Parallelism between Quran and previous scriptures


#1

Similarities between the Quran and other scriptures

The similarities between the Quran and previous scriptures have been noticed since the beginning of Islam. However, the Biblical/Jewish tales and their Quranic counterparts do not always match. There are three explanations for this:

  1. The original Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted (as Muslims like to claim).
  2. Muhammad imperfectly borrowed from the Biblical/Jewish scriptures.
  3. The Quran was corrupted.

It is an epistemological argument which of the three is correct. The Quran’s assertion that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted is mere accusation devoid of evidence. To prove corruption of an older scripture it is logically necessary to provide tangible evidence such as an extant copy of an uncorrupted manuscript. However, to prove a later scripture has either been corrupted or is an imperfect derivation of the previous scripture, one merely has to compare the texts – if one is unable to prove the older scripture has been corrupted then it stands to reason the latter two explanations are likely.

Note: I take the word ‘corruption’ in this context to mean a substantive alteration of the textual meaning, not the change of words or other translational changes.

No Muslim has ever been able to provide irrefutable tangible evidence that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted. Even the Dead Sea Scrolls dating back to at least the Third Century BC can be of no help to the Muslim proposition. So all we have from Muslims is the Quran, and it is irrelevant what the Quran says on the subject if Allah did not see fit to prove himself with tangible evidence.

On the other hand, it is easy to point out the imperfect ‘borrowing’ from previous scripture in the Quran. Muslims speculate that these are merely due to Allah ‘correcting’ the corruption in the previous scriptures. Prima facie this is a good argument, as is the similarity due to a single source argument. It would be interesting to make a closer inspection of the relevant texts and their purported sources of origin.

It is a common proposition that Muhammad most likely borrowed from previous scripture from hearing scriptural accounts told by Christians and Jews. As he was an unscholarly man it is unlikely that he read any previous scriptures, hence the imperfection of his borrowing. The Quran and hadiths suggest Jews were present to do the translation into Arabic for all and sundry to hear so it is not asserted that these previous scriptures from which Muhammad ‘borrowed’ the Biblical/Jewish tales from were translated into Arabic in his day.

I would like to examine this topic in the forum, and I especially invite Muslims to join in the discussion. However, some ground-rules are in order and discussion of what they should be is a necessity. Thus, I propose to adopt an utterly fair and transparent process. Any request by one party for evidence must be similarly matched. Further the standard of evidence must be decided to eliminate the unrealistic. After all, this is a historical / theological discussion, not a criminal forensics investigation. Therefore, as this is a historical discussion, corpus delicti cannot apply, and the standard of evidence necessarily being on balance of probability and the standard of proof being on balance of evidence.


#2

Is it hard to understand that Quran copied the bible and torah by putting tales stories while the bibles writers considered them as apocrypal.


#3

To begin with, on the facts of arguments presented in this forum so far, despite the implied claims, Islam is NOT a continuation of Judaism and Christianity, while Chritianity IS a continuation of Judaism.

It is futile attempt therefore to try to back up the premises that the Koran is a ‘remake’ of the Judeo-Christianity Bible. I don’t see any similarity in the two scriptures where it really counts. Yes, there are mentioned of common characters in both scriptures, but understanding of their roles, actions and purposes are completely alien to each other.

From a Christian’s persepective, this is more like it.

Even if the Quran says that the Bible is corrupted, there is nothing to shows that the Quran’s writer knew which are the corrupted parts of the Bible. There is no quotation of any Biblical verses in the Quran, at least from the Bible existing during Muhammad’s time, much less before that (we don’t know what the Bible was like before that assuming it was different). The implied quotations from the Bible, if they are at all, are errorneous assumptions of the content of the Bible.


