Dr Yasir Qadhi: the Qur’an is much better preserved than the New Testament

reblogged from Dr Yasir Qadhi 

Screen Shot 2016-09-05 at 18.30.55

This is one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Quran that we currently posses, written in the Hijazi script. It is displayed at the University of Birmingham, and has been Carbon-14 dated to the same era (plus or minus a few decades) of the Prophet (salla Allahu alayhi wa sallam). To the right of the manuscript is the typed up version of the same text (courtesy of Prof Alan Godlas).

It is patently clear, even to those of us who can’t read the ancient Hijazi script with ease, that the two texts are essentially the same. No other religious text can even come close to this level of preservation. The earliest complete copies of the New Testament date back to more than three centuries after the era of Jesus Christ, and the earliest manuscripts of the Old Testament to more than a thousand years after the era of Moses.

What is more amazing is that the Quran isn’t even primarily preserved through manuscripts – it is first and foremost preserved through the memorization of huffadh of every single generation, to the point of tawatur (meaning: in each generation numerous people have recited the Quran and passed it down to the next generation, to the point that it would be impossible for all of them to be mistaken about it).

The preservation of the Quran is a matter that all Muslims have agreed on, from the beginning of Islam, and hence it is of the most fundamental and essential beliefs of Islam.

Anyone who denies that the Quran has been preserved is simply not a Muslim.

Of the most fascinating disciplines of our academic tradition, therefore, is the specialty of documenting the preservation of the Quran, and of explaining the evolution of the script, the addition of the tashkil and diacritic marks, the development of the various recitations (the ‘seven’ and the ‘ten’ and the ‘fourteen’ and others), the classification and codification of these recitations and the differences between them, and of course the relationship of these recitations to the ‘modes’ (Ar. ‘ahruf’) that are referenced in the hadith. Scholars have always had many fascinating and at times heated discussions regarding all of these facets and more, and many books have been written about these topics, such as those by Ibn Abi Dawud and Ibn Mujahid and Makki b. Abi Talib and al-Dani and Ibn al-Jazari and a host of others. But despite all of the differences of opinion found in these classical works, none of those discussions ever negated the basic fact that all Muslims believe in: that the Quran, as the Speech of Allah, has always been preserved.

“Truly, we have sent down this Remembrance, and We shall, for sure, preserve it” [al-Hijr; 9].

All praise is due to Allah for revealing the Quran to us and gifting us belief in His Speech!

 



Categories: Quran

117 replies

  1. Hi
    That doesn’t make it true!

    I hope there is some interesting discussion on this topic

    Thanks. Paul.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. We will never know if the quran we have today reflects the actual words that allah and mohammed wanted mankind to learn. The canon was decided upon by one man after mohammed’s death and there were companions who did not agree with it. A

    Even worse, the vast majority of the primary source materials were destroyed. We will never know if what is written in the quran we have today accurately reflects what was written in those primary source materials.

    Like

    • clearly you did not read the article:

      ‘What is more amazing is that the Quran isn’t even primarily preserved through manuscripts – it is first and foremost preserved through the memorization of huffadh of every single generation, to the point of tawatur (meaning: in each generation numerous people have recited the Quran and passed it down to the next generation, to the point that it would be impossible for all of them to be mistaken about it).

      The preservation of the Quran is a matter that all Muslims have agreed on, from the beginning of Islam, and hence it is of the most fundamental and essential beliefs of Islam.’

      Liked by 4 people

    • Paul

      A claim that is impossible to verify because almost all the early manuscripts were destroyed. It is an empty boast.

      We cannot possibly know if what we have today even remotely resembles what was written down in those early documents.

      Like

    • such extreme skepticism is refuting. Most western scholars judge that we DO in fact have the same Quran that was given to Muhammad.

      But the earliest NT is three centuries after Jesus.

      OUCH

      Liked by 2 people

    • Hi Paul
      What about the Sana manuscript? It is a palimpsest which means there is a previous text below the present text…the problem is that IT IS NOT AN UTHMAN Koran.

      So what is it? This is a genuine desire to know.

      Like

    • “The canon was decided upon by one man after mohammed’s death.”

      Rubbish. You just make it up as you go along.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Sorry I have been told not word has been changed so that means there should be no variants at all….after all it is meant to be the very words of Allah.

      Like

    • “I have been told not word has been changed”

      Not from me you haven’t.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “such extreme skepticism is refuting. Most western scholars judge that we DO in fact have the same Quran that was given to Muhammad.

      But the earliest NT is three centuries after Jesus.”

      What do you mean “extreme skepticism is refuting”?

      Almost all early documents pertaining to the quran were destroyed – this is not extreme skepticism, it is a simple fact. Muslim sources even admit that huge swathes of teh quran are missing or destroyed, and that some companions differed with Uthman’s collation. This too is simple fact and not skepticism.

      No scholar who is not already committed to the faith would even come close to saying that we have “the same quran that was given to mohammed” because that is a theological claim. The quran is probably one of the worst attested ancient documents we have because most of the early source documents were destroyed.

      Like

    • What do you mean “extreme skepticism is refuting”?

      – because you should try being sceptical of your skepticism lol

      “Almost all early documents pertaining to the quran were destroyed – this is not extreme skepticism, it is a simple fact.”

      Really? Just a claim. Evidence please.

