Can you PROVE that God's previous scriptures have been corrupted?
-
You said Events as the Big-bang are macro-level observations and not micro-observations. The principle has to do with the micro-level observations on position and measurement of a molecule, not on the higher macro-level observations.
Absolutely Baseless! Talking about Big-Bang as per some data analysts, it was the Belgian priest Georges Lemaitre who was the first to propose that the universe began with the explosion of a primeval atom. His proposition was based on relativity; a factor that is directly or inversely proportional to dimension, speed and direction. The whole equation involves the energy transfer that has been measured not but through radiation?s wherein the chances of uncertainty creeps in. Even Edwin Hubble?s fundamental speed-distance relationship was nothing but a far-assumptive radiation based analysis.
As per Neurological Encyclopedia, the term Radiation includes a variety of different physical phenomena. However, in essence, all these phenomena can be divided into two classes phenomena connected with nuclear radioactive processes are one class, the so-called radioactive radiation (RR); electromagnetic radiation (EMR) may be considered as the second class. Now, tell me which of this is not Micro!
These where the reasons why NASA's sister supportive organization believes
"Although the Big Bang Theory is widely accepted, it probably will never be proved; consequentially, leaving a number of tough, unanswered questions." (Updated at msfc.nasa.gov sister supportive organization on December 2, 1997)
Almost all the basic manipulative formulae applied within had to go with what they measured as radiation from a distant source and had elements that pushed it back to Uncertainity something specifically which Neil Bohr warned and Einstein feared.
Hope this helps,
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
Yes that is true. But there have been some answers given tot his by Penrose and Feynman who show that it can be measured and calculated to a certain degree. I will re-check their work. And then i can give an answer.
-
Salaam all,
I have heard for many years that God's previous scriptures were corrupted, thus the requirement of the Quran which is considered the final and perfect book of God.
However, can anyone PROVE without a doubt that these previous scriptures are indeed corrupt? The Quran refers to the Law of Moses, the Psalms of David, and the Gospel of Jesus but as far as I am aware the whole idea of these previous scriptures as being corrupt are NOT from the Quran. It appears it has been an accepted idea which has spread by tongue.
The Quran mentions this in regards to the previous scriptures ?
Quran 33 (Yusuf Ali translation)
It is He Who sent down to thee (step by step), in truth, the Book, confirming what went before it; and He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus) before this, as a guide to mankind, and He sent down the criterion (of judgment between right and wrong).Quran 4163 (Yusuf Ali translation)
We have sent thee inspiration, as We sent it to Noah and the Messengers after him we sent inspiration to Abraham, Isma'il, Isaac, Jacob and the Tribes, to Jesus, Job, Jonah, Aaron, and Solomon, and to David We gave the Psalms.Quran 262 (Yusuf Ali translation)
Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.I don?t know much about the previous scriptures (although I am about to purchase them for study), but if God is mentioning these scriptures in the Quran, then surely God would warn us of their ?corruption? if it were true.
There is a small following of Jews called the Karaite, they uphold the Old Testament alone and reject the Talmud (which I understand to be the equivalent of the hadith attributed to Moses). Do you think that perhaps that the Karaites are exactly the same as us in the spiritual sense?
Does anyone else understand that Chapter 2, Verse 62 of the Quran confirms the authenticity of God's previous scriptures?
Over to you, I am sure this topic will spark much debate.
Peace,
Stitch
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Qur'an confirms the other Scriptures, yes, but Qur'an also tells us that they added stuff into the Bible, like trinity, so when you run into trinity in the Bible, you'll understand what they added.
Infact, you know what?
If a person compared the two Books - Qur'an and Bible - you can delete from the Bible all that doesn't agree with the Qur'an and you would have the Bible that was revealed in the beginning.Of course, Christians would reject such a Bible ....
As salamu alaykum.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.I understand you fully.
So what?
It's better to remove ALL the added stuff eve if in the end we are left with one verse in the Bible, at least it's the right one.I'd do it.
As salamu alaykum.
-
Peace,
Alen, it is not that easy. The history as told in the Quran is not to be found in the Bible except only with a few verses. The Bible is like the hadith story telling every single detail. The Quran gives only what we need to know. And The Quran also corrects the Bible on most stories. There would be nothing left.
As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.I understand you fully.
So what?
It's better to remove ALL the added stuff eve if in the end we are left with one verse in the Bible, at least it's the right one.I'd do it.
As salamu alaykum.
Exactly bro, in fact the verses in the Bible that been qualified by the Quran should be believd in exactly as the belief in the Quran
Salam
-
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
-
Qur'an confirms the other Scriptures, yes, but Qur'an also tells us that they added stuff into the Bible, like trinity, so when you run into trinity in the Bible, you'll understand what they added....
does the Quran say that they added stuff to the injeel ? can u quote any verse please ?
salam.
-
-
Peace,
Nural Amin said Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from its original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I would probably resort to what Shabbir Ahmed and Tamanna Emadi have to say on this topic. The latter of the two is an open-minded historian who considered his self to be a Quran Aloner. As per these authors, there was one common enemy that took over the political strata of the Quranic society diverting it back to the roads of mythology. Tamanna Emadi in his book "Ijazul Quran wa Ikhilaaf Qiraat" did a wonderful job of categorizing the various departments wherein the enemy camp had introduced the Alien mythology. He agreed that the literature had to go through the Alien mythical tortures and sooner or later the words and their derivatives slowly took a different meaning.
