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 401 – 456 of 456NIKDIMON
PART 3 OF 3
<< 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. >>
How many more times?
The inspired word is not “preserved” because you DON’T EVEN KNOW FOR SURE WHAT THE INPSIRED WORD IS!
And you are forgetting the third ‘most probable’ option that the original ending was lost.
As for all your Quran points, these are the exact same stupid arguments Nabeel made and the very reason he got so creamed with a cherry on top.
Every single one of those ‘points’ was blown out the water by Bassam so why don’t you stop wasting my time and watch the debate again?
<< 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. >>
EXACTLY!
It stands to reason they told people which means it also stands to reason that Mark didn’t end it there!
Thanks for proving my point!
And if it is as you say their silence was only “on the way to the disciples”, why on earth would Mark leave out that happy encounter- especially when (according to John) this is finally when Thomas gets to see that Jesus has been God in the flesh all along?!??
Think about it..
Why else would early Christians ADD IN A FAKE PASSAGE, if its so clear that Mark intended to end at verse 8?
You already admitted before Nikdiom, YOU DON’T KNOW if mark ended there or not.
And I already admitted in the last post that I DON’T KNOW either.
We don’t know, because NO ONE KNOWS, and we all owe our ignorance to your corrupted NT textual transmission of a hence VERY ERRENT book.
<< 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! >>
Here you go:
"Thus, on the basis of good external evidence and strong internal considerations it appears that the earliest ascertainable form of the Gospel of Mark ended with 16:8. Three possibilities are open: (a) the evangelist intended to close his Gospel at this place; or (b) the Gospel was never finished; or, AS SEEMS MOST PROBABLE, (c) the Gospel accidentally lost its last leaf before it was multiplied by transcription."
[B Metzger, Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (1994) p.126 ]
<< You are really something, man! You really think that the Gospel of Gods grace is dependent on Mark 16:9-20? >>
Yep, because upon variants as serious as Mark 16 rests the inerrancy of Gods alleged inspired word, and hence of the message it carries.
<< How do you think people got convinced of Gods salvation through the Messiah? Can you tell me that? >>
Yep. Same way people got convinced of Gods salvation through Vishnu and Shiva.
Regards.
The same old ramblings about Mark 16 which never convinced a soul. After 11 challenges to provide proof that the NT is "error-ridden" and that "the teachings have been corrupted", not to mention the skipping of the BULK of my response to you, I will end the convo here, EC. You haven't got a shred of evidence for your position that we miss crucial parts of Gods message of salvation. All you have is "well... did Jesus say you could handle snakes or not", which, as I told you, is information that is based on the book of Acts.
But if all you have is ramblings and emotional boo-hoos I can understand that you bring nothing to the table.
To quote from the New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Phillip W. Comfort, after a 6 page elaborate discussion, he concludes on page 163:
“With respect to the inclusion of the various endings of Mark in WH NU, it would be better if the editions more accurately reflected the evidence of the earliest manuscripts and did, in fact, conclude the Gospel at 16:8. All the endings, then, should be placed in the textual apparatus. English translators should do the same: conclude the Gospel at 16:8 and then place all the endings in an extended footnote or endnote.”
And as for your pathetic Quran, that is filled with pre-Islamic fables, although Bassam did address those points, I dont agree with his conclusions and therefore I raise these points again, since they remain valid points. It was a far cry from Bassam creaming anything. But, seriously, if you don’t know what the difference is between a papyrus manuscript and a parchment manuscript or why I would make that point in light of the preservation of an ancient document, then I really don’t know why I’m still talking to you.
Nakdimon
EC said: "Oh and don’t forget the time-traveling quote from Corinthians 6!"
There is no reason to limit to our natural sense of time when engaging in Drash and Sod levels of interpretation. In point of fact, Drash and especially Sod explicitly require the negation of the variable of time. Once again, I'm not just saying this because it's "convenient" to my case [as you seem to like to imply], rather, this has been the orthodox method of reading the various levels within the text for many hundreds if not thousands of years. It was part of YHWH's eternal decree that our bodies are likened to His Temple, and that He would inspire the authors of Scripture to reveal it to us during the period of the Brit Chadasha. To assume that He didn't know He would reveal this concept would be absurd.
Of course, you have no understanding of the subject matter, so you continue to mock. You've already explicitly stated you wish to remain ignorant, but it is most unfortunate that you also seem to wish to display that ignorance you treasure in public.
And of course, you have still provided no meaningful response as to why I am incorrect in applying Drash between living water flowing from Ezekiel's Temple, and living water flowing from the Temple of the bodies of believers in the Renewed Covenent, nor have you responded to the direct Remez parallel between John 7:37-39 and Isaiah 12:3, nor have you responded to the historical context of Succot and the water ceremony in which Yeshua promised the living water, nor have you responded to the historical reality that Jews in the time of Yeshua believed Isaiah 12:3 to be related to the pouring out of the Holy Spirit.
Really, you haven't responded to anything in any way. You have merely tried to obfuscate your lack of ability to respond in any meaningful fashion with sarcasm, mockery, and bad jokes.
EC said: P.S. SEMPER: Liking [sic; I assume you meant “likening”] 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. (August 12, 2009 12:17 PM)
What a riot. Our would-be educator got caught in his own craftiness, and the best he could do by way of response was to pretend that what I said presupposed his divinity. If Learner or any one of your other Teacher’s Pets bought this piece of verbal legerdemain, then I have some land I would like to sell them for dirt cheap in Mecca [fine print: the cube-shaped brothel in the middle of it, the one with the irresistible-and-ever-kissable-rock, which everyone gets a turn with, costs extra].
In so far as my whole point was that your own use of such language belies the claim that a specific verse is being quoted every time someone uses words like “says”, “said”, “states”, etc., you are simply begging the question when you say that I am holding you to the same standard as Jesus when he is providing a “quotation of Scripture”. Whether or not Jesus was providing a quotation is what is in dispute, and according to your own (admittedly) slip-shod practice, He wasn’t. [I’m sorry to cut off your argument like this, but as a Muslim you should know what happens when a person gets caught red-handed.]
It also doesn’t help to say that when Jesus speaks He should be held to a different standard of discourse than you, for not only is this to engage in special pleading, but it assumes that Jesus’ words were spoken in a formal context, which is demonstrably false.
Jesus was speaking to the common people, not to an official convocation of the Sanhedrin. It is evident how the common people sometimes used such expressions, for just a few verses later the people make a general rather than a specific reference to what the Scriptures teach, and they do so using virtually identical words to those used by Jesus:
“On hearing his words, some of the people said, ‘Surely this man is the Prophet.’ Others said, ‘He is the Christ.’ Still others asked, ‘How can the Christ come from Galilee? Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?’ Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.
All this may be lost on you, but then I am not put out by it. I wouldn’t expect you to know what a quotation of Scripture does or doesn’t look like; after all, it is not as if your “holy” book ever quotes the Scriptures. Apparently "Gabriel" didn’t have that information at his disposal in order that he might convey it to your prophet. Who knows? Maybe "Gabriel" was just as unlettered as your prophet was in the Scriptures. Or maybe it was all erased from the heavenly tablet around the same time the Scriptures (allegedly) got corrupted on earth and there was nothing there for him to read.
Of course this raises other questions, such as: When was the heavenly white-out created? Was it before or after the book? Was it before or after the Pen? etc. But I will leave all that for another time. I hope what I have said on the issue before us helps to clear things up for you, but I suspect I will just get another response loaded with question begging assertions, special pleading, and false assumptions. We will see.
NIKDIMON
[Part 1 of 2]
<< The same old ramblings about Mark 16 which never convinced a soul. After 11 challenges to provide proof that the NT is "error-ridden" and that "the teachings have been corrupted", not to mention the skipping of the BULK of my response to you, I will end the convo here, EC. >>
Fine with me..
Don’t worry, I wont accuse you of running away from me.
I will however point out your miserable failure in addressing the central point that some NT variants (like Mark16) shatter the doctrine of NT inerrancy, and hence of any message it carries.
Especially one of dead people coming back to life again after 3 days.
<< All you have is "well... did Jesus say you could handle snakes or not", which, as I told you, is information that is based on the book of Acts. >>
You mean this?
But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects. The people expected him to swell up or suddenly fall dead, but after waiting a long time and seeing nothing unusual happen to him, they changed their minds and said he was a god.
(Acts 28:5-6)
How does that show whether Jesus taught Mark 16 or not?
In Acts 5, a man lies to Holy Spirit over a bit of land and money, and he drops down dead.
Does this mean that Jesus taught that anyone who lies to the Spirit will drop dead too?
Just because something happened to some early Christians doesn’t mean Jesus actually taught it himself.
And cant what you just said possibility be taken as an argument IN FAVOUR of Mark 16 being the authentic words of Christ (as it indeed has), which you have just been arguing against this whole time?
I think you’re very confused.
And BTW, looking at Acts 28 above, isn’t it funny how people thought Paul was ‘a god’ for such a stupid reason as simply surviving a snake bite?
I think we’re beginning to see now why such simple-minded 1st century folk believed that Jesus was God too, who actually did do REAL miracles!
NIKDIMON
[PART 2 OF 2]
Anyway, enjoy reading your hand-picked collection of 27 ‘wannabe-inerrant’ 1st century history books that you call the New Testament.
I certainly enjoy reading it too, as i do all other ancient history books, like Tacitus.
In contrast, ill enjoy reading my inerrant, and very much perfectly preserved, word of God- The Quran- that i keep on the shelf above.
<< To quote from the New Testament Text and Translation Commentary by Phillip W. Comfort, after a 6 page elaborate discussion, he concludes on page 163:
“With respect to the inclusion of the various endings of Mark in WH NU, it would be better if the editions more accurately reflected the evidence of the earliest manuscripts and did, in fact, conclude the Gospel at 16:8. All the endings, then, should be placed in the textual apparatus. English translators should do the same: conclude the Gospel at 16:8 and then place all the endings in an extended footnote or endnote.” >>
So what?
All he’s saying is the earliest manuscripts of Mark 16 YOU HAVE (from the 4th century!) end at verse 8, so your current Bibles should too, but stick 9-20 in the footnote for the benefit of the millions of Christians who think it IS the word of God.
Where in that quote does Comfort refute Metzger in saying that the ORGINAL MANUCRIPT of Mark most probably lost its last leaf forever before it could get copied?
<< But, seriously, if you don’t know what the difference is between a papyrus manuscript and a parchment manuscript or why I would make that point in light of the preservation of an ancient document, then I really don’t know why I’m still talking to you. >>
Actually it was nothing to do with me “not knowing the difference”.
The question was so what if the NT is on papyrus, and why wasn’t it on parchment like the Quran was if its such a big deal to you?
Of course this was unanswered..
Anyway, since you’ve ended the debate don’t give yourself such a headache over that now.. Its fine.
So after two weeks what can i say?
At times bro, educating you has been like trying to teach a monkey table manners. :-)
But i know you’re at least smart enough to have seen the problems with your ‘word of God’, even though you’re too shy to admit it to me.
It’s been a pleasure.
Regards..
SHEPHER (AND SEMPER),
Shepher, as I’ve said before my Jewish friend, if the neutral readers on this blog wish to believe that Jesus was quoting a ‘scripture’ that hadn’t even been written yet and then ‘synthesising’ that with a river flowing out a future temple in Ezekiel, then more power to them!