      “Muslim sources even admit that huge swathes of teh quran are missing or destroyed, and that some companions differed with Uthman’s collation. This too is simple fact and not skepticism.”

      Really? Just a claim. Evidence please

      “No scholar who is not already committed to the faith would even come close to saying that we have “the same quran that was given to mohammed” because that is a theological claim.”

      No. It is a historical judgement made by secular western scholars.

      “The quran is probably one of the worst attested ancient documents we have because most of the early source documents were destroyed.”

      Really? Just a claim. Evidence please.

      And while you are at it:

      1) was it just Uthman who on his own decided to destroy all the Qurans?

      2) and why did he/they decide to do this?

      Do you agree with Professor Allen Jones, a lecturer in Quranic Studies at Oxford University that in regard to Puin’s claim that certain words and pronunciations in the Quran were not standardized until the ninth century, The Guardian reported:

      Jones admits there have been ‘trifling’ changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran’s development is still more or less true. ‘I haven’t yet seen anything to radically alter my view,’ he says. [Jones] believes that the San’a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. ‘It’s not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.’

      3) What do you make of Dr Qadhi’s statement:

      ‘What is more amazing is that the Quran isn’t even primarily preserved through manuscripts – it is first and foremost preserved through the memorization of huffadh of every single generation, to the point of tawatur (meaning: in each generation numerous people have recited the Quran and passed it down to the next generation, to the point that it would be impossible for all of them to be mistaken about it).’

      And do you accept the fact that the earliest complete copies of the New Testament date back to more than three centuries after the era of Jesus Christ? Are you shocked by this?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Paul

      Why don’t we do this – you show me which scholars claim that there is a wealth of early written source materials for the quran? Where are the thousands of fragments, scrolls, tablets, stones, parchments,
      and animal skins that prove conclusively that the quran you have today accurately reflects what was written in these early source materials.

      If you can do this, then you are either faking it, or you will have become the most preeminent muslim scholar in history.

      Like

    • Lol no dude you back up your extravagant claims like you have been asked to.

      Don’t run away from this basic responsibility.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Paul

      My claims? This thread is about the muslim claim that the quran accurately reflects the original message spoken by mohammed. You are the guys who need to prove that, and since you have almost NO existing early source materials, there is no way to do that. You cannot even come close to proving your claim.

      The onus is on you to prove the claim – you have it backwards.

      Like

    • So you make numerous dogmatic claims and then fail to provide ANY evidence for them when challenged. Why do you waste everyone’s time on the blog Mr Troll?

      Like

    • Paul

      I have lurked on this blog for some time before commenting and I notice that you use that strategy a lot. When someone presents you with a question you can’t answer, you accuse them of trolling and then you start deleting their comments.

      Whatever, it’s your blog, but don’t pretend that you are engaging in serious debate when you post articles that make claims which you refuse to support with evidence.

      Like

    • Dude your cowardly my tactics are obvious: when challenged you turn the tables on the questioner. Run away from justifying bizarre claims. No sincerity.
      Oh well. Trolls do come and go on this blog. I dare say you will not be the last.

      Like

  3. Trey is right. Had your caliph not destroyed all competing and varying Qurans, scholars would be able to do much better historical research. As it stands Muslims can only except the premise without better validation

    Anyway, we know that there are thousands of variations in the scripts that survived, but I do agree that the Quran is generally well preserved from the documents we do have.

    It seems somewhat silly to compare the seventh century to the first though. If you were consistent Paul you would readily admit that scholars who study the Bible are almost 100% certain that the biblical text we have today reflects the ancient documents. 700 years is a long time to complain that more manuscripts haven’t survived.

    Like

  4. Tell me Paulus, as you are clearly knowledgable about matters:

    1) was it just Uthman who on his own decided to destroy all the Qurans?

    2) and why did he/they decide to do this?

    3) you say “there are thousands of variations in the scripts that survived”

    Do you agree with Professor Allen Jones, a lecturer in Quranic Studies at Oxford University that in regard to Puin’s claim that certain words and pronunciations in the Quran were not standardized until the ninth century, The Guardian reported:

    Jones admits there have been ‘trifling’ changes made to the Uthmanic recension. Khalidi says the traditional Muslim account of the Koran’s development is still more or less true. ‘I haven’t yet seen anything to radically alter my view,’ he says. [Jones] believes that the San’a Koran could just be a bad copy that was being used by people to whom the Uthmanic text had not reached yet. ‘It’s not inconceivable that after the promulgation of the Uthmanic text, it took a long time to filter down.’

    4) What do you make of Dr Qadhi’s statement:

    ‘What is more amazing is that the Quran isn’t even primarily preserved through manuscripts – it is first and foremost preserved through the memorization of huffadh of every single generation, to the point of tawatur (meaning: in each generation numerous people have recited the Quran and passed it down to the next generation, to the point that it would be impossible for all of them to be mistaken about it).’

    Liked by 1 person

    • Paul

      Did you really just try to appeal to authority and then quote a Guardian article as your documentary evidence? Even worse, you quote a scholar’s conjecture – the Sanaa manuscript “might” be a bad copy – to defend your claim of authenticity?

