposed to the scroll), partial codices, and papyrus fragments of the New Testament extant (i.e., existing today) in Greek alone >>
http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=2580
See that Nikdinom?
I’ve PROVEN that you are a liar.
James white does not- nor has he ever said- nor will he ever agree with your statement that:
"when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH..”
He believes, like everyone else with half a brain- as HIS OWN BLOG STATES- that the 5,700 figure includes ALL Greek manuscripts from fragments to complete codices.
That fact that you STILL can’t concede that point just shows what a disgusting liar you are.
Shame on you.
<<< you seem to forget that in those days, people didn’t have 8 point fonts. They would write their codices by hand. Even with minuscule mss you would only have 20-25 lines on one page. And, depending on the manuscript, pages would frequently have a single column on a page.
I have a bible here that has 60 lines per column with 2 columns per page. The Gospel of Mark (considered the shortest of all the Gospels) alone is still about 21 pages long! A handwritten document with even 2 columns per page will easily cover between 150-200 pages for Mark. >>>
CHALLANGE:
NAME ME JUST **ONE** GREEK MANUSCRIPT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT THAT TAKES UP OVER 200 PAGES FOR ANY ONE BOOK IN THE NT..
JUST ONE MANUSCRIPT.
Yet again you are a proven liar and propagandist.
<<< You STILL don’t get it, do you? You make this a contest about who has the most documents, which is totally irrelevant. >>
There you go lying AGAIN..
YOU are the one who bought up manuscript numbers, remember?
“You can have 1000 Qurans which correspond 1000% accurately with one another, that doesn’t matter, since it contradicts the NT, the best attested ancient manuscript the world has ever known.”
(August 3, 2009 5:34 PM)
So you are caught lying again.
YOU bought up manuscript numbers, and now that I’ve embarrassed you on that with the Quran, you are back-tracking and lying about how it’s "totally irrelevant”
<< Even IF there are only 12 mss discovered from the 1st and 2nd century, they all have the same text. When we compare them with mss from the 4th century, when parchments were used, we still have the same text. When we compare those with mss from the 10th century, we still have the same text. When we compare them with mss from the 13th century, we still have the same text! >>
So if one manuscript from the 10th century contains the ending of Mark up to verse 20, and another manuscript from the 4th century ends at verse 8..
IS THAT “THE SAME TEXT”?
Yes or no?
Oh, and which page of these “2.6 million pages” contains the ORGINAL ENDING of Mark that you admit you “don’t know” whether the Holy Spirit inspired mark to write or not?
<< Since this is the challenge that I have repeated 8 times now, without you being able to provide a single example to that regard, maybe your hero Ehrman can help you out. >>
Dude, you already admitted you “DONT KNOW” (your words) what the Holy spirit revealed to Mark.
Game over.
You lose.
Thanks for playing.
p.s. Maybe youre hero James White can help you out here?
IbnShaytan: You really are a moron.
This coming from you doesnt say much.
EC
You keep demonstrating your total lack of understanding.
You obviosly dont know the difference between a Codex and Cannon.
But what do you expect from a grown man who has to be told how to go the bathroom from a 7th century desert arab.
EC, you fail to understand that Codexes containing New Testement books as well as other works where found dating very early, 1st and second century.
You fail to understand that the 4 Gosples were bound together early on, as well as the epistle letters. Now while the four gosples and the episle letters are part of the New Testment Cannon. These Codexcies are not the New Testement Bible. Likewise other books were also bound with these codeixies. That does not make these other books Cannon.
So when Nak made the statement that these codexcies conatined over 200 pages, that number includes the other works not part of the Cannon. I'm sorry if you can not understand that. But like I said you have to be told how to go to the bathroom as a adult. I was potty trained at 2 or three. I'm sorry muslims have to continue to work on that.
Now I have answered your questions. Why wont you answer mine. In regards to the prohibition on pork, and circumsision. If you do not answer those questions then I see no need to continue to school you.
Nakdimon
1 of 4
[Learner, to think that you are the one that draws these conclusions, telling me that I shouldn’t talk about NT manuscripts, when you have no clue what I meant when I said what I said. First of all, manuscript P52 is NOT a manuscript PAGE but a manuscript FRAGMENT. Second, I said what I said and I stick by it. When I spoke about the 3500 COMPLETE NT MSS, I quoted Dr James White verbatim. ]
3500 COMPLETE NT MSS. What’s going on Nakdimon? 5700 complete NT mss has now become 3500? When did you speak about this number? Is this a typo?
You originally wrote: << And when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH, which makes up for a total of a whopping 1.140.000 PAGES IN TOTAL! (and this is even less than there actually are. The exact number of mss is actually higher than 5700!) >>>
The point disputed was: 5700 COMPLETE NT Codices!
[But regardless, the numbers stand as they are. Dr White, who is very knowledgeable about the NT MSS tradition, mentioned those exact numbers that I mentioned earlier…
.So anyone taking those numbers that I put on the blog can be confident that those numbers are correct. There was no gross error made on my part…]
3500 or 5700? Average of 200 pages each, making 2.6millon pages. Anyone dare do the maths? :)
But now lets see how consistent you actually are. You claimed that I have no credibility in discussing NT MSS. But your brother EC claimed earlier on that there were 14.000 MSS of the Quran found in the loft in Sana. When in fact there were 40.000 PAGES of the Quran discovered. So what does this do to the credibility of your muslim brother according to the standards? What scholarly work were his numbers based on?]
I foresee a response coming from Educating_Christians; so wish not to spoil the fun of learning :)
Otherwise, I'll follow with a response later.
Regards
Nakdimon
2 of 4
[Learner, I really don’t think your problem went away with this response. In the case of the above mentioned accounts, we cannot know which details of which account is the true account, since we have no concluding evidence for those details. ]
Are you conceding to the fact that Old Testament narratives may not be true historical accounts, since ‘we have no concluding evidence for those details?’ Or are you talking about the ancient near eastern texts (ANET)- of which we cannot be sure of their true historicity?
Using the historical method, what would a historian say about these two accounts: one of the OT and the other ANET? Which one of these is MORE historical to the historian in terms of true historicity? I ask you again because your response was not clear to me.
[And based on what unbiased scholarly work or historical method or personal research do you conclude that the crucifixion is not historical? ]
The QUR’AN.
[ What is your position on the crucifixion? Are you of the Swoon camp or the Swap camp? (no offence intended, btw) ]
Christ was not killed or crucified; it APPEARED to them as such. This was a misinterpretation of events. Some people perceived things erroneously; rumour spread subsequently that got repeated. Rumour started and spread that Saddam Hussein had WMD; subsequently based on that the whole world mobilized to topple him. This is modern history. I think this example has been brought to our attention already in this blog!
[Learner said: << Sorry to disappoint you here. ANET scholars have long shown and written about the links, contacts, contexts and ‘plagiarisms’ of OT narratives from the ANET narratives. >>]
[Nakdimon replied: And what does this prove? Absolutely nothing. All this shows is that this event might have been historical and then recorded by different people. This still doesn’t link Moses to those people who knew those stories and it also doesn’t prove that he spoke anyone in that region that proves he knew their language or they knew his tongue. So you still have no case to that regard.]
Nakdimon: You need to read that paper—in fact that whole book. Historians like them have shown what you are dismissive of. I am not a historian, neither do I think are you. Let the historian speak then!
[These sources are all known as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated stories..’! Words from a critical historian? No, words from a Messianic Jew who read the Jewish sources and knows what they were written down for and by whom they were written. ]
How does a historian say a book is non-inspired? :) Precisely my point! You are using the historical method when it suits you and faith when it doesn’t?
Nakdimon
3 of 4
[Learner wrote:you aptly demonstrate your superficial reading of the Qur’an. Why don’t you give 1 or 2 examples (chapter, verse) where we can demonstrate to you how wrong you are? ]
[Nakdimon replied:
Oh sure:
5:39 Cut off (from the wrist joint) the (right) hand of the thief, male or female, as a recompense for that which they committed, a punishment by way of example from Allâh. And Allâh is AllPowerful, AllWise]
you also provided 22:52.
Nakdimon asks:
What is the wisdom in these verses? To me, Allah is talking about punishing people and declares himself wise because of that.
Learner now comments:
The verse is not 39, but 38. How is the wisdom of God not connected?
God is Mighty in his vengeance, punishments; wise in His laws and commandments. He is mighty enough to prescribe punishment for this crime and has chosen with His wisdom the particular form of punishment, instead of say, just letting the criminal roam freely in society without facing any consequences for their crime, or from many other types of punishments that He could have prescribed. The wisdom of cutting the hands of the thieves are discussed in most books of Islamic Jurisprudence where one can find also comparative discussions with other possible forms of punishments for this crime. I am not going to repeat these here. You should be able to consult those texts fairly easily. In a nutshell, this form of punishment for this particular crime is the most effective in preventing and neutralizing this crime in any society—these books will argue.
