Bible - Can we trust it?

[nebula]

I'm not perverting anything.

[Guest shiloh357]

Excellent response, Neb, Very well done!!

[nebula]

One thing I forgot.

"God" is a title, not a name. So, it doesn't really matter whether or not "Allah" is the same word for "God."

The point is - your Allah is not YHWH.

[Guest Katatonic Bliss]

Peace All,

Nebula - Yes. 'God' is a title. However, 'Allah' is one of God's Names and the name we use most often with Him.

I invite you to read this article and decide for yourself whether or not my God is your God.

Also....

[002:053] And remember We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (Between right and wrong): There was a chance for you to be guided aright.

Looks like my 'Allah' gave revelation to Moses.

Seems my 'Allah' is the God of Moses. Wait, isn't the God of Moses your God? What a coincidence!

Well nebula, here's my dilemma:

If I use ONLY the Qur'an, I won't get anywhere because you don't believe in it. Therefore, I am forced to use both Qur'an and Bible. Although I believe the Bible to be corrupted, it isn't completely corrupted. I don't believe it to be the Word of God, but it's not completely useless.

Deut. 18:18 pertains to Muhammad. Using Christian logic, Jesus is God, and a prophet cannot be God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the prophet.

God put words in Muhammad's mouth. I defend this with the fact that Muhammad was illiterate. His revelations are so eloquent and surpasses any work of man in beauty that when recited, people literally break down and cry. That's how beautiful it is. Can you say the same for the bible?

God tells us to obey the prophet. Do you? I know I do.

any verses or claims by Christians I believe to be wrong, I back with proof. Such as:

'Jesus was sent to ALL mankind'

Let

[ted]

What a crock.

No time constraints. Simply nothing more is needed.

t.

[Guest shiloh357]

Katatonic Bliss

I invite you to read this article and decide for yourself whether or not my God is your God.

I read the article and it is a joke. Anyone with a year of Hebrew study under their belt can see the ignorance of Hebrew expressed in that article. The author is hoping that most Christians who read this trash don't know a shred of Hebrew, and are just plain gullable.

First of all the author states that YHWH is not a name but a title. That is incorrect. YHWH is the english spelling of the tetragrammaton, in ineffable Name of God. Here is what this author has to say.

One thing that many non-Hebrew speaking Jews and Christians mistake about is the name of GOD Almighty in the Bible.  "Yahweh" in Hebrew means "The LORD" or the "The GOD".  It is not a name.

His reasoning? Because YHWH is rendered "The Lord" in English Bibles. He goes on to say:

So the word "YHWH" or "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" is not the ORIGINAL name, but the appellation (title) for the Almighty GOD.  This is perfectly fine, because Jews, Christians and Muslims call on to GOD Almighty as "The LORD" or "The GOD", which means "Yahweh" or "Jehovah" in Hebrew and "Al-Rab" in Arabic.  "Al-Rab" in Arabic and "Yahweh" in Hebrew and the other translations in all other languages are indeed GOD Almighty's title.  But they are NOT His original Name!

This is nonsense. "The Lord" is not a translation of YHWH. There is no translation of that Name. Names do not translate. Your name is your name. YHWH does not mean "The Eternal" as the author fantasizes. It cannot be translated as "The Lord" either, because of the absence of the definite article in front of the Word. Furthermore, The reason that "Lord" is used where the tetragrammaton appears in Hebrew is because the Jews replaced it with the word "Adonai" Which literally means "My Master, or My Lord."

YHWH is God's redeemptive Name. It is not a Title. He relates to Man alone as YHWH. It is first used in Genesis 2:4. After the creation of the world, and man, He is begins to refer to Himself as YHWH. We see this all throughout the Old Testament: YHWH Jireh, YHWH Rophe, YHWH Nissi, YHWH Shammah, YHWH Shalom, ect. Those Names show how YHWH reveals Himself to us. They reveal how He relates to mankind. "The Lord" is not a translation of YHWH but rather an English rendering of Adonai, a completely different Hebrew word. Adonai is used to avoid accidentally pronouncing the Name YHWH, so it is not a translation of the Name, YHWH.

The author of that article operates from assumptions that are not true, and just like when you build a house on a faulty foundation, everthing else is just wrong.

If I use ONLY the Qur'an, I won't get anywhere because you don't believe in it. Therefore, I am forced to use both Qur'an and Bible. Although I believe the Bible to be corrupted, it isn't completely corrupted. I don't believe it to be the Word of God, but it's not completely useless.