      Qhadi’s opinion is actually irrelevant – we don’t have the earliest source materials because they were destroyed and what you have now could so easily have been simply made up or altered to suit the political or religious needs of the time. You have no way of knowing other than to argue in circles – which is what you are doing: the quran is the accurately preserved words handed down to mohammed, we can’y prove this because most early source materials were destroyed, but it is true because teh quran is the accurately preserved words handed down to mohammed.

      Like

    • Yes I often appeal to an expert authority when it is merited. A perfectly reasonable thing to do.

      Over and over you repeat: “we can’y prove this because most early source materials were destroyed”

      Yawn.

      Evidence required. Not dogma.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Hi Paul,

      I think some people on here are getting a little confused. Let me put a scenario forth… If I wrote some verses of the Quran and got a letter wrong or out of order and then centuries or eons later archaeologists stumbled upon it and compared it to other copies and found the difference, would people of the ilk of Jay Smith then celebrate and say “you see look it has not been preserved”.

      It’s painful to think that such hate and malice can cause people to be so desperate to stoop to such malevolent levels.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Paul,

      I don’t find the oral preservation argument persuasive because your hadith literature mentions ayahs that are no longer to be found in your text or recited.

      Faiz thinks those Hadith are questionable, but if we look at historical processes, the criteria of embarrassment would demand the opposite- it is highly embarrassing for Muslims that verses were lost and because we have multiple reports I would suggest it highly likely to be historical. Muslims have to dismiss their own texts and normal historical method to get any textual confidence.

      So just to repeat, the “only” confidence Muslims have that the text they have today is the original is based on oral transmission, but this theory conflicts with written history and scholars have known for a long time that oral transmission is prone to change.

      Like

    • lots of assertions. Zero evidence. Zero citations. Must do better.

      Like

    • So the historical method applied to this discussion is not evidence? The undeniable reality that your Hadith literature mentions ayah that are not in your Koran is not evidence?

      For once in your life deal with the issue would you? No excuses, no deflections.

      Like

    • we need the evidence dude – not mere assertion. You know the rules.

      Like

    • hi Paul
      i know that Uthman didnt work alone

      didnt the following men work with Uthman to produce the “new koran” Zaid b Thabit, Abdullah b Zubair, Saeed b Al ‘Aas , and Abdur Rahman b Al Harith.

      what was the copy that was in the hands of Hafsa?

      then I’m confused because i read this in Bukhari…

      I heard the Prophet saying, “Learn the recitation of Qur’an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka’ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal.

      Ma’sud says this…

      “How can you order me to recite the reading of Zaid, when I recited from the very mouth of the Prophet some seventy Surahs?” “Am I,” asks Abdullah, “to abandon what I acquired from the very lips of the Prophet?” (Masahif” by Ibn abi Dawood, 824-897 AD, pp. 12, 14).

      what is actually going on here because then I hear Ma’sud had his version of the koran compiled
      Its called the Kufan codex and correct me if I’m wrong it does not have suras 1,113,114

      then we have Ubayy B. Ka’ab he had a version of the koran too.

      This to me sounds like an absolute mix up because why didnt Uthman use the men that prophet Muhammad said they should use to know the recitation of the koran?

      Like

  5. LOL, Lassie again shows his “expertise” via his Google degree in Islamic Studies.

    Let me just make a quick point to refute you Lassie, since I am short on time. We actually have manuscript evidence from before Uthman’s decree that shows that he faithfully preserved the Quran, and ironically, it is the San’aa manuscripts that defendchrist referred to. Some non-Muslims have claimed that the discovery of the Sana’a manuscripts serves as evidence of the Quran’s evolution. But the facts demonstrate the exact opposite and even non-Muslim scholars acknowledge this. According to Scott MacMillan:

    “…the restored fragments contain no major aberrations and certainly no indelible human fingerprints that prove the Koran has profane origins” (Scott MacMillan, “Sana’a: City of the Book.” History Today 61, no. 4 (2011): 10-17).

    So you see, my Gentile dog friend, your Google degree has failed you yet AGAIN! LOL!!

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      There should be NO variations it’s meant to be the literal word of Allah so there should be no changes no variations between the Sana manuscript and Uthmanic manuscript.

      Like

    • Refute me? We all know that lower text of the sana’a mushaf differs from the uthmanic text.. That’s a problem for you, not me, because you follow a religion that has claimed perfect preservation for centuries.

      Christians on the other hand have no illusions that scribal errors have been part of the biblical tradition. We don’t believe in perfect preservation. And because we didn’t destroy all the evidence the scholars can do the work they do so well and we can be confident of its textual veracity.

      So, the sana’a discovery has made Muslims reformat their theology which is a good thing. Your comments display this. A few decades ago you would probably be declared a kafir for admitting scribal errors in the Quranic tradition.

      You are still left, however, with very little historical evidence to do textual analysis because Uthaman destroyed all the evidence. Hence why Muslims always deflect to the oral recitation theory because it’s the only thing they have. but it’s unconvincing outside the walls of the masjid I’m afraid.

      P.S what’s your favourite cheese?

      Like

  6. DC, variations can exist due to human error. For example, a scribe may easily make a mistake when preparing a manuscript. That is not unusual. The point is that despite the chance for human error, the Quran is protected because millions of Muslims have memorized it for 1400 years. No such fail-safe exists for the Bible. Thus, Dr. Qadhi is correct to say that the Quran is better preserved than the Bible. Do you agree?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “Much better preserved”? You mean its not PERFECTLY preserved word for word dot for dot?
    Wow starting admission.

