Is the Quran an eloquent hoax?
-
Is the Bible unknown to the Qur'an?
When Christians use the testimony of the Qur'an in support of the Bible's integrity, some Muslims argue that the Qur'an does not relate to present day versions of the Torah and the Gospel. They say that the "Scriptures", which Christians and Jews had at the time of Muhammad (571 - 632 CE), were different from those available today. That the Jews of Muhammad's day were reading a different Torah, something which was "certainly not identical", "nor resembled anything like the Old Testament" which contains the reports, stories and myths of groups of people gone by. Similarly the Injil (Gospel) was "not at all identical with the New Testament or even the four gospels" available to us today (Izzat Khan and Abu Abdullah, Divine Revelations, The Muslims and the Bibles A Clarification, pp. 4-6).
It is stated that when the Qur'an talks about a single book known as the Gospel (as given to Jesus) and a single book as given to Moses (known as the Torah) that they were not the four gospels as we find them in the New Testament nor the first five books of the Old Testament known today as the Torah. To conclude the matter, such Muslims add that even the title "Bible" for the Scriptures of the Jews and Christians is foreign to the Qur'an.
The word 'Bible'
Any good dictionary will explain that the word Bible is derived from the Greek word biblia (neuter plural), which means "books". As the collections of Jewish and Christian texts came increasingly to be considered as one unit, the term in Latin began to be understood as feminine singular, denoting "The Book". The same word has come through to Modern English in words like bibliography. So when the title Bible, the book, was used, it denoted a collection of writings or books of the Christian and Jewish Scriptures.
It is indeed true that the title "Bible" is not used in the Qur'an nor does it contain the proper title, "Bible" for the scriptures of the Jews and Christians but has identified it as "Kitab" (the Book) by calling the followers as "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the Book. Although, the Qur'an has borrowed many foreign terms and names like Tawrat, Furqan, Injil, Isa and Musa etc.; and Arabized them into its text, when it came to using the word Bible, it used its own Arabic words derived from Hebrew and Aramaic, thus calling the Jews and Christians "Ahlal Kitab", the people of the book, and referring to their scripture not only as "the book", Kitab, but also listing the parts of it as the Tawrah, Zaboor, Injil and Sahaif (Torah, Psalms, the Gospel(s) and the books of the prophets respectively).
Therefore the notion that the Qur'an does not mention the Bible is simply wrong. It will be like saying that the Qur'an does not mention "God". The Muslim listener will refer to many verses where Arabic words like "Allah" or "Rab" are mentioned. If those words stand for God in the Qur'an then it should not be difficult to recognise that the words Ahlal Kitab stands for Jews and Christians and their Kitab stands for their scriptures - the Bible - in the contexts as referred to them in the Qur'an.
Torah and the Injil
Some Muslim writers contend that the original Pentateuch and the original Gospel have disappeared and became extinct from the world. For example, the late Rahmatullah, whose writings are still prominent among Muslim readers, expanded this claim by asserting, "We strictly deny that the original Torah (Pentateuch) and the original Evangel existed at the time of the Prophet Muhammad and that they were not changed until later." He added further by claiming that, "The present gospels, chronicles and epistles are certainly not the Evangel referred to by the Holy Qur'an and so they are not, as such, acceptable to the Muslims."(Rahmatullah, Izharul Haqq, Part III, p.30-31)
Similarly, Yusuf Ali, whose translation and commentary is popular among Muslims in the West, claims that "the Injil (Greek, Evangel = Gospel) spoken of by the Qur'an is not the New Testament. It is not the four Gospels now received as canonical. It is the single Gospel which, Islam teaches, was revealed to Jesus, and which he taught. Fragments of it survive in the received canonical Gospels ..." (Yusaf Ali, The Holy Qur'an, p.292, (Saudi Arabian Edition, p.334)
Christians believe there is indeed one Injil, brought by Jesus, the Christ. The word Injil in Arabic is a transliteration of the Greek Evangelion as Yusaf Ali has rightly mentioned in his statement. The Greek word Evangelion means "happy message" or "good news". Distinguished Muslim commentators like Baidhawi and Zamakshari openly admit that Injil is not an Arabic word but is derived from the Syriac and/or Greek word Evangel - the Gospel, the good news. Taking this as true, one should look no further than among those who have been using this term for their scriptures in Muhammad's time and even before then. When we look at the documentary evidences available to us even before Muhammad, it can be concluded that a long time before Islam started, these titles were used for the collection of the Judaeo-Christian scriptures as available today.
