Sunday, 11 October 2009

When a Muslim asks me: Is the Injeel corrupted?

When a Muslim asks me: what do you answer to the claim that the Injeel is corrupted, I answer with

Firstly: Define corruption? To what extent do you mean corrupted? Are you referring to local corruption or universal? Are you referring to the term 'corruption' often utilized within the field of Biblical criticism, which is slightly different from the typical muslim understanding of the word?

Secondly: Prove from primary sources that the modern muslim view of Bible corruption took place:

I want to know 1) who corrupted it, their names 2) where it was corrupted, the city and country, 3) when it was corrupted, which year, which century, 4) how it was corrupted, 5) why it was corrupted.

I would ask the muslim to provide primary sources for all these three.

Now the Muslim might refer to textual criticism and claim that corruption took place gradually. However, the corruption referred to in textual criticism is a completely different matter than the corruption pre-supposed by modern muslims.

Within textual criticism there is doubt about the 5 procent of the NT, this is not to say that remaining is corrupt, but rather that we do not have sufficient lacks the earliest attestation and cannot be effectively composed by the manuscripts, unfortunately for the muslims this does not imply that meaning of these passages are corrupted or missing. Hence this remaining part is left for our own individual belief or disbelief. Thus it would still confirm that Jesus died and resurrected, it would leave within the gospel the narrative and the sayings; this would hardly fit the nature of the Book Allah gave to Jesus.

Now the Muslim may go beyond textual criticism to source criticism, however now were are gona have a number of problems; firstly, this approach is utterly speculative, yet if factual as many muslims claim, it would would exclude Jesus' miracles, virgin birth (which are found in the Qur'an), it would exclude the paraclete (the presupposed Muhammad); it would leave utterences related to Jesus being the Son of God and Jesus being the one to baptise in the Holy Spirit as intact, which both contradict the Qur'an.

Hence if the modern muslim theory of corruption took place, the muslim needs to consider the five questions I asked earlier.

Thirdly: if the Injeel is corrupt, how will the Muslim respond to his own book, the Qur'an, which does not state that the Injeel was corrupted, but rather attests to its preservation and accuracy Muhammad's era.

7 comments:

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

"if the Injeel is corrupt, how will the Muslim respond to his own book, the Qur'an, which does not state that the Injeel was corrupted, but rather attests to its preservation and accuracy Muhammad's era. "

I don't know how many times I Have to say it, The Quran 4:157-- clearly says the New Testament is corrupt. The Quran is talking about the Gospel of Jesus (which We don't have) not the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Paul.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

You really don't understand the Quran Hogan. Your like Sam Shamoun-- you make up bizzarre interpretations of the Quran and run around and say its true. No Islamic scholar will ever support you or Shammoun.

Even David Wood can come up with better arguements than this.

Ehteshaam Gulam said...

http://www.answering-christian-claims.com/What_the_Quran_says_about_the_Bible.html

Hogan Elijah Hagbard said...

Hi again Etheshaam,

Thanks for your response, I think I will deal with your first post on a separate thread.

However let me deal with your second post here.

You assume that I do not understand the Qur'an, I hear Muslims frequently say this when they are unable to deal Christian arguments. In fact Sam Shamoun and David Wood have spent approximately 30 hourse on ABN debating Muslims on a television show, and virtually not even a single muslim has able to refute their arguments. The islamic response was, you do not understand our sources, which means that Allah must be utter failure when it comes to communication. In fact one caller claimed that only the very very best scholars can understand islam. That means then that more than a billion muslims are simply blind in their faith. Other muslims who found in claimed that the sources Shamoun and Wood were using such as Tabari, Kathir, Abbas, Sahi Muslim, Bukhari are all are rubbish, which implies that the entire islamic history is unreliable. In fact an Arabic Sheik and scholar compared these sources of Islam to the Davinci Code.

The show clearly revealed that these Christians know the Qur'an and the Hadith much better than Muslims, even to the extent that any islamic scholar will be refuted.

Even more, Sam Shamoun and David Wood also appeared to present islam in its full context, which the avarage muslim does not and cannot.

Hence neither me nor my dear brothers Shamoun and Wood interpret the Qur'an in some bizzare way, we consider the Qur'an, its context, then the Hadiths and the tradition and finally the commentators, how more simple can it be, how can you even fail to discover the true meaning of islam?

In fact the only obvious factor from ABN is that Muslims are the only ones who distort and misinterpret their own religion, while Christians tend present Islam accurately.

eddy said...

