If we are saying that scribal errors make a book inaccurate and therefore invalid, there is no book (including the Quran) that is useful for teaching at all.
@dstne said in #61:
> If we are saying that scribal errors make a book inaccurate and therefore invalid, there is no book (including the Quran) that is useful for teaching at all.
You're assuming scribal errors makes any individual book inaccurate. My point is not this; My point is, any book claimed to be from God that has scribal errors is false and not from God. Prove the Quran is not from God first.
> If we are saying that scribal errors make a book inaccurate and therefore invalid, there is no book (including the Quran) that is useful for teaching at all.
You're assuming scribal errors makes any individual book inaccurate. My point is not this; My point is, any book claimed to be from God that has scribal errors is false and not from God. Prove the Quran is not from God first.
God is perfect, but he is working through us and we are not. Neither are our tools.
Creation takes small things like paint pigments that by themselves can be flawed and unimpressive and turns it into a masterpiece under the artist's loving hand.
Creation takes small things like paint pigments that by themselves can be flawed and unimpressive and turns it into a masterpiece under the artist's loving hand.
@WassimBerbar said in #62:
> Prove the Quran is not from God first.
Easy. The Quran affirms the Bible (or at least parts of it) in many different places. The Psalms are affirmed, the gospels are affirmed, along with every book given to "Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163) which is most of the books in the Old Testament. So, if the Quran is true than the Bible must also be true. Unfortunately, both the Bible and the Quran can't be true because of the many contradictions the Quran makes against the Bible. Therefore only one book has the possibility to be true, which is the Bible.
To sum up: The Quran claims that both the Bible and the Quran are true, but they both directly contradict which means that one of them can not be true. Since the Bible does not affirm the Quran, but the Quran does affirm the Bible, only the Bible has the possibility to be true.
Note that this is not an argument for the Bible but simply an argument against the Quran.
> Prove the Quran is not from God first.
Easy. The Quran affirms the Bible (or at least parts of it) in many different places. The Psalms are affirmed, the gospels are affirmed, along with every book given to "Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163) which is most of the books in the Old Testament. So, if the Quran is true than the Bible must also be true. Unfortunately, both the Bible and the Quran can't be true because of the many contradictions the Quran makes against the Bible. Therefore only one book has the possibility to be true, which is the Bible.
To sum up: The Quran claims that both the Bible and the Quran are true, but they both directly contradict which means that one of them can not be true. Since the Bible does not affirm the Quran, but the Quran does affirm the Bible, only the Bible has the possibility to be true.
Note that this is not an argument for the Bible but simply an argument against the Quran.
@dstne said in #65:
> Easy. The Quran affirms the Bible (or at least parts of it) in many different places.
Already wrong. The Quran never says anything about the bible, nor old nor new testament. The Quran acknowledges the Gospel of Jesus, the Torah of Moses, the Zabour (Psalms, not the Psalms in the bible) of David, and the scriptures of the other prophets. Nowhere the Quran says about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and definitely not Paul.
> Note that this is not an argument for the Bible but simply an argument against the Quran.
Funny thing is, someone else tried the exact same argument and got responded to: youtu.be/M21O9zfYBuU?si=4otdeRjHtVlm0fBp
> Easy. The Quran affirms the Bible (or at least parts of it) in many different places.
Already wrong. The Quran never says anything about the bible, nor old nor new testament. The Quran acknowledges the Gospel of Jesus, the Torah of Moses, the Zabour (Psalms, not the Psalms in the bible) of David, and the scriptures of the other prophets. Nowhere the Quran says about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and definitely not Paul.
> Note that this is not an argument for the Bible but simply an argument against the Quran.
Funny thing is, someone else tried the exact same argument and got responded to: youtu.be/M21O9zfYBuU?si=4otdeRjHtVlm0fBp
@WassimBerbar said in #66:
> Already wrong. The Quran never says anything about the bible, nor old nor new testament. The Quran acknowledges the Gospel of Jesus, the Torah of Moses, the Zabour (Psalms, not the Psalms in the bible) of David, and the scriptures of the other prophets.
How am I wrong? I said that the Quran affirms at least parts of the Bible, which you also clearly are saying here. The Book of Psalms in the Bible is generally attributed to David, so please clarify which book was being referenced then by Psalms, but not the Psalms in the Bible. Gospel of Jesus is how you often translate the idea of Injil, right? How can the gospel of Jesus (which you said was only revealed to him) be sent to the people of the book as shown in Surah Al-Maeda 68.