The second verse does not talk about punishing people, for which God declares Himself to be wise! Here is the verse and a brief explanation:
[22:52]
Never did We send an apostle or a prophet before thee, but, when he framed a desire, Satan threw some (vanity) into his desire: but God will cancel anything (vain) that Satan throws in, and God will confirm (and establish) His Signs: for God is full of Knowledge and Wisdom: (Yusuf Ali trans.)
God is ‘Aleem’ ie., aware of everything and ‘Hakeem’ ie., wise in placing things in their perspective realities. God is fully aware of satan’s plots and actions, He is wise enough to cancel & nullify satan’s suggestions and to make triumph and confirm & establish His signs, messages and commands. He is aware (aleem) in happening of all events, nothing is hidden from His knowledge; He is wise (hakeem) in what He ordains, what He creates and commands, His is the perfect evidence.
I hope you see the connection.
[Learner wrote: First proof of your superficial reading: The verse does not follow with ‘that is easy for Allah’.]
[Nakdimon replied:
I was referring to sura 33:19 and 30. According to Allah he can easily double the punishment for Muhammad’s wives if they show misconduct and Allah says he can easily nullify good deeds.]
My assessment of your superficial reading was based on your clear, expressed words, not on your unstated thought processes. Here is your original words:
<< When Allah has nothing meaningfull to say he exclaims "Allah is all Wise, Merciful!" or threatens people with "painful doom" constantly. It makes absolutely no sense! He talks about burning off the skins of the people of hell and replacing it with other skin and then burning it off again and follows that with "that is easy for Allah, Allah is Wise!". What on earth does burning off skin have to do with wisdom? >>
In the future please write coherently so that no one can accuse you of superficial reading or with committing weasel word logical fallacy.
Nakdimon
4 of 4
[Learner wrote:<<2nd: the wisdom is not linked to mere burning of skins, but with recreating fresh skins. For what reason? So that they may taste the continuous suffering in full. If the skin was burnt off once, do you think they would feel pain in the skin anymore? NO. Why? Since the nerve endings for pain that are located on the skin would have been burnt off and destroyed leaving them INCAPABLE of feeling any pain and suffering there. Did you even know that? This is where the power and wisdom of God is highlighted in recreating fresh skins every time that skin is burnt off.
O Allah! You are indeed All-Powerful, All-Wise. Save us from the fire prepared for those who reject your signs!>>
Nakdimon replied:
Well, if that is the case, Allah would have done a better job in making the suffering full, by leaving the skin off and have them burn without skin!. That way the body an open wound in its entirety. Now THAT’S painful! So the wisdom of Allah isn’t that impressive.
Learner now comments:
Nakdimon, I can understand if your background is not medical and hence you are stating the above. In major burns, described as third degree burns, there is NO pain, because the pain receptors have been obliterated along with the rest of the dermis! Do some reading on this. You will then appreciate the wisdom of God in recreating fresh skins.
Regards
EC said: "First, you take Isaiah 49 that is about the servant of God defined as ISRAEL in the text itself, and then lie that it’s taking about Jesus."
As I said, Isaiah 49 sets forth a basic principle. Feel free to take Isaiah 49 out of there, and my reading still stands
EC said: "Then you find some mention of ‘water’ and then say that this is now actually somehow “living water” that is not mentioned in the text, but somewhere else entirely."
Springs and rivers are living water. Stagnant water is dead water. I really didn't know this was that hard to grasp. No, it wasn't mentioned "somewhere else entirely", the rivers of water are right there in Ezekiel.
EC said: "even though Paul is NOT EVEN IN THE O.T!"
When reading the text beyond Peshat and Remez levels, one must necessarily let the entire text provide the context. When at the Sod level it would be a flaw to restrict context as you are suggesting.
EC: "from the 3rd future temple that has yet to be built in which animal sacrifices for atonement shall be resumed"
In deference to your specific request to remain ignorant of my beliefs, I won't go into detail here, lest you learn too much and forfeit your valued ignorance. I can allow you to stay ignorant of my beliefs while clueing you into this: There is not an atonement sacrifice mentioned in Ezekiel's Temple. Do you even know what the atonement sacrifice is? You clearly do not, since you believe there are "atonement sacrifices" [plural]. As I said before, you are way out of your depth here. Stick to textual transmission issues.
EC said: "isn’t it just amazing how many of your biblical errors we can clear up if we only forgo all logic and reason and let our imaginations run wild?"
It would seem that mocking and sarcasm are your primary refuge when you have nothing meaningful to say in response. I notice you didn't bother to touch on the historical context of Succot and the water ceremony, and how it relates to Yeshua's words. It was nice of you to try, but I understand your difficulties in handling anything beyond the basic Peshat level of any of our texts.
EC said: "AND since it mentioned water too, which is OBVIOULSY “living water” (because its being ‘poured’ out you see, so it must be alive)"
No, actually water poured out of a body is water held in a container. This would put it in the same category as water from a cistern, which is not living water. I do appreciate you taking the time to present something for the sole purpose of mocking and being sarcastic. I've come to see that as your unique charm. It's actually very endearing.
EC said: "Now all you have to do is that same thing with that other missing O.T verse in the NT, James 4:5!"
What would be the point? You've already determined it's a "missing verse". You are begging the question, and would defacto disregard anything I present based on your false assumption.
EC said: First, you take Isaiah 49 that is about the servant of God defined as ISRAEL in the text itself, and then lie that it’s taking about Jesus.
Sepher Shalom said: As I said, Isaiah 49 sets forth a basic principle. Feel free to take Isaiah 49 out of there, and my reading still stands.
EC, you are far more cocksure than you should be.
Sepher, you are being far to gracious letting EC off the hook here.
Isaiah 49 contains one of the four great Servant Songs of the prophet Isaiah (q.v. also 42:1-9, 50:4-10; and 52:13-53:12), all of which alternate back and forth between an individual and the nation of Israel, both of which, because of the corporate solidarity between the two, are called God's servant, His chosen one, and Israel.
This is not only the view set forth in the New Testament by Christ and the apostles who see these passages being fulfilled on an individual level in Jesus (Luke 2:25-35; Matt. 12:15-21; Acts 13:47, et. al.), but can be grammatically discerned from the texts themselves in their original Old Testament setting.
Rather than go through all of these thematically related passages, simply look at the passage under dispute - Isaiah 49.
According to the text, the very Servant of Yahweh that EC said is identified as the nation of Israel (as over and against being a reference to Jesus), is actually sent to save, redeem, and bring back Jacob/Israel to the Lord God. If the servant is Israel simpliciter, then how does the Servant reconcile Israel to Yahweh?
1 Listen to me, O coastlands, and give attention, you peoples from afar. The LORD called me from the womb, from the body of my mother he named my name.
2 He made my mouth like a sharp sword; in the shadow of his hand he hid me; he made me a polished arrow; in his quiver he hid me away.
3 And he said to me, "You are my servant, Israel, in whom I will be glorified."
4 But I said, "I have labored in vain; I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity; yet surely my right is with the LORD, and my recompense with my God."
5 And now the LORD says, he who formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob back to him; and that Israel might be gathered to him—for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD, and my God has become my strength—
6 he says:"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob and to bring back the preserved of Israel; I will make you as a light for the nations, that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth."
7 Thus says the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel and his Holy One, to one deeply despised, abhorred by the nation, the servant of rulers: "Kings shall see and arise; princes, and they shall prostrate themselves; because of the LORD, who is faithful, the Holy One of Israel, who has chosen you."
And so to reiterate: the Servant refers at times to the nation, and at other times to a representative individual of the nation, one who stands out among them as the Chosen Servant of God, one who would be the very means by which the nation would be regathered and rejoined to Yahweh, and who would also become light and salvation to the Gentiles.
There should be little question who Isaiah has in mind here, having already spoken similarly of the Messiah in chapters 7, 9, and 11.
In light of all this, I think it is fair to say that EC's comment that Sepher is a liar is wide of the mark and downright slanderous. I could go on making relevant observations from Isaiah 49 and related passages, but I suspect that I have already wasted a lot of time and will only get some the same kind of abuse hurled at me as was hurled at Sepher (not to mention Nakdimon and many others).
Guys,
You can try to deny it all you want. The fact is the virgin Mary was 12 years old. So yeah. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. I am not trying to be offensive, I am just saying the truth.
Yours in Islam
Ehteshaam Gulam
http://www.answering-christian-claims.com
@ EC 1/2
See that Nikdinom?