    How does he know its even “much better preserved” with all those missing aya’s and Surah’s?

    Like

    • Lol Kujo…what a typical response from another ignoramus with a degree in Google Islamic Studies!

      Missing ayats and surahs? Which ones?

      Do you agree with Dr. Qadhi that the Quran is much better preserved than the Bible? Now that would be a startling revelation, but I know you apologists don’t really like to admit facts! ; )

      Liked by 2 people

    • Show me the verse on stoning? Or the multiple verses on breast feeding, or the extra long surah longer than then the longest sura in the modern version of the Quran?

      Missing Surah’s, no two version of the modern day Quran agree each other, no two hand written versions of the quran agree with each other. Not to mention all the later corrections and re corrections in the handwritten Mushafs. What a mess.

      Like

  8. LOL Kujo, so you won’t answer my question. What a surprise! Is the Quran better preserved than the Bible? Come on, now. Be a good boy and answer the question. You know the answer…

    The verse on stoning was abrogated but the ruling remains in effect. Muslims agree on this, and so did the Sahaba. How is that an example of the Quran’s “corruption”?

    The report about alleged verses about breastfeeding have been rejected as unreliable. And even if it was, the report states that the verse was deliberately abrogated during the Prophet’s time! So, it does not prove that later Muslims corrupted the text.

    Moreover, why on earth would Muslims corrupt the Quran by removing such verses? You would think they would try to change some other part!

    So, you see poor poor Kujo, you are just another Google scholar with no credibility, just like your canine buddy Lassie. You need to stop pretending like you have done serious research, because we all know that the extent of your research is reading websites created by equally dumb missionaries that you found on Google.

    Liked by 3 people

    • LOL oh man classic Muslim response. Dude I could of wrote that for you.
      So the goat abrogated the verse on stoning, thats some mighty goat you got there lol

      The verse on breast feeding was not rejected as un realiable since AISHA and Mo’s wives used to send the men they wanted to entertaining to their sisters or nieces breasts to get a little snack from time to time lol. It was only after Mo died that the woman came to their senses and put a stop to it.

      I think Muslims are begging to realize and come to the realization like Dr Quahdi that the Quran is NOT Perfectly preserved as Muslims have been claiming for centuries.

      Its funny to watch you guys back peddle

      Like

    • The idea that a goat ate the verse on stoning is indeed laughable as is the concept of ‘abrogated verse but not ruling’. Clearly the jurists were at pains in reconciling the absence of Quranic verses for stoning with reports that said otherwise so ‘abrogated verse but not ruling’ was invented and unfortunately Muslims bought into this absurd notion.

      Like

  9. I think allot of the haters are closer to being Atheists than believing in a true creator. Out of pride they won’t admit defeat and will eventually be overwhelmed by their hate as it bubbles over and do as what allot of christians do and become anti-theists and hate on everyone.

    Like

  10. Kujo barked:

    “LOL oh man classic Muslim response. Dude I could of wrote that for you.
    So the goat abrogated the verse on stoning, thats some mighty goat you got there lol

    The verse on breast feeding was not rejected as un realiable since AISHA and Mo’s wives used to send the men they wanted to entertaining to their sisters or nieces breasts to get a little snack from time to time lol. It was only after Mo died that the woman came to their senses and put a stop to it.

    I think Muslims are begging to realize and come to the realization like Dr Quahdi that the Quran is NOT Perfectly preserved as Muslims have been claiming for centuries.

    Its funny to watch you guys back peddle”

    LOL, there you again, pretending to be a serious researcher on Islam! Sorry Kujo, but we all know that you have a worthless Google degree in Islamic Studies. No one takes such lack of credibility seriously.

    The story of the goat is unreliable and based on an isolated report that no scholar takes seriously. Only Internet boneheads with too much time of their hands (i.e. you) bring up such stories while ignoring the authenticated reports. Here is a little education for you: https://islamqa.info/en/175355

    It is indeed silly to think that a little goat would be the cause for a verse being lost. Even if a goat had eaten that portion of the Quran, the fact is that there would have been hundreds of Muslims at the time who would have memorized the Quran, so the accidental destruction of a manuscript would hardly have led to the verse being lost forever.

    Kujo, you are not a hadith scholar so your idiotic opinion about the report about breastfeeding is further proof that you a failed Google scholar. The report that the verse was abrogated after the Prophet’s death is also isolated, and contradicts authentic reports. Here is some more education for you: http://www.letmeturnthetables.com/2009/08/exposing-lie-of-qurans-lost-verse-about.html

    You’re really getting quite an education now, Kujo! It’s about time!

    And you’re still not answering my question? What’s the matter, boy? You bit off more than you could chew? Is the Quran better preserved than your Bible, with its multiple authors, contradictions, additions, deletions, changing canons, forgeries etc. Talk about a mess! LOL!!!

    Like

  11. Hi DC. We know that individual books had different authors, from different times and often with different views and theologies. For example, the author of the book of Job didn’t seem to believe in an afterlife.

    Different canons existed throughout the history of the Bible and there were debates about which books should be included, not just among Christians but Jews as well. I discussed some examples in my article.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      What makes you think doesn’t deal with the afterlife or this case the resurrection.

      Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
      Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
      Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

      You may not agree with this but if he not speaking about the resurrection then what is he talking about?

