3 - Re: "Islam folds like a House of Cards in the light of the Truth"

[Pete]

naliakbar video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpgRIGRbF8s&watch_response
You credit me with saying "Islam folds like a House of Cards in the light of the Truth". Other videos more directly address this. What is light and truth?
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/#gospel_of_john
In the following passage, the Apostle John discusses John the baptist as the witness:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.   2  The same was in the beginning with God.    3  All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.    4  In him was life; and the life was the light of men.    5  And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.    6  There was a man sent from God, whose name [was] John.    7  The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all [men] through him might believe.   8  He was not that Light, but [was sent] to bear witness of that Light.    9  [That] was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.    10  He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.    11  He came unto his own, and his own received him not.   12  But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name:    13  Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.    14  And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.


And the truth:

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
http://www.islamandthetruth.com/#john_14

Who's our judge?

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son: 23 That all [men] should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.    24  Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

http://www.islamandthetruth.com/#john_5

In the above you can see again what is meant by "death". Not men killing each other for apostasy, but rather men killing themselves for not believing in the only begotten Son of God.

[naliakbar]

i dont know how to read greek, but from what i understand from those that do, including one of my brothers from greece, in JOhn 1:1 they claim that there are 2 words used for god in this verse, and because of it, one of the words that is used is infact a god and not God.

as for saying these verses are what makes islam fall apart how can that be so, islam does not accept the bible being intact.  and here is a simple thing, who put the bible togehter? was it jesus? was it another prophet from god? who put it together? it was the chruch and prior to them putting it together there were no protestants or any of the sorts, they were all roman christians that had a complete bible.

so to me you cant just say well because my bible says xyz it is right, you have to tell me who was the prophet that put that together, because we know jesus didnt.

[Pete]

Disappeared then restored from database on 9-14-17

Regarding the Textual integrity of the Bible:
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/bible_manuscript_errors_.htm

Manuscript Errors? - May, 2006

Hello Brethren;

Liberal scholars of many groups, Islamic scholars and the leaders of many other religious organizations question whether the Bible has been accurately handed down to us. It's been over 50 years since I studied textual criticism so this little synopsis may not be in keeping with the latest science, but it's the best I can do from memory.

Undoubtedly some friendly Greek -- Hebrew scholar or conservative textual critic will bring any additions or corrections to my attention via e-mail.

Some believe the Bible has been corrupted over time. It isn't true and here is how we know it isn't.

The last books of the New Testament were written by about 100 A.D. by the apostle John who was still alive at that time. We have over 5300 partial or complete manuscripts of the New Testament penned prior to fourth century A.D. Though not assembled into what we now know now as the New Testament until 300 A.D., those canonical writings of Jesus' apostles were being read all over the known world. Though it is disputed by some Messianic Jews, the New Testament manuscripts were originally written in Koine` Greek and then copied by early Christians into every language known to the world. Our major manuscripts are in Greek, yes, but we also have important early manuscripts in Latin, Syriac, Aramaic, Hebrew, and several other lesser-known languages. We have one small piece of the Gospel of John, found on the Egyptian island of Elephantine, that is early enough to be a piece of the original.

It is impossible to support any kind of later corrupting when we have those 5300 early manuscripts that prove otherwise. In fact, because of this breadth of early manuscript support, textual scholars have concluded -- that for all practical purposes -- we have the original documents themselves. For a claim of tampering to be seriously considered, one would have to show that scribes from Syria, Babylonia, Galatia, Asia, India, Rome, India, Egypt, Greece, Carthage, Tarshish and Macedonia -- to name a few -- all made the same mistake, at the same time, for the same doctrinal purpose. An utterly ridiculous idea.

We have similar textual support for the authenticity of the Old Testament. Until a few years ago, the earliest documents we had for the Old Testament were later copies of a 70 B.C. Septuigent in Greek and a Massoretic Text in Hebrew that could be positively dated to the ninth century A.D.. However, with manuscript discoveries at Qumran made in the late 1940's (the Isaiah scroll, the book of Daniel, the book of Jubilees, the Temple scrolls, etc. etc.), some of which could be dated to the third century B.C.. Internal evidence within one Daniel scroll dates it at 350 B.C. As a result, we can now state with some certainty that there has been no tampering with the canonical Old Testament manuscripts between 300 B.C. and 900 A.D..

Despite the span of over a thousand years, the canonical manuscripts are virtually identical !!!!

To suggest there was tampering to the Old Testament documents prior to 300 B.C. shows a misunderstanding of Israelite scribal methodology and of their reverence for the Scriptures. First of all, biblical scrolls were written on the inside only to prevent any smudging or smearing that might lead to a misreading of the text. When being copied -- besides many parallel readings -- the copy was compared with the original in every way humanly possible.