I really don’t care because, as I’ve also said, some arguments are just so damn ridiculous they refute themselves a lot better than I can refute them..
Its funny how Semper didn’t think you were doing too well either to point where he had to jump in and rummage through all my former posts like a homeless man going through a trash can in order to find some kind of parallel literary style between myself on an internet blog and your God in His Bible..
Sadly he doesn’t seem to get that at least my ‘quotes’ can be found- loosely or not- in one place without the need of having to draw upon future texts .
In fact, come to think of it, when Semper states:
<< 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. >>
You’re right.
It’s not what i said before, but i was quoting this future post right now, you see.
Here you go:
Shepher: “I have no interest in the mystical beliefs or your apparently self-constructed ‘Nazarene Jewish’ faith”
Glad we cleared that one up.
Thanks again for showing just how much of problem this is, and just how low Christians and Jews are prepared to sink to pretend this scholarly problem doesn’t exist.
I guess this NT problem is even worse than i thought it was before i came here..
Regards.
Educating said: "Shepher, as I’ve said before my Jewish friend, if the neutral readers on this blog wish to believe that Jesus was quoting a ‘scripture’ that hadn’t even been written yet and then ‘synthesising’ that with a river flowing out a future temple in Ezekiel, then more power to them!"
That's an absurd straw-man. I never said Yeshua was quoting something that hadn't yet been written. I never even came close to implying that He was quoting from Corinthians. You should go back and read again. My case is based in Isaiah, Ezekiel, and the proper historical context of Succot and the water ceremony in which Yeshua spoke His words.
Educating said: "I really don’t care because, as I’ve also said, some arguments are just so damn ridiculous they refute themselves a lot better than I can refute them.."
What a wonderful way to deflect the fact that you are incapable of interacting with my claims, and incapable of making a meaningful response. You haven't even made the slightest attempt to interact with the Drash I applied, or the historical context, or even the very next verse after the one you quoted which supplies textual context! Talk about a bankrupt argument. Rather than admit that you are; a) wrong, b) not knowledgeable enough to respond; you choose to use mocking and sarcasm. That is a very poor method.
Educating said: "Its funny how Semper didn’t think you were doing too well either to point where he had to jump in and rummage through all my former posts like a homeless man going through a trash can"
This is a blog. People post things at the time when they feel ready to post. Get over it. Again, we see you attempting to deflect your inability to respond with any substance by using sarcasm and ineffectual jokes. This is really becoming a tiresome behavior from you.
In addition to waiting for you to actually interact with what I have said, I am still waiting for you to prove upon what basis you determine that John 7:38 is a quote of one particular verse in the Tanach. Just flashing your limp jokes and being sarcastic does not get the job done.
EC said:Sepher (and Semper)
Shepher, as I’ve said before my Jewish friend, if the neutral readers on this blog wish to believe that Jesus was quoting a ‘scripture’ that hadn’t even been written yet and then ‘synthesising’ that with a river flowing out a future temple in Ezekiel, then more power to them!
As expected, EC once again begs the question. He wants to show that Jesus is quoting a non-existent OT verse, i.e. "a Scriptre", but in order to do that he first has to prove that Jesus was providing a quote. Rather than present any evidence for this, and rather than answer my arguments against it, he simply asserts his conclusion once again and then asks "the neutral readers on this blog" to make up their own mind. Well, let me say a little something to any potential "neutral" fan-base that EC hopes to win to his logically-challenged cause: question begging assertions are not arguments. That means that when you, "neutral reader", make up your neutral mind on whose argument is better, it can't be EC's because he doesn't have one.
I really don’t care because, as I’ve also said, some arguments are just so damn ridiculous they refute themselves a lot better than I can refute them..
Given how poorly you have reasoned so far, I can see why it would be better to let bad arguments fall from their own weight rather than to try your hand at them. Heck, any "argument" you could possibly make against a bad argument would likely only end up making the latter look good.
Its funny how Semper didn’t think you were doing too well either to point where he had to jump in and rummage through all my former posts like a homeless man going through a trash can in order to find some kind of parallel literary style between myself on an internet blog and your God in His Bible..
Sepher has already answered your straw-man fallacy, so let me just point out a couple of other things:
First, there is nothing inconsistent with what I have said and what Sepher has said. Pointing out that your argument is disingenuous, which you still haven't provided a viable response to, says nothing about how strong or weak I think Sepher's argument(s) is/are.
Second, I like the self-indicting analogy you made about your blog posts. Likening them to rubbish that I went back and rummaged through (hey, someone has to do the dirty jobs) seems to sum it all up nicely. Thanks for that; I wouldn't characterize your posts any other way. If anyone in the future wants to come and claim that your posts are not analogous to discarded diapers, used menstruous cloths, and old worn out band-aids, I will be the first person to rush to your side and tell them they are wrong. [Don't say I never extended you a helping hand.]
Third, you can repeat all you want that your remarks were made informally on a blog and therefore they don't really count against you, but this would only be remotely relevant if you could answer my point about the informal context in which Christ uttered his words. Ignoring my point on this score won't make the point go away anymore than ignoring the smell of your trashy posts will erase the fact that it is your trash and your responsibility to clean it up.
Thanks again for showing just how much of problem this is, and just how low Christians and Jews are prepared to sink to pretend this scholarly problem doesn’t exist.
I guess this NT problem is even worse than i thought it was before i came here..
You talk a good game about how you can outpace everyone, but so far you've been as argumentatively still as the Ka'bah and I have run circles (tawaaf) around you. I'm sure the "neutral readers" will agree.
Educating said: "Its funny how Semper didn’t think you were doing too well either to point where he had to jump in and rummage through all my former posts like a homeless man going through a trash can"
Well you are finally right about one fact: your arguments are trash!
Nakdimon
SHEPHER (and Semper)
[Part 1 of 3]
<< That's an absurd straw-man. I never said Yeshua was quoting something that hadn't yet been written. I never even came close to implying that He was quoting from Corinthians. You should go back and read again. >>
Oh, well i beg your pardon for the outrageous misquote on my part..
Forgive me, but do you not believe that the temple in Ezekiel from which rivers flow is like the believers body in John 7:38 on the sole basis of 1 Corinthians 6 that hadn’t even been written yet at the time Jesus made the quote???
I think you do!:
< It was part of YHWH's eternal decree that our bodies are likened to His Temple, and that He would inspire the authors of Scripture to reveal it to us during the period of the Brit Chadasha. To assume that He didn't know He would reveal this concept would be absurd. >.
Now you accuse me of ‘not having an argument’ which is odd since its clear to anyone that the problem is so obvious and your ‘solution’ so absurd, however, I will for the benefit of the board brake this down for you into “fun size” pieces as we draw this to a close:
How do i know you’re wrong on John 7:38 not being a missing ‘O.T’ verse?
Pay attention...
ARGUMENT 1: Accuracy of other N.T quotations.
The reason this is a quotation (be it exact or loose) is because every single time (except what we discussed) the words ‘scripture says’ or “as is written” or any other likewise reference is made by anyone in the NT, it ALWAYS references to a single passage in the O.T- usually word for word depending on the context.
For example:
I am not referring to all of you; I know those I have chosen. But this is to fulfil the scripture: 'He who shares my bread has lifted up his heel against me.’
(John 13:18 )
QUOTE:
“...he who shared my bread, has lifted up his heel against me.”
( Psalms 41:9)
‘and, as another scripture says, "They will look on the one they have pierced."
(John 19:37 )
QUOTE:
“...They will look on me, the one they have pierced...”
(Zech. 12:10)
As the Scripture says, "Anyone who trusts in him will never be put to shame.”
(Romans 10:11)
QUOTE:
“..the one who trusts will never be dismayed.”
(Isaiah 28:16 )
But what does the Scripture say? "Get rid of the slave woman and her son, for the slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with the free woman's son."
(Galatians 4:30)
QUOTE:
“..Get rid of that slave woman and her son, for that slave woman's son will never share in the inheritance with my son Isaac.”
(Gen. 21:10)
cont..
[PART 2/3]
Notice how almost spot-on the quotations are?
Given this track record of accuracy throughout the entire N.T, why would we therefore, logically, not expect the same on this one example of John 7:38?
Bare in mind also that nowhere do i even expect it to be a WORD FOR WORD match at i have constantly said.
The specificy of the quote and context it’s given in both determine how accurate or loose we expect the citation to be.
The quote is:
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, ‘out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water’.
(John 7:38)
Now compare that with this example, provided by your self-appointed defence attorney Semper:
<< It is evident how the common people sometimes used such expressions, for just a few verses later the people make a general rather than a specific reference to what the Scriptures teach, and they do so using virtually identical words to those used by Jesus:
...Does not the Scripture say that the Christ will come from David's family and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?’..
(John 7: 42)
So in John 7:38 we have Jesus giving one direct teaching on specific believers in him from scripture with a string of specific scriptural terms (‘flow’, ‘living water’, ‘belly’).
But in John 7:42 we have a quoting of scripture made by a general crowd of people trying to figure out who Jesus was, thus context is relatively loose, as is the nature of the given quote using general colloquial wordings “will come from Davids family” and “Bethlehem the town where David lived”
However- EVEN SO- we can STILL find these cited scriptures with far more ease and simplicity than your pathetic attempt at John 7:38.
Firstly this is two quotes of scripture:
1) “Christ will come of David’s family”
In love a throne will be established; in faithfulness a man will sit on it—ONE FROM THE HOUSE OF DAVID--one who in judging seeks justice and speeds the cause of righteousness.
(Isaiah 16:5)
AND (Greek: kai)
2) “From Bethlehem”
But you, BETHLEHEM Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, OUT OF YOU WILL COME FOR ME ONE WHO WILL RULE OVER ISRAEL, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times
(Micah 5:2)
Notice how there is no need for a mystical ‘synthesising’ of different passages or invoking of future texts?
Now one may not agree that “the one” in these passages is Jesus or even the Messiah, but my point is at least one can see WHAT PASSAGE is being cited.
If you told an orthodox Rabbi the scripture prophases “Jesus will come from David and from Bethlehem”, they will at least know what passages you’re talking about- even if they reject your interpretation of them.
Yet if you told a Rabbi “the O.T says whoever believes in Jesus streams of living water will flow from his heart”, not only will he disagree with your interpretation, but he wont even have a CLUE what you’re talking about.
It not like he’ll suddenly say: “ah yes, you’re obviously referring to Isaiah 12:3 and Ezekiel 47 in light of 1 Corinthians 6!!”
For “G-d’s” sake man, GET REAL! lol!
ARGUMENT 2: Other collaborating ‘missing’ examples as in James 4:5-6.
John 7:38 is not the only example of a missing verse..
As discussed, James 4:5 is just as bad.
Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely? But he gives us more grace. That is why Scripture says: "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble."
(James 4:5-6)
Interestingly James 4:6 IS in scripture almost exactly (Prov 3:34), yet James 4:5 is nowhere even though BOTH of them have the same introductory formulae of ‘scripture says’?
Again I’m not asking for a SPOT ON match...
Just show me where in the O.T there is ANYTHING about the Holy Sprite in us envying anything!
ARGUMENT 3: Apocryphal quotations in the NT.