      Like

  12. DC, he is not talking about the resurrection, because as he states:

    “Remember, O God, that my life is but a breath; my eyes will never see happiness again. The eye that now sees me will see me no longer; you will look for me, but I will be no more.As a cloud vanishes and is gone, so one who goes down to the grave does not return. He will never come to his house again; his place will know him no more” (Job 7:7-10).

    Jewish scholars read these verses and came to the conclusion that the author denied the resurrection:

    “The sages of the Talmud, well honed in homiletic insights, could not identify in Job a text that would lend support to their doctrinal outlook on resurrection. Rather, they found that Job denies resurrection: As a cloud dissipates and is gone, so who descents to Sheol would not ascend (7:9) – Raba said: “This shows
    that Job denied the resurrection of the dead” (TB Baba Bathra 16a). The great medieval commentator Rashi felt compelled to adopt this view with respect to Job 7:7. He bluntly says on I shall never see happiness again,”after death. Here Job denied resurrection”” (http://jbq.jewishbible.org/assets/Uploads/352/352_Deathjob.pdf).

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      I did say if it is not the resurrection then what is he talking about? You haven’t addressed the verse, I know what chapter 7 is all about but you need to address chapter 19.

      Like

  13. Lassie barked (laughably):

    “Refute me? We all know that lower text of the sana’a mushaf differs from the uthmanic text.. That’s a problem for you, not me, because you follow a religion that has claimed perfect preservation for centuries.

    Christians on the other hand have no illusions that scribal errors have been part of the biblical tradition. We don’t believe in perfect preservation. And because we didn’t destroy all the evidence the scholars can do the work they do so well and we can be confident of its textual veracity.

    So, the sana’a discovery has made Muslims reformat their theology which is a good thing. Your comments display this. A few decades ago you would probably be declared a kafir for admitting scribal errors in the Quranic tradition.

    You are still left, however, with very little historical evidence to do textual analysis because Uthaman destroyed all the evidence. Hence why Muslims always deflect to the oral recitation theory because it’s the only thing they have. but it’s unconvincing outside the walls of the masjid I’m afraid.”

    LOL!!! This post takes the cake! Lassie still tries to pretend that he has done serious research on this issue, but every time he opens his mouth, he exposes his ignorance and pathetic research skills. I already quoted an actual non-Muslim scholar who acknowledges that the San’aa manuscripts do not show any evidence of major variations. But Lassie thinks he knows better! Oh Lassie, don’t make me laugh!

    You idiot, don’t you realize that Muslim tradition does not deny that there were variant recitations of the Quran? That is precisely why Uthman (ra) started his project, with the support of all the other Sahabah!

    As for your silly claim about the scriptio inferior and the scriptio superior, you need some education, just like your canine buddy Kujo. Here is some reading material:

    https://callingchristians.com/2012/09/23/codex-sanaa-and-the-quran/

    http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Mss/soth.html

    Here is what the Islamic-Awareness article says about one particular manuscript that has both a scriptio inferior and scriptio superior:

    “After providing an informative history of the manuscript and the field of Qur’anic studies, the authors evidenced numerous textual-critical conclusions – one of the most important being that the spread of the type of textual tradition represented by the scriptio inferior happened before the widespread propagation of the ʿUthmānic tradition in the mid-7th century; in turn, early Muslim tradition describing the existence of companion codices and the types of variants reported in them has now received textual confirmation.”

    See? You are so stupid, you don’t even realize that Muslim tradition has NEVER denied the existence of variant manuscripts! That was the whole reason for Uthman’s edition!

    But, what you also fail to realize is that Uthman’s edition was the AUTHORITATIVE one, and it was agreed upon by ALL of the Sahabah, including Ibn Masud.

    You also fail to realize that the fact that the Quran has been memorized for 1400 years by millions of Muslims, there is absolutely no way for it to be lost or corrupted. In fact, that was another reason Uthman published the authoritative edition. Many of the huffaz had died in battles, so it was important to put the authoritative recitation down on paper and send it to all regions of the Muslim empire.

    Finally, your Christian taqiyya about the Bible won’t fool anyone. We all know that the Biblical manuscripts contain A LOT more than just accidental scribal errors! They actually contain DELIBERATE additions, deletions and forgeries. Don’t try to hide these facts, you loser!

    So, answer the question. Is Dr. Qadhi right to say that the Quran is much better preserved than the Bible? Stop running away, boy!

    Like

  14. LOL Lassie, yes Allah (swt) has fulfilled His promise to protect the Quran! Unfortunately, your god could not protect the Bible from being edited about a thousand times in its long and convoluted history. OUCH!

    Like

  15. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    I did say if it is not the resurrection then what is he talking about? You haven’t addressed the verse, I know what chapter 7 is all about but you need to address chapter 19.”

    LOL, that’s not my problem, it’s yours. I have no idea what the anonymous author had was thinking when he wrote the book all those centuries ago. All I know is that it is evident from the text that an afterlife did not figure in his theology, and this has been the view of the majority of scholars, both past and present.

    As the article I cited above states:

    “Such verses as 19:25-27 or 29:18 have been often subject to tendentious interpretations. The texts are difficult, perhaps as a consequence of later manipulations, and even in their current state their theological interpretation is not compelling.32 One may well ask: If Job was convinced of resurrection and beatific life in communion with God, why did he not make this notion the pillar of his argument? Why did he, to the contrary, so vividly highlight man’s mortality and discontinuity in Job 14:7-10?”