If the Gospel and the Torah spoken of by the Qur?an are not the same as the Old and the New Testament (known also as the Injil and Tawrat among millions of Arabic, Farsi, Urdu and Turkish speaking Christians) and did not exist in the same form as in Muhammad's time, then what was the Qur'an referring to? Why did the Qur'an require Christians and Jews to accept the Old and New Testament of Muhammad's time? Why did the Qur'an tell the Jews and Christians to follow their scriptures if they were not yet in existence or were only available in corrupted versions? If a Muslim is to believe in the integrity of the Qur'an then he has also to believe that in Muhammad's time the scriptures of the Jews and Christians existed and that the Qur'an certified their message by saying that they contained guidance and light (Surah 547,49). If somehow the author of the Qur'an was doubtful of the integrity of the previous scriptures, why does it ask both Jews and Christians to follow them in their decisions?
Some Muslims assume that the Qur'an only confirmed and testified to the "original autographs" of the Torah and the Gospel, although the evidence within the Qur'an itself testifies that it was referring to that which was actually available, there and then, to the Jews and Christians. For example, to confirm and uphold their scriptures, the Qur'an uses the following words musadiqalima mahum (confirming what is with them), musadiqalima bainah yadih (confirming that which is between their hands) and musadiqalima makum (confirming that which is with them) (Surah 241,89; 33, 447; 548; 3531 and so on).
In the light of the available evidence of manuscripts (both incomplete and whole), it can be said with certainty that the Old and the New Testaments of Muhammad's time were exactly the same as available today. Today's Bible translations are based on existing manuscripts that go back even hundreds of years before Muhammad's day. Hence the logic of the Qur'anic verses immediately is that the Injil and Torah as mentioned in the Qur'an are the same as those available to us today in the New Testament and Old Testament of the Bible.
In Judaism, there is a book called "the Pentateuch" or "the five books of Moses" which are identical to those in the Bible. These books contain the major part of the Jewish law and are known as the Tawrat/Torah/Law. However, Jews often use the same term to describe the whole collection of books, which Christians call the Old Testament. It is interesting to read in a tradition of Islam that the Torah read by the Jews of Madina also included the book of Isaiah, which indicates that the Qur'an was referring to the whole collection of the Jewish scriptures with the word Torah and not just what was revealed to Moses. (See, for example, the Islamic tradition transmitted by Bukhari, Darimi and is available in Mishkat al, Masabih, Vol. II, p. 1232).
http//www.itl.org.uk/topics/kitab.html
-
Rami you have your opinion and I will have mine and lets leave it at that. like somebody said I do not think this site is for me I might find a christian one instead
-
Rami you have your opinion and I will have mine and lets leave it at that. like somebody said I do not think this site is for me I might find a christian one instead
May the blessings be on Cyrus the REAL Messiah who freed the people of Israel from Babylon.
Isa 451 "This is what the Lord says to his Messiah, to Cyrus, whose right hand I take hold of to subdue nations before him and to strip kings of their armor, to open doors before him so that gates will not be shut
451 KH-'aMUr YHVH LMShYChV LKVUrSh 'aShUr-HChZQThY BYMYNV LUrD-LPhNYV GVYM VMThNY MLKYM 'aPhThCh LPhThCh LPhNYV DLThYM VSh'yUrYM L'a YSGUrV.
Not Yeshua who preached against the Eternal Torah of Hashem, never claimed to be a Messiah, and brought about the destruction of the second temple.
Baruch Hashem
-
Yeshua Ha Mashiach did not bring about the destruction God's Wrath was upon the land of Israel for rejecting their Messiah so God let her enimes come in to destroy it and come against the men kids and women and kill them and then those who were left God scattered and only since 1948 has Israel become a nation again
-
Yeshua Ha Mashiach did not bring about the destruction God's Wrath was upon the land of Israel for rejecting their Messiah so God let her enimes come in to destroy it and come against the men kids and women and kill them and then those who were left God scattered and only since 1948 has Israel become a nation again
Man, there is no such thing as 'The Messiah' in the Tanakh!!!