#4

greetings señor bivar.

i took the liberty of showing a good friend of mine, a current student at UofT in toronto, your initial post here to get his comments, since he’s read and studied a bit on orientalism. here are his comments to your post (portion in { }'s is mine. as well, these comments were made before any of the current replies were posted):

… after reading the first few lines of the first post I can see these guys don’t know much about what theyre talking about. The guy gives three possible explanations for the discrepancies between the Qur’aan and the Bible and then goes on to use needlessly big words like epistemology to add credibility to what he’s about to say, when in reality even contemporary Orientalists no longer subscribe to the sophistry that led to this idea that the Qur’aan is an imitation of the Bible, so what assumes to be true (the premises upon which the rest of his argument will obvioulsy be based) is in fact an old, ridiculous theory supported by nineteenth century Orientalists from Britain and France who are known to be sufahaa’ {imbeciles} by more modern Orientalists basically following the same tradition (with a few negligable exceptions).

There is one library at U of T (John M Kelly Library) full of books on Biblical Criticism, and all this guy needs to do is speak to one professor in this field or read one introductory book and the idea that “No Muslim has ever been able to provide irrefutable tangible evidence that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted” dissolves into thin air, Muslims don’t need to prove this because the Judeo-Christian tradition already has - nobody denies the lack of historical authenticity of the Bible when it passed from one ruler to another and finally people decided what books will be included and what books will be left out.

i also found this, they say, “your bible has not been corrupted.” really? (pdf article). here’s quote from the intro:

What do the differences between Bible manuscripts reveal? This paper is divided into the following sections:

  1. They require you to produce evidence on: WHEN, HOW and WHY was the Bible corrupted
  2. Once upon a time, there was a myth about Bible manuscripts
  3. Evidence: more than 50 verses either omitted or added, hundreds of others changed
  4. Evidences from second and third century about Bible corruption
  5. Do the changes and corruptions of manuscripts affect doctrine?
  6. “For God so loved the world….”

a pretty interesting read…

thoughts… comments?


#5

[quote=r.gonzales]greetings señor bivar.
[/quote]

greetings señor Gonzales,

[quote=r.gonzales]i took the liberty of showing a good friend of mine, a current student at UofT in toronto, your initial post here to get his comments, since he’s read and studied a bit on orientalism. here are his comments to your post (portion in { }'s is mine. as well, these comments were made before any of the current replies were posted):
[/quote]

Geez, thanks.

[quote=r.gonzales]… after reading the first few lines of the first post I can see these guys don’t know much about what theyre talking about. The guy gives three possible explanations for the discrepancies between the Qur’aan and the Bible and then goes on to use needlessly big words like epistemology to add credibility to what he’s about to say, when in reality even contemporary Orientalists no longer subscribe to the sophistry that led to this idea that the Qur’aan is an imitation of the Bible, so what assumes to be true (the premises upon which the rest of his argument will obvioulsy be based) is in fact an old, ridiculous theory supported by nineteenth century Orientalists from Britain and France who are known to be sufahaa’ {imbeciles} by more modern Orientalists basically following the same tradition (with a few negligable exceptions).
[/quote]

I see only ad hominems and no evidence whatsoever. Please improve the standard of your friend’s replies. I’m after an intellectual discussion. If he wants to engage in such logical fallacies as the kind he produced above I suggest the both of you go to the nearest bazaar.

[quote=r.gonzales]There is one library at U of T (John M Kelly Library) full of books on Biblical Criticism, and all this guy needs to do is speak to one professor in this field or read one introductory book and the idea that “No Muslim has ever been able to provide irrefutable tangible evidence that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted” dissolves into thin air, Muslims don’t need to prove this because the Judeo-Christian tradition already has - nobody denies the lack of historical authenticity of the Bible when it passed from one ruler to another and finally people decided what books will be included and what books will be left out.
[/quote]

Okay, so produce these evidence if you may. Don’t tell us they exist. Please bear in mind I’m only interested in the evidence pertaining to parallelism between the Quran and previous scriptures – not everything in the Bible/Jewish texts are paralleled in the Quran and are thus extraneous to this discussion.

In fact, I should go so far as to say that your attempts to cast ad hominems show a distinct lack of scholarship on your part. Bad luck but them’s the breaks.