Oh really? So what is your manuscript evidence to back up your claim that the Bible is corrupted? Have you studied all of the ancient manuscript from which the Bible was derived? Are you a scholar in that area? How do you determine which parts are corrupted and which parts arent?

Any verse we could present to back up our position you could just fall back your crutch of "corruption" to avoid taking any verse(s) we present, seriously. Yet you will employ any verse you see fit out of our Scriptures to back up your position and them claim that it is not one of the "corrupted" verses. That is just lame.

Deut. 18:18 pertains to Muhammad. Using Christian logic, Jesus is God, and a prophet cannot be God. Therefore, Jesus cannot be the prophet.

First of all, you have not proven that Deut 18:18 pertains to Muhammad, and secondly if you bother to read it, it says:

Deut. 18:17-18

"And the Lord said to me, 'They have spoken well. [18] 'I will raise up a prophet from among their countrymen like you, and I will put My words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him.

So God is telling Moses that from the Children of Israel God would raise up this prophet. Muhammud is not a Jew, and is not a member of the Children of Israel. He was an Arab. The prophet was to come from the Jewish people, and Jesus though God operated in the office of Prophet during his earthly ministry.

God tells us to obey the prophet. Do you? I know I do.

any verses or claims by Christians I believe to be wrong, I back with proof. Such as:

'Jesus was sent to ALL mankind'

Let

[ted]

Your Allah is pagan false God and is not YHWH of the Bible. You might as well worship a tree for all the good it would do you. I look at Muslim nations around the world, and I would not give you wooden nickel for Islam. It has done nothing but sink much of the world into sickness and poverty. Islam has been nothing but a abberation and a stain on humanity since it began. No surprise, since its origin is found with a slobbering, deranged, child molester who could not get anyone to join his "religion" unless he started killing people. Islam has done nothing good for the world, it has only brought death and destruction, poverty and pain. You can keep your "religion." No one here will be joining you.

Amen.

How much more is needed to illustrate this point?

You just took thousands of pages of argument and effectively put them into one paragraph.

Outstanding!

t.

[Guest Katatonic Bliss]

Names do translate. An example is that of the name 'Joseph'. That name translates into 'Yusuf' in Arabic.

The Bible can easily prove itself to be corrupt. Observe:

1 - I John 5:7 which hinted at the Trinity is taken out of every modern version of the Bible as it is not to be found in the most ancient manuscripts (that they have access to today).

There is therefore no longer any verse in the Bible which preaches three gods as one. The Qur'an preaches that God is one indivisible, and not a trinity [Qur'an 4:17]

ii) II Samuel 24 :1 says that God incited David to number Israel .

I Chronicles 21:1 says that Satan incited David to number Israel. God and Satan are not synonymous.

iii) II Chronicles 36:9 says that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he became king.

II Kings 24:8 says Jehoiachin was 18 years old when he became king.

A difference of 10 years

iv) II Samuel 10:18 talks about David slew the men of 700 chariots of the Syrians and 40,000 horsemen and Shobach the commander.

I Chronicles 1:18 says that David slew the men of 7000 chariots and 40,000 footmen

Contradiction: one says 700 the other 7000. One says 40,000 horsemen(cavalry), the other 40,000 footmen (infantry).

v) I Chronicles 9:25 says that Solomon had 4000 stalls for horses and chariots.

I Kings 4:26 says that he had 40,000 stalls for horses

A difference of 36,000.

vi) Ezra 2:5 talks about an exile Arah having 775 sons.

Nehemiah 7:10 talks about the same exile Arah having 652 sons.

vii) John the Baptist contradicts Jesus.

According to Jesus, John the Baptist was Elijah in his 2nd coming Matthew 17:11.

John the Baptist denied being Elijah when the priests and Levites questioned him

(John 1:19-21).

viii) Was Jesus put on a cross (Stauron in Greek) Mark 15:11 or on a tree (Ksulon in Greek) I Peter 2:24

ix) John 3:13 Jesus says that none has ascended into heaven except the son of man who descended from heaven.

This contradicts II Kings 2:11 which says that Elijah ascended into heaven.

Thoughts about these errors?

I believe the 'among your brothers' pertains to the Ishmaelites... the Brothers of the Israelites. Jesus was the Christ, John the Baptist was Elijah, and therefore, Muhammad must be the prophet in the beginning of John.

By the way, Jesus spoke of one last comforter before he returned. Anyone come to mind?

Well then. Jesus is contradicting Himself. Forst sent ONLY to Israel, now tells us he's sent to the world. I smell corruption.