> Nowhere the Quran says about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and definitely not Paul.
Minor point but Paul did not write a gospel.
> Already wrong. The Quran never says anything about the bible, nor old nor new testament. The Quran acknowledges the Gospel of Jesus, the Torah of Moses, the Zabour (Psalms, not the Psalms in the bible) of David, and the scriptures of the other prophets.
How am I wrong? I said that the Quran affirms at least parts of the Bible, which you also clearly are saying here. The Book of Psalms in the Bible is generally attributed to David, so please clarify which book was being referenced then by Psalms, but not the Psalms in the Bible. Gospel of Jesus is how you often translate the idea of Injil, right? How can the gospel of Jesus (which you said was only revealed to him) be sent to the people of the book as shown in Surah Al-Maeda 68.
> Nowhere the Quran says about the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke or John and definitely not Paul.
Minor point but Paul did not write a gospel.
@dstne said in #67:
> How am I wrong? I said that the Quran affirms at least parts of the Bible, which you also clearly are saying here.
The Zaboor of David isn't the book of Psalms in the bible.
The Injil of Jesus isn't the gospels of Matthew... John in the bible.
The Torah of Moses isn't the old testament.
So what parts of the bible are you talking about?
> The Book of Psalms in the Bible is generally attributed to David, so please clarify which book was being referenced then by Psalms, but not the Psalms in the Bible.
I'm refering to the original book of David, the Psalms. I'm not speaking about the section "Psalms" in the bible. You think that the Psalms of David and the book of Psalms in the bible are the same. But no they're different. We believe in the Zaboor of David, because David is a prophet of God. We do not believe in the book of Psalms in the bible, because no prophet of God was teaching the bible.
> Gospel of Jesus is how you often translate the idea of Injil, right? How can the gospel of Jesus (which you said was only revealed to him) be sent to the people of the book as shown in Surah Al-Maeda 68.
We believe in the gospel of Jesus (Injil), because Jesus was a messenger of God. We do not believe in the Bible, no parts of it.
> Minor point but Paul did not write a gospel.
I suppose he wrote the majority of the bible. We reject Paul, because he isn't a prophet of God. I hope I made it clear.
> How am I wrong? I said that the Quran affirms at least parts of the Bible, which you also clearly are saying here.
The Zaboor of David isn't the book of Psalms in the bible.
The Injil of Jesus isn't the gospels of Matthew... John in the bible.
The Torah of Moses isn't the old testament.
So what parts of the bible are you talking about?
> The Book of Psalms in the Bible is generally attributed to David, so please clarify which book was being referenced then by Psalms, but not the Psalms in the Bible.
I'm refering to the original book of David, the Psalms. I'm not speaking about the section "Psalms" in the bible. You think that the Psalms of David and the book of Psalms in the bible are the same. But no they're different. We believe in the Zaboor of David, because David is a prophet of God. We do not believe in the book of Psalms in the bible, because no prophet of God was teaching the bible.
> Gospel of Jesus is how you often translate the idea of Injil, right? How can the gospel of Jesus (which you said was only revealed to him) be sent to the people of the book as shown in Surah Al-Maeda 68.
We believe in the gospel of Jesus (Injil), because Jesus was a messenger of God. We do not believe in the Bible, no parts of it.
> Minor point but Paul did not write a gospel.
I suppose he wrote the majority of the bible. We reject Paul, because he isn't a prophet of God. I hope I made it clear.
> The Zaboor of David isn't the book of Psalms in the bible.
> The Injil of Jesus isn't the gospels of Matthew... John in the bible.
> The Torah of Moses isn't the Old Testament
So essentially you are saying that all these people who were prophets, just somehow all lost their revelation before it was distributed to the people of Israel and later Christians? How is this helpful to anyone when you are supposed to regard these lost revelations as true? Aren’t these supposed to be the framework for your religion, and that you are to read and study these revelations as if they perfectly fit with the quran? How can you do that if, even at Muhammed’s time, these revelations would still be lost.
Side note, I know that the Torah is not the Old Testament, I was just saying that since the Torah is in the Bible, the Bible must be at least partially true according to your religion.
Edit: I forgot about this, where does this verse fit in to all of this? When I previously mentioned this you didn’t even go there. How are all these people involved and are they important receivers of revelation (as the context seems to imply) or are they more people to disregard because their revelations were also lost to time?
"Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163)
> The Injil of Jesus isn't the gospels of Matthew... John in the bible.