The 'Messiah' is a job. A prophet, a king or a priest can be a 'Mashiach'. Note that God cannot anoint Himself.
What was Jesus doing?? The Sadduccees were the only guys really following the Tanakh.
Jesus just went around Israel preaching Buddhism. Thats why you believe it. Because Buddhism is a game. No hard work. No sacrifice.
So the concept of Messiah is an innovation in the Jewish thought as a form of national hope to re-establish the state. It is like the second coming of Christ in Christianity and the Mahdi in Islam, the top dog eschatological character who will save the day.
The Torah is for all generations of the Israelites.
So go study more D.
Peace,
Rami
-
I'm pretty sure Jesus was preaching a lot of self sacrifice, and not much Buddhism. Love you enemies, pray for those who persecute you. Love the lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength, love your neighbour as yourself. and most of all
34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her motherinlaw?
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'37"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. 39Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.
40"He who receives you receives me, and he who receives me receives the one who sent me. 41Anyone who receives a prophet because he is a prophet will receive a prophet's reward, and anyone who receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man will receive a righteous man's reward. 42And if anyone gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones because he is my disciple, I tell you the truth, he will certainly not lose his reward."
Doesn't sound very Buddhist to me. Sounds very escatological, messianic, and most of all - Prophetic.
-
Man, there is no such thing as 'The Messiah' in the Tanakh!!!
The 'Messiah' is a job. A prophet, a king or a priest can be a 'Mashiach'. Note that God cannot anoint Himself.
What was Jesus doing?? The Sadduccees were the only guys really following the Tanakh.
Jesus just went around Israel preaching Buddhism. Thats why you believe it. Because Buddhism is a game. No hard work. No sacrifice.
So the concept of Messiah is an innovation in the Jewish thought as a form of national hope to re-establish the state. It is like the second coming of Christ in Christianity and the Mahdi in Islam, the top dog eschatological character who will save the day.
The Torah is for all generations of the Israelites.
So go study more D.
Peace,
Rami
Isn't the Tanakh man-made like Hadiths?
-
Most probably yes. I am talking to a POV who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.
I just read about it on wiki. It said that it was most probably compiled between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is a man-made scripture. Therefore, it should not be followed. It is just like the Hadiths.
So why are you saying stuff like "the Tanakh says.." or "there is no such thing as a Messiah in the Tanakh"?
Besides, what does the Bible have to do with the Tanakh?
-
I just read about it on wiki. It said that it was most probably compiled between 200 BCE and 200 CE. It is a man-made scripture. Therefore, it should not be followed. It is just like the Hadiths.
So why are you saying stuff like "the Tanakh says.." or "there is no such thing as a Messiah in the Tanakh"?
Besides, what does the Bible have to do with the Tanakh?
Hello, the Tanakh is the old testament! I am not talking about the Talmud.
-
Hello, the Tanakh is the old testament! I am not talking about the Talmud.
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
-
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
The article you read said the Tanakh(TNK - TorahLawPentateuch-Neviimprophets-KetubiimBooks) was written between 200BC-200CE!!! or was it talking about the Talmud?
The NT is a very late compilation. After Jesus death, many gospels were written in some kind of gospel frenzy, then the best four were Canonized.
I don't know why people believe in the Bible? And what is the Quran talking about? Chilling mystery.
Plus the presence of apocryphas and pseudepigraphas are evidence that people can write things and claim it is from God.
peace
-
The article you read said the Tanakh(TNK - TorahLawPentateuch-Neviimprophets-KetubiimBooks) was written between 200BC-200CE!!! or was it talking about the Talmud?
Tanakh
"According to the Talmud, much of the contents of the Tanakh were compiled by the 'Men of the Great Assembly' by 50 BCE, and have since remained unchanged. Modern scholars are less certain, but some believe that the process of canonization of the Tanakh became finalized between 200 BCE and 200 CE."
(http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanakh)The NT is a very late compilation. After Jesus death, many gospels were written in some kind of gospel frenzy, then the best four were Canonized.
There are (at least) two very interesting Gospels - The Gospel of James and The Gospel of Barnabas.
-
Are you kidding?!! Wow... Thanks for the info. The New Testament was also compiled after Jesus' death, right? (Maybe some were compiled during Jesus' life, though), so they are also man-made... damn...