There's no need to insult my religion. Muhammad was not a child molester, as there are still children married and in bed by age 12 in the world today. If Muhammad was a Child Molester, I guess Aisha's parents are too. 1400 years ago, when a girl had her first period, she was ready to be married.

Although, I can see where you're coming from. I'm guessing you're jewish... so your mindset shouldn't be that shocking to me.

Let's explore the Talmud a bit, shall we?

Christians might like this:

Says Jesus was a Sorcerer, Sanhedrin 43a . Says Jesus ("Yeshu" and in footnote #6, Yeshu "the Nazarene") was executed because he practiced sorcery.

Horrible Blasphemy of Jesus, Gittin 57a . Says Jesus ( see footnote #4) is being boiled in "hot excrement."

And let's see about child molesting in the Talmud:

Sanhedrin 55b . A Jew may marry a three year old girl (specifically, three years "and a day" old).

Sanhedrin 54b . A Jew may have sex with a child as long as the child is less than nine years old.

Kethuboth 11b . "When a grown-up man has intercourse with a little girl it is nothing."

How about non-Jews?

Non-Jews are Not Human Baba Mezia 114a-114b. Only Jews are human ("Only ye are designated men").

Also see Kerithoth 6b under the sub-head, "Oil of Anointing" and Berakoth 58a in which Gentile women are designated animals ("she-asses").

Jews are Divine, Sanhedrin 58b. If a heathen (Gentile) hits a Jew, the Gentile must be killed. Hitting a Jew is the same as hitting God.

O.K. to Cheat Non-Jews, Sanhedrin 57a . A Jew need not pay a Gentile ("Cuthean") the wages owed him for work.

the Jewish God not All-Knowing?

Baba Mezia 59b. A rabbi debates God and defeats Him. God admits the rabbi won the debate.

So yea, I'm not suprised that you would say things about my religion.

You're right, My Allah is not your YHWH, because my Allah isn't able to lose a debate.

I suggest you read the Qur'an.

[nebula]

Nebula - Yes. 'God' is a title. However, 'Allah' is one of God's Names and the name we use most often with Him.

I invite you to read this article and decide for yourself whether or not my God is your God.

Shiloh

I read the article and it is a joke. Anyone with a year of Hebrew study under their belt can see the ignorance of Hebrew expressed in that article. . . .

Yeah - what he said!

OF course, I'd like to add my 2 cents.

From the article:

"Allah" on the other hand is a name.  It is the name of GOD Almighty.

Anyone notice that this controdicts what KB wrote (or pasted) earlier?

So one of the basic Hebrew words for God, (eloh), can easily be pronounced alah without the diacritical marks. Not surprisingly, the Aramaic word for God[2] is (alah). This word, in the standard script (), or the Estrangela script (), is spelled alap-lamad-heh (ALH), which are the exact corresponding letters to the Hebrew eloh. The Aramaic is closely related to the more ancient root word for God, eel.[3]

The Arabic word for God, All

[Elisha]

Katatonic,

The first mistake you do is give a link from Osama Abdallah. The guy, first off, won't respond to my e-mails. Secondly, he's already been refuted by Sam Shamoun plenty of times. His website is torn apart THIS easy.

Just from the above fact, I find your replies very inviting. If you don't mind me adding to my fellow apologist's replies...

That's a few reasons why I can't accept Christianity.

Well, I don't see any reasons from yourself. I see a lot of fallacious reasoning you've gained from Osama Abdallah, though.

The Christian bible corrupted?

I'm not perverting anything. The bible is corrupt and the Qur'an corrects these corruptions.

That's a comments that awaits justification. I've read the Quran and am familiar with the verses you can give. The main ones come from Sura 2.75 and Sura 2.78-79.

Notice that these only speak of misinterpreting scripture and of passing something off as scripture that is not scripture. In none of these passages do we see a clear statement which reads, "The actual biblical manuscripts have been altered in the sense of becoming a fake". Good luck finding that, because I can't.

The self-defeating nature of the Quran

The corruption of the Bible is the backbone of your belief of the Quran. Prove it false and the quranic belief you hold falls flat. I give these internal contradictions:

1. Surah 5.68 reads,

Say: O followers of the Book! you follow no good till you keep up the Taurat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and that which is revealed to you from your Lord;

If the Injeel (Gospel) has been corrupted, then how can we follow it rightly? This adds more weight to my "misinterpreting scripture" argument. According to the Quran itself, if the Christians just follow the Gospel accordingly, then they will be following good.