IF i am correct and these two ‘scriptures’ are really from books that’s our outside the O.T (or rather YOUR OT) would it be the first time that the New Testament authors make use and reference to non-canonical and lost books that are not in the O.T?
NO..
I’m sure you boys are smart enough to know the flurry of examples both I (and scholars) could give here..
ARGUMENT 4: Old Testament Cannon.
Was the O.T cannon you now use to find this quote fixed in the time of Jesus?
Try not to laugh too hard at that question, since we all know it’s not even fixed today with Catholics and Protestants (not to mention other churches) disagreeing over book counts.
In fact since Catholic are the majority of Christians on the planet, id say your ‘Evangelical protestant’ rejection of their scriptures technically makes you a heretic… Just like the Gnostics were ;-) .
Now since the O.T cannon YOU USE TODAY was not fixed at the time of Jesus, why argue that this particular scripture MUST come from within that cannon, as opposed to any of the other ‘cannons’ at the time of Jesus?
Why can’t it come from outside?
ARGUMENT 5: Scholarship.
Lee Martin Macdonald, a professor
of the N.T, argues that this passage is from an unknown scripture.
Which professors agree with your Isaiah12 /Ezekiel 47/ 1 Corinthians 6 mish-mash argument?
If this is your own home-made concoction, why don’t you write a paper on it and submit it to an academic journal and prove Professor Mc Donald wrong?
I’m sure such a submission with give everyone a chuckle during the peer-review.
ARGUMENT 6: Absurdity of fundamentalist ‘solutions’.
Again Shepher the fact that your ‘solution’ involves importing scriptures from the NT that hadn’t even been written yet is refutation enough.
What more do i have to add?
NIKDIMON..
<< Educating said: "Its funny how Semper didn’t think you were doing too well either to point where he had to jump in and rummage through all my former posts like a homeless man going through a trash can"
Well you are finally right about one fact: your arguments are trash! >>>
Good point Nikdimon, I did make an embarrassing error there..
Shame you weren’t as sharp as this during our 2 week discussion.
I guess we’ve both learnt something from each other now.
I learnt from you not to try and be too overly humorous in these discussions...
And you learnt from me that your Bible is nothing more than an uninspired, ‘wannabe-inerrant’ ancient history book with lost verses, and a page missing from the end of your earliest ‘gospel’.
Thanks again.
Nakdimon wrote:
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?
Irrelevant. Christ was not killed
or crucified but raised up alive.
2. What does “it appeared to them as such” mean?
It means that some people (mainly those who boasted in killing/crucifying Christ) were under the impression that Christ was being crucified.
3. The Quranic text says “it WAS MADE to appear so to them. WHO made it appear to them as such?
Qur’an reports this in passive voice. The rule of passive statements imply the subject, performing the action of the verb, is not specified. To illustrate further with an example: ‘The door was opened’. Who opened the door? It is not specified.
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.
No, it doesn’t follow. If people mistakenly perceive of events in a wrong fashion—it is the people who are at fault. Don’t blame God for that! When God allows genocide to take place; according to your logic God is responsible for that genocide.
5. Did it appear also so to the “true disciples” of Yeshua?
Unlikely. Very little information available to say anything meaningful. The NT says the disciples all forsook him and fled (?)—so they could not have seen anything?
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?
You should ask the NT writers why the report of the disciples’ forsaking and fleeing him at his crucial need.
7. Were they overthrown in spite of Allah’s claim that he aided them so that they became the uppermost?
Are you referring to:
O ye who believe! Be ye helpers of God: As said Jesus the son of Mary to the Disciples, "Who will be my helpers to (the work of) God?" Said the disciples, "We are God's helpers!" then a portion of the Children of Israel believed, and a portion disbelieved: But We gave power to those who believed, against their enemies, and they became the ones that prevailed. (Surah 61:14)
Nowhere does it indicate that they would have remained uppermost for all times. In fact, we find:
And when Allah said: O Isa, I am going to terminate the period of your stay (on earth) and cause you to ascend unto Me and purify you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection; then to Me shall be your return, so l will decide between you concerning that in which you differed. (Surah 3:55).
‘and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve to the day of resurrection’ refers to Muslims.
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?
N/A. see response to 5
9. If point 8 is true, then they started Christianity, but then how are they “true disciples”?
N/A
10. Why would Allah allow the true followers to be deceived by the same event that was supposed to deceive the enemies of Yeshua?
N/A
Now, going back to the subject of preservation of Qur’an, (reason why I came to see in this blog what people are commenting!) why do you still consider Qur’an has not been preserved in its transmission?
Regards
Nakdimon
1 of 2
Nakdimon wrote: [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 are confusing multiple authorship of the NT gospels with multiple transmission of the text of the SINGLE gospel of Christ. Christ preached ONE gospel which was transmitted in a variety of differing texts over a few centuries. (there is information of 49 written gospels!) This wasn’t a case of multiple chains of transmission of ONE text, rather as in your current NT, FOUR texts transmitting portions of that ONE Gospel Christ preached with John’s text being radically different from the other three.
We don’t have a single line of transmission. We have multiple, parallel chains of transmission both in written and oral form. Not only that, Qur’an is transmitted orally by MEMORISATION of the whole text. NT is not transmitted by memorization. You should stop embarrassing yourself by talking about a much ‘better’ transmission.
Nakdimon’s Questions about the Qur’an:
[How do you know that there were not more verses that could only be found with one person that had already died?]
There were still other companions of the Prophet who were still alive after the battle of Yamamah, who had committed the entire Qur’an to memory! This scenario does not arise.
[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!]
You are alluding to p.23 of Ibn Abi Daud’s ‘kitabul masahif’ perhaps. This narration of Ibn Shihab al-Zuhri (not by Ibn Umar) is known NOT to be strong. Not only that it contradicts the authentic narration in Bukhari where we see that Umar ibn Al Khattab said that he was worried about the Qur’an *becoming lost* with the deaths that occurred in the battle of Yamama. Moreover, We already know that Zayd ibn Thaabit memorized the entire Qur’an, yet did not die in the Battle of Yammama, so he could have easily recovered what was lost.
[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.]
Unsubstantiated? Even when Bukhari narrates that Zayd bin Thabit was one of the memorisers? You need to be consistent with the sources you utilize. If you use a narration eg., from ‘Kitabul Masahif’ for one thing, then you cannot simply ignore all the other narrations within it because they contradict you!
[ And IF Zayd bin Thabit memorized the whole thing, why did he go around LOOKING for Quranic verses, …]
So that people in later times would not accuse of possibility of the errors from a SINGLE transmitter, Zayd. What Caliph Uthman ensured was a text, as taught by the Prophet, compiled and transmitted with the collective CONSENSUS of the very companions of the prophet.
[…sometimes not finding verses with others than a single person?]
You are alluding to the last 2 verses of surah al-baqara. You do realize that Zayd was gathering text which was written in direct presence of the Prophet. It is logical that not all verses could be recorded by everyone in direct presence of the Prophet. Zayd was just WAITING for a person to provide that verse which he KNEW needs transcribing in the compilation mushaf, and so it was eventually submitted to him.
Nakdimon
2 of 2
["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.]
You have misunderstood the narration in Bukhari. It involves writing convention of a particular word- how it should be spelt. Example are given from other reports: writing the word ‘taboot’ as ‘taboot’ or ‘tabooh’. Bukhari narration has this:
وَقَالَ عُثْمَانُ لِلرَّهْطِ الْقُرَشِيِّينَ الثَّلاَثَةِ: إِذَا اخْتَلَفْتُمْ أَنْتُمْ وَزَيْدُ بْنُ ثَابِتٍ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنَ الْقُرْآنِ فَاكْتُبُوهُ بِلِسَانِ قُرَيْشٍ، فَإِنَّمَا نَزَلَ بِلِسَانِهِمْ فَفَعَلُوا ذَلِكَ
‘…If you disagree with Zayd in any point in the Qur’an then WRITE it in the tongue of the Quraish, as it was indeed revealed in their tongue …’
Your translation above suggests it was only revealed in the tongue of the Quraish—which is not stated in the Arabic!
[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.]
Firstly, It is not a bogus claim that Quran was written down by scribes in the time of the Prophet. The Qur’an itself attests to this FACT. (surah furqan, verse 5). Secondly, even though (as explained by Zarkashi) the Qur’an may have existed in written form during the Prophet’s lifetime, this would not have allayed the fear, since it was not complied in a book form, but was written on a variety of materials.
Nakdimon, I advise you to watch the debate again taking notes as you go along. Our textual transmission of the Qur’an is one that cannot be seriously challenged with credibility. Non-Muslim Academics studying this area have long conceded to this fact.
Educating,
I do appreciate that you actually did make an effort to interact with some of my comments this time. Since you still seem to be implying that I have some sort of outlandish "homemade" interpretation, I would like to quote from a very widely read Bible commentary:
Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
""Out of his belly, as the scripture hath said, shall flow," &c. referring not to any particular passage, but to such as Isa 58:11; Joe 3:18; Zec 14:8; Eze 47:1-12; in most of which the idea is that of waters issuing from beneath the temple, to which our Lord compares Himself and those who believe in Him.
out of his belly-that is, his inner man, his soul, as in Pr 20:27.
rivers of living water-(See on [1801]Joh 4:13). It refers primarily to the copiousness, but indirectly also to the diffusiveness, of this living water to the good of others."
When I referred to Ezekiel 47 in regards to this passage, I was completely unaware of this Bible commentary's comments. It is not a coincidence that we both came to the same conclusion independent of one another. Notice, they also agree that Yeshua was not quoting a specific verse, rather, a concept revealed in the Tanach. So much for your stance that Ezekiel 47 is some sort of outlandish baseless passage for me to refer to. Notice this commentary goes to both Isaiah and Ezekiel. Let's also take a look at Isaiah 58, since it is mentioned:
Isaiah 58:11 "And the LORD will continually guide you, And satisfy your desire in scorched places, And give strength to your bones; And you will be like a watered garden, And like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
I would have to agree with the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary on this verse as well. Notice this verse promises two things to the believer; 1) you will be like a watered garden, 2) you will be like a spring of water whose waters do not fail.
Needless to say, a spring is a source of "living water", and this verse specifically says the believer will be like a spring. What does a spring do? It puts forth living water. So this commentary agrees with my assertions about the fact that it's not meant to be a quote of any specific verse, that Ezekiel 47 is being referred to, and it provides another passage from Isaiah.
Also, I notice your quote of John 7:38 appears to be from the NASB. This translation happens to be unusual on this verse in the fact that it places the clause, "From his innermost being will flow rivers of living water" in quotations. Obviously, the Greek never had quotation marks, and the majority of translators do not include quotes here:
New International Version
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him.
International Standard Version
The one who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, will have rivers of living water flowing from his heart.
King James Bible
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
American King James Version
He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
American Standard Version
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, from within him shall flow rivers of living water.
Douay-Rheims Bible
He that believeth in me, as the scripture saith, Out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Darby Bible Translation
He that believes on me, as the scripture has said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
(cont)
Part 2
English Revised Version
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Webster's Bible Translation
He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
World English Bible
He who believes in me, as the Scripture has said, from within him will flow rivers of living water.