I’ve PROVEN that you are a liar.
James white does not- nor has he ever said- nor will he ever agree with your statement that:
"when we speak of 5700 MSS we talk about COMPLETE NT CODECES consisting of an average of 200 PAGES EACH..”
He believes, like everyone else with half a brain- as HIS OWN BLOG STATES- that the 5,700 figure includes ALL Greek manuscripts from fragments to complete codices.
That fact that you STILL can’t concede that point just shows what a disgusting liar you are.
WOW! You use very strong language for someone that himself has given incorrect information on this blog about Quran MSS. What part of James White’s statement about “over 5000 manuscripts” didn’t you understand? If you go to this link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHd69NLk7nU&feature=channel
and you will find Dr White saying at 10:12 in the video that “there are 5700-plus catalogued manuscripts of the New Testament, the average of which is 200 pages long”. Where I misquoted Dr White is in saying that those were COMPLETE codices. Regardless, the outcome is still the same. We still end up with 1.14 MILLION PAGES of manuscripts of the NT. You still need to brake out the lofts for some more mss of the Quran!
There you go lying AGAIN..
YOU are the one who bought up manuscript numbers, remember?
“You can have 1000 Qurans which correspond 1000% accurately with one another, that doesn’t matter, since it contradicts the NT, the best attested ancient manuscript the world has ever known.”
(August 3, 2009 5:34 PM)
So you are caught lying again.
YOU bought up manuscript numbers, and now that I’ve embarrassed you on that with the Quran, you are back-tracking and lying about how it’s "totally irrelevant”
Again, if you would just shut that big mouth of yours and just start picking up the things that are being said here, you would get much farther than you are getting now. Your constant boasting and insulting rants are very childish. Maybe you get the impression that the person that boasts the most has truth on his side. Well, I don’t think it quite works that way. However the case, you have not caught me lying about the numbers of pages of manuscripts and you will still need to look for some more lofts, since you are the one that started this whole competition of who has the most manuscript evidence for his scriptures. There is no need to contend with the NT which is, as I said before, the best attested ancient manuscript the world has ever known. I’m wasn’t saying this to boast, but just stating the facts! Every historian familiar with ancient manuscripts knows that this is common knowledge. You are the only one that appears to have a problem with this. That is ok, but I suggest come with an educated opinion as to why what every scholar has been saying for a while now and which I repeated, should be contended. If you can’t, then just concede the point and call it a day!
cont.
@ EC 2/2
So if one manuscript from the 10th century contains the ending of Mark up to verse 20, and another manuscript from the 4th century ends at verse 8..
IS THAT “THE SAME TEXT”?
Yes or no?
Oh, and which page of these “2.6 million pages” contains the ORGINAL ENDING of Mark that you admit you “don’t know” whether the Holy Spirit inspired mark to write or not?
Yo, you keep beating on a dead horse. I also wrote:
First we don’t know if Mark wrote any more than verse 8. As far as all the evidence is concerned we have no reason to assume he did. It is YOU that operate under the assumption that we miss critical data because we don’t have a “longer version” of Mark, assuming (again, an assumption on your part) that Mark wrote more than the 8 verses in chapter 16.
Do you get it now? AS FAR AS THE EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, we have no reason to think that Mark wrote more than 8 verses in chapter 16 of his Gospel account! Those 12 verses from 9-20 are ADDITIONS. If they are ADDED, then it stands to reason that there were only 8 verses written! Does that even sound logic to you in any way? You keep insisting that he must have written more. Now the only thing you have to do to get other people to believe that is take a shuffle and fly out to any place you like and start digging for that old manuscript that has the longer ending of Mark that you insist that should be there. As long as you haven’t found it, please stop insisting that it should be there.
And, btw, it IS the same text. With the same text I obviously mean that it tells the same story that we have in all the other copies of the Gospel of Mark. You would think, that if there had been another text that the scribes so-called corrupted beyond recognition, as is the Muslim position, that that text would have been copied numerous times too, since there was an uncontrolled textual transmission of the NT documents. How come then that everything we find is in conformity with what we already have? How come that those uncorrupted texts that you claim that the scribes have corrupted are nowhere to be found? Can you for once finally give a single straight answer for any of the simple questions I have been asking you for the past week or so?
Dude, you already admitted you “DONT KNOW” (your words) what the Holy spirit revealed to Mark.
Of course I don’t know. I only know as much as the evidence shows. And as I have said before, the evidence shows that there were only 8 verses in Mark 16. If this simple data is incoherent to you, then I’m afraid you are beyond hope.
Nakdimon
Ehteshaam Gulam said...
Guys,
You can try to deny it all you want. The fact is the virgin Mary was 12 years old. So yeah. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. I am not trying to be offensive, I am just saying the truth.
Ehteshaam I thought you were leaving us. But either way what facts are you talking about? Can you show us in the Bible were it gives up Mary age?
Lets assume what you say is correct. At least Mary had all her adult teeth, unlike 9 year old Aisha. At least Mary wasnt still playing with dolls, unlike 9 year old Aisha. Just a few differences between a 12 year old and a 9 year old.
LOL Fat Man,
They always claim that Aisha was "adult for her age" (AT 6!) and that she already reached puberty (AT 9!) without any proof whatsoever. Muslims dont care if they contradict their own prophet, or Aisha herself. Surely Aisha knew that she wasnt allowed to play with dolls in her puberty.
But the "baby teeth" thing is hilarious! But it's true! No way she lost them all at 9 and definitely not at 6! This just shows that she was just a little girl and not this 9-year old "adult woman".
Nakdimon
FAT MAN..
<< EC, you fail to understand that Codexes containing New Testement books as well as other works where found dating very early, 1st and second century. >>
You have NOTHING from the 1st century, so let’s put that lie to bed right now.
As for the early 2nd there is manuscript P52 which came from a codex, but unfortunately for you it’s the size of a credit card!
So much for 200 pages! Lol
Then there’s mid-late 2nd which are mainly just fragments too, unless you go by Dan Wallace’s magical dating of MS like p46 that most non-evangelical scholars date to the 3rd C.
< You fail to understand that the 4 Gosples were bound together early on, as well as the epistle letters. >>
No, you fail to understand that you are an ignorant individual who knows nothing about his own Bible MSS, and so needs to be schooled on them by a Muslim.
There is no evidence whatsoever that the 4 gospels were bound earlier than the mid-late 2nd, and there is no bound MSS of them till approximately 200CE.
Some of the epistles where bound earlier, but there is NO MSS of the epistles collection till P46 in Dublin and the US that most also date to 200CE.
<< So when Nak made the statement that these codexcies contained over 200 pages, that number includes the other works not part of the Cannon. I'm sorry if you can not understand that. But like I said you have to be told how to go to the bathroom as a adult. I was potty trained at 2 or three. I'm sorry muslims have to continue to work on that. >>
You may have been potty trained at 2 or 3, but you have clearly never been educated till this very day.
How old are you now?
Unfortunately, despite your romantic and heroic attempt to act as Nikidoms defense lawyer (very touching), he has since pleaded guilty to “misquoting” James White.
The dispute was never about “200 pages” of anything.
The dispute was over there being 5,700 **COMPLETE** anything, whether that be complete NT manuscripts, or complete books of the NT as you tried lie about.
Sorry your buddy embarrassed you like this by coming clean while you are still trying to make up alibis on his behalf.
<< Now I have answered your questions. Why wont you answer mine. In regards to the prohibition on pork, and circumsision. If you do not answer those questions then I see no need to continue to school you. >>.
The only thing you could ‘school’ me on is how to lie and be obese.
I on the other hand are giving you a first class education, free of charge.
I have no intention of answering your questions since they have nothing to do with the topic of preservation. I only bought up circumsion to show how you have abrogation in your Bible, which is related to preservation.
If you want to dicuss THAT aspect of circumision, then im happy to.
But why we circumcise or not eat pork is a red-herring.
SHEPHER..
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, “streams of living water will flow from within him"
(John 7:38)
<< Springs and rivers are living water. Stagnant water is dead water. I really didn't know this was that hard to grasp. No, it wasn't mentioned "somewhere else entirely", the rivers of water are right there in Ezekiel. >>
So of the 9 word in the NIV English translation of this verse, how may have you actually managed to match in the scripture?
One.
The word “water”.
Which you found in a passage about it coming out of a temple that hasn’t even been built yet, and then try and personally interpret this to mean ‘living’ water, hence going for the big roll-over jackpot of 2 words out of 9.
Shepher, with respect, your answer is breathtakingly pathetic, not to mention idiotic. so I really can’t be bothered with you anymore.