2. Surah 7.157 reads,

Those who follow the Messenger (Mohammed), the Prophet who can neither read nor write, whom they will find described in the Torah and the Gospel (which are) with them

The Quran clearly reads "the Torah and the Gospel which are with them", so the Christians have corrupted text, yet we're supposed to believe the parts that teach on Muhammad (wherever those parts are)? That seems to amount to cherry-picking.

3. Surah 2.89

And when there cometh unto them (Jews) a Scripture (the Qur'an) from Allah, confirming that in their possession

But, if that scripture has been corrupted how can the Quran confirm that in their possession? It wouldn't confirm it, but correct it.

4. Surah 5.43-48

How come they (come) unto thee (Muhammad) for judgment when they have the Torah, wherein Allah hath delivered judgment (for them)? ... Lo! We did reveal the Torah, wherein is guidance and a light ... And We caused Jesus, son of Mary, to follow in their footsteps, confirming that which was (revealed) before him in the Torah, and We bestowed on him the Gospel wherein is guidance and a light, confirming that which was (revealed) before it in the Torah - a guidance and an admonition unto those who ward off (evil). Let the People of the Gospel judge by that which Allah hath revealed therein. Whoso judgeth not by that which Allah hath revealed: such are evil-livers.

And unto thee (Muslims) have We revealed the Scripture (the Qur'an) with the truth, confirming whatever Scripture was before it, and a watcher over it. So judge between them by that which Allah hath revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth which hath come unto thee. For each We have appointed a divine law and a traced-out way. Had Allah willed He could have made you one community. But that He may try you by that which He hath given you (He hath made you as ye are). So vie one with another in good works. Unto Allah ye will all return, and He will then inform you of that wherein ye differ.

I love giving this scripture to Muslims. Read the part in bold most especially. The verse is clearly stating that the differing religious groups at the time (Muslims, Jews, Christians) have each been given their own laws and are going to be judged by those laws. It says "Allah could have made you one community", but he didn't. The next sentence reads "He may try you by that which He hath given you".

For further proof read Surah 5.43 and 5.47. In 5.43 tells the Jews to judge by the Torah. 5.47 tells the Christians to judge by the Gospel. AND the Muslims are told to judge by the Quran (Surah 5.48).

Also, how can their scripture be corrupted, yet commanded to be followed? I can see you shaking your head.

I'll stop here and see if you can give a valid response before pursuing other scripture from the Quran.

Does the Quran confirm the Bible?

Surah 4.47 reads,

O you who have been given the Book! believe that which We have revealed, verifying what you have,

The Quran says "verifying what you have", so it's talking about what we now possess (the Christian Bible). Does it verify the Bible? Not nearly. That's why the two religions are just that... 2 religions.

How bout those corruption charges

The burden of proof is on the Muslim to prove the Bible corrupt. In all my discussions, I'm yet to see a thread of evidence, so I welcome a response on this.

I bet you, Katatonic, didn't know that Muslims haven't always believed the Bible was corrupted. They probably believed and held my number 4 above. Corruption charges came in 1064 by Ibn-Khazem.

Here's some popular and well-respected Muslims who don't/didn't believe in the corruption charges:

a. Ali al-Tabari (died 855) accepted the Gospel texts

b. Amr al-Ghakhiz (869)

c. BUKHARI (810-870) -- he gathered some of the earliest tradition of Islam and quoted the Quran itself to support his belief in the text of the Bible Sura (3:72,78).

d. Al-Mas'udi (956)

e. Abu Ali Husain Bin Sina (1037)

f. AL-GHAZZALI (1111) -- probably the greatest Muslim scholar he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings.

g. Ibn-Khaldun (1406) -- he lived after Ibn-Khazem but did not accept his teachings but rather believed the earlier Islamic teachers.

h. Sir Sayyid Ahmad Khan, founder of the Aligarh College -- "In the opinion of us Mohammedans it is not proved that corruption (tahrif-i-lafzi)...was practiced."

i. Fakhruddin Razi, on the authority of Ibn Abbas, a nephew of Muhammed, "The Jews and early Christians were suspected of altering the text of the Taurat and Injil; but in the opinion of eminent doctors and theologians it was not practicable thus to corrupt the text, because those Scriptures were generally known and widely circulated, having been handed down from generation to generation."

Why would you believe one single man over these great Muslamic historical figures; especially Al-Ghazzali? What reasoning do you use, if you pick that one man?

Edited July 25, 2004 by Elisha