Young's Literal Translation
he who is believing in me, according as the Writing said, Rivers out of his belly shall flow of living water;
After taking a look at the Greek construction of this verse, it is an equally valid reading to state that the phrase "as Scripture says" [καθως ειπεν η γραφη] is a modifier of "he who believes in Me" [ο πιστευων εις εμε]. Clearly, a significant number of the translations have given the translation in a fashion that allows for this reading. I will have to continue examining this closer to see which reading seems to be most correct, as both are possible.
Either way, we have seen that your claim about me coming to some bizarre conclusion about Ezekiel is simply false. Yet again, more proof that you have absolutely no idea how to read our Scriptures. So sorry to disappoint you.
To answer your very facile objection to James 4:5, it is referring to Exodus 20:5, Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15 -
Ex. 20:5 " “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me,"
The word rendered as "envy" in the translation you provided:
φθονον noun - accusative singular masculine
phthonos fthon'-os: ill-will (as detraction), i.e. jealousy (spite) -- envy.
The ISV translation renders φθονον as jealous: "5 Or do you think the Scripture means nothing when it says that the Spirit that God caused to live in us jealously yearns for us?"
Since the Brit Chadasha is a monotheistic text, it is speaking of the exact same G-d that is described anthropomorphically as "jealous" in Ex. 20:5. This one is so basic that I assume you will have no problem accepting that is what James was referring to.
Shepher,
1 of 2
Thanks for the long awaited response, although frankly I’m not impressed in the slightest.
Still, at least you actually bothered to do some research which is more than i can say for some of your counterparts here.
On John 7:38 there is really nothing more for me to add.
You praise yourself for independently arriving at the same conclusion at the “Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary” on Ezekiel 47, yet conveniently forget to mention that this commentary was published in 1871, when biblical scholarship was still in the dark ages and thus knew precious little about the history and development of the Biblical cannon as scholars like Professor McDonald know today, as par his 2008 book.
I’m not saying this automatically makes your commentary wrong, but am just curious as to why you were so eager to blow the dust and cobwebs off such an old book, rather than refer to the countless other modern critical commentaries and scholarship on the issue that you could have.
Furthermore, I don’t see anything here on 1 Corinthians 6 (which was my main beef with your argument), without which your flowing temple rivers have nothing to do with any believer- yet alone their belly.
And saying that:
<< “Obviously, the Greek never had quotation marks, and the majority of translators do not include quotes >>
Is just beyond absurd. Of course Christian bibles don’t include quotation marks here because they don’t want to draw attention to such an obvious screw-up.
Funny how they DO include quotation marks when the quote actually IS in the O.T- even though- as you say- “the Greek never had quotation marks”.
SHEPHER 2 OF 2
<< To answer your very facile objection to James 4:5, it is referring to Exodus 20:5, Ex. 34:14, Deut. 4:24, 5:9, 6:15 -
Ex. 20:5 " “You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me," >>
You know I’m trying to figure-out whether this latest James 4:5 ‘solution’ is even more desperate than your John 7:38 one.
I just can decide which response gets the prize turkey.
There is no mention of any ‘indwelling spirit’ in any of those passages- only of God Himself. Thus not only is your ‘solution’ based upon the very desperate evangelical, Trinitarian assumption that the Holy Sprit is God, but it is also based upon the even more ridiculous fantasy that the Jews of 1st century would have widely known that the holy sprit is God from the O.T, which Jews have never believed till this day.
Even showing that the Holy spirit is God from the NEW TESTAMENT requires a considerable degree of scriptural circus gymnastic, which is perhaps why the Holy Sprit didn’t ‘officially’ earn his divinity badge amongst Christians till as late as 381CE at the council of Constantinople.
Needless to say if this is the best you can do then you’ve done nothing except prove the strength of my argument.
I simply ask people to refer back to my 6 arguments on why ‘John’ and ‘James’ screwed up when it cames to exposing these missing verses, and then compare that with what you’ve just written and decide whose case they find the more convincing. To me it’s a no brainer.
Anyway, my work here is done.
I came to this blog because i was informed that it housed the best of best when it comes to evangelical apologists in the whole world, and so wanted to give you all a second chance to show me why my Quran has not been perfectly preserved, and the Bible is such a better deal.
Yet over 400 posts later and all we’ve discovered is that no one can compensate for the Nabeel’s intellectually bankrupt performance, and that the Bible is about as inerrant (and divine) as almost any ancient historical work you care to mention.
I’m sorely disappointed, although I would add you only have your Bible to blame, not yourselves.
Trying to argue in defence of that book must be like trying to be Saddam Hussein’s defence attorney.
Some things are just indefensible *IF* you do your homework..
Commiserations once more to Nebeel on his spectacular failure to provide a single reason against the Qurans perfect (and I really do mean perfect) preservation.
Regards
EC said: ”Thanks for the long awaited response, although frankly I’m not impressed in the slightest.”
Well, I didn't mean to keep you in suspense. Life is busy, and I was away from the internet. And frankly, I couldn't care less if you are “impressed” or not. That's your whole problem. You have appointed yourself as the standard by which all textual judgment is assumed to be made.
EC said: ”You praise yourself for independently arriving at the same conclusion at the “Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary” on Ezekiel 47”
Not at all. I never “praised myself”. I simply pointed out the reality that now my interpretation is supported by another source with more authority than your opinion.
EC said: ”yet conveniently forget to mention that this commentary was published in 1871, when biblical scholarship was still in the dark ages and thus knew precious little about the history and development of the Biblical cannon as scholars like Professor McDonald know today, as par his 2008 book.”
Well, since you already granted that the age of the commentary does not defacto make it wrong, and since you haven't offered any specific evidence of what historical “developments” directly impact this issue, we can just move past that as empty banter.
EC said: “I’m not saying this automatically makes your commentary wrong, but am just curious as to why you were so eager to blow the dust and cobwebs off such an old book, rather than refer to the countless other modern critical commentaries and scholarship on the issue that you could have.”
Contrary to what you are asserting, all the commentaries I have access to on this verse agree that it was never intended to be a direct quote. Generally, those that engage in question begging about the NT quoting writings that are no longer anywhere to be found, do so based on their presuppositions. We have a tremendous amount of apochryphal sources available to us, and this “quote” you are desperately assuming isn't in any of them. Perhaps it doesn't exist anywhere else, because it was never written anywhere and it was never meant to be a quote in the first place.
EC: ”Furthermore, I don’t see anything here on 1 Corinthians 6 (which was my main beef with your argument), without which your flowing temple rivers have nothing to do with any believer- yet alone their belly.”
The commentary I provided find reference to Ezekiel 47 without going to 1 Corinthians, which I have no problem with at all. My reading stands independently of 1 Cor., which is why I objected to your straw-man of my position earlier.
EC said: “<< “Obviously, the Greek never had quotation marks, and the majority of translators do not include quotes >>
Is just beyond absurd. Of course Christian bibles don’t include quotation marks here because they don’t want to draw attention to such an obvious screw-up.
Funny how they DO include quotation marks when the quote actually IS in the O.T- even though- as you say- “the Greek never had quotation marks”.”
It's not being absurd in the least. It is being textually accurate. Every quotation mark found in the NT is a translational choice. I seem to recall at least one translation that is published with absolutely no quotes for this very reason, however, I don't recall it's name at this time. Again, you are begging the question, assuming a conspiracy amongst the translators to hide what is to you “an obvious flaw in the text”. Alternatively, maybe they don't place the verse in quotes, because they agree with me that it was never meant to be a quote of a specific verse. But of course, you don't want to allow for that, because it makes your position untennable.
(cont)
EC said: ”You know I’m trying to figure-out whether this latest James 4:5 ‘solution’ is even more desperate than your John 7:38 one.
I just can decide which response gets the prize turkey.”
That's funny, because I haven't decided yet which one of your denials gets the prize for most absurd either. The verdict isn't in yet.
EC said: ”There is no mention of any ‘indwelling spirit’ in any of those passages- only of God Himself. Thus not only is your ‘solution’ based upon the very desperate evangelical, Trinitarian assumption that the Holy Spirit is God, but it is also based upon the even more ridiculous fantasy that the Jews of 1st century would have widely known that the holy sprit is God from the O.T, which Jews have never believed till this day.”
Ha!! Hilarious. No my argument is based on the fact that James [who was a 1st century Jew named Ya'aqob HaTzaddik, who was even admired as a pious observant Jew by the Perushim] believed the Holy Spirit lives inside the believers, so when he makes use of the text of Tanach, he is going to speak accordingly. If someone believes G-d lives in us, and he applies a quote from the Tanach that says G-d is "jealous" over us, of course he is going to say things like, "the Spirit caused to live in us is jealous". This is so self evident it's sad that it even has to be stated. This is called letting the text speak, but you don't want to allow for that.
EC said: ”Needless to say if this is the best you can do then you’ve done nothing except prove the strength of my argument.”
No, what happened here is that you demonstrated your ability to deny reality, be inconsistent, appoint yourself the sole authority of what is and isn't proper interpretation, and doing all that without showing even the slightest hint that you know how to read our text, interpret our text, or let the text speak for itself.
EC said: ”Anyway, my work here is done.”
Yes, your work is done. We have all seen the lengths some people will go to in order to suppress the knowledge within themselves of the True Creator. It must be tiring.
EC said: ”I came to this blog because i was informed that it housed the best of best when it comes to evangelical apologists in the whole world, and so wanted to give you all a second chance to show me why my Quran has not been perfectly preserved, and the Bible is such a better deal.”
Well, I'm not apologists. Far from it [I await your sarcastic joke on this, I am wide open, I set 'em up you knock 'em down]. However, you have been answered repeatedly, but you refuse to acknowledge what has been seen, perhaps based on the fact that it would require to humble yourself, which you clearly reject as a possibility.
EC said: ”Yet over 400 posts later and all we’ve discovered is that no one can compensate for the Nabeel’s intellectually bankrupt performance, and that the Bible is about as inerrant (and divine) as almost any ancient historical work you care to mention.
Commiserations once more to Nebeel on his spectacular failure to provide a single reason against the Qurans perfect (and I really do mean perfect) preservation.”
No, what we've seen is that Muslims who are informed enough to know their textual history has variants use arbitrary standards and circular reasoning by first looking at the textual transmission of the Quran, and then defining “perfect preservation” based on the Quran's textual history. Very odd indeed.
Good point Nikdimon, I did make an embarrassing error there..
Shame you weren’t as sharp as this during our 2 week discussion.
I guess we’ve both learnt something from each other now.
I learnt from you not to try and be too overly humorous in these discussions...
And you learnt from me that your Bible is nothing more than an uninspired, ‘wannabe-inerrant’ ancient history book with lost verses, and a page missing from the end of your earliest ‘gospel’.
Thanks again.
This is not the only embarrassment that befell you in those 2 weeks that we discussed things. The biggest embarrassment is that you weren’t able to produce one lousy example of a text which undermines our beliefs which we don’t know what it says. Your constant emotional ramblings notwithstanding there is nothing missing that would damage anything that we believe and thus Islam is false, period.
Even your god says that the Torah and Injeel that were present in Muhammad’s time, were authentic and not forgeries. In Surah 7:157 it says that the Torah and Injeel that mention Muhammad were WITH THEM, i.e. the people of the Book. Don’t tell me that Allah revealed a book, allowed it to be corrupted while knowing full well that he would be needing it later to try to validate the prophetic claim of his last (read: only!) prophet, thus trying to proof his true message of his true prophet from a “hopelessly flawed” book. I also suggest you read your tafsirs on that verse, especially that of Ibn Kathir.