If it be the intensity of the feeling, rhythmic ecstasy which one sees in Quran through Arabic, then probably, it?s true that Quran with all these flavors cannot be translated. But, a decent translation is not impossible. If many haven't done this, then it?s because they never understood Quran in the light of Quran alone. The rest such as Parvez, and Shabbir Ahmed have interpreted Quran rather than translating it and they are all the more happy with that. If there is something lacking and if you feel it just as I do, then it?s because our research on Arabic Language is still not structured and its sweetness as it existed at that time hasn't been exposed efficiently. Perfection is just not possible and neither probably required, all we need is a sincere team work wherein the seekers gathers to understand Quran and with all differences learn to tolerate, respect and work towards creating an unanimity as closest possible.
Saladin said does the Quran say that they added stuff to the injeel ? can u quote any verse please?
Forget about Injeel, I doubt if there is a verse that claims the literal protection of Quran. Much of what is quoted in favor of Quran or against Injeel is a part of our so-called traditional antiques and is still open for anyone to question it even today. In other words, Quran didn't guarantee its protection and when I mean by protection I am referring to each and every word and sentences we read in it. So is the case of Injeel too. If such be the case, then raising a positive or negative remark about Quran or Injeel is unproved. If you have to prove a remark on these two or the rest that are quoted within Quran then you might have to check with the other authorized sources or options, if any.
Regards,
Pondering Mind. -
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
Not sure about loosing the essence but all the other are certainly correct
Salam
-
I think we are not addressing the point directly. The Quran gets associated with history from two points.
A. The sketch of Muhammad?s life that establish his truthfulness and the soundness of his character.
B. Understanding the Arabic language of his time.Without history, how can we meet those who very logically demand for at least an acceptable account of Muhammad?s life and acceptable sources to understand the Arabic language of his time?
-
A Jew takes for granted the authenticity of the Old Testaments, a Christian the New Testaments, a Hindu the Vedas, the Upanishads etc.
-
Likewise, a Sunni takes for granted the Six Books and a Shia the Four Books.
In the first case, a God Aloner accepts the attitude, while in the second case he does not approve that.
Why? On what basis he accepts a book without historical investigation while rejects a book without historical investigation?
This world of ours, our intellect and the data available to us are such that we can not have exactness in determining what really is happening or happened. There is a rule of sufficient reason. Our world is an world of sufficient reason. After all, man is trying to know the history of the Earth from the signs available in its crust. Man is trying to know what happened during the time of Babylonian, Egyptian civilizations. We think we know about Secretes, Alexander, Plotinus etc.
But when the case of Muhammad, Abu Bakr or Omar is put forward, everything gets to be hard and impossible. Why? Was Bukhari or Muslim inferior to Mark or Luke? Did the Christians make better efforts to preserve the history of Christ than the Muslims did for Muhammad? On what basis can we claim that Bukhari and Muslim are not acceptable while Mark and Luke are acceptable?
-
-
Quote
what basis can we claim that Bukhari and Muslim are not acceptable while Mark and Luke are acceptable?
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you
Salam
-
peace
Saladin, does the quran NEED to tell you that the Bible is a collection of stuff that has nothing to do with God's message? if one reads it with an open mind, it is obvious to one that stuff has been added on to what the original book was.salam Nural and phoenix1 .
the Bible has nothing to do with Allah's message . i dont think the Bible is the taurat or injeel mentioned in the Koran .
verse 568 says "Say "O people of the Book, you are about nothing until you uphold the Taurat and the Injeel and what was sent down to you from your Lord."...
why would Allah command ppl to uphold the taurat and injeel if they were corrupted ? He wouldnt command to uphold the satanic books Torah and Gospel .
-
Peace,
Would it be logical to say that a 'translation' of the Quran from it's original Arabic to English is inaccurate and corrupted because the translated version obviously loses the essence of the scripture?
I think experts in Quranic Arabic would answer this question best.
Nural
I choose to say the translation is NOT corrupted. I prefer to say the translation doesn't accurately reflect the original arabic.
And below is what I choose to say corruption.
Shahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 4, Number 234
Narrated Abu Qilaba
Anas said, "Some people of 'Ukl or 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them. So the Prophet ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) camels and to drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they went as directed and after they became healthy, they killed the shepherd of the Prophet and drove away all the camels. The news reached the Prophet early in the morning and he sent (men) in their pursuit and they were captured and brought at noon. He then ordered to cut their hands and feet (and it was done), and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron, They were put in 'Al-Harra' and when they asked for water, no water was given to them." Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder, became infidels after embracing Islam and fought against Allah and His Apostle ."
-
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you.
The Quran first came out of the mouth of a human named ?Muhammad?.
Was he vulnerable like you and me?
Then a huge number of humans carried it with them. Some humans first compiled it in the book form.
Were not all these humans vulnerable?
-
No basis to be found, they all the same, just a bunch of humans who were vulnerable to be flawed like me and you.
The Quran first came out of the mouth of a human named Muhammad.
Was he vulnerable like you and me?
Then a huge number of humans carried it with them. Some humans first compiled it in the book form.
Were not all these humans vulnerable?
excuse me bro
prophets are not like me and you and the rest of humans, they are too good for us
thanks
-
excuse me bro,
but how do you know that?
peacewell bro
it's logical man, I'm sure Allah will not appoint crooks to be His messengers and perfetc examples to humanity
Cheers
-
peace
Saladin, does the quran NEED to tell you that the Bible is a collection of stuff that has nothing to do with God's message? if one reads it with an open mind, it is obvious to one that stuff has been added on to what the original book was.As salamu alaykum.
Respectfully.Yes, i agree.
Bible .... just read few first pages and you'll see who added what.
No offence to the christians but we need to talk to them in a nice manner like we are told.As salamu alaykum.