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      i dont really care what Aron Pinker has to say in the Jewish bible quarterly…I read quite a lot myself so you are giving me answers and its not even out of your own work.

      Job 7:7 O remember that my life is wind: mine eye shall no more see good.

      in the above verse Job is obviously making clear if you are NOT alive of the earth then how can you enjoy the favor of God, this is not talking about belief after death.

      stop reading into the text as there is nothing in the surrounding verses that suggest or even allude to the fact that he doesn’t believe in the resurrection

      in this verse Job talks about when… Job 14:14 If a man die, shall he live again? all the days of my appointed time will I wait, till my change come. What change?

      Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
      Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

      how is Job going to see God in his flesh unless he believes he going to be resurrected, so I’m sorry you will have try a little harder in proving your position against Job.

      spending time trying to dismantle the bible is waste of your time.cut and pasting Aron’s work doesn’t really cut it.

      i have read the koran and still do but not to find fault and contradictions but to better understand the countless Muslims that I speak to every week.

      Like

  16. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    I think you need to be careful what you say about the bible because the Koran is not safe from criticism but you guys never admit there are issues.”

    What issues? That’s what we have been discussing, but so far, none of you Christian apologists have brought any evidence for these so-called “issues”. Also, none of you have been able to answer the simple question of whether Dr. Qadhi is correct to say that the Quran is much better preserved than the Bible. The two loonies Lassie and Kujo have struggled to answer the question. You seem like a decent fellow, so maybe you can answer the question.

    Like

  17. I’ll answer it for him, if I understand the question whichI will not go looking for.

    The bible has been preserved in the providence of God.

    In my humble view the Quran has been preserved by various maschinations of men. That is just my belief about the two books respectively.

    I am open to be proven wrong

    Like

    • You’ve fortunately found the tried and tested method for preserving an opinion, which is, refuse to see the evidence

      Like

    • Erasmus,

      Opinions don’t matter. I have presented the evidence to show that the Bible has not been not been preserved. Moreover, I have presented the evidence to show that the Quran has been preserved. Thus, the answer to my question should be very simple.

      You are confusing the “various machinations of men” in the Bible with the Quran.

      Like

  18. Faiz,

    I am not aware of any “evidence” myself.

    I admit there are various bibles out there but one of them must be the one in which the words of God are preserved because he promised to do it in the word of the Lord, hint, see below for which version :

    6The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.

    7Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

    8The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

    Also Jesus confirmed the integrity of the OT, contradicting your prophet in the process:

    King James Bible

    For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

    King James Bible

    And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

    Like

  19. DC, it’s not about reading the Bible only to find faults in it. My point is that when one reads the Bible, it’s hard not to notice the problems and contradictions in it. Christians claim the Bible is scripture. That’s a big claim which should be backed up.

    It’s funny you want to ignore what a scholar says about the Bible when it contradicts your view. Instead of just dismissing Pinker, you should try to actually respond to the points he raises. In any case, I didn’t appeal to Pinker’s opinion. I referred to his paper to show that ancient Jewish scholars understood that the author of Job did not believe in an afterlife.

    In a fashion typical of other apologists, you try to insert your own presuppositions into the text. You believe in an afterlife, so you want the author to believe in it too. But the evidence directly from the text is weak at best, which is surprising since the belief in the afterlife is too important to mention in passing or in vague terms. Why would the author have done that?

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      I don’t believe in Jesus Christi because of what a scholar wrote as their of him, and neither sis the disciples or Paul the Apostle believe because of what some “ancient” scholar wrote.

      The whole thing is about revelation and God revealing himself to a person.

      This is the reason why I asked you what Job 19:25-26 you still haven’t answered that question.
      What does it mean to see God in your flesh…after you died…because he says in verse 29 that you may know there is a judgement.

      The denial of the afterlife is a denial of judgement day, and Job is saying there is a judgement.

      This is why Jesus said to his disciples…but whom say ye that I am?

      I’m going to rely on scholars to teach me everything about God, do,you trust your future and the afterlife to scholars? I bet you don’t I can find some very dodgy ones out there.

      The truth is you make your own mind with the information you get along with your experience with God.

      Like

    • Hey Faiz
      Any chance of a response?

      Like

  20. **im not going to rely on scholars to teach me everything.

    Like

  21. Hi Faiz
    Do you believe Jesus is the Messiah because you read the bible or because the Koran says so?

    Like

  22. Hi Faiz,

    “Erasmus, you need to look at the posts above. Specifically, you can read my article on the subject:”

    Thanks for the tip but life is too short to waste on reading scholar’s opinions.

    If a scholar could ascertain the truth about something he wouldn’t be giving his learned or unlearned opinion about it. All a scholar can do is posit the probability that what he is saying is somewhere near to the truth but he cannot say with any certainty that it is the truth or tell us how close it is to the truth. If the textual critics accidently stumble unknowingly upon the truth it is irrelevant anyway. All the truth that God has given in his wisdom and providence is in the KJV.

    The only textual critics I trust are the translators of the kjv.

    By the way is the world we live in the best of all possible worlds according to Islamic theology? If so how do you account for all the tragic things that happen to those who are too young to have made a conscious decision to reject Allah, not to mention the repercussions on those left behind?