But you keep on believing I “learned” something from you.
Nakdimon
SHEPER
If you wish to pin your scholarly hopes upon an 1871 commentary from an age were people were seen blasphemers for doubting the inerrancy of their King James Bible’s, and completely ignore the tremendous advancements in Biblical scholarship in the subsequent 138 years (including, for one, Dead Sea Scroll analysis), then this tells me and everyone else everything we need to know.
I’ve given you my six arguments as to why this is a quote, many of which you’ve ignored.
What evidence have you provided as to why it is NOT a quote?
None whatsoever except:
“ It cant be a quote or that would make my Bible wrong, and since my Bible can never be wrong, here’s a passage from Ezekiel 47 that talks about water flowing out a temple- even though this has noting to do with “living water flowing from the belly of a believer”, unless we toss in 1 Cor 6 that hadn’t been written yet, or just ignore that like my 1871 book does, in which case we have no link between the temple and the believer’s belly at all!”
Then again, i guess that is what passed for Scholarship in the holy days of 1871, before all the evil demons of modern critical scholarship came to pass.
I guess even today many evangicals would regard this as scholarship.
<< Ha!! Hilarious. No my argument is based on the fact that James [who was a 1st century Jew named Ya'aqob HaTzaddik, who was even admired as a pious observant Jew by the Perushim] believed the Holy Spirit lives inside the believers, so when he makes use of the text of Tanach, he is going to speak accordingly. If someone believes G-d lives in us, and he applies a quote from the Tanach that says G-d is "jealous" over us, of course he is going to say things like, "the Spirit caused to live in us is jealous". This is so self evident it's sad that it even has to be stated. This is called letting the text speak, but you don't want to allow for that. >>
Completely failed to address my point.
Is “the spirit” co-equal with “God” Himself?
A Trinitarian says yes, a Jew (orthodox one of course) says no.
Thus you need to provide proof that James- or just Jews in general- held the same Trinitarian belief Christians do today that he Sprit IS God Himself, and hence posses all his attributes (like jealousy), in order for your desperate ‘solution’ to work.
Good luck with that..
P.s. . On a side note, why is your God “Jealous” in the first place?
How can God be jealous or envious?
Please think about it.
Imagine you are God...
You created everything, you can do anything, you know everything, you are in control of everything and you have everything.
What or whom exactly have you got to be JEALOUS about?
And why is it only the ‘sprit’ that is jealous?
Are the Son and the Father Jealous too?
Maybe they are all jealous of each other?
Maybe the Son is jealous of the father because the father knows when the final hour is, but the son does not?
Or maybe its only the Sprit that is jealous of the son, because the Son got to become a man but he only got to become a bird?
I’m just thinking out loud here, but id love to hear your thoughts.
Regards.
EC said: "If you wish to pin your scholarly hopes upon an 1871 commentary from an age were people were seen blasphemers for doubting the inerrancy of their King James Bible’s, and completely ignore the tremendous advancements in Biblical scholarship in the subsequent 138 years (including, for one, Dead Sea Scroll analysis), then this tells me and everyone else everything we need to know."
You really have a hard following what people are saying. No wonder you don't understand the Bible. I never "pinned my hopes" on any commentary. I presented that commentary as evidence that your claim, which you kept mockingly repeating, about my interpretation being "homemade" and "absurd" is absolutely false. That has been demonstrated. That's all I intended. That's what I accomplished. But have you provided any solid evidence of people that agree with you? No. You referred to one scholar and claimed he agrees with you, but without a reference no one can verify your claim.
Furthermore, I have no evidence whatsoever that the authors of that commentary called people heretics for not accepting the KJV. Stop with the red-herrings and stop trying to poison the well. This is evidence your arguments are empty. You are big on rhetoric, but nonexistant on substance.
EC said: "Is “the spirit” co-equal with “God” Himself?
A Trinitarian says yes, a Jew (orthodox one of course) says no.
Thus you need to provide proof that James- or just Jews in general- held the same Trinitarian belief Christians do today that he Sprit IS God Himself"
You wish that was necessary. Stop randomly moving the burden of proof to fit your agenda. Jews do and always have believed that Ruach HaKodesh is G-d. There is no debate about this and never has been.
EC said: "P.s. . On a side note, why is your God “Jealous” in the first place?
How can God be jealous or envious?" [then you ramble off gross mischaracterizations and straw-men"
Thanks for "thinking out loud" [your words] and further demonstrating you have no clue about our beliefs or how to read our Scriptures. It's an anthropomorphization. It's a way of explaining that for us to worship other G-d's is against our Creators plan. I really think you are just being pedantic at this point. Or do you believe Allah literally has a shin and eyes and so forth? Maybe you do. I know some Salafis get very literal about these attributes of Allah.
By the way EC, I notice you haven't bothered to comment on Isaiah 58:11, which is a single verse that explicitly discusses the bodies of believers being like a spring of water. From what I've seen so far, this verse is the best fit on the level of Remez, while Ezekiel 47 is the best fit on the level of Drash, since it applies a typology. Oh, and just in case it isn't clear to you, Isaiah 58:11 has no reliance on 1 Corinthians either. But of course, you can't acknowledge the fullfilment found in Isaiah 58 [or anywhere else], because then your little pet theory about a "missing verse" falls to pieces, just like your claim that I made up some new "home-made" interpretation of Ezekiel 47 did.
SHEPHER
1/3
<< You really have a hard following what people are saying. No wonder you don't understand the Bible. I never "pinned my hopes" on any commentary. I presented that commentary as evidence that your claim, which you kept mockingly repeating, about my interpretation being "homemade" and "absurd" is absolutely false. >>
I think we both know that's a little white lie..
If you read what i actually wrote you’ll see my "home made" accusations were referring to your ORGINAL earlier response where you included 1Corinthians 6 and argued that Jesus was somehow invoking to this future text that had not yet been written.
That is what i was calling Home-made.
Sinc then you've stumbled upon your 1871 book which makes no mention of 1 Cor 6 at all, hence proving my point (at least according to your own favored source) that your original view was indeed "home-made".
So now, we observe your very frantic back peddling in saying that you don’t need 1 Cor 6 anymore, whihc leaves one wondering why you ever bought it up in the first place??
Yet again your desperation is there for all to see.
<< But have you provided any solid evidence of people that agree with you? No. You referred to one scholar and claimed he agrees with you, but without a reference no one can verify your claim. >>
If you wanted a reference, all you had to do was ask, bro:
"Sometimes unknown scriptures are cited as in John 7:38 and James 4:5 (see also 1 Cor 2:9; 9:10; Eph 5:14 and Luke 11:49), which reflect the uncertainty in the first century about scope of the collection of scriptures."
[ Lee Martin McDonald, The Biblical Canon, Hendrickson Publishers 2007, p.27 ]
You're welcome.
And isn’t it amazing what a difference 136 year of scholarship can make?
One thing scholars have learnt in those 136 years is that you no longer have to publish desperate 'solutions' just to try and make the Bible look 'divine', and that we now have the freedom to just face the fact that the Bible is an error invested book that has trouble defining itself, and hence cant help quoting unknown 'scriptures'.
Furthermore, as mentioned before, its not just the scholarly honesty your commentary lacks, its the knowledge.
Virtually no scholar today would dispute that Jude 14 is an EXPLICT example of your New Testament quoting the apocryphal book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9), whom Jude even mentions.
But since your commentary just cant stand the thought that one of your NT authors screwed up by copying from the apocrypha, it tries to weasel out of the obvious by saying:
" There are reasons given by some for thinking the book of Enoch copied from Jude rather than vice versa. "
Of course we now know this is rubbish since Dead Sea scroll discovered at Qumran over 50 years later found MSS of Enoch that pre-date Jude.
So it just goes to show why you can’t always trust such out-dated nonsense.
2/3
<< By the way EC, I notice you haven't bothered to comment on Isaiah 58:11, which is a single verse that explicitly discusses the bodies of believers being like a spring of water. >>
Lets look at this in immidiate context:
and if you spend yourselves in behalf of the hungry
and satisfy the needs of the oppressed,
then your light will rise in the darkness,
and your night will become like the noonday.
11 The LORD will guide you always;
he will satisfy your needs in a sun-scorched land
and will strengthen your frame.
You will be like a well-watered garden,
like a spring whose waters never fail.
(Isaiah 58:10-11)
Thus you passage has nothing to do with belief in the Messiah or Messianic temples, its about God rewarding you for GOOD DEEDS (slap in the face for Paul there), and about FASTING in its overall context!
You see no matter how desperately hard you try, you just can handle the obvious conclusion that you have nothing. First you quote me the rivers of Ezekiel 47 that I admit is about the messianic temple, but this has NOTHING to do with rivers flowing from the body- yet alone 'belly' of any messianic believer.
Now you’re giving me Isaiah 58 that is talking about fasting and God rewarding people who do GOOD DEEDS with guidance and water, but sys nothing of belief in the Messiah!
To even come CLOSE with Ezekiel 47 you need a conjoining passage like 1 cor 6 that shows how this temple with flowing rivers is like the body of a messianic believer, from which rivers flow.
You KNOW that, which is why you mentioned 1 Cor 6 in the first place, isnt it Shepher?
3/3
JAMES 4:5
<< You wish that was necessary. Stop randomly moving the burden of proof to fit your agenda. Jews do and always have believed that Ruach HaKodesh is G-d. There is no debate about this and never has been.
There you go again pretending to be the ambassador for all Jews when we all know that you are no such thing..
Let see what one of the biggest Orthodox Jewish website "Jews for Judaism" has to say about the Holy Spirit:
" .... The spirit is always at the disposal of God to bestow upon whomever He chooses, as stated in Numbers 11:17, 25, 29; Isaiah 42:1, 44:3; Joel 3:1. If this spirit referred to the third member of a coequal tri-unity god, how could it be ordered about at the discretion of the other members of this group? We see that the Jewish Scriptures teach that "spirit" does not refer to the third person of a tri-unity god. Thus God says to Moses, "And I will take of the spirit which is upon you, and I will put it upon them. . . . And He took of the spirit which was upon him, and He put it upon the seventy men, the elders, and it came to pass, when the spirit rested upon them, that they prophesied. . . . And Moses said . . . 'would that all the Lord's people were prophets, that the Lord would put His spirit upon them'" (Numbers 1:17, 25, 29).
SUCH A CONDITION MAKES IT OBVIOULSY IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSIDER THE SPIRIT AS BEING AN ASSOCIATE OF GOD, LET ALONE CO-EQUAL WITH HIM."
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/faq-primary-211/trinity-primary-374/160-does-the-word-qspiritq-refer-to-what-christians-call-the-qthird-member-of-the-trinityq
That certainly looks like a "debate" to me!!
I guess some wishes do come true, after all.
Thus you have absolutely no JEWISH right to assume that your verses that speck of God being "Jealous" also automatically apply to the spirit.