Let’s just let the neutral readers of this board (not you Nikdimon) decide whether this is the ‘scripture’ that Jesus quoted to his disciples, John 3:38 and whether Jesus was quoting Paul…. Or whether myself, common sense and Professor Mc Donald are right about this and James 4:5 being missing from your O.T.
And for the record, as I said before, I have no interest in the mystical beliefs or your apparently self-constructed ‘Nazarene Jewish’ faith.
I wish you well, sir.
Shalom.
NIKDIMON
[PART 1/3]
<<< Where I misquoted Dr White is in saying that those were COMPLETE codices. >>
SO YOU FINALLY ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!!
PRAISE THE LOOOOOOORD CHILD!!
IT’S A MIRICLE!
Now was that REALLY so hard?
Doesnt it feel so good to be HONEST for a change?
<< Again, if you would just shut that big mouth of yours and just start picking up the things that are being said here, you would get much farther than you are getting now. Your constant boasting and insulting rants are very childish. Maybe you get the impression that the person that boasts the most has truth on his side. Well, I don’t think it quite works that way. However the case, you have not caught me lying about the numbers of pages of manuscripts and you will still need to look for some more lofts, since you are the one that started this whole competition of who has the most manuscript evidence for his scriptures. There is no need to contend with the NT which is, as I said before, the best attested ancient manuscript the world has ever known. I’m wasn’t saying this to boast, but just stating the facts! Every historian familiar with ancient manuscripts knows that this is common knowledge. You are the only one that appears to have a problem with this. That is ok, but I suggest come with an educated opinion as to why what every scholar has been saying for a while now and which I repeated, should be contended. If you can’t, then just concede the point and call it a day! >>
Why you getting all upset and emotional on me?
Where did I ever say the NT was NOT the best attested document of the ancient world?
In fact I happily agreed with you, but told you that the reason for that is because all the other ancient works like Josephus have hardly any mss at all!
If the New Testament had 50 manuscripts in total, it would still be “the best attested in the ancient world”!
So my point was two-fold:
1) SO WHAT if it’s the best attested? What does that mean?
2) Given the Quran has more early MSS and is hence “better attested” than the NT, what does that mean for NT now, if you are consistent in your ‘logic’, which you have yet to describe.
NIKDIMON.
[part 2/3]
You wrote to The Learner:
<<<< But your brother EC claimed earlier on that there were 14.000 MSS of the Quran found in the loft in Sana. When in fact there were 40.000 PAGES of the Quran discovered. So what does this do to the credibility of your muslim brother according to the standards? What scholarly work were his numbers based on? ]
I foresee a response coming from Educating_Christians; so wish not to spoil the fun of learning :) >>>
Firstly, to brother Learner, Thank you for sending this disruptive pupil to me on this..
Ill educate him thoroughly and return him to your care…
Now, Nikdimon, you ask for my reference for the 14,000 MSS?
Here you go:
<< U. Dreibholz, "Treatment Of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments On Parchment: A Case History: The Find At Sana‘a, Yemen", in Y. Ibish (Ed.), The Conservation And Preservation Of Islamic Manuscripts, Proceedings Of The Third Conference Of Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation 18-19 November 1995, 1996, Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation Publication: No. 19: London (UK), p. 131 & p. 140.
As for that equaling “40,000 pages”, where did I dispute that?
Please explain the CONTRADICTION between there being 14,000 manuscripts with 40,000 pages in total?
Or do you not know the difference between a ‘page’ and a ‘manuscript’?
Don’t you know that your “average 200 pages” is basically due to the BULK of your sizable MSS that are ridiculously late.
SOME 95% OF YOUR 5,700 GREEK MSS “WITH AN AVERGARE OF 200 PAGES” ARE FROM AFTER THE 9TH CENTURY.
How pathetic is that?
Why don’t you ask the amazing James White what the average number of pages are for the Greek MSS that are from before the 4th century??
You see Nikdimon, people like The Learner and myself don’t need to LIE and make-up statistics like you do because we have THE FACTS on our side, that even non-Muslim, Western Academic scholarship acknowledges that as all our references prove.
All you have is your fellow Evangelical propagandist like James White, and EVEN THEN you have to misquote the poor guy!
NIKDIMON
PART 3/3
<< Those 12 verses from 9-20 are ADDITIONS. If they are ADDED, then it stands to reason that there were only 8 verses written! >>
There is good evidence that weren’t added. And if its so CLEAR, then why don’t all your fellow Christians agree on this today?:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780
Please explain which Christian opinion is guided by the Holy Spirit, who will “lead you into all truth”?
And given that your “addition” view only really took off 150 or so years ago, where is the 2000 year ‘textual preservation” in that?
Why did the Holy Sprit allow so many Christian to mistake a fake passage for his inspired word for so many centuries, that is present in the overwhelming majory of your MSS of Mark?
When the majority of my Quran manuscripts contain a single fake verse (yet alone 12), then how about you get back to me then?….
<< Do you get it now? AS FAR AS THE EVIDENCE IS CONCERNED, we have no reason to think that Mark wrote more than 8 verses in chapter 16 of his Gospel account! >>
So Mark ended his Gospel:
“And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”
(Mark 16:8)
So the only people who knew he’d been resurrected didn’t tell anyone because they where too afraid?!
In that case, if that is really the end of the matter, how did the ‘Good News’ ever get out?
You cannot answer that question with out FURTHER ELABORATION of the narrative.
And please don’t bang on about “read the other gospels” because they didn’t exist when Mark was first circulating. And don’t tell me Jesus just “appeared” to Peter on the basis of 1 Cor 15 without having to be told by the women, because Luke AND John explicitly say Peter first found out from the women themselves, whom Mark says were too afraid to tell anyone!
See what a mess this is?
This is precisely why early Christians ADDED IN (according to you) the ending to verse 20, because they could see how ridiculous a verse 8 ending is too.
Can you also see now why one of your greatest NT scholars, Metzger, says it’s MOST PROBABLE that Mark didn’t end there?
Now Nikdom, please understand im not saying Mark DEFINATELY continued after verse 8 because I don’t know either, just like you don’t know.
BUT THAT IS MY WHOLE POINT.
There is good evidence EITHER WAY here, to the point that NO ONE (even James White!) can know to any reasonable degree of certainly if Mark intended to end there or not.
And its not like we are discussing what Jesus liked to have breakfast here is it?
This is the RESSURECTION. The very cornerstone of your faith!
Yet we cannot know what the earliest historical account of it actually says:
Does it end at verse 8, in which case it makes no logical sense?
Or does it end at verse 20?
Or did Mark go further that verse 8, but that last leaf gets lost before copying (possibly eaten by a goat. Who knows?)
We can never know for sure what, or where, your earliest detailed resurrection narrative is…
And this is what you expect me to place my eternal salvation in?
Thanks, but I think ill pass.
EC, it figures, you cant answer becasue you dont know. So you are a "Blind Guide" a "White Washed Tomb".
Well have fun with your Islam, peeing and pooing your way into allahs paradise.
Educating,
As I already pointed out you completely ignored the historical the context of the verse from John 7. As previously mentioned, Yeshua was at the Feast of Succot were the water pouring ceremony had just been performed, at which time the Cohen reads Isaiah 12:3 which is as follows: "With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation." Let's briefly look at what Rabbinic sources have said about this verse, since it can give us a glimpse into how the Jews whom Yeshua was speaking to would understand the meaning of Isa. 12:3 - The Talmud states, "Why is the name of it called the Drawing Out of Water? Because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: ‘With joy shall ye draw out of the wells of salvation’(Isaiah 12:3)" (Talmud Succah 4). Now let's look at the very next verse from John, which you have not even bothered to consider: "By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified." (John 7:39). There you have it. The traditional Jewish understanding of of Isaiah 12:3 is that it's about the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, and John explicitly tells us Yeshua is speaking about the Holy Spirit in verse 39 [the one you didn't bother to read]. Now, this would be known as "Remez" [or 'hint'] interpretation that Yeshua was applying to Isaiah 12:3. This is the historical context of what He said. Now, when I cited the passage from Ezekiel I was speaking on the Drash and Sod levels of interpretation. Verses from our Hebrew Scriptures have all those meanings simultaneously. This is the traditional way of reading our text. I'm not making this up just for you. I already connected John 7:38-39 with Ezekiel before we had this discussion [you are not a special snowflake, where I came up with it just for you ;)]. There is absolutely nothing inconsistent about applying a metaphorical interpretation that likens Ezekiel's Temple to the bodies of believers, since Scripture tells us both are the dwelling place of the Spirit of YHWH, and Scripture explicitly says our body is the Temple. I'm sorry you don't know how to read our text. And clearly, anyone that can't tell Isaiah 49 is Messianic is basically a Scripture illiterate at any level beyond literal meanings [and even then I have doubts].