> The Torah of Moses isn't the Old Testament
So essentially you are saying that all these people who were prophets, just somehow all lost their revelation before it was distributed to the people of Israel and later Christians? How is this helpful to anyone when you are supposed to regard these lost revelations as true? Aren’t these supposed to be the framework for your religion, and that you are to read and study these revelations as if they perfectly fit with the quran? How can you do that if, even at Muhammed’s time, these revelations would still be lost.
Side note, I know that the Torah is not the Old Testament, I was just saying that since the Torah is in the Bible, the Bible must be at least partially true according to your religion.
Edit: I forgot about this, where does this verse fit in to all of this? When I previously mentioned this you didn’t even go there. How are all these people involved and are they important receivers of revelation (as the context seems to imply) or are they more people to disregard because their revelations were also lost to time?
"Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163)
@dstne said in #69:
> So essentially you are saying that all these people who were prophets, just somehow all lost their revelation before it was distributed to the people of Israel and later Christians? How is this helpful to anyone when you are supposed to regard these lost revelations as true?
I never said we lost their revelation before is was distributed to the people. I said I believe in the scriptures of the prophets before we lost them. I believe the Gospel of _Jesus_ in its original form as true and from God. Now they're lost, and the Quran abrogated the teachings of those scriptures. See next section.
> Aren’t these supposed to be the framework for your religion, and that you are to read and study these revelations as if they perfectly fit with the quran? How can you do that if, even at Muhammed’s time, these revelations would still be lost.
I think you dismiss the fact that there were people in the time of the prophets of God that followed the prophets, for example Moses عليه السلام. There were people who followed Moses and believed in the message and the scripture revealed to Moses, the Torah. Those people read and understood the Torah and will be guided. Now the Quran abrogated the commands of those scriptures like the Torah, and we cannot follow the Torah anymore.
> Side note, I know that the Torah is not the Old Testament, I was just saying that since the Torah is in the Bible, the Bible must be at least partially true according to your religion.
www.britannica.com/topic/Torah
But we follow the Torah and not the bible, as according to this site, "These are the books traditionally ascribed to Moses, the recipient of the original revelation from God on Mount Sinai", so the Torah got added to the bible, because the bible came after the revelation of Moses.
> Edit: I forgot about this, where does this verse fit in to all of this? When I previously mentioned this you didn’t even go there. How are all these people involved and are they important receivers of revelation (as the context seems to imply) or are they more people to disregard because their revelations were also lost to time?
> "Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163)
Yes they're important receivers of revelation. They also have their scriptures revealed to all of them. The Quran also abrogated all of them.
> So essentially you are saying that all these people who were prophets, just somehow all lost their revelation before it was distributed to the people of Israel and later Christians? How is this helpful to anyone when you are supposed to regard these lost revelations as true?
I never said we lost their revelation before is was distributed to the people. I said I believe in the scriptures of the prophets before we lost them. I believe the Gospel of _Jesus_ in its original form as true and from God. Now they're lost, and the Quran abrogated the teachings of those scriptures. See next section.
> Aren’t these supposed to be the framework for your religion, and that you are to read and study these revelations as if they perfectly fit with the quran? How can you do that if, even at Muhammed’s time, these revelations would still be lost.
I think you dismiss the fact that there were people in the time of the prophets of God that followed the prophets, for example Moses عليه السلام. There were people who followed Moses and believed in the message and the scripture revealed to Moses, the Torah. Those people read and understood the Torah and will be guided. Now the Quran abrogated the commands of those scriptures like the Torah, and we cannot follow the Torah anymore.
> Side note, I know that the Torah is not the Old Testament, I was just saying that since the Torah is in the Bible, the Bible must be at least partially true according to your religion.
www.britannica.com/topic/Torah
But we follow the Torah and not the bible, as according to this site, "These are the books traditionally ascribed to Moses, the recipient of the original revelation from God on Mount Sinai", so the Torah got added to the bible, because the bible came after the revelation of Moses.
> Edit: I forgot about this, where does this verse fit in to all of this? When I previously mentioned this you didn’t even go there. How are all these people involved and are they important receivers of revelation (as the context seems to imply) or are they more people to disregard because their revelations were also lost to time?
> "Ibrahim, Isma’il, Ishaq, Ya’qub and their children, and to Isa, Ayyub, Yunus, Harun, and Salaiman" (Surah An-Nisa 163)
Yes they're important receivers of revelation. They also have their scriptures revealed to all of them. The Quran also abrogated all of them.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.