[quote=r.gonzales’]i also found this, they say, “your bible has not been corrupted.” really? (pdf article). here’s quote from the intro:

What do the differences between Bible manuscripts reveal? This paper is divided into the following sections:

  1. They require you to produce evidence on: WHEN, HOW and WHY was the Bible corrupted
  2. Once upon a time, there was a myth about Bible manuscripts
  3. Evidence: more than 50 verses either omitted or added, hundreds of others changed
  4. Evidences from second and third century about Bible corruption
  5. Do the changes and corruptions of manuscripts affect doctrine?
  6. “For God so loved the world….”

a pretty interesting read…

thoughts… comments?
[/quote]

No. I find the works of Menj and co at bismika allahuma to be extremely stogdy at the best of times.

Please note I’m after a discussion of the parallelism between the Quran and previous scriptures.

I can also debunk your assertions above:

  1. They require you to produce evidence on: WHEN, HOW and WHY was the Quran was corrupted
  2. Once upon a time, there was a myth about Quranic manuscripts
  3. Evidence: several verses either omitted or added, hundreds of others changed
  4. Evidences from first century AH about Quranic corruption
  5. Do the changes and corruptions of manuscripts affect doctrine?
  6. deleted

In short, move along r.gonzales. You don’t have the scholarship to tackle this discussion.


#6

Gonzales – I couldn’t retrieve your pdf file. Must be something my security system blocks or because of something to do with Menj’s site. This is all I could retrieve. However, seeing what Halil Ibrahimi has produced I wouldn’t mind seeing some more.

Didn’t you read the part of my first post – i.e. at the bottom where the rules apply equally? If you make accusations against the Bible, those accusations also apply to you.

This is indeed humorous. How it can possibly pass for a scholarly article defies imagination.

[quote=r.gonzales’s source]A lot of noise has been raised, pro and contra on Bible corruption. You may have heard that the corruption issue is all about hearsay, prejudices and nothing else. The above-cited fragment from the book “Modern Bible Translations Unmasked” by Dr. Russell R. Standish tells us a lot. It shows gently the ongoing war between “King James Version Only” supporters and the rest of Christendom on the issue of which Bible version[4] to use, since the discovery of different Bible manuscripts faced us with a lot of problems and cleaned out the mythology of One Unchanged Bible. A missing verse tells us about textual corruption; it either shows that once the verse was there and than somebody removed it or opposite, the verse was never there but somebody added. But is it only a verse? If that would be the case, there would be no need to lose so much energy on that. However, what if the number is being multiplied badly and that several other changes in manuscript readings arise beside the omission/additions that may put faith in the Bible as an unchanged scripture in a real mess? You are then advised to prepare yourself in dealing with such chaos when reading what follows, for it may shatter whatever previous beliefs you may hold about the Bible.
[/quote]

Unlike the Muslims with respect to their Quran, the Jews and Christians do not believe that their holy scriptures were written by God. They were merely human writings inspired by God. That is something Muslims continue to fail to understand. Thus, such discussions about textual variants is meaningless.

What interests me is the evidence for the Muslim claim of Biblical corruption. For example, if we discuss Mary and Aaron, is there evidence that Mary was indeed the sister of Aaron or not? For example, if we discuss Jesus and the clay bird, is there evidence that Jesus turned clay birds live or not?

To claim that since there are textual variants FROM THE GREEK (not even Aramaic) therefore the Bible is corrupt, shows a distinct lack of understanding of basic formal logic. I suggest you check out the logical fallacies of ‘generalization’, ‘composition’, ‘red herring’ and ‘ad hominem’.


#7

hook, line and sinker. i have to say rodrigo, your reactions are getting pretty predictable.

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]I see only ad hominems and no evidence whatsoever. Please improve the standard of your friend’s replies. I’m after an intellectual discussion. If he wants to engage in such logical fallacies as the kind he produced above I suggest the both of you go to the nearest bazaar.
[/quote]

as i mentioned in my post, the words from my friend were mere comments to what he read in your post. they weren’t meant to be a detailed reply to your claims or even a reply to your invitation for “intellectual discussion”. they were mere comments and observations. no more no less. and i posted them to see the reaction they would elicit from you.

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]I should go so far as to say that your attempts to cast ad hominems show a distinct lack of scholarship on your part.
[/quote]

pretty much like the attempted little pot-shots you make here and there, huh? :wink: .