The words in each column were counted and then the letters. The first, last, and middle letter and word in each column had to be identical to the original. If the number of words or the number of letters of the copy differed from the original, the copy was destroyed. Then they counted the words and letters in the whole document. They divided the document into quarters and into eighths. The first, last and middle letter in each section had to be the same. The number of words and the number of letters in each section had to be the same.  The middle word and the middle letter in each section had to be the same, and they had to be the same for the whole document. If not, the copy was destroyed. Not corrected, but destroyed!

Since there is absolutely no textual or historic evidence that the Old Testament was ever corrupted, any claim of editing must have been made by those religious authorities who didn't like what the Old Testament taught. There are some who claim late-dating for Old Testament prophets, but that claim is unfounded, as well. The books of Moses, originally penned in the 15th century B.C. contain Egyptian words and idioms that fell out on the usage a few centuries later. When the Hebrews entered Canaan, Canaanite words appeared in Scripture, when in contact with the Assyrians, Assyrian words appeared in Scripture. During the Babylonian captivity, when Daniel and Ezekiel were written, Babylonian words and Babylonian idioms appeared in Scripture. So rest assured, these canonical books were contemporary books, written when the prophets claimed they were, and they remain unchanged to this day.

Ellis Skolfield
http://www.ellisskolfield.net


God developed His revelation from Moses to Jesus over twelve centuries, during which time the Israelite people changed from desert nomads to an advanced nation that could follow religious law from the Sanhedrin and civil law from the Roman procurator, king and emperor. The Qur’an’s verse on abrogations refers only to the Qur’an itself. A change or correction to the same book within 20 years cannot be progressive revelation. A reversal within such a short interval reveals either that the author was not all knowing or that the recorder made changes."
The above author at secondexodus.com had a few good ideas, but it is a Catholic site so be warned regarding his misunderstanding of the authority in the church. Even if Cyprian's invention of the doctrine of apostolic succession were true, how would the church explain the millions of Christians murdered at the behest of the several Popes? Jesus Christ is still the head of the church.

[Pete]

4 - TEXTUAL HISTORY OF THE KORAN
http://www.beholdthebeast.com/textual_history_of_the_koran.htm

Prior Chapter - Contents - Next Chapter

Almost every Muslim is taught from infancy to cling to the notion that
the Bible has been corrupted and changed, while the Koran is free
from corruption, perfectly preserved since the time of Muhammad.
But a thorough study of the textual history of the Koran will show
that it is not the Bible, but the Koran that has been changed. That is
what Islamic historians themselves bequeathed to us.

After the famous battle of Aqraba in 632 AD, during the Caliphate
of Abu Bakr, many Muslims who knew the Koran by heart were killed.
As a result, Umar B. Al-Khattab advised Abu Bakr of the need to compile
the Koran into a standardized text. Abu Bakr ordered the compilation to
be made by Zaid Ibn Thabit from inscriptions on palm leaves, stones and
from the remaining reciters.

When the compilation was done, it was kept by Abu Bakr until his
death. His successor, Umar, then took custody of it. Afterward, it came
into the possession of Hafsa, one of Muhammad's widows (a daughter of
Umar).1 The companions of the prophet also did their own compilations
and produced other manuscripts for use in various provinces. There were
four rival provinces, each using a different text of the Koran.2

During the reign of Khalif Uthman (the third Khalifah),  reports
reached him that in various parts of Syria, Armenia and Iraq, Muslims
were reciting the Koran differently from the way it was being recited by
Arabian Muslims. Uthman immediately sent for the manuscript in Hafsa's
possession and ordered Zaid Ibn Thabit and three others, Abdullah Ibn
Zubair, Said Ibn Al-As and Abdullah Al-Rahman Ibn Harith B. Hisham to
make copies of the text and make corrections where necessary. When
these were completed, we  read that Uthman took violent action
regarding other existing Koranic manuscripts:
______________________________

1 See Mishkatul Massabih, ch. 3
 2  In Kufa, the manuscript of Abdullah ibn Masud was in use. That of Ubyy Ibn
Ka'b was in the possession of the Syrians. The one edited by Migdad Ibn Amr was
in circulation in the province of Hims. While that of Abu Musa al-Ash'ari was in use
in Basra, Iraq.
____________________________________

 Islam Reviewed    21

"Uthman sent to every Muslim province one copy of what they
had copied and ordered that all the other koranic materials,
whether written in fragmentary manuscripts, whole copies, to
be burnt." (Sahih al-Bukhari Vol. 6 Page 479).