(cont)
Part 2
"Whoever did not see the rejoicing of (this water drawing ceremony) never saw rejoicing in his lifetime." (Mishnah: Succah 5:1)
On each of the seven days of Sukkot, the High Priest took a golden pitcher and filled it with water drawn from the Pool of Siloam. It was brought into the Temple through the Water Gate (hence the name), and poured into a bowl at the Altar, alongside the pouring of the wine, during the daily burnt-offering (Talmud: Succah 4:9).
This water ceremony was performed only during Succot. The Talmud states, "Why is the name of it called the Drawing Out of Water? Because of the pouring out of the Holy Spirit, according to what is said: ‘With joy shall ye draw out of the wells of salvation’(Isaiah 12:3)".
Now on the last day, the great day of the feast, Yeshua stood and cried out, saying, "If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said, ‘From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water.’" But this He spoke of the Spirit, whom those who believed in Him were to receive; for the Spirit was not yet given, because Yeshua was not yet glorified (John 7:37-39).
As mentioned already, there are numerous verses John 7:38-39 can be related to. I'm sure I could find many more. We don't need one and only one verse for this. It's right there in the phraseology of John. We have the same type of speech pattern in English. Someone can say, "Scripture says, don't do heroine". Now by your logic, we need one single verse that tells us this, which is absurd. Quite obviously this can allow for multiple verses that teach the concept. Your inability to comprehend PaRDeS and basic grammatical constructions are not my problem.
Shepher,
Why are you writing back to me?
I already said, let’s just let the neutral readers of this blog (few as they maybe) decide whether your explanation is acceptable or not .
Im more than happy to do that because I know any normal person who is not blinded by faith will see how desperate and Ad Hoc your ‘solution’ is to such a simple problem.
Now all you’re doing is getting even more desperate.
Now you quote me the same Talmud that says Jesus is a magician? Are you serious?
And even then you have nothing approaching a basic match of Jesus’ words.
So what if the next verse explains that “he meant the spirit”. How does that help us find that verse in the OT?
There are other examples were Jesus quotes scripture, and then goes on to explain what he meant in the very next verse, but that doesn’t negate the fact that his original quotation is actually in the scriptures (cf Matt 12:41-44 on Psalm 118).
Jesus can quote any scripture, and mean whatever he wants to mean by it, the issue is whether the quote is actually there or not.
And I’ve already explained I don’t buy your magical, time-traveling interpretation of Jesus quoted linking Ezekiel 47 with 1 Corinthians 6!!
How exactly where Jesus’ rabble of fishermen and Tax collectors supposed to know he was quoting a future text in order to know that their bodies are like the future messianic temple in Ezekiel 47?
<< "Scripture says, don't do heroine". Now by your logic, we need one single verse that tells us this, which is absurd. Quite obviously this can allow for multiple verses that teach the concept. >>
No one would ever expect to find the word ‘heroine’ in the Bible would they, so that’s a pretty rubbish analogy.
I don’t see why one should NOT expect to find the words ‘living water’ or ‘heart’, 'flow' or ‘from him’ in the scripture given the wording of the quotation.
Secondly, even the CONCEPT isn’t found in there, unless you wish to ignore the actual specific words quoted and define the concept as broadly as you like.
There is absolutely nothing in the OT about any water (let alone living) flowing out of anyone (let alone their heart) for believing in the Messiah.
Let me now give YOU an analogy to show you how desperate you’re being:
Imagine if I told you Mohammed quoted the Christian Bible as saying:
“He who cuts his sister with a sword shall taste waters of fire”
You ask me, “where is that in the Bible?”
And I say “well Shepher, Matthew says “love your neighbor” and that the same CONCEPT, so that must be what he meant!
I’ve already told you I’m not asking for a bang-on 100%, word or word, forensic match.
But you’re not even in the right zip code here, buddy!
<< As mentioned already, there are numerous verses John 7:38-39 can be related to. I'm sure I could find many more. >>
Oh, I bet you can too!!
Your ‘solutions’ so far show me that you have an extremely active imagination!
Have you ever thought of writing children’s books?
In fact, as I pointed out previously, using your ‘logic’ you can find anything you want in the scriptures, and I already found such a passage for John 7:38 for you in Psalm 22, remember?
Not only did my passage mention ‘water’ AND ‘heart’, but (as you sure know by now) EVERYONE knows psalm 22 is messianic, don’t they Sheper?!
Personally I think I did a much better job than you did with your Ezekiel 47/Cortinthians 6 double-combo.
Tune in next week where ill show you where the scripture says “Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn” :- )
That is, if you haven’t already managed to find THAT in scriptures for me as well..
Regards.
Educating said: "Why are you writing back to me?
I already said, let’s just let the neutral readers of this blog (few as they maybe) decide whether your explanation is acceptable or not ."
Well, I have to wonder why are you writing back to me? I never agreed to stop posting. That was your idea. As for me, I will continue full and free exercise of posting. Thanks for your concern though. And I don't blame you for not wanting to continue, considering you are incapable of responding to the text, the textual context, and the historical context.
Educating said: "Now you quote me the same Talmud that says Jesus is a magician? Are you serious?"
I didn't quote the talmud about Yeshua. I quoted it to verify the historical context in which John 7:37-39 was speaking [Succot and the water ceremony].
Educating said: "And even then you have nothing approaching a basic match of Jesus’ words."
I wasn't trying to "match" the words of Yeshua. I have no clue why you would offer that sort of straw man. I was providing contextual evidence into the meaning of Isaiah 12:3.
Educating said: "Your ‘solutions’ so far show me that you have an extremely active imagination!
Have you ever thought of writing children’s books?"
So, because you have no meaningful response, you devolve into sarcasm and mockery. No surprise there. Like I said, I think it might be your unique charm. It's is a bad habit though.
Educating said: "In fact, as I pointed out previously, using your ‘logic’ you can find anything you want in the scriptures, and I already found such a passage for John 7:38 for you in Psalm 22, remember?"
And I already demonstrated why that doesn't fit, remember? Although, I do still appreciate you taking the time to choose a passage from Scripture to quote for the sole purpose of mocking and sarcasm. I suppose when you are bereft of any meaningful response, it at least allows you to say something.
Educating said: "Personally I think I did a much better job than you did with your Ezekiel 47/Cortinthians 6 double-combo."
You wish that was all the presented. I mentioned a number of other passages from Scripture [which you have ignored], as well the historical context of Succot and the water ceremony, which I verified for you not only in the text itself but by presenting historical context from the talmud and mishnah.
Educating said: "Tune in next week where ill show you where the scripture says “Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn” :- )"
Or, we can just "tune in" for your next response and watch you continue to conduct yourself with the manners and discourse decorum of an adolescent teenager. Either way, I'm sure you will entertain yourself [and that is your only audience, I assure you no one else is amused by your immaturity and bad jokes].
I will be waiting patiently for you to interact with what I presented regarding Succot, the water ceremony, Isaiah 12:3 [as Remez], and the relation of all the above to John 7. I still have yet to see you demonstrate how the passages from Isaiah 49 and Ezekiel are inaccurate from as sources of Drash. I just don't think you are equipped to do any of that, hence the sarcasm mockery and poor attempts at humor.
@ EC #1
SO YOU FINALLY ADMIT YOU WERE WRONG!!
PRAISE THE LOOOOOOORD CHILD!!
IT'S A MIRICLE!
Now was that REALLY so hard?
Doesnt it feel so good to be HONEST for a change?
You are the one that accused me of lying about the number of manuscripts and then said that you embarrassed me. Where did I lie about the numbers? I have been nothing but honest about the numbers. It is your lying Quran that is an embarrassment to all Muslims, that go with the lies and proclaim them as "truth".
Why you getting all upset and emotional on me?
I'm neither upset nor emotional. Just making an observation regarding your childish behaviour. My 8 year old acts more maturely.
Where did I ever say the NT was NOT the best attested document of the ancient world?
In fact I happily agreed with you, but told you that the reason for that is because all the other ancient works like Josephus have hardly any mss at all!
If the New Testament had 50 manuscripts in total, it would still be "the best attested in the ancient world"!
So my point was two-fold:
1) SO WHAT if it's the best attested? What does that mean?
2) Given the Quran has more early MSS and is hence "better attested" than the NT, what does that mean for NT now, if you are consistent in your 'logic', which you have yet to describe.