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]In short, move along r.gonzales. You don’t have the scholarship to tackle this discussion.
[/quote]

that’s quite alright. i think i’ll stay a while and observe… perhaps comment here and there as well. :thumbsup: .

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Gonzales – I couldn’t retrieve your pdf file. Must be something my security system blocks or because of something to do with Menj’s site. This is all I could retrieve. However, seeing what Halil Ibrahimi has produced I wouldn’t mind seeing some more.
[/quote]

oh? and here i thought you found, “the works of Menj and co at bismika allahuma to be extremely [stodgy] at the best of times.”

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Didn’t you read the part of my first post – i.e. at the bottom where the rules apply equally? If you make accusations against the Bible, those accusations also apply to you.
[/quote]

f.y.i., yes i did read your post. and that’s fine… however, you seemed to miss the point of why i posted the link to that article in the first place. let me point it out for you…

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]The Quran’s assertion that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted is mere accusation devoid of evidence. To prove corruption of an older scripture it is logically necessary to provide tangible evidence such as an extant copy of an uncorrupted manuscript.
[/quote]

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]No Muslim has ever been able to provide irrefutable tangible evidence that the Biblical/Jewish scriptures have been corrupted.
[/quote]

in any case… just one last observation concerning the last thing you mentioned:

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]To claim that since there are textual variants FROM THE GREEK (not even Aramaic) therefore the Bible is corrupt, shows a distinct lack of understanding of basic formal logic.
[/quote]

quoted from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

The New Testament is widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, although some scholars hypothesize that certain books (whether completely or partially) may have been written in Aramaic before being translated for widespread dissemination.

quoted from: encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761566700_8/Bible.html#s39

Although some have argued that Aramaic originals lie behind some of these documents (especially the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews), all have been handed down in Greek, very likely the language in which they were composed.


#8

[quote=r.gonzales]hook, line and sinker. i have to say rodrigo, your reactions are getting pretty predictable.
[/quote]

Your ad hominems and other logical fallacies are getting pretty tiresome.

as i mentioned in my post, the words from my friend were mere comments to what he read in your post. they weren’t meant to be a detailed reply to your claims or even a reply to your invitation for “intellectual discussion”. they were mere comments and observations. no more no less. and i posted them to see the reaction they would elicit from you.
[/quote]

I’m not interested in your ramblings. If you have nothing worthwhile to say please don’t waste my time.

pretty much like the attempted little pot-shots you make here and there, huh?
[/quote]

No. It’s not a pot-shot to show up your logical fallacies. If you make ad hominems why can’t I point them out?

that’s quite alright. i think i’ll stay a while and observe… perhaps comment here and there as well. .
[/quote]

Please do – but I’d rather you refrain from making any more logical fallacies. If you have another friend who wants to discuss this with me then please ask him to do so. I would very much appreciate having an intellectual discussion on this. You may not know, I’m not a Christian – this is merely an intellectual discussion on my part. You, on the other hand, have more to lose from the discussion.

[quote=r.gonzales] oh? and here i thought you found, “the works of Menj and co at bismika allahuma to be extremely [stodgy] at the best of times.”
[/quote]

Doesn’t mean I don’t pay you the courtesy of reading your ‘evidence’. I’m a courteous sort of fellow, if you haven’t noticed: I don’t go around committing ad hominems left right and center.

f.y.i., yes i did read your post. and that’s fine… however, you seemed to miss the point of why i posted the link to that article in the first place. let me point it out for you…
[/quote]

Please do.

in any case… just one last observation concerning the last thing you mentioned:

[quote=Rodrigo]To claim that since there are textual variants FROM THE GREEK (not even Aramaic) therefore the Bible is corrupt, shows a distinct lack of understanding of basic formal logic.
[/quote]

quoted from: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_translations

The New Testament is widely agreed to have originally been written in Greek, although some scholars hypothesize that certain books (whether completely or partially) may have been written in Aramaic before being translated for widespread dissemination.

quoted from: encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia…/Bible.html#s39

Although some have argued that Aramaic originals lie behind some of these documents (especially the Gospel of Matthew and the Epistle to the Hebrews), all have been handed down in Greek, very likely the language in which they were composed.
[/quote]

So what? You’re missing the point. I already know all this. I just want Muslims to provide specific evidence of Biblical text corruption in relation to the PARRALLELISM under question. I don’t care about textual variants if they don’t pertain to the parallelism.