    According to the bible evil is only made possible in a fallen world. On the other hand Allah built it in to his best possible world as an essential feature of life right from the start. I wonder why? Does the existence of disease and natural disasters square away with a God who is continually being told by Muslims that he is merciful and compassionate.

    Like

  23. C and Erasmus,

    So you essentially admit to having a biased view towards Biblical criticism. You flat-out dismiss any scholarly evidence that goes against your views, without any attempt at actually discussing the evidence, but will blindly accept any view that confirms your views.

    Erasmus, you said earlier that you are “open to be proven wrong”, but your follow-up comment proves that you are not. So your earlier claim was simply untrue. If the only people you “trust” are the translators of the KJV, then you have already made up your mind and no amount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind. But what makes you think the KJV translators are to be “trusted” anyway?

    DC, the views of the ancient scholars disproves your assertion that the author of Job believed in the afterlife. If it was as clear-cut as you claim, then surely learned scholars would not have come to a consensus on the author’s lack of belief in the afterlife. But you think that you know better? How come?

    You keep harping about a short passage in Job 19, while completely ignoring other passages which clearly deny any afterlife.

    Here is a question for you DC. Since you obviously rely on your own exegesis to help you understand the Bible, what is your view on the different genealogies of Jesus in Matthew and Luke?

    By the way, I do believe that Jesus (pbuh) was the Messiah because the Quran says so, but I hardly see how that is relevant to this discussion.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz

      I replied to you about Job 7 and Job 14 not forgetting Job 19 so I understand what you are referring when you say I avoided the scriptures you posted

      Some ancient scholars of the Jews believe in “the powers of heaven” do,you believe that? Which is why I said I don’t just believe anything scholars say.

      If you read what I said carefully I said I didn’t believe in Jesus Christ because of what a scholar wrote.

      And then you answer the question that I asked you in regards to the Job text.

      Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
      Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
      Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.
      Job 19:28 But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me?
      Job 19:29 Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment.

      What did Job mean by “seeing God in his flesh” and also what about verse 29 speaks about knowing there will be a judgement because of the sword of wrath that punishes.

      Change of subject…then you start talking about Matthew and Luke concerning genealogies, why don’t you just stay in the kitchen and answer Job 19:25-29.

      question…where does Jesus say in the Koran that he is the Messiah something like “I am the Messiah”

      Like

  24. Faiz said:

    “Erasmus, you said earlier that you are “open to be proven wrong”, but your follow-up comment proves that you are not. So your earlier claim was simply untrue.”

    I reply, not so. I am open to be proven wrong on the basis of empirical or scientific proof. If you can take any extant biblical manuscript and re-construct it’s history to prove that the kjv is not a true translation of the original inspired manuscripts then I will admit that the kjv bible is not based upon the providentially preserved hebrew and greek manuscripts correctly copied from the inspired originals.

    Having said that I don’t believe that every manuscript has to be exactly the same. A small amount of variation, God knows how much, could be within the bounds of providential preservation of the text of the inspired original.

    If you can prove that the words of the Quran come from the mouth of the angle Gabriel then I will think again. All the other possibilities, and there are many, of it’s origin have to be demonstrably proven to be impossible first. And that is an impossible task don’t you think?

    The problem is that the past is not something that can be observed, recorded or measured in terms of it’s individual events. It is beyond the reach of empirical science.

    Like

  25. DC, the problem is that the verses is Job 19 are probably the result of later corruption. Whereas other passages deny the resurrection, as I already showed, these are the only passages that seem to suggest a resurrection. This is not an accident, and scholars have recognized this. As Pinker states in another article:

    “No wonder that the thematic and textual difficulties of v. 26 convinced commentators that the verse is corrupt. Dhorme notes that “Moderns have not scrupled to correct the text, for it seems indeed that the 1st
    hemistich is hardly susceptible of a grammatical interpretation, whatever meaning is adopted for נקפו.” Moreover, some commentators found it necessary to rearrange the words in the verse, or the order of the verses. In M.H. Pope’s opinion “Various emendations have been proposed, but are scarcely worth discussing” (http://www.jhsonline.org/Articles/article_205.pdf).

    So, extensive studies of this subject have shown that you are clearly wrong, whether you want to admit it or not. The issue is much more complex than you make it out to be, but that’s to be expected from apologists.

    As far as the “change of subject”, as I said, I only asked because you seem to place much confidence in your own understanding of the Bible, and dismiss every other view. So how do you explain the different genealogies of Jesus?

    Ironically, you were the one who “changed the subject” by asking whether I believe Jesus (pbuh) is the Messiah. The Quran describes him as the Messiah on a few occasions.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Where is the Father right now? Where is Jesus right now? Where is the Holy Spirit right now?
      Obviously you will say heaven.

      We don’t need 1st John 5:7 to prove there are three in heaven, and you can also agree that they are in agreement.

      If the NIV is right in omitting the Johannine comma, then why do we have a masculine Greek article (oi) in v.7 (oi marturountes = that bear record in heaven) wrongly agreeing with three neuter nouns (Spirit, water and blood) in v.8?

      Spirit, water and blood are all neuter Greek nouns with neuter Greek articles, which would dictate a neuter Greek article in v.7, (if the Johannine comma was never in the original), but we have masculine articles (oi) in v.7,8. Why?