And then you tried to compare that with the Quran with the NT which is a bogus comparison since the Quran is NOT an ancient document. Furthermore, the Quran was state sponsored from the beginning and not written on papyrus. The NT was a persecuted document written on papyrus. So we would expect earlier attestation for it. But you only have a single line of transmission and you have to trust that the single line of transmission gave you the correct information. In contrast, we have multiple lines of transmission, which gives a much better transmission than the single line. You ask "so what if it's the best attested"? Well, the point is that you have to come up with more than your emotional "the NT must be corrupt or else the Quran is sheesh-kebab" argument and actually start producing some tangible and substantial evidence for your position. I have challenged you many a times to show us a single example of a piece of text that is under dispute which undermines our believes. You have been beating on the dead horse that is Mark 16:9-20, which has NO IMPACT whatsoever on anything we believe, since the last verses of Mark 15 declare the death and burial of the Messiah and the first 8 verses of Mark 16 declare the resurrection of the Messiah. So someone reading Mark without the hypothetical additional verses would know enough about the Messiah’s atoning work giving salvation. The actual encounters of the Messiah with the disciples are amply attested in the other gospels and in Acts as well. You keep insisting that we miss critical data. As I told you before: Get yourself a shuffle and fly out to any place you like and start digging for that old manuscript that has the critical data that you so insist that we lack. And by the way, everything that precedes Mark 16:9-20 is enough to debunk anything that Islam says! There is not a trace to support the "Jesus was a Muslim" nonsense that Islam so stubbornly holds on to in the face of all (and I do mean ALL, i.e. everything that is known about Him) the evidence to the contrary. Instead of going with that evidence Islam decided to plagiarize from non-canonical, non-historical and proto-Gnostic works from the late 2nd century and later.
@ EC #2
Now, Nikdimon, you ask for my reference for the 14,000 MSS?
Here you go:
<< U. Dreibholz, "Treatment Of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments On Parchment: A Case History: The Find At Sana'a, Yemen", in Y. Ibish (Ed.), The Conservation And Preservation Of Islamic Manuscripts, Proceedings Of The Third Conference Of Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation 18-19 November 1995, 1996, Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation Publication: No. 19: London (UK), p. 131 & p. 140.
Can you give me the exact quote please? Thank you.
Don't you know that your "average 200 pages" is basically due to the BULK of your sizable MSS that are ridiculously late.
SOME 95% OF YOUR 5,700 GREEK MSS "WITH AN AVERGARE OF 200 PAGES" ARE FROM AFTER THE 9TH CENTURY.
How pathetic is that?
Why don't you ask the amazing James White what the average number of pages are for the Greek MSS that are from before the 4th century??
Oh I do know that the BULK of those are after the 9th century. But, again, you don't see what this proves! There are 124 surviving Greek mss from the first 300 years of the Christian area. The rest is from the centuries after that, of which the vast majority is from after the 9th century. And, like the broken record I have to be when dialoguing with you, they all give us the same message! WHAT DO THEY ALL UNANIMOUSLY SAY?
This shows that there was no tendency to change the text into something foreign than what was already written or taught. If you put those early manuscripts that we have next to the later manuscripts, you get the same message. In every century that we find random documents, they say the same: Messiah is the Divine Son of God, died for our sins, rose from the dead. And as I have said before, since this is the case, we have no reason to think they changed the teachings of Yeshua. It is on YOU to finally produce the evidence that they did change the teachings of Yeshua. And if you cant produce the evidence from this “error ridden” book, then this convo ends right here. I see no reason to keep wasting my time with your bickering about something you cant prove, even after I repeated that requests about 10 times now.
You see Nikdimon, people like The Learner and myself don't need to LIE and make-up statistics like you do because we have THE FACTS on our side, that even non-Muslim, Western Academic scholarship acknowledges that as all our references prove.
First I didn’t make up statistics. We still have those 1.14 million pages, that was corrected by Daniel Wallace to 2.4 million pages. And don’t give us that “Christian apologists rubbing each other’s backs” nonsense. These are people who are very knowledgeable in the field. Daniel Wallace practically doesn’t do anything else but hunting down manuscripts. Fact is that Western scholars don’t DARE to publish critical data about the Quran, since they are afraid of the repercussions that flow from publishing critical works against the Quran. So they walk on egg shells and are very careful about what they say and write about it. Were they half as critical against the Quran as they are against the NT, they would have a field day. I bet you, that if archaeologists are let loose on the pagan Ka’aba, they would date it to a few centuries before Muhammad made it as popular as it is right now.
@ EC #3
All you have is your fellow Evangelical propagandist like James White, and EVEN THEN you have to misquote the poor guy!
Here, more of that big mouth. I dare you to challenge his scholarship if all that he is saying is just propaganda.
There is good evidence that weren’t added. And if its so CLEAR, then why don’t all your fellow Christians agree on this today?:
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2780
Please explain which Christian opinion is guided by the Holy Spirit, who will “lead you into all truth”?
Oh my, I glanced through the paper and there are two conclusions to be drawn:
1) Mark 16:9-20 is genuine and therefore we have additional info that is attested of elsewhere,
2) Mark 16:9-20 is not genuine and therefore it should not be included and we still have the info that Mark 16:9-20 gives us.
Either way, the text is preserved. What God wanted to communicate to us is still available. The Gospel was spread through preaching, (unlike Islam, which was spread through the sword) and not through pieces of paper. And what was the Gospel message? Was it based on Mark 16:9-20? NO! It is based on the vicarious death and resurrection of the Son of God. And lo and behold, when we read Mark without 16:9-20 we have exactly the Gospel of God’s salvation through His Son. So I ask you again for the 11th time: Where is that evidence for that missing text that undermines anything we believe and have believed from the beginning?
When the majority of my Quran manuscripts contain a single fake verse (yet alone 12), then how about you get back to me then?….
Well, maybe you should start worrying about just that, since you claim that if you miss something of your religious books, no matter how trivial it is, you have to worry if its from God or if it is still reliable. As I asked your brother Bassam:
· Surah 33 was supposed to be 200 verses long. It is now 73 verses long. Where is the rest?
· Certain verses were only found with one person. How do you know that there were not more verses that could only be found with one person that had already died?
· That the previous point holds weight can be substantiated by the fact that Ibn Umar says “Much of the Quran that was sent down was known by those who died on the day of Yamama” and that these verses were not found with any person after that. In other words, those who died in that battle took those verses with them into their graves! I know of the claim that Zayd bin Thabit is accredited to be a memoriser of the Quran, but that is just an unsubstantiated claim. And IF Zayd bin Thabit memorized the whole thing, why did he go around LOOKING for Quranic verses, sometimes not finding verses with others than a single person?
· It is no wonder that Ibn Umar tells you, EC, that you are in no position to say that you have the entire text of the Quran, but only what is left of it!
So where we have additions to the texts, which means that nothing is taken OUT of the text of the NT, you have left overs of the Quran, since much had been lost, according to your own sources.
@ EC #4/4
@ EC #4/4
So Mark ended his Gospel:
“And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.”
(Mark 16:8)
So the only people who knew he’d been resurrected didn’t tell anyone because they where too afraid?!
In that case, if that is really the end of the matter, how did the ‘Good News’ ever get out?
You cannot answer that question with out FURTHER ELABORATION of the narrative.
It stands to reason that they did tell people. It is not that they didn’t say anything to anyone for the rest of their lives. Of course Mark meant that they said nothing to anyone WHILE ON THEIR WAY TO THE DISCIPLES, just as they were told.
“But GO, TELL HIS DISCIPLES and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you” (Mark 16:7)
Obviously, since Mark wrote all this and wrote that the angel told the women what to do, how would he know that this happened to the women if they really didn’t tell a soul for as long as they lived? It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that this was communicated by the women, because the only other way to know this happened is divine revelation! (and I’m deliberately taking a naturalistic approach) Mark actually expects people to use their brains.
Can you also see now why one of your greatest NT scholars, Metzger, says it’s MOST PROBABLE that Mark didn’t end there?
Can you quote Metzger saying this? Thank you!
And this is what you expect me to place my eternal salvation in?
You are really something, man! You really think that the Gospel of Gods grace is dependent on Mark 16:9-20? Do you really think that the Gospel of Gods grace was preached from Mark 16:9-20? How do you think people got convinced of Gods salvation through the Messiah? Can you tell me that? Tell me what the Gospel is and show me how I DON’T have it when I DON’T have Mark 16:9-20.
Nakdimon
EC said: "Please explain which Christian opinion is guided by the Holy Spirit, who will “lead you into all truth”?"
This guy has some serious problems with contextualizing the information he reads. Apparently, he is under the impression that John 16 teaches Messianic believers will have some sort divine protection against disagreeing with one another. There is absolutely nothing in the chapter that says anything about "Christian opinion" being assured of 100% agreement on such matters.
The truth that believers will be lead into is clearly explained and defined in verse 8:
"“And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment;"
We find clearly the truth we are lead into, and what we are given guidance about to be related to; a) conviction of our sins leading to right behavior, and b) Halachic judgment.