Like the examples I gave previously: if Muslims think Mary had a brother named Aaron, while the Bible is silent on this. Either the Bible has been corrupted or the Quran is in error. So, it is incumbent on Muslims to show that the Bible is wrong ON THIS ISSUE, not on some other unrelated issue. That would be merely the logical fallacy of the ‘red herring’, not to mention ‘composition’.


#9

Wait a second…Mary being Aarons sister? Crikey… Where is that stated?, was that the proof that bible has been corrupted? Which part that is corrupted and which part is not? Would you muslim tell me about it?


#10

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]No. It’s not a pot-shot to show up your logical fallacies. If you make ad hominems why can’t I point them out?
[/quote]

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]I don’t go around committing ad hominems left right and center.
[/quote]

you really can’t be this ignorant… :rolleyes: . my reference to attempted pot-shots was with respect to the ad hominems you dished out yourself. there’s this little snippet of arabic poetry that is really befitting for those like you… “she accused me of her own inequities and then slowly slipped away.” you cry ad hominem this and that but aren’t too shy to dish them out yourself… one saying that you’re probably more familiar with (a biblical one, no less), “why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Please do – but I’d rather you refrain from making any more logical fallacies. If you have another friend who wants to discuss this with me then please ask him to do so. I would very much appreciate having an intellectual discussion on this.
[/quote]

patience señor bivar… patience.

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]I already know all this.
[/quote]

yet you’re foolish enough to make this comment?

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]To claim that since there are textual variants FROM THE GREEK (not even Aramaic) therefore the Bible is corrupt, shows a distinct lack of understanding of basic formal logic.
[/quote]

come on bivar, surely you’ve got more sense than that…

oh and btw, have you gotten that pdf to work yet? :wink:


#11

Another ad hominem, Gonzales.

[quote=r.gonzales]my reference to attempted pot-shots was with respect to the ad hominems you dished out yourself. there’s this little snippet of arabic poetry that is really befitting for those like you… “she accused me of her own inequities and then slowly slipped away.” you cry ad hominem this and that but aren’t too shy to dish them out yourself… one saying that you’re probably more familiar with (a biblical one, no less), “why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”
[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m trying to engage in an intellectual discussion here and all you have provided are ad hominems. Showing up your ad hominems doesn’t constitute ad hominems, Gonzales.

Okay. I take it you need time to read up on the subject.

come on bivar, surely you’ve got more sense than that…
Isn’t my para above a reference to your post? Read your humorous reference about the pastor and the Greek translation.

The next post you provided some general references about prior writing in Aramaic – which was not included in your first reference about the pastor and Greek translations. That was why I put the Aramaic in parentheses.

The only person who’s shown any foolishness is you for making all these logical fallacies and now, lo and behold, just a nebulous ad hominem.

[quote=r.gonzales]oh and btw, have you gotten that pdf to work yet?
[/quote]

No. My security system rejects Menj’s site because it is ‘untrustworthy’. Why don’t you copy-paste for the benefit of the readers instead of casting yet more ad hominems?
[/quote]


#12

Sigh, yet another ad hominem, Gonzales.

[quote=r.gonzales]my reference to attempted pot-shots was with respect to the ad hominems you dished out yourself. there’s this little snippet of arabic poetry that is really befitting for those like you… “she accused me of her own inequities and then slowly slipped away.” you cry ad hominem this and that but aren’t too shy to dish them out yourself… one saying that you’re probably more familiar with (a biblical one, no less), “why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?”
[/quote]

Hmmm. I’m trying to engage in an intellectual discussion here and all you have provided are ad hominems. Showing up your ad hominems doesn’t constitute ad hominems, Gonzales.

Okay. I take it you need time to read up on the subject.

The only person who’s shown any foolishness is you for making all these logical fallacies and now, lo and behold, just a nebulous ad hominem.

Isn’t my para above a reference to your humorous reference about the pastor and the Greek translation?

The next post you provided some general references about prior writing in Aramaic – which was not included in your first reference about the pastor and Greek translations. That was why I put the Aramaic in parentheses.

[quote=r.gonzales]oh and btw, have you gotten that pdf to work yet?
[/quote]

No. My security system rejects Menj’s site because it is ‘untrustworthy’. Why don’t you copy-paste for the benefit of the readers instead of casting yet more ad hominems?


#13

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Showing up your ad hominems doesn’t constitute ad hominems, Gonzales.
[/quote]

correct, merely pointing them out isn’t… however, making statements like these are:
“I suggest the both of you go to the nearest bazaar”, “I find the works of Menj and co at bismika allahuma to be extremely stogdy at the best of times”, “In short, move along r.gonzales. You don’t have the scholarship to tackle this discussion”, and let’s not forget the derogatory statements you made concerning the prophet of islam that were deleted by the moderators for violation of forum rules.

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]Okay. I take it you need time to read up on the subject.
[/quote]

not at all. i wasn’t telling you to be patient for my sake.

[quote=Rodrigo Bivar]No. My security system rejects Menj’s site because it is ‘untrustworthy’. Why don’t you copy-paste for the benefit of the readers instead of casting yet more ad hominems?
[/quote]

the other readers have the link. i’m pretty confident that they have the ability to download the pdf without any problems and read for themselves without me having to cut & paste it here for you (which btw, would be against forum rules, particularly rules 1 & 5 of the content rules). perhaps you should adjust your system’s security settings in order to allow you to read said pdf… :hmmm:


#14

It’s only a direction, not an ad hominem.

[quote=r.gonzales]“I find the works of Menj and co at bismika allahuma to be extremely stogdy at the best of times”,
[/quote]

Let’s be fair, Gonzales – this is nothing compared to what you wrote.

[quote=r.gonzales]“In short, move along r.gonzales. You don’t have the scholarship to tackle this discussion”,
[/quote]

Well, it’s obvious you don’t have the scholarship to tackle this discussion. I try to take an neutral intellectual tone and you bring your ad hominems.

[quote=r.gonzales]and let’s not forget the derogatory statements you made concerning the prophet of islam that were deleted by the moderators for violation of forum rules.
[/quote]

Well, I can actually prove all my statements about your Profit using Islamic sources, so how can they be derogatory?

not at all. i wasn’t telling you to be patient for my sake.
[/quote]

I thought you were going to discuss this with me. No matter, if you bring Menj, it would be better.

the other readers have the link. i’m pretty confident that they have the ability to download the pdf without any problems and read for themselves without me having to cut & paste it here for you (which btw, would be against forum rules, particularly rules 1 & 5 of the content rules). perhaps you should adjust your system’s security settings in order to allow you to read said pdf…
[/quote]

No. I won’t compromise the security of my computer system for your article which I note is of poor scholastic quality. For example, the humorous made-up story about the pastor who didn’t know about New International Version and textual deletions. That is just so funny.

And, btw, why bring a 1978AD translation as evidence of textual variants of the Bible? Is that even logical?

I am not asking you to compromise the forum or copyright rules. Please bring the best points you think pertain to the question of PARALLELISM between the Quran and previous scriptures. I’m not interested in ‘red herrings’ like Matthew 18:11 which has nothing whatsoever to do with this issue of parallelism.

Remember, if you want to talk about the textual variants in the Bible, I can also point out the ‘rajm’ verse missing from the Quran. However, that is another discussion. In this discussion I am interested only in the issue of parallelism. Perhaps you should re-read my opening post and the title of this thread.


#15

In the interest of intellectual discussion I used proxify.com to download r.gonzales’s reference “They Say “Your Bible Has Not Been Corrupted”. Really?” by
Halil Ibrahimi, edited by Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi.

That whole article by Ibrahami is nothing more than a red herring. It does not address the parallelism between the Quran and previous scriptures at all. What it does is to nitpick on ‘translation’ variations between the various translations either between Bible versions or between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Masoretic.