      I will come to,you about Job 19:25-26.

      Like

  26. Erasmus, your challenge regarding the KJV is very easily answered. Just look at 1 John 5:7-8, which reads following in the KJV:

    “7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.”

    But, the evidence shows that this is a corrupted reading. The actual reading should be:

    “7 For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement” (NIV).

    And this is not the only example. As the Evangelical scholar Daniel Wallace states:

    “The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been created by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs” (https://bible.org/article/why-i-do-not-think-king-james-bible-best-translation-available-today).

    So your confidence in the KJV has been disproven. Will you now admit that you have been proven wrong?

    Like

  27. DC, your special pleading about 1 John 5:7 does not change the fact that the earliest manuscripts do not have anything about 3 “witnesses” in heaven. That’s the problem with you guys. You always try to read the Bible with your presuppositions. The Bible says nothing about a trinity. That was a later invention. Jesus did not know anything about it. That also explains why later scribes tried to forge trinitarian verses, and even Christian scholars admit this fact. I don’t know why you keep thinking that you knew better.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      I didn’t say better than the scholars I asked you about the grammar issue in the text w hat do you think?

      If you read what I said earlier you would understand that I said we don’t need 1st John 5:7.

      I asked where is the Father, Jesus and the Holy Ghost right now?

      Here are a few guys from a few years that quote the text.

      Athanasius

      Ὥσπερ ἡ ψυχή µου µία ἐστὶν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τρισυπόστατος, ψυχὴ, λόγος, καὶ πνοή· οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς εἷς ἐστιν, ἀλλ’ ἔστι καὶ τρισ υπόστατος, Πατὴρ, Λόγος, καὶ Πνεῦµα ἅγιον….  Ὡς γὰρ ψυχὴ, λόγος καὶ πνοὴ τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ μία φύσις ψυχῆς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς ψυχαί· οὕτω Πατὴρ, Λόγος καὶ Πνεῦμα ἅγιον, τρία πρόσωπα, καὶ εἷς τῇ φύσει Θεὸς, καὶ οὐ τρεῖς θεοί.”

      “Even as my soul is one, but a triune soul, reason, and breath; so also God is one, but is also triune, Father, Word, and Holy Ghost….  For as soul, reason and breath are three features, and in substance one soul, and not three souls; so Father, Word and Holy Ghost, [are] three persons, and one God in substance, and not three gods.” (Translation by KJV Today)

      Chrysostom (c. 349 – 407 AD) wrote Adversus Judaeos (Homily 1:3) in which he used the following curious phrase:

      “Κάτω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, ἄνω τρεῖς μάρτυρες, τὸ ἀπρόσιτον τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξης δηλοῦντες.”

      “Three witnesses below, three witnesses above, showing the inaccessibility of God’s glory.” (Translation by KJV Today)

      Tertullian (c. 155 – c. 245 AD) makes a truncated reference to the Comma:

      “Ita connexus Patris in Filio et Filii in Paracleto, tres efficit coharentes, alterum ex altere, qui tres unum sunt, non unus, quomodo dictum est, Ego et Pater unum sumus.” (Against Praxeas XXV).

      “Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, one from the other, which three are one, not one [person], as it is said, “I and my Father are One.”” (Translation by KJV Today)

      Cyprian (c. 210 – 258 AD) quotes the Comma:

      “Dicit Dominus, Ego et Pater unum sumus; et iterum de Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto scriptum est: ‘Et tres unum sunt.’” (Treatise I:6).

      “The Lord says, “I and the Father are one; ” and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, “And these three are one.”

      Priscillian of Avila in c. 380 AD quotes the Comma:

      “Sicut Ioannes ait: Tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in terra: aqua caro et sanguis; et haec tria in unum sunt et tria sunt quae testimonium dicunt in caelo: pater, verbum et spiritus; et haec tria unum sunt in Christo Iesu.” (Liber Apologeticus, I.4)

      “As John says, “There are three that give testimony in earth: the water, the flesh and the blood; and these three are one and there are three that give testimony in heaven: the Father, the Word and the Spirit; and these three are one in Christ Jesus.” (Translation by KJV Today)

      These are learned men from early Christianity they are either lying or telling the truth, so I’m not disregarding scholars you haven’t even quoted any to me.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You said this…

      The Bible says nothing about a trinity. That was a later invention.

      Who invented it?

      Galatians 1:1 John :19-22 and Romans 8:11 is not an invention. The bible clearly says the Father,Son and the Holy Ghost were involved in the resurrection.

      Like

    • So? That does not = trinity. Where does it say God is three co-equal divine persons?

      Like

    • Hi Paul
      You say…where does it say? Well read the bible as it is stop making the Holy Spirit out to be an angel and also trying to make Jesus out to be an ordinary man only you might get a few answers.

      You say so? But all three have a part in raising Jesus from the dead according to the scriptures.

      Burhanuddin1 Maybe you need to present some evidence rather than accusations without names.

      And I suppose they changed all the manuscripts in eleven plus language in all centuries and countries all at the same time?

      Like

    • Elementary logic:

      ‘all three have a part in raising Jesus from the dead according to the scriptures’

      – does NOT equal three co-equal divine beings in 1 God.

      Try again.

      Like

    • Hi Paul
      You said…

      does NