WHAT DOES QURAN SAY ABOUT BIBLICAL CORRUPTION
-
Yes thankyou .. somehow some people here don't understand the difference between the two. Denying the authenticity of the bible in its current form has nothing to do with denying the prophethood or the validity of Jesus (pbuh) or Moses (pbuh).
-
You say they were canonized in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Do you then accept that they were written by people other than Jesus? Is this not their "hadith" literature?
Is this the unaltered injil mentioned in the Quran?
-
Although the word Gospel means similar to Injeel, plus in some languages you say Evangelicum, for example, in Swedish which is a form of the original Injeel. Ev - enjeel - icum.
Be well
Emanuel -
The words mae mean whatever they mean, but the question is what is being spoken of when they are used. The injil given to Isa cannot be the four books of the gospel writers which are comprised the New testament together with many other writings from different authors. They might be coments to the injil some collection of quotes from the injil without any quotation marks...
but they are not the injil.
Salaam
-
Well, the message Eisua came with is what people call Enjeel. The Biblical Gospels are testimonies written by his followers, and the four canonical ones are not the best ones. There are unofficial versions that convey a better account.
But there is no real Enjeel just as no Torateh. People could look forever. The Ten Commandments could be regarded as Torateh.
People always look for religious rules but there simply is no more than the decree of ten statutes. Quran is just a compilation with Wisdom on how to deal with the Ten Commandments, just as what Eisua came with. Plus Quran explains the nature of "God" very well, to the point that what Eisua said about God comes forth very well. I consider the translation of the word Quran to be 'The Testament'.
And Eisua's name means something like Dispenser (of knowledge).
And what I think Injeel refers to is the announcement "Reform, the Kingdom is at hand" and that he showed the way. He elaborated on the ancient decree.
Be well
Emanuel -
The Qur'an calls injil, not the people. Qe are talking about qhat the Qur'an says, not about what the people call or anything like that.
So in the gospels of the four collected authors in the bible (there are many more gospels) there are wise things which could have been handed down by some fisciples or something. So there we are again, why hadith on gospels is virtuous but hadith on the Qur'an is not?
Not that I want to certify the hadith, but why that thirst to certify hadith on some things and hate to certify hadith on others.
If the gospels are good, so be it, be they the inyil or be they not, be they written by anybody if they are good they are good and if not the are not, but what is the need to "authenticate" them?
Salaam
-
You say they were canonized in the 3rd and 4th centuries. Do you then accept that they were written by people other than Jesus? Is this not their "hadith" literature?
Is this the unaltered injil mentioned in the Quran?
I accept and recognize that the Canonized Gospels we have today were written by people other than Jesus. For all possible likelihood they were written by unnamed scribes based on narrations from certain disciples of Jesus.
"Is this not their Hadith literature?" - depends on how you define "hadith". In pure linguistic sense "Hadith" means a narrative. Yes, from that sense Gospels are hadith and the Qur'an is also hadith (Q 487).
If you are asking how I evaluate the reliability of the Gospels - I do not take the comments of the authors in the Bible as authoritative or infallible. However, I believe the stories of Jesus and the statements attributed to Jesus that we find in the Gospels are what left of the "Injil" with us today.
Based on verses 547 and 568 of the Qur'an it is my understanding that at least at the time of Qur'an being revealed the "Injil" was protected to the extent that it included right guidance sufficient to guide their communities. And based on the historical accounts, the Gospels that we have today are pretty much similar to what Christians had at the time of Qur'an being revealed.
There is of course the other hypothesis that Qur'an is talking about a different Jesus and different Gospel / Injil from the Jesus and Gospel that Christians follow today. The authentic Jesus and Gospel are apparently all lost in time. Should that have been the case, it makes very little sense to me why an All-Knowing God would make the statement "Let the fraternity of Gospels Judge with it ..." (Q 547) as an standing instruction in Qur'an to be followed by the followers of the Qur'an till the end of time.
I am rather convinced that just like the "reminder (Dhikr)" in Qur'an enjoys divine protection, the key accounts and teaching of the Christ also enjoys divine protection (as part of God's promise to the Christ as we can see in Q 355). In the same manner, the commandments / law (Torah) sent upon Moses also enjoy divine protection - within what's left of Torah with us today; although the books named "Old Testament" include lots of fictional stories in addition to the Torah. Whoever follows the messenger in good faith and due sincerity not compromising his/her God gifted sense of right and wrong, nor taking the scribes and story tellers as infallible partners to God - are equally entitled to right guidance and salvation. That is the standard that I follow in not differentiating between the messengers.
That is of course a matter of belief / understanding. We are all accountable for sincere application of our own understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
Arman -
I accept and recognize that the Canonized Gospels we have today were written by people other than Jesus. For all possible likelihood they were written by unnamed scribes based on narrations from certain disciples of Jesus.
"Is this not their Hadith literature?" - depends on how you define "hadith". In pure linguistic sense "Hadith" means a narrative. Yes, from that sense Gospels are hadith and the Qur'an is also hadith (Q 487).
If you are asking how I evaluate the reliability of the Gospels - I do not take the comments of the authors in the Bible as authoritative or infallible. However, I believe the stories of Jesus and the statements attributed to Jesus that we find in the Gospels are what left of the "Injil" with us today.
Based on verses 547 and 568 of the Qur'an it is my understanding that at least at the time of Qur'an being revealed the "Injil" was protected to the extent that it included right guidance sufficient to guide their communities. And based on the historical accounts, the Gospels that we have today are pretty much similar to what Christians had at the time of Qur'an being revealed.
There is of course the other hypothesis that Qur'an is talking about a different Jesus and different Gospel / Injil from the Jesus and Gospel that Christians follow today. The authentic Jesus and Gospel are apparently all lost in time. Should that have been the case, it makes very little sense to me why an All-Knowing God would make the statement "Let the fraternity of Gospels Judge with it ..." (Q 547) as an standing instruction in Qur'an to be followed by the followers of the Qur'an till the end of time.
I am rather convinced that just like the "reminder (Dhikr)" in Qur'an enjoys divine protection, the key accounts and teaching of the Christ also enjoys divine protection (as part of God's promise to the Christ as we can see in Q 355). In the same manner, the commandments / law (Torah) sent upon Moses also enjoy divine protection - within what's left of Torah with us today; although the books named "Old Testament" include lots of fictional stories in addition to the Torah. Whoever follows the messenger in good faith and due sincerity not compromising his/her God gifted sense of right and wrong, nor taking the scribes and story tellers as infallible partners to God - are equally entitled to right guidance and salvation. That is the standard that I follow in not differentiating between the messengers.
That is of course a matter of belief / understanding. We are all accountable for sincere application of our own understanding.
May Allah guide us all to the straight route.
Best regards,
ArmanThe Gospels we know today are not the Gospels mentioned in the Quran
Several Pali and Chinese manuscripts from the first centuries of our age suggest a total of ? 42 soutra-s.? No one can say for sure what this number represents. But it could very well refer to the -as yet- little known collection of Aramean-Christian holy scriptures in existence during the first century. The word we use today to designate the text of the Gospel only applied to its content then (literally, it meant the Proclamation). Moreover, today?s ?gospels ? didn?t exist as such no specific term designated the memory aids or transcriptions of the twelve Apostles? preaching, whose only prescriptive value rested on oral teaching. According to the Judeo-Aramean way of counting, what we call today the ?Old Testament ? consisted of thirty books (the ?other writings ? being left aside), namely the five books of the Torah, the Psalms (=1 book), the six ?major prophets ? (i.e. Joshua, who is believed to have written the book of Joshua; Samuel, the presumed author of the books of Judges and Samuel; Jeremiah, the presumed author of the books of Kings and Jeremiah; Isaiah; Ezekiel, and the twelve ?minor prophets ?, from Hosea to Malachi), giving a total of 30. If one adds the twelve ?Memoirs of the Apostles ? mentioned by Papias and several oral Eastern traditions, one arrives at 42 texts. All these ?books ? must have been referred to as ?writings ? / ir? ?s in first-century Aramean. To be continued
.Quoted from my post http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=9607731.0 on the origins of the term surah.
-
Corrupted or not, the Bible should be looked at, and the people with what I consider a good heart will reject most of it with abhorrence. It doesn't matter the source, the source is always the same. What it says? Lots of wicked and despicable things.