Is Bible really word of God? Or word of Jesus for that matter?
When you say "the bible is the word of God.", which bible are you referring? Is it Revised Standard Version(RSV) or King James Version?
King James Version(66 books) is followed by protestant and they do not in its entirety consider RSV(73 books) as God's word as they reject it as it contains Apocrypha (7 books which they say are spurious/fabrication).
While catholics they don't believe King James Version to be god's word in its entirety because they don't have those 7 books of Apocrypha.

Moreover, King Jamess Version had undergone 5 major revisions. These revisions were not minor revisions to change a word or 2. But chunks and chunks of it were removed.

King James Version was first published on 1611 which went to ancient manuscripts ie 400-600 years after Jesus.
And RSV goes to most ancient manuscripts ie 200-300 years after Jesus. So, RSV claims to be more authentic being closer to the source(Jesus).


eg 1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
It's there in King James Version but NOT there in RSV.
Why? Because 32 christian bible scholars of highest eminence backed by 50 corporating denominations threw it out without ceremony as another fabrication.

Luke 24:40 is in KJV but not in RSV.
Also the ascension was not in RSV. Mark chap 16:16 and Mark 16:19 were again thrown out as fabrication by 32 christian bible scholars of highest eminence backed by 50 corporating denominations.
RSV ends on verse 8 (verses 9-20 were missing).
But in newer RSV verses 9-20 were restored in 1971.

SO DO READ THE PREFACE whic says in 1971 version:
In preface we are told:"Individuals and 2 church denominations forced them to put it back or they will ask their followers not to buy RSV which was supposed to be most upto date bible going back to the most ancient manuscripts.

But by the time this was discovered they made a net profit of 15 million dollars. To that Quran says:
V.2:79
Woe, then, to those who write the book with their hands and then say: This is from Allah, so that they may take for it a small price; therefore woe to them for what their hands have written and woe to them for what they earn.

15 million dollars is a small price as per quran to the rewards in hereafter in heaven.

And other writers copied their gospels from Mark like Matthew, Luke who were disciples of Jesus.
Do you know who was Mark? He was a 10 years old boy when Jesus walked this earth and he was not going around to places with Jesus as disciples did.
Does this make any sense to you that disciples copied from Mark?

eddy said...

The Encyclopaedia Britannica refers to the different opinions among Christian scholars and researchers concerning the matter of divine inspiration and whether every phrase of the Bible is divinely inspired or not. Then it comments on that in one article (19/20) where it says: “Those who say that every phrase is divinely inspired cannot prove their claims with any ease.”

We say: and they cannot do so even with difficulty!

There are dozens of places where the Gospels contradict one another, and dozens of historical errors and false prophecies that never materialized. Frederick Grant stated that “The New Testament is not homogeneous because it is a compilation of scattered elements. It does not represent a single point of view or style from beginning to end, rather it represents different points of view.

The American Encyclopaedia states that there is a serious problem that results from the contradictions that appear in different places throughout the fourth Gospel and the three synoptic Gospels. The differences between them are so great that if you accept the synoptic Gospels as sound and correct, this will lead to the conclusion that the Gospel of John is not sound.

It is worth noting that the Gospel of John is the one which focuses the most on their doctrine of trinity; indeed they admit that it was written to establish this doctrine, which the other three Gospels failed to do, and to put an end to the dispute concerning this matter.

The Catholic Church, which strongly adheres to the idea of divine inspiration as the origin of the Bible, confirmed that in a meeting of the Vatican in 1869-1870. But a century later it revised its opinion and admitted, in Vatican II (1962-1965) that these books contain a great deal of defects and some falsehoods, according to what was reported by the French Catholic researcher Dr Maurice Bucaille, who later became a Muslim.

Anonymous said...

Do not put too much hope on Greek texts as word of God. Where is Logia of Jesus in Aramaic. Where is Matthew’s Aramaic gospel?

P46 (175CE) is Greek manuscript with the largest percentage of difference on record. This just proved that Church have been changing words since early 2nd century at will.

Here is the words of the early church father, Origen (3rd century CE):
“The differences among the manuscripts have become great, either through the negligence of some copyists or through the perverse audacity of others; they either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please.” Origen, early church father in “Commentary on Matthew.”

Regarding the oldest surviving fragment, Colin Roberts compared P52 writings using ONLY 5 samples from the early 2nd century CE back in 1935 and concluded based on those 5 samples; P52 was from the early 2nd century.

(Brent Nongbri’s 2005. The Use and Abuse of P52: Papyrological Pitfalls in the Dating of the Fourth Gospel)
What I have done is to show that any serious consideration of the window of possible dates for P52 must include dates in the later second and early third centuries. – Brent

Compare with 4th and 5th century codex-es. You will be surprise how Holy Spirit inside the scribes fail to prevent them from changing words of God.

A response and challenge to those who oppose the Christian faith.