Much of the New Testament was written in Greek many years after Jesus had died. Both testaments have been translated into ancient Greek, Latin then old English then more modern English, played around with by the Vatican and various Bishops, Popes and Kings etc.
Many books and Gospels (Gospels according to Thomas and Paul are just two) were left out of our modern New Testament because they did not fit in with the teachings of the old Catholic church. The Catholic bible has extra books in the Old Testament that many protestant bibles do not and some are not even included in the Jewish Tanakh.
It is believed that the four Gospels in the New Testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) were not written by those people in the first place. The Gospel according to Luke was a letter to Theophilius where the author admits that he wasn?t there but put together the story from hearing other accounts. The Gospel of Mark was the first written and Matthew is almost a direct copy.The Gospel of John was not written until many years after, it is the most recent Gospel, and some historians even believe it was written by an early Catholic monk to justify some of the teachings of the early church.
The Gospel of Mark had a whole chapter removed (the raising of Lazarus) and a new chapter inserted at the end in the 4th century AD.
The Gospel of Mark has two different endings.The Gospels do not even agree on many things including the ancestry of Jesus, where he found his first two disciples, the account of Lazarus, the crucifixion, etc.
-
Much of the New Testament was written in Greek many years after Jesus had died. Both testaments have been translated into ancient Greek, Latin then old English then more modern English, played around with by the Vatican and various Bishops, Popes and Kings etc.
Many books and Gospels (Gospels according to Thomas and Paul are just two) were left out of our modern New Testament because they did not fit in with the teachings of the old Catholic church. The Catholic bible has extra books in the Old Testament that many protestant bibles do not and some are not even included in the Jewish Tanakh.
It is believed that the four Gospels in the New Testament (Mathew, Mark, Luke and John) were not written by those people in the first place. The Gospel according to Luke was a letter to Theophilius where the author admits that he wasnt there but put together the story from hearing other accounts. The Gospel of Mark was the first written and Matthew is almost a direct copy.The Gospel of John was not written until many years after, it is the most recent Gospel, and some historians even believe it was written by an early Catholic monk to justify some of the teachings of the early church.
The Gospel of Mark had a whole chapter removed (the raising of Lazarus) and a new chapter inserted at the end in the 4th century AD.
The Gospel of Mark has two different endings.The Gospels do not even agree on many things including the ancestry of Jesus, where he found his first two disciples, the account of Lazarus, the crucifixion, etc.
woooow...
I knew there was something wrong with the Gospels and so on, but that is truly shocking.
Have you read (about) the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of James?
The Gospel of Barnabas fortells Muhammad and the Gospel of James shows Jesus from a different POV then what mainstream Christianity sees him. -
woooow...
I knew there was something wrong with the Gospels and so on, but that is truly shocking.
Have you read (about) the Gospel of Barnabas and the Gospel of James?
The Gospel of Barnabas fortells Muhammad and the Gospel of James shows Jesus from a different POV then what mainstream Christianity sees him.Yes I have read both along with the Gospel of Mary. Very interesting, and believable.
-
Yes I have read both along with the Gospel of Mary. Very interesting, and believable.
Did you read the gospel of phillip? Do you think the story about mary magdalene is true? angel
peace
-
Much of the New Testament was written in Greek many years after Jesus had died. Both testaments have been translated into ancient Greek, Latin then old English then more modern English, played around with by the Vatican and various Bishops, Popes and Kings etc.
Many books and Gospels (Gospels according to Thomas and Paul are just two) were left out of our modern New Testament because they did not fit in with the teachings of the old Catholic church.
To be fair on the Catholic Church, the reason the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was left out might not have anything to do with misogyny (aka the 'Da Vinci Code', and more to do with that gospel portraying the infant Jesus as smiting his fellow children. It's not the kind of thing you'd want in a civilised religious text.
-
To be fair on the Catholic Church, the reason the Infancy Gospel of Thomas was left out might not have anything to do with misogyny (aka the 'Da Vinci Code', and more to do with that gospel portraying the infant Jesus as smiting his fellow children. It's not the kind of thing you'd want in a civilised religious text.
rotfl Yes I agree. But if they are going to go around and say that the NT is the truth, then why not add all of it?