For example:
From the Septuagint And God said, “Let the water which is under the heaven be collected into one place, and let the dry land appear.” And it was so. And the water which was under the heaven was collected into its places, and the dry land appeared.

From the Hebrew Masoretic 1.9 And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.

An example of textual variation in Bible versions, this is what the article finds about Matthew 28:19:

Corrupted verse “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”

As it is found in other manuscripts “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations in my name”

What does all this have to do with the parallelism between the Quran and previous scripture? Absolutely nothing. NADA. Ziltch. Zero. Big fried egg. All r.gonzales’s evidence shows is that there is textual variation between versions. It doesn’t show any ‘corruption’ at all.

It doesn’t even mention a single verse that pertains to parallelism between the Quran and previous scriptures.

r.gonzales, please bear in mind that no Christian asserts that the Bible or Septuagint is Divine text handed down by God as per the Quran. They are merely human writings inspired by God. In a sense, they are more akin to the hadiths than the Quran. This is what Muslims continually fail to see.

I note r.gonzales’s translation of the hadiths to be different from Dr Muhsin Khans. Does that mean these ‘textual variants’ of the hadiths prove the hadiths to be corrupted? No.

Ditto the Bible and Septuagint.

Over to you, r.gonzales. You’ve got to do better than what you’ve produced so far.

Buenos Días,
Cid.


#16

Up to now I am waiting for a scholarly debate, but all I witness is just ad hominem here and there. Please, move on to the debate about Parallelism. I am quite interested, since I also found the similarity in many ancient manuscripts. Bravo Rodrigo Bivar please continue, if there’s nothing substantial can be added by R. Gonzales.


#17

What is ad hominem??


#18

[quote=Neverland]Up to now I am waiting for a scholarly debate, but all I witness is just ad hominem here and there. Please, move on to the debate about Parallelism. I am quite interested, since I also found the similarity in many ancient manuscripts. Bravo Rodrigo Bivar please continue, if there’s nothing substantial can be added by R. Gonzales.
[/quote]

I am in agreement here. Let’s get this show on the road…

Cyber Knight- feel free to “Google” the term ad hominem. There is a WEALTH of information on logical fallacies.

Thanks!

Rachel


#19

I am somewhat convinced that someone whose name is ‘cyber knight’ must have know about Ad Hominem. In fact I am sure that almost all of the member here knows about it, but can’t help to engage in it when there’s nothing substantial on his/her part to add, but just cannot admit so.

Rachel, I agree that it must be interesting to read the continuation of this scholarly debate about the pararellism, and I am still waiting up to know. It seems both Rodrigo and R.Gonzales are busy.


#20

Hi everyone,
It was perhaps the wrong time to start an intellectual discussion on this very interesting topic. I’ve had my fill of Xmas pudding and I must say it was mighty good though my mum puts in a touch too much liquor. And the silver dollars sure do chink on the bite. Hehe. Belated Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year to everyone.

I’m rather waiting for Muslims to engage in discussion before I commit more to the topic – keeping the powder dry as they say. However, in the interest of adding to the discussion I must note that the Bismika allahuma article by Halil Ibrahimi (edited by Menj) is quite disappointing in that they failed to realize that they were only attacking the English translations of the Bible in their attempt to prove it is corrupted. This is like me attacking the English translations of the Quran to conclude that the Quran is corrupted. After all, every translation of the Quran is different from all others. Just like every English translation of the Bible is different from all others. It might be that the Bible is indeed corrupted – but one cannot conclude corruption based solely on English translations. Thus, the Muslim proposition has not been proven. I wonder how Menj failed to see the obvious mistake in logic he allowed Ibrahimi to make.

Cheers to Gonzales: I wonder how you didn’t spot this obvious mistake either. In the interest of improving the standard of discussion, may I suggest you consult Dr Saifullah at Islamic-awareness. Also don’t forget to consult his nemeses at FreethoughtMecca and answering-islam.com. If you can bring Dr Saifullah to this forum I would be much appreciated.

Regards,
Rodrigo Bivar y Valencia, Mata Moro, Cid.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.