In addition, take a look at what your favorite 1871 commentary has to say on this verse:
" The quotation here, as in Eph 5:14 , seems to be not so much from a particular passage as one gathered by James under inspiration from the general tenor of such passages in both the Old and New Testaments, as Num 14:29 Pro 21:20 Gal 5:17
In other words, in completely ignoring your "home-made" solution, its saying "we don’t have a clue were James is getting this stuff from, so lets just attempt a mis-mash of verses, and even throw in a bit of "New Testament" Paul just for fun!"
Absolutely PATHITC.
And by the way Sheper, whilst on that website i took the liberty of looking what Orthodox Jews think of people you:
<< Is a born-Jewish individual who believes Jesus to be his/her "Lord and Savior" still a part of the Jewish people?
A Jew who believes in Jesus as his/her "Lord and Savior" has become a Christian. Even if not a formal member of a church group that person is a Christian theologically.
The halacha (B.T. Sanhedrin 44a) recognizes the biologic link to the Jewish people as inviolate, but also recognizes that as long as one remains an apostate one is not considered to be part of the Jewish community. A willing convert, whether formally or informally, forfeits his/her legal and social rights, which express a Jew's belonging to the Jewish people. >>
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/faq-primary-211/apostates-primary-354/43-believer-still-jewish
Thus since you have forfeited your "legal and social rights, which express a Jew's belonging to the Jewish people.", please can you stop speaking on behalf of Jewish beliefs of your own “home-made” accord?
P.s.<< Or do you believe Allah literally has a shin and eyes and so forth? >>
Whether i do or don’t, its hardly the same as being described as 'jealous' or "envious" is it?
EC said: ”I think we both know that's a little white lie..
If you read what i actually wrote you’ll see my "home made" accusations were referring to your ORGINAL earlier response where you included 1Corinthians 6 and argued that Jesus was somehow invoking to this future text that had not yet been written.
That is what i was calling Home-made.
Sinc then you've stumbled upon your 1871 book which makes no mention of 1 Cor 6 at all, hence proving my point (at least according to your own favored source) that your original view was indeed "home-made".”
It's not any sort of lie at all. I already told you, from the very first time you mentioned this issue, that you have built a straw-man, and are misrepresenting me. Frankly, I don't know if you are doing it on purpose, doing by accident based on your failure to comprehend, or doing it on accident due to me not communicating in a way you happen to clearly understand. Whatever the case may be, I suggest since I have been very consistent in saying that are not accurately representing my position you allow me to be the arbiter of such misunderstandings, since I am something of an authority on my own intentions and beliefs. Thanks.
EC said: ”So now, we observe your very frantic back peddling in saying that you don’t need 1 Cor 6 anymore, whihc leaves one wondering why you ever bought it up in the first place??
Yet again your desperation is there for all to see.”
I'm not sure what “audience” you think you are performing for, but clearly we have completely different motives for posting. At this point, I doubt many are still following along. Let's not be self-important, shall we. I'm not doing any “back peddling”. I already told you that you are misconstruing my words, but rather than attempting to seek for honest communication by gaining understanding, you continue attempt to force a misrepresentation for the convenience of your own empty ridicule.
EC said: ”If you wanted a reference, all you had to do was ask, bro:....
And isn’t it amazing what a difference 136 year of scholarship can make?
One thing scholars have learnt in those 136 years is that you no longer have to publish desperate 'solutions' just to try and make the Bible look 'divine', and that we now have the freedom to just face the fact that the Bible is an error invested book that has trouble defining itself, and hence cant help quoting unknown 'scriptures'.”
While I do appreciate seeing the quote for verification, it simply does not help you out in refuting the reading that both myself and the commentary I quoted favor. There is nothing that the scholar you quote is referring to in order to come to his conclusion that is some sort of new discovery relevant to these specific verses. Does he have some new substantial textual finds about the verse from John? No. Does he have some sort of new textual finds about Ezekiel 47? No. There are some portions of Scripture that we can accurately say we have a better understanding of now than 136 years ago. This is not one of them. If some apocryphal manuscript had been found containing this quote, obviously that would be relevant, but no such thing has magically appeared in the last 136 years. And unfortunately, providing that quote doesn't do much to further our dialogue. I have no information on why exactly he concludes this verse is a quote of something written somewhere else. And in light of the fact that I know of no textual discoveries [or discoveries of any type] that directly impact this verse from John or Ezekiel 47 I have to assume that your scholar brings certain presuppositions about the text that shape his opinion, as it doesn't seem to be coming from any concrete textual or archaeologic find. Without having access to the work you cited for context, this speculation about his method is my only option.
(cont)
Part 2
EC said: ”Virtually no scholar today would dispute that Jude 14 is an EXPLICT example of your New Testament quoting the apocryphal book of Enoch (1 Enoch 1:9), whom Jude even mentions.”
Actually, I don't have any problem in stating that this seems to be a reasonable conclusion about that verse from what I know.
EC said: ”So it just goes to show why you can’t always trust such out-dated nonsense.”
Not really. The age of the commentary is not relevant to the verses we are discussing for the reasons I already mentioned. It just goes to show, that commentaries can be wrong, just like your scholar can be wrong as well. And by the way, calling that commentary “nonsense” is just using biased emotional buzz words. It doesn't add anything to our dialogue.
EC said: ”Lets look at this in immidiate context:
(Isaiah 58:10-11)
Thus you passage has nothing to do with belief in the Messiah or Messianic temples, its about God rewarding you for GOOD DEEDS (slap in the face for Paul there), and about FASTING in its overall context!”
Upon what basis do you presuppose that the passage has to explicitly say something about the Messiah for Yeshua to apply the text to make a point related to water ceremony performed during Succot? That is why I said it is “Remez”. You are reading the text in terms of Peshat.
EC said: ”You see no matter how desperately hard you try, you just can handle the obvious conclusion that you have nothing. First you quote me the rivers of Ezekiel 47 that I admit is about the messianic temple, but this has NOTHING to do with rivers flowing from the body- yet alone 'belly' of any messianic believer.”
Yeah, that's why it is a Drash. I'm really beginning to feel like you just have no clue what I am talking about.
EC said: ”Now you’re giving me Isaiah 58 that is talking about fasting and God rewarding people who do GOOD DEEDS with guidance and water, but sys nothing of belief in the Messiah!”
That's not exactly what the text says, but I get what you are trying to say....and again, that's because this text is Remez. The things you are mentioning are exactly what one would expect to see in a Remez fulfillment. You are confusing Remez with Peshat, which just doesn't work. Actually, I had not looked at this text in light of the verses from John. I'm glad we had this discussion. I now have a Remez for the text when before I only had Drash.
EC said: ”To even come CLOSE with Ezekiel 47 you need a conjoining passage like 1 cor 6 that shows how this temple with flowing rivers is like the body of a messianic believer, from which rivers flow.
You KNOW that, which is why you mentioned 1 Cor 6 in the first place, isnt it Shepher?”
No, it isn't. When someone says you have misunderstood them, you might want to allow for the possibility that they are telling the truth, rather than ascribing lying intentions to them. As I already stated, the Drash reading of Ezekiel 47 stands completely independent of 1 Corinthians. I mentioned it because I made the mistake of assuming you actually wanted to understand something about my beliefs. Clearly that was a big mistake. I mean, after all you explicitly stated you want to remain ignorant of my beliefs. You see, our Scriptures are built on a concept known as “progressive revelation”. So we read previous verses in light of the totality of what Scripture has to say. So clearly, the audience hearing the words of Yeshua at that time would have had no sense of thinking of a verse like 1 Cor. 6, but today, after the time in which that verse has been revealed, we can and should read the prior verses in light of what the rest of the revelation communicates. This is the whole reason the authors of the Nazarene Writings bother to quote from the Tanach in the first place! They place the verses in light of what was revealed while Yeshua was Tabernacled amongst us.
I'm out of time for right now. I might get back to some other issues related to your comments later.
Shpeher,
Well what can I say..
Since your last two posts were high on emotion and rhetoric, but short on substance I rest my case.
So let me just sum up…
Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of living water will flow from within him."
(John 7:38)
Read Isaiah 12, read Isaiah 58, read Ezekiel 47, read 1 Corinthians 6 and any other passages you’ve been pushing IN CONTEXT, and let them judge whether they fit John 7:38..
In fact I recommend they just read the whole Old Testament and see if they can find anything else that fits..
I’ve given you 6 arguments as to why you are wrong about this, and to top it off I’ve given you modern scholarly testimony in agreement with my view.
On the other hand you have given me nothing but a Kabbalistic mis-mash of different verses backed up by an 1871 commentary.
Let the readers decide..
As for James 4:5, I’ve shown how both you and your commentary has completely lost the plot, and that your heinous misrepresentation of your former Jewish faith’s teaching on the Holy Sprit has been refuted.
Thanks, by the way, for admitting your NT plagiarises the apocrypha in Jude 14.
Anyway, its been fun..
Feel free to write back although I won’t be responding, unless of course you have some radically new arguments or evidence worth responding too.
Take care..
Shalom.
EC said: "Since your last two posts were high on emotion and rhetoric, but short on substance I rest my case."
You are going to have to be more specific. There was no emotionally charged language in my post. In point of fact, the one throwing around emotionally charged buzzwords and rhetoric is quite obviously you. I suppose accusing of others of what you are doing is intended to have some sort of profolactic effect.
EC said: "Read Isaiah 12, read Isaiah 58, read Ezekiel 47, read 1 Corinthians 6 and any other passages you’ve been pushing IN CONTEXT, and let them judge whether they fit John 7:38.."
Yes, I encourage them to read them in context and then go beyond the basic Peshat meaning, to the Remez and Drash. For some strange reason you seem to believe verses in our Scripture only carry a Peshat meaning. This is contrary to the historical understanding of our text by both Christians and Jews.
EC: "As for James 4:5, I’ve shown how both you and your commentary has completely lost the plot, and that your heinous misrepresentation of your former Jewish faith’s teaching on the Holy Sprit has been refuted."
The only thing being misrepresented is my position, by you. You seem to think that I somehow said modern Rabbinic Jews have a Trinitarian belief. I never said any such thing. Such a claim would be absurd. Trinity doesn't even figure into my argument, nor is it even relevant to our discussion. All Jews believe Ruach HaKodesh is Elohim. They always have and always will. Of course, this belief doesn't mean they are in agreement with mainstream Christian theology. But more to the point, what does modern Rabbinic Judaism have to do with anything we are discussing? Nothing. Modern Rabbinic Jews did not write the book of James. James was not a modern Rabbinic Jew. Your anachranism is astounding and quite shameful. James believed the Holy Spirit dwells inside believers. When he speaks of a Spirit within us, there is absolutely nothing else he could be referring to except the Spirit of the one G-d, YHWH. And by the way, I don't have a "former Jewish faith". I have a Jewish faith that I have always had, and continue to have.
EC said: "On the other hand you have given me nothing but a Kabbalistic mis-mash of different verses backed up by an 1871 commentary."
What I gave you was a method of interpreting the text that is consistent with the ways both Jews and Christians have understood the text to function for hundreds upon hundreds of years. What you gave me in return was bad jokes, mocking, and Scriptural illiteracy.
(cont)
Part 2
EC said: "Thanks, by the way, for admitting your NT plagiarises the apocrypha in Jude 14."
Well, I was going to respond to your other comments that I didn't have time to get to before, but after watching you build another blatant straw-man, it seems like a waste of time to even bother. I can only conclude that you are are; 1)intentionally distorting my positions as a tactic, 2)have a severe reading comprehension problem. I really see no other explanations. I said that what you stated about Jude is a reasonable argument. How you get from that to me saying anything about 'plagiarism' shows your true methods. It's been quite fascinating watching you fashion straw man after straw man as fodder for your musings. If I ever own a farm and need to keep the crows away, I will give you a call. You are clearly an expert.
I notice you were not able to explain one single piece of textual or historical evidence that has been discovered in the last 130 or so years that would impact our understanding of John 7:37-39 or Ezekiel 47. I assumed you wouldn't, since I don't think any such evidence exists. Quite simply, your scholar reaches a different conclusion based on the same evidence because of his presuppositions that he brings to the text, not because of what the evidence says.
Best of luck finding your non-existent mysterious source for the "quote" that is in John 7:38 so you can prove your circular logic that it's a missing verse.
hello mr educating christianity you are so found of qouting scholars citing this and that without considering the countless number of scholars who go against bart ehrlman and bruce metzegar let play your game what have you got to say about cook and crone completing discreditng the origin of islam as stated by islamic sources , how aboth ignaz goldhizer - every single hadiths are works of forgery reddacted stories to create a base for the origin of the quran what abot sven mohammed kalisch who doubts mohammed existed and in his qoutes
Many scholars of Islam question the accuracy of ancient sources on Muhammad's life. The earliest biography, of which no copies survive, dated from roughly a century after the generally accepted year of his death, 632, and is known only by references to it in much later texts. how abot these the morals of the sex maniac mohammed "No less than 20 Islamic sources—such as the hadiths of Ahmad bin Hanbal—relay that Muhammad used to suck on the tongues of boys and girls.”Muhammad sucking on the tongue of his own daughter, Fatima. Fr Botros also added that the Arabic word for “suck” (muss) cannot, as some apologists insist, mean anything but “suck.” “After all,” added the perspicacious priest, “this is the same word used when discussing Muhammad’s 'activities' with his wives, especially his beloved child-bride, Aisha.”Musnad of Ahmad bin Hanbal, which records Muhammad seeing a 2-3 year old girl in her mother’s arms. Muhammad was so “impressed” by her that he said, “By Allah, if this girl reaches marrying age and I am still alive, I will surely marry her.”
another point to note these muslims fanatics like to qoute scholars claiming the bible is corrupted but can they show once biblical scholar who states the events of the quran are true facts of the bible none zero scholars agree that the stories in the quran are event which occured in pre biblical times so there you have it quran is a fogery
CALEB,
Here comes yet another student in desperate need of educating..
<< considering the countless number of scholars who go against bart ehrlman and bruce metzegar >>
Virtually the only modern scholars that go against their core thesis that the NT text has serious problems are Evangelical ‘scholars’ like James White and his buddy Dan Wallace.
Don’t blame me just because Biblical scholarship on the whole have managed to effortlessly chow-up and spit out the concept of Biblical inerrancy decades- if not CENTUIRIES- ago.
<< ..let play your game what have you got to say about cook and crone completing discreditng the origin of islam as stated by islamic sources.. >
Yes, indeed!
Let's talk about how Crone and Cooks 30 year old ‘thesis’ was not only shot down immediately by other non-Muslim scholars of the day, but how that today NO ONE accepts their theories, including even themselves, given the vast amount of historical and archeological evidence that has come to light in these last decades.
<< …how aboth ignaz goldhizer - every single hadiths are works of forgery reddacted stories to create a base for the origin of the quran >>
LOL!
Oh man, you Evangelicals do crack me up!
First we have your ‘Jewish’ friend Shepher blowing the dust of his 1871 commentary, and now we have you trying to resurrect Goldhizers 1890 thesis!!
Can someone here please explain to me why Evangelicals have such an obsession with 19th century ‘scholarship’?!
Is it because all the modern Western academic research makes evangelical apologetics look bad? : -(
Calab, may I suggest you take a look at the very bottom of your last post?
It says: “August 23, 2009 4:23 AM”
Did you get that??
IT’S 2009!!!
So join me in the 21st century won’t you?
If you ever bothered to look at what modern Western scholars like Schoeler, Motzki, Berg, Madelung, and Brown have to say about the hadith you’ll see that virtually NO ONE accepts Goldhizers nonsense.
In fact Jonathan Brown who teaches at the university of Washington and did his pHD in hadith studies actually converted to Islam having previously believed that the hadith were fake.
<< what abot sven mohammed kalisch who doubts mohammed existed and in his quotes >>
Now you’re just being stupid…
Take a look at what your favorite historian Patricia Crone herself said about the existence of Mohammed:
“ …we probably know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus (let alone Moses or the Buddha), and we certainly have the potential to know a great deal more.”
http://www.opendemocracy.net/faith-europe_islam/mohammed_3866.jsp
Ouch! Now that’s what I call a SLAM-DUNK quote!
And if you think Crone is a pretty rubbish historian for saying that, then maybe you shouldn’t have raised her name in the first place?
And BTW, if you want to make yourself look stupid by saying that “Mohammed never existed”, then feel free, but you need to argue from evidence- not just names.
I recommend you don’t go down that road with me, or you will be ridiculed.
Furthermore, I have never made an argument based SOLELY on a scholars name.
CALEB
<< another point to note these muslims fanatics like to qoute scholars claiming the bible is corrupted but can they show once biblical scholar who states the events of the quran are true facts of the bible none zero scholars agree that the stories in the quran are event which occured in pre biblical times >>
Of course non-Muslim scholars don’t say the stories in the Quran are true because most of them involve supernatural events.
If you’re talking about the surrounding naturalistic historical details, then non-Muslim scholars DO agree that the Quranic account is more historically accurate than the Biblical one.
To give just ONE example, take the story of the Exodus where the Quran historically corrects the hopeless screw-up that is the Biblical account.
Your homework for tonight on this is to read this paper explaining how and why..
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Contrad/External/mosespharaoh.html
Be warned, I shall be setting you a test on this later to see how much has sunk in.
Happy revising..
Hello boys and girls,
I have been (and am) extremely busy of late at my own school, but not too busy to take a little time out and have another quick laugh at EC's expense.
And so, having acquired a visitor's pass, and since it is show-and-tell day at EC's school today, I thought to myself: Why not use the occasion to put the class-clown in his place? He pretends to be the teacher every time she leaves the room, so let's see if he really knows what he's talking about. Given this, I have something I would like to share.
---------------
EC, in obvious disagreement with God being described as jealous, as indicated by the fact that EC conistently puts the word in scare quotes, said the following to Sepher Shalom:
P.s. . On a side note, why is your God “Jealous” in the first place?
How can God be jealous or envious?
Please think about it.
Imagine you are God...
You created everything, you can do anything, you know everything, you are in control of everything and you have everything.
What or whom exactly have you got to be JEALOUS about? (August, 18 1:38 PM)
EC also had this to say in another post:
Whether i do or don’t [believe Allah literally has a shin and eyes and so forth], its hardly the same as being described as 'jealous' or "envious" is it? (August, 19 2:20 PM)
In light of these remarks, here is what I would like to share. It is very old, and was given to me by a Muslim. If you like it, you can get your very own at the links that follow it. It is called a Hadith. Here it is:
"Al-Mughira said that Asa'd ibn 'Ubada said, "If I were to see a man with my wife, I would strike him with the sharp edge of a sword!" The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, heard about that and said, "Are you amazed at the jealousy of Sa'd? By Allah, I am more jealous than him, and Allah is more jealous than me. It is because of Allah's jealousy that He has forbidden lewd actions, public and secret. There is none who loves the apology more than Allah and it is for this that He sent those who give good news and warning. There is no one who likes to be praised more than Allah. Allah has promised the Garden because of that." (6980; Muslim 9:3572 (and don't forget to read the hadith that follows it))
This means, if EC's remarks are true, then Allah is not God. It also shows us that EC does not know his god as well as he thinks and should probably quit pretending to be a teacher. The more he does so, the more likely he is to disprove his religion.
No doubt EC will chalk up his above remarks to just idle ramblings on a blog that don't really count, something he did before. Perhaps he will even say I am dumpster diving again, reminding us just how putrid his posts are. If EC does evaluate his posts this way again, then he will be in precisely my position.
Well, there goes the bell...time for me to go. Perhaps I will get a visitor's pass to the school again in a few days and will be able to see if EC has anything to share that compares in any significant way to what I have shared.
SEMPER
Well Samper, what can i say?
I guess i could do what your Christians buddies have done and consult some book from the 1800s that ‘proves’ im still right, but I’m a bigger man than that.
So ill just say that i was unaware of that hadith, and thank you for setting me straight on that.
You see Semper, unlike so many of your Evangelical friends I’m actually honest in these discussions, and will happily admit when I’m wrong rather than pretend that am right (or just not reply back) .
<< No doubt EC will chalk up his above remarks to just idle ramblings on a blog that don't really count, something he did before >>
Well since you mention it, this was a side issue that i mentioned in passing in a ‘p.s.’ rather than a major debate topic.
But don’t let me rain on your victory parade..
Rather let’s just ask ourselves, what have we learnt from this?
We learnt that you have a “jealous” God, and so do we.
So how does this make Christianity more attractive than Islam?
You see Semper unless you can address that central issue and address the many core arguments ive presented here that DO actually make Islam more intellectually viable than your current faith, then all such fringe attacks will not do.
You need to get your priorities straight here.
So while you’ve certainty earned a cookie from the teacher, you still don’t graduate yet my friend. :-)
Regards
EC,
First of all, thanks for the cookie; it was delicious. I hope you have more.
Second, I had a look at my priorities and they checked out just fine. Yours however are suspect.
I'm surprised you think the character and nature of God not to be core issues. Not only did you suggest that it was unimportant whether God is a jealous God or not, you also said it mattered precious little whether or not He has bodily appendages.
If you keep this up, the next thing we hear from you could be that it doesn't matter whether or not God is absolutely one. Sorry to suggest that this might be a core issue, but I can certainly see why a guy who believes god may be made up of parts might want to minimize the significance of all this. ("The foot-bone connected to the shin-bone, the shin bone connected to the knee bone,...Oh hear the word of the Lord.")
[By the way, since you keep bringing up Sepher when responding to me, misrepresenting his argument(s) along the way, why don't you tell him how the Jews have always believed in a god who has eyes, hands, feet, etc. I'm sure he would love to hear all about it.]
Oh, and don't worry; I already know to put your last post in the circular file along with all the others. It is getting kind of full, but thanfully tomorrow is trash day in my neighborhood.
Semper
Still failing to engage with any of the core issues i raised, i see..
Well then there is nothing for to me to say.
For all your efforts, your biggest claim to fame is establishing that we BOTH have a ‘jealous’ God.
How or why this fact would want to make me, or any other Muslim, convert to your intellectually redundant faith is both unexplained and ignored.
In contrast, the numerous reasons I’ve presented that should (and have) drawn people away from Christianity and toward Islam stand unrefuted.
And since you ask, I do in fact have many more cookies to give you, but you just don’t deserve any.
EC,
Still failing to engage with any of the core issues i raised, i see..
Actually, I haven't dealt with any issues except for ones that you raised.
Well then there is nothing for to me to say.
No worries, I didn't expect there to be.