This passage is about the Ruach HaKodesh exposing our sinful behaviors to us, and guiding us into proper Halacha that helps us walk in the ways of Yeshua. There is nothing there that suggests we will receive supernaturally inspired guidance about manuscript history. Educating is simply using another opportunity to mock YHWH, mock His Holy Spirit, and mock believers. Thank you for demonstrating your abilities as a creature to cry out in defiance of your Creator and his Set-Apart Spirit.
But wait a second EC. Are you saying this passage is about the Holy Spirit? Most Muslims desperately cling to the belief these verses are a prophecy about Muhammad. Who is spoken of in John 16? Is it Muhammad, or the Holy Spirit? Please clarify.
It seems to me that EC doesn’t even believe his own argument about the fact that Jesus was making reference to a specific text in John 7:37-38 rather than to the general teaching of the Scriptures, for he also speaks in a general way when referring to what Allah, Muhammad, himself, and others have said; indeed, sometimes he even uses phrases that are strikingly similar to the one he tells us means that a direction quotation is in view. Consider the following from EC (All remarks in bold are quotes of EC; all italics are mine, but all other indications of emphasis – such as the use of all caps – are as they are found in EC’s original):
Thirdly, Muslims don’t say that there are inspired variant [sic] in the Quran on the mere say so of some early Muslim writing about 200 years after Mouhammed, as you now do with Orgian [sic]. We do so because that’s what OUR PROPHET said. (August, 2, 9:19 AM)
But where did your prophet say, “…there are inspired variant in the Quran….”?
The heavenly BOOK you refer to, however, is CREATED, as the hadith states. (August, 3, 2:52 PM)
Where does the hadith state: “The heavenly BOOK you refer to is created”?
Mohammed said you can only read any **ONE** of the 7 dialects that is easiest for you. (August, 5, 2:38 PM)
Where did Muhammad say: “you can only read any **one**…”?
Since Mohammed TOLD US we have seven dialects, and we can read ANY of the dialects we chose, and since you just ADMITED [sic] that… (Emphasis in original, August, 5, 2:38 PM)
But where did Muhammad tell you “We have seven dialects, and we can read Any of the dialects we chose…”?
Again your ignorance is breathtaking..
Mohammed didn’t say “one is enough”, GOD SAID THAT TO HIM:
..He then came to him for the fourth time and said: Allah has commanded you to recite the Qur'an to your people in seven dialects, and in whichever dialect they would recite, they would be right. (Sahih Muslim, Book 04 Number 1789) (Emphasis in original)
But where in the quote you provided does it have the words you put in quotation marks?
Then you combined this with Ezekiel 47 that is talking about rivers following from the 3rd future temple that has yet to be built in which animal sacrifices for atonement shall be resumed (which single handily [sic] refutes Christianity since Jesus supposedly replaced that system on the cross), which should also not even exist at all, since Revelations [sic] says that there will be no temple in the New Jerusalem!
But where does Revelation say: “there will be no temple in the New Jerusalem”?
He believes, like everyone else with half a brain- as HIS OWN BLOG STATES- that the 5,700 figure includes ALL Greek manuscripts from fragments to complete codices. (Emphasis in original. August, 9)
But where can the quote that follows your formulaic “as HIS OWN BLOG STATES” be found?
And for the record, as I said before, I have no interest in the mystical beliefs or your apparently self-constructed ‘Nazarene Jewish’ faith. (August, 10, 1:23 PM)
But that isn’t a quote of what you said before.
As this little exercise shows, EC has effectively answered himself and given the lie to his whole argument.
Semper wrote: But where did Muhammad tell you “We have seven dialects, and we can read Any of the dialects we chose…”?
Semper,
Just to show how contradictory the information in the Hadith is, Uthman says in the Hadith:
"If you find yourselves differing, [the three of] you and Zayd ibn Thabit in anything of the Qur'an, write it in the tongue of the Quraysh. FOR IT WAS NOT REVEALED BUT IN THEIR TONGUE." (Bukhari)
So what about the 7 Ahrufs? Either they differed with the text because of the Ahrufs, OR it was revealed only in the tongue of the Quraish. There is no other option. What had to be done with the mss of the Quran that were with Hafsa in the days of Uthman that wasn’t already done in the days of Abu Bakr? It couldn’t have been just compilation. Why would they differ on the reading if Zayd bin Thabit already collected the entire thing in the days of Abu Bakr? If Uthman is correct here in saying that the revelation was only in the Quraishi tongue, then the 7 Ahrufs attributed to Muhammad are a fraud.
Just like the bogus claim that the Quran was written down by scribes in the time of Muhammad, yet Umar was scared that the Quran would be lost because the memorisers were dying in batches. Why in the world worry about memorisers dying and therefore fearing that they would take Quran verses to their graves, if you already have the entire thing on paper? ONE of the accounts is counterfeit! Something else must have been the reason why Umar had Abu Bakr collect the Quran.
Nakdimon
Young Ehteshaam the Cloun (I'm nott being rude, just telling the true) daide for the 1.000.000 time: «You can try to deny it all you want. The fact is the virgin Mary was 12 years old. So yeah. Facts are facts, whether you like them or not. I am not trying to be offensive, I am just saying the truth»...
I, for the 1.000.000 say: juste ONE prove off thate and I, withe my family, will returne to bee muslims...
Facts are facts, you say... so:please: just ONE fact... I imagine thate will bee easy, no?
Young Ehteshaam... withe this stupoid insistince off yours you habe won the epitetus off the "clown"... justte try to prove we are wrongue with a SINGLE evidence off your claime...
@ Learner 1/2
3500 COMPLETE NT MSS. What’s going on Nakdimon? 5700 complete NT mss has now become 3500? When did you speak about this number? Is this a typo?
Yeah the 3500 was a typo. Sorry, that should be 5700 mss and 3500 are gospels.
Are you conceding to the fact that Old Testament narratives may not be true historical accounts, since ‘we have no concluding evidence for those details?’ Or are you talking about the ancient near eastern texts (ANET)- of which we cannot be sure of their true historicity?
Using the historical method, what would a historian say about these two accounts: one of the OT and the other ANET? Which one of these is MORE historical to the historian in terms of true historicity? I ask you again because your response was not clear to me.
It depends on what kind of historians you are talking about when it comes to the details. Where conservative scholars would allow for reconciliation to the Biblical texts, the liberal scholar will not allow for that. There could be a conflation of the actual historical facts as far as the ANET is concerned, which is rectified by the account of Moses. This would of course also go for the Quranic account.
I wrote: [And based on what unbiased scholarly work or historical method or personal research do you conclude that the crucifixion is not historical? ]
Learner: The QUR’AN.
I said unbiased scholarly work, historical method or personal research, not religious book. The Quran just says “it did not happen” and explains nothing. That is all the personal research you have done?
Christ was not killed or crucified; it APPEARED to them as such. This was a misinterpretation of events. Some people perceived things erroneously; rumour spread subsequently that got repeated. Rumour started and spread that Saddam Hussein had WMD; subsequently based on that the whole world mobilized to topple him. This is modern history. I think this example has been brought to our attention already in this blog!
Ok but then I still don’t know where you stand. So a couple of questions flow from this statement:
1. What is your position, are you a Swooner or a Swapper?
2. What does “it appeared to them as such” mean?
3. The Quranic text says “it WAS MADE to appear so to them. WHO made it appear to them as such?
4. If it was MADE to appear to them so, then the one that MADE it appear so to the enemies of Yeshua is responsible for the creation of Christianity.
5. Did it appear also so to the “true disciples” of Yeshua?
6. If not then what became of those disciples? Were they a bunch of incompetent men, hand picked by Yeshua with the supposed backing of Allah, who neither had the power, nor the guts to stand up against those false teachers?
7. Were they overthrown in spite of Allah’s claim that he aided them so that they became the uppermost?
8. If it was made to also appear to them as such, then this means that those true disciples were also deceived. Why didn’t Allah protect them from this deceit?
9. If point 8 is true, then they started Christianity, but then how are they “true disciples”?
10. Why would Allah allow the true followers to be deceived by the same event that was supposed to deceive the enemies of Yeshua?
@ Learner 2/2
I have more questions, but I think this will suffice for now to show how much confusion this one verse produces. And Allah claims in the text that those who differ with him about this have no certain knowledge? Really? Ask any group who differs with Allah and thinks that Yeshua WAS crucified what happened. You will get a certain answer from anyone: Yeshua was accused by the Sanhedrin of blasphemy, tried before Pontius Pilate, crucified, died and was buried. Period. Ask any group who agrees with Allah and you will not get one consistent answer. All you get is conjecture, no certain knowledge and the following of doubts!
