THE QURAN CONFIRMS: TODAY'S BIBLE IS UNCHANGED
-
Sorry if this is also a bit off-topic, but I can't understand how Sura 19 does not support the virgin birth?
Contrary to popular opinion, sura 19 of the Qur'aan does not support the idea of the virgin birth. This is a preconceived notion that was derived from a knowledge of Christianity... If you'd never heard of the idea regarding a virgin birth, and you'd never been confronted with the Christian idea of the "Virgin Mary", and the first story you'd ever heard about Mary or Jesus was from the Qur'aan, would you interpret sura 19 as saying that Jesus had no father? Or would you interpret it as saying that he was a human like all other humans, conceived the same way all humans are conceived?
-
The Quran is closer to the NT than the OT.
-Good works
-Charity
-No burnt offerings
-Prayer
-Afterlife
-Jesus the Messiah
-No death penaltiesIslam is a form of adjusted Christianity!
These things make it closer to the NT than the Tanakh?!
-
The Christian Bible canon may have also been preserved during the time of Muhammad, as have many of their ideologies. However, all of these sources have been refuted in the Qur'aan (i.e. virgin birth, divinity of Jesus, Trinitarian godhead, atonement for sins, etc.)...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahamed,
It is indisputable that The Quran confirms The Virgin Birth of Jesus. Here where we argued about
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=16187.0
Moreover, Please quote from the Bible where it Talks about divinity of Jesus, Trinitarian godhead, atonement for sins.
Maybe we can discover error in the Translation.
Peace
-
To be honest...YES!
Okay, if you say so... )
-
It is indisputable that The Quran confirms The Virgin Birth of Jesus.
Is this a typo, or did you mean to say this? How does the Qur'aan "undisputably" confirm the virgin births? If anything, that thread clearly proves, from the Qur'aan, that the virgin birth concept is a myth, not a reality.
Moreover, Please quote from the Bible where it Talks about divinity of Jesus, Trinitarian godhead, atonement for sins.
I don't think they're translation errors, bro. Some of them may be, but others clearly mention modern Christian ideologies, which are refuted by the Qur'aan. For example
(1) Jesus' death and atonement for mankind's sins (1 Corinthians 153, 4)
(2) Jesus' divinity and personal authority (John 11-4; Philippians 26, 7)
(3) Trinitarian Godhead (1 John 57) -
-
(1) Jesus' death and atonement for mankind's sins (1 Corinthians 153, 4)
(2) Jesus' divinity and personal authority (John 11-4; Philippians 26, 7)
(3) Trinitarian Godhead (1 John 57)Peace,
I do not see these mentioned Books Herehttp//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Can these Books be Man made Books, as the Hadith and the Talmud?
Peace
-
Peace Belal,
I do not see these mentioned Books Here
http//www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm
Can these Books be Man made Books, as the Hadith and the Talmud?
Yes, those books can definately be, and most likely are, manmade books. That's what the author of the article you mentioned regarded as the Injiyl... But yes, the website you're considering is only referencing the Jewish Tanakh ("old testament", which were originally written in Hebrew. The "new testament" books of the Bible were mostly written in Greek (some may have possibly been written in Aramaic, but it's debatable). Therefore, you probably wouldn't find the "new testament" books on that website...
Peace,
Ahmad
-
Peace Belal,
Yes, those books can definately be, and most likely are, manmade books. That's what the author of the article you mentioned regarded as the Injiyl... But yes, the website you're considering is only referencing the Jewish Tanakh ("old testament", which were originally written in Hebrew. The "new testament" books of the Bible were mostly written in Greek (some may have possibly been written in Aramaic, but it's debatable). Therefore, you probably wouldn't find the "new testament" books on that website...
Peace,
Ahmad
Peace Ahamed,
When I looked at the Aramic Version of John, I can see where they mistranslated 1-13
http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/AramaicNTtools/peshitta_interlinear.htm
Let me know if you think there are possible mistranslation.
Here what I believe it should be
13 who are born, not of blood, nor of the pleasure of the flesh, nor of the pleasure of man, but of God (a Creation of God).
If you compare the different Translations, you will note where they deffer.
(More translation can be found here http//www.aramaicpeshitta.com/ Younan Bible, Lamsa Bible, Murdock Bible, Etheridge Bible, Khabouris Codex)
Peace
-
I see what you're getting at, but it's an irrelevant argument. It doesn't really matter whether or not the Biblical gospels or the "new testament" has been preserved over the years, since none of it came from God; none of it was divinely inspired to the prophets, and none of it was sent down to the people. Therefore, it being preserved is about as relevant as a 6th century fiction novel being preserved - it is of no importance. Although it may contain a few quasi-authentic words of Jesus, it can hardly be called the Injiyl...