To  eliminate  variant  readings  and  contradictions,  all  other manuscripts were indeed burned, but the Uthmanic edition itself was not perfect and met with a similar fate. When Marwan was governor of Medina, he ordered Hafsa's manuscript to be destroyed. The only reasonable conclusion one can have is that during Uthman's time, some of the contradictions in Hafsa's text were so glaring that a total destruction of it was called for rather than a revision. From then until now, conflicting passages and historical inaccuracies exist within the  Koranic texts.

The Deedats, the Joommals, and the so-called Sheiks continue their unwarranted attack on the Bible while suppressing the fact that Khalif Uthman burned all the Koranic manuscripts apart from Hafsa's, and that Governor Marwan followed the example of Uthman by destroying the Hafsa text as well. Anyone with the slightest regard for truth would have to admit that the Textus Receptus of the Koran now in circulation is a far cry from the textus originalis! It  is not too wild to suggest that were Muhammad alive at the time of these incidents, he would have received one of his usual "revelations" to back up those burnings.

Contrary  to Muslim belief,  there were more  than  just  language differences between Uthman's text and the texts which were ordered to be burned. In every case, there were considerable verbal differences between them and the text Uthman determined (by whim) to be the final standardized version of the Koran.

These differences were real textual variants and not just language peculiarities as is often taken for granted. In several cases there were words and sentences found in some codices that were missing in others. In other instances, the variants concerned whole clauses and consonantal variants in certain words. No wonder Khalif Uthman had to resort to wholesale burning as his best option.1
____________________________________________

1 See Jeffery, Materials for the History of the Text of the Koran, pp. 24-114. The
author has gone to considerable effort to collect solid evidence from the many
Islamic sources that are documented in this book.
__________________________________

 22   Islam Reviewed

Evidence abounds to this day, that verses, indeed whole passages are
missing from the Koran that is in circulation today. For instance, the
second Khalifah, Khalif Umar, stated in his life-time that certain verses
prescribing stoning for adultery were recited by Prophet Muhammad
himself as part of the Koran:

"God sent Muhammad and sent down the scripture to him. Part
of what he sent down was the passage on stoning. We read it,
we were taught it, and we heeded it. The apostle stoned and we
stoned after him. I fear that in time to come men will say that
they find no mention of stoning in God's book and thereby go
astray in neglecting an ordinance which God has sent down.
Verily, stoning in the book of God is a penalty laid on married
men and women who commit adultery." (Ibn Ishaq, Sirat
Rasulullah p. 684)

The verse on stoning, no longer to be  found  in the Koran, is
incontrovertible proof that the Koran as it stands today is not the same
as the one spoken by Muhammad.

What the public does not know is that Jihad has many faces. Jihad
is not just slaughtering people for Islam, but it is also  a  systematic
suppression of truth and propagation of lies.1 If not, how can Muslims
boldly assert (despite hard historic evidence to the contrary) that the
Bible has been changed while the Koran has been perfectly preserved
since Muhammad's time?
__________________________________________

2 Archeological Note: In support of M. Ali's statement: the true site of Mt. Sinai was
found over two decades ago by the archeologist Ron Wyatt. Sinai is now known to
be Jebel el-Lawz on the Arabian Peninsula. It is right where the Bible has been
saying it was all along (see Galatians  4:25). However, the Saudi government has
surrounded  the  Mt.  Sinai  site  with  a  chain-link  fence  and  suppressed  the
information, probably because of the devastating effect that discovery could have
on the validity of Islam and the Koran. If the information on that site were to be
released, it would discredit the Islamic claim that the Bible has been corrupted.
That  site,  the  artifacts  therein  (and  similar  sites  in Arabia  such  as Rephidim),
exactly fit the Bible's description of the Israelite wilderness wanderings. Those sites
prove the Bible to be both accurate and true. (Videos of that ancient site and many
others are available from Wyatt Archeological Research, 713 Lambert Dr.,
Nashville, TN 37220).
_______________________________________

 Islam Reviewed    23

You cannot tell me that Islamic scholars are ignorant of the many
defects in the Koran, nor of the havoc that the various Khalifs have done
to it.1 We, ourselves, are not in any way amazed for the Bible has said:

Such teachings [Propaganda] come through hypocritical liars,
whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
(1 Timothy 4:2, NIV)

The plain truth is that the Koran has been changed through
suppression and burning, and many of its passages have been deliber-
ately removed or altered.
_________________________________

1 M.O.A. Abdul, in his book entitled Studies in Islamic Series, vol. 3, pp. 19-20, 1st
printing 1971, mentioned the incidents that led Khalif Uthman to burn Koranic
manuscripts.
_______________________________