Nakdimon: You need to read that paper—in fact that whole book. Historians like them have shown what you are dismissive of. I am not a historian, neither do I think are you. Let the historian speak then!
You act as if the lay person cant challenge the historian’s claims. I have every right to do so. Can the historian link Moses to the accounts of the ANET, just as we can link Muhammad to the sources that he plagiarized from and mistook for scripture?
How does a historian say a book is non-inspired? :) Precisely my point! You are using the historical method when it suits you and faith when it doesn’t?
Sorry but I was talking from my own viewpoint, not from the view point of a historian. I know where those accounts come from, one doesn’t have to be a historian to figure that out. But even if we use the historical method, the outcome is still the same. The historian knows that the people who invented those stories don’t deem these stories as historically accurate or inspired. There is no historian, upon the testimony of the people making up a story that an ancient story is a fable, that will go “oh, well you may say that the story is a fable, but there is some historical merit to it”. Any good historian will take that information into consideration. Given that fact, those sources will be deemed by the historian as non-inspired, non-historical and fabricated.
Nakdimon
Learner: no one here is debatting withe persons who are nott here: present your evidences and intervien withe them: the pretention off the qur'an being the best preserved book is hilarious!!! You cannot presentt as ebidence off the linguistique nature off the qur'an a book thate stares, precisely, from the beliebe in thatte fact... that's the problem with muslim schoolarship (an oxymoroiuse): itt was creatted to justiffy the imbecilities proposed bie muhammad and his followers... iff the qur'an presentes itself as the gerattes achievemnt off muhaamad an allah, all the linguistic analisis off arabic language is paramatrized from thate claim, and, so, there cannot be an neutral and rigourous analazis to thate claime... the way is to aplly objective normes off interpretting linguistic aspects off ANY book in his litterature context (nott in teh subsequente one thate, as in the case off the qur'an, was creatted to justify thate pointe) as judge themselfs from tahte point off view... and I quote Alfred Legasse ibn `Awf, from his standard book off analisis off the linguistic descrepancies in the qur'an, on this aspect:
« (...) Avec tout qu’on sait sur la structure linguistique (morphologique, syntactique et sémantique) du langage arabe géographique et chronologiquement contemporaine du Coran, il faut dire que Mahomet et ses différents secrétaires ont fait plusieurs erreurs dans son rédaction que sa postériorité a bien fort essayer de justifier avec plus ou moins de suces. La vérité, néanmoins, c’est que le texte du Coran c’est un météore dans sons environnant viral. Ses variations et destructions de règles déjà existantes c’est’ une constant dans tous ses pages : c’est comme un monde avec les pies au-dessus de la tête qui à devenu le canon d’un langage arabe qui na aucun pareille le existent au temps de Mahomet.»...
one is nott muslim, rather an non-believer in God (eben when he was raised as a muslim in Algeria) the neutral perspectibe is achieved and the truth commes into existance...
SHEPHER..
<< Well, I have to wonder why are you writing back to me? >>
Simply because Nikdimon hadn’t responded yet and I was board.
<< Isaiah 12:3 [as Remez], and the relation of all the above to John 7. I still have yet to see you demonstrate how the passages from Isaiah 49 and Ezekiel are inaccurate from as sources of Drash. >>
Oh and don’t forget the time-traveling quote from Corinthians 6!
Like I say Shpher…
Some ‘solutions’ are so ridiculous they refute themselves.
Regards.
P.S. SEMPER: Liking my language on an internet blog forum discussion to a quotation of scripture, from within scripture, from the lips of your God in the flesh?
That’s cute..
I’m flattered that you hold me up to the same impeccable standards as your God, but as a Muslim I don’t wish to be viewed in such a blasphemous way, so please desist.
NIKDIMON,
[PART 1 OF 3]
<< You are the one that accused me of lying about the number of manuscripts and then said that you embarrassed me. Where did I lie about the numbers? >>
So first you lie, and now you’re lying to cover your old lie…
Where did I ever accuse you of getting the NUMBER OF MANUSCRIPTS WRONG?
Nowhere.
I always maintained you were wrong about the the word “COMPLETE”, as you don’t have 5,700 COMPLETE anything.
<< And then you tried to compare that with the Quran with the NT which is a bogus comparison since the Quran is NOT an ancient document. >.
Savor this moment Nikdomn…
It one of the very rare examples of you actually making a factually accurate statement!
The Quran is not an ancient document like the NT..
But my question is so what?
Why should that stand in the way of God preserving his ancient Word?
<< The NT was a persecuted document written on papyrus. So we would expect earlier attestation for it. >>
Again, so what if its not papyrus??
And more importantly WHY moan about it being written on papyrus when it could have been on parchment like the quran?
What’s your point?
<< You have been beating on the dead horse that is Mark 16:9-20, which has NO IMPACT whatsoever on anything we believe, since the last verses of Mark 15 declare the death and burial of the Messiah and the first 8 verses of Mark 16 declare the resurrection of the Messiah. >>
Still don’t get it after all this time…
Corruptions like that where you DON’T KNOW (and hence cannot agree) on what your Holy Spirit inspired and what he didn’t shatter the INNERANCY of the gospels and the NT.
And if the NT is not inerrant, then its no different than Tacitus or Josephus..
Just a bog-standard, 1st century story book with some fact and some fiction.
Why would I put my salvation in a mere uninspired and very errant history book?
Get it now???
NIKDIMON
[PART 2 OF 3]
<< Now, Nikdimon, you ask for my reference for the 14,000 MSS?
Here you go:
<< U. Dreibholz, "Treatment Of Early Islamic Manuscript Fragments On Parchment: A Case History: The Find At Sana'a, Yemen", in Y. Ibish (Ed.), The Conservation And Preservation Of Islamic Manuscripts, Proceedings Of The Third Conference Of Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation 18-19 November 1995, 1996, Al-Furqān Islamic Heritage Foundation Publication: No. 19: London (UK), p. 131 & p. 140.
Can you give me the exact quote please? Thank you. >>
Why should I go the library AGAIN and look it up for you?
Can’t you do your own research?
Even if I gave you the quote now, how would you know I wasn’t making it up without looking it up for yourself?
<< Oh I do know that the BULK of those are after the 9th century. But, again, you don't see what this proves! There are 124 surviving Greek mss from the first 300 years of the Christian area. The rest is from the centuries after that, of which the vast majority is from after the 9th century. And, like the broken record I have to be when dialoguing with you, they all give us the same message! WHAT DO THEY ALL UNANIMOUSLY SAY? >>
They all unanimously say that your NT is textually and intentionally corrupt and hence not inerrant word of God and hence not worth believing in.
<< It is on YOU to finally produce the evidence that they did change the teachings of Yeshua. >>
LOL!
Wake up please…
There’s even an example of that that I’ve been giving you all along of Mark 16!
Did Jesus teach that those who believe in him can handle snakes and not be hurt?
Some Christians say he did, others say he didn’t depending on which Christians you ask and in what century they lived, for the last 2000 years.
And please, please, please, spare me the nonsense of “but our salvation doesn’t depend on that”, because examples like this prove that Textual corruption means that:
a) Early Christians used to invent words and teachings of Jesus.. So what other teachings of Jesus did they invent?
b) The fact that this can even happen at all, again, brings us back to the overall inerrancy of the NT.
<< First I didn’t make up statistics. >>
You did, you said you had “5,700 COMPLETE…” which is a lie that you already admitted.
<< Daniel Wallace practically doesn’t do anything else but hunting down manuscripts. >>
Hurray for Dan!
Now how does he being a manuscript hunter give him the authority to DATE current NT manuscripts?
Isn’t it funny how his dating are always earlier than everyone else’s?
<< Fact is that Western scholars don’t DARE to publish critical data about the Quran, since they are afraid of the repercussions that flow from publishing critical works against the Quran. >>
LOOOL!
That’s your funniest howler to date!
Because you are so ignorant of scholarship you know nothing of critical scholarship into Quran being done in Germany now and for the last few decades.
Heres just one book that German scholars are “TOO SCARED TO PUBLISH” that’s coming out soon on Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-Origins-Islam-Research-History/dp/1591026342/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250095613&sr=8-1
Why not save your pennies and buy a copy so I can shoot them down for you.
Hold on to the receipt!
You are simply jealous as hell that all such attempts on the quran like Wanbourough, Crone and more recently Luxemburg have failed miserably- even according to other Western scholars- while Biblical scholarship blew the Bible out the water decades and indeed CENTURIES ago!
You really think people like Ehrman’s arguments are NEW?
Yet when they first come out, his books hit the NY Times bestseller lists, and you have Evangelicals like you finally releasing how dumb they’ve been in actually believing such nonsense all this time!
Isn’t it about time you woke up too?
Post a Comment