For all your efforts, your biggest claim to fame is establishing that we BOTH have a ‘jealous’ God.
Let's not forget that I did so in the process of showing that: you are far from the teacher you make yourself out to be, as evienced by the fact that you got schooled on your own religion by a Christian; that you spoke desparagingly of God being jealous, only to find out that the object of your ridicule was Allah all along; that you are a man of confused priorities, even according to your co-religionists who tell us that Tawhid is THE issue of all issues; that you have a view of God that involves you in a conceptual muddle of colossal proportions; and, not to forget our earlier conversation that you wanted to leave in the hands of "neutral readers", that you have a penchant for engaging in argumentation that is circular and arbitrary.
How or why this fact would want to make me, or any other Muslim, convert to your intellectually redundant faith is both unexplained and ignored.
It looks to me like I explained more about the problems you have than you wanted to hear, and that the only person ignoring something is you.
In contrast, the numerous reasons I’ve presented that should (and have) drawn people away from Christianity and toward Islam stand unrefuted.
I came to this discussion only after hundreds of posts had already been registered. I had no interest in trying to catch up. I took the liberty of picking out of your remarks things I was interested in responding to. As it is, if I can offer my own evaluation for you to compare with the one you offered, you and your religion didn't come out looking very good in any of our exchanges. If you want to cling to assumed victories on other issues I wasn't involved in, thats fine; if (and when) you come to think that Tawhid is an important enough idea to defend, then please do let me know.
And since you ask, I do in fact have many more cookies to give you, but you just don’t deserve any.
That is easy to say since you don't plan on sticking around to give me a chance. I'm sure I would be able to earn several more cookies if you would man-up and try to defend your Salafism. I suspect you are just 'jealous' over your cookies and are afraid I might take more; that's why you are gathering up your cookies and going home.
SEMPER
<< Actually, I haven't dealt with any issues except for ones that you raised. >>
Well that’s a lie. You’ve said nothing on the main issue of this thread that we’ve been discussing for the last month of textual preservation of the Quran Vs the Bible.
All you’ve done is deal with the ‘P.S.’ and the ‘BTWs’.
And yet you seem so proud of yourself.
<< Let's not forget that I did so in the process of showing that: you are far from the teacher you make yourself out to be, as evidenced by the fact that you got schooled on your own religion by a Christian >>
Oh Christians have often taught me a lot about Islam! Such as how true the Quran is compared to the Bible. Thank God for the likes of White, Wood, Nabee and co..
<< I came to this discussion only after hundreds of posts had already been registered. I had no interest in trying to catch up. >>
That’s another lie.
You really can’t help yourself, can you!
Remember when you shifted through almost all my former posts to try and prove that i had the same style of quoting as your infallible God? Lol
Ah, the memories..
<< I took the liberty of picking out of your remarks things I was interested in responding to. >
Translation:
“since I’m just too ignorant to say jack about any of the major arguments regarding the main thread issue of Biblical and Quranic preservation, i thought id just bring attention to myself by cherry-picking off the side-issues to make myself look like a real big man”
<< That is easy to say since you don't plan on sticking around to give me a chance. I'm sure I would be able to earn several more cookies if you would man-up and try to defend your Salafism >>
I plan on sticking around provided you can find the cohones to address the main issue of preservation here.
If that’s too advanced a topic for you, what else do you want to talk about?
All you’ve done so far is prove that Allah and Mr “I AM” BOTH share the same particular characteristic.
Now if you were half the hot-shot apologist you think you are, you would know that the object of these discussions is to show how your Christian position is SUPERIOR to that of your Muslim opponent- not just the same.
Do you understand how this works now?
EC,
Tsk, tsk. Now I haven't run out of bad arguments and called you a liar, have I? Then again, I don't have any bad argumets to run out of, and you are at your wits end, so perhaps that isn't the best comparison. In any event, I think if you review the two issues you have accused me of prevaricating on, you will find that you are simply perpetuating what you have a proven knack for: misrepresentation.
For one, I didn't say I engaged everything you said before I came in here. You accused me of bringing up things that were never at issue, and I pointed out that I only took my cue from things that you brought up. If you don't think your posts important enough to remember what you have said, then why would you expect other people to? Besides that, each and every time I have quoted you to show that you brought the issue up. Just because Muslims like yourself put things about God in the "P.S." and "BTW" categories, as if to rob them of their "core" status, doesn't mean that you can really expect Christians to follow suit.
For another thing, I didn't say I didn't "sift" through your posts; I said I didn't enter into these discussions until hundreds of comments had already been made, and I had no intention of trying to cover everything. (BTW, you are obviously using an outdated translation. Semper's Authorized English Version of what I said is much better.)
As for thinking myself some kind of a hot-shot, what can I say? Criminals never think the police have done fair by them, and you are no different. You came in here like you were the new sherrif in town, and now you are upset that someone called your card. In what universe do you live in that you think criminals are supposed to get the royal treatment? If you carry on like a pompous buffoon, then you should expect to be treated like one.
There isn't a person privy to these discussion who could honestly say that you treated these subjects with the integrity they deserve, and I think few people are likely to fall for your sympathy plea now. I for one certainly don't. As a Christian I am called to answer people with dignity and respect, but there is also a point where we are told to answer a fool according to his folly lest he be wise in his own conceits. I don't feel the least bit sorry for you; if anyone else does, that is something they will have to deal with. Perhaps they can start by re-reading your self-promotional, self-flattering remarks about how you are the great "teacher", how you are here to "educate Christians", and how you give passing and failing grades and cookies and all the rest.
Finally, as for whether or not the Christian position is "superior" to yours, I have already broached that subject (based on something YOU said). As it is, you are too fearful to address it. I'm sure everyone can see that too. Or perhaps you are just deaf and didn't hear me say it. If that is the case, maybe you can ask you know who if you can borrow his "ears", surely he has some to go along with his face, eyes, hands, etc.
Semper
<< Finally, as for whether or not the Christian position is "superior" to yours, I have already broached that subject (based on something YOU said). As it is, you are too fearful to address it >>
Where in all the rabble that you have ever written here- including your much appreciated correction- is there a single point that would make a Muslim reading it think to themselves:
“Hmm.. That’s a good reason why Christianity is intellectually advantageous to Islam.”
Please copy/paste the relevant section for me.
You see you have nothing.
All you can do is persist with your Ad Hominem attacks, even though I’ve already admitted I was wrong on your precious side-issue.
I’ve challenged you make something of yourself and address the thread topic, or even to suggest a new one of your own, yet you only reaffirm your cowardice by refusing to engage me.
Let me know when you decide ‘man-up’ on this, or there is no point in me even responding again.
EC,
I can see that you are at the end of your tether and so I will let you play dumb on your own time.
It is fine with me if you want to pretend that you haven't ignored a critical issue. That just means it will stay there unrebuffed as long as you play coy.
For my part I am done unless you decide that "manning-up" means more than just repeating that phrase to a person who already has.
Class dismissed...
Semper,
Love the cop-out..
You remind me of the kid in the back row who corrects the teacher on one thing, but then hides behind his desk when challenged to come-up and teach the class instead.
LOL, i love the guy who asked " What the significance is of the goat eating the verse." That was really funny, poor guy he felt so confused.
But now i know where the American students get the "The dog ate my homework" excuse! LOL!!!!!!
Interesting debate... It seems to me that the concept of abrogation, while from the outset intended to protect the integrity of the Quran, makes the Quran far more vulnerable to even the most trivial textual variations compared to the New Testament, since any verse or word within a verse can make everything in the Quran prior to it obsolete, no matter how clear it's been stated or how many times it's been repeated. In the NT on the other hand, any variation would have to be evaluated in light of the complete text and message of the whole NT, so any potential lost or edited word would by definition have far less impact on the NT than the Quran.
I watched this debate again and read Zawadi's materials.
Here I examine his claims and rebut them carefully:
http://www.answeringabraham.com/2012/01/quranic-preservation-errors-made-by.html
I finally got to see this entire debate. Nabeel Qureshi rocked it! He did a superb job of proving his position and I am proud of him. This was an utter humiliation for Bassam since not only did he basically affirm Nabeel's position, he even made some assertions which are going to come back to bite him since they actually end proving that the Quran has been corrupted according to his own criteria. Lord willing, I plan on writing an article on this point. What makes this rather sad is that Bassam and his followers actually think that he made sound arguments, which only goes to show just how blind these Muslims truly are. Be that as it may, this is a great video to show non-Muslims since they will see just how stupid and irrational the Muslim defense of the Quran's preservation happens to be. Bravo Nabeel!
This was hilarious and needs to be turned into a t-shirt. Bassam said in his second rebuttal period, "In Islam we believe in textually inspired variants!" All I can says is WOW! And this is the gent who is touted by Muslims as one if their finest!
The muslim speaker is obviously not aware of the Catholic practice to burn holy objects that are either damaged or for some other reason not to be used anymore. I thought I'd just point this out to show that westerners do not automatically think burning something means it is evil.
Ehteshaam Gulam said that:
1) The Gospels were written by Unknown Greek authors-- while Jesus spoke Aramaic
2) These thousands of manuscripts are different from one another
3) The N.T. was not canonized until the late 3rd and 4th centuries.
4) We lack the original manuscripts of the Gospels
5) The Gospels were written in the 2nd half of the 1st century, long after Jesus ascended to Allah. They are derive primarily from oral traditions about his speeches and activities-- oral narratives are adapted and reworked with each retelling.
As a new Christian I don't know too much about the Bible, but what I can tell you is that some of these claims are ridiculous.
1) The gospels were written by unknown authors: They are named after their authors! How could you say that you don't know who wrote it when their names are right there? The rest of the New Testament books state their author in the very beginning of the book.
2) Jesus spoke Aramaic: We are talking about Israel during the early first century. Israel was inhabited by the Jewish people, was under the rule of the Roman Empire, and was in close contact with Greece (Greece is mentioned tons of times in the New Testament and is one of the main places that Paul preached). This means that the languages spoken at the time were Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Aramic wasn't even a thing in Israel until the muslims brought it 500 years later! Saying Jesus spoke Aramic is not only totally false but also irrelevant to the scriptures' validity.
3) Thousands of different manuscripts: Its absolutely true that there are more manuscripts of the New Testament than there are of ANY OTHER DOCUMENT IN HISTORY, But there are almost no contradictions between any of these manuscripts and there absolutely no contradictions in a proper Bible. The site provided claims the first point and as for the Bible not contradicting itself, I dare you to open up a King James Bible and find a contradiction. https://carm.org/manuscript-evidence
Before you tell me that this site is made by a Christian and therefore is biased and false, remember that that means everything a Muslim says about the Qur'an is a lie because they are a Muslim.
4) Canon made way later: This holds up. According to https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/canon.cfm , the canon was written down around the 2nd or 3rd century, It makes sense that it would take a while when they have more than 5000 manuscripts to sort through, but note the end of Revalation: "I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll." God takes his word seriously and would never let it be lost.
5) We don't have the original manuscripts: Where is the original Qur'an? Also an original document is called an autograph, not a manuscript.
6) The modern gospels were made from oral tradition: If I remember correctly, the site which stated when the canon was made also says that the original gospels were written down as early as 40 AD.
I would like to apologize if this came out too aggressive, seeing these claims made me very upset and it may have reflected in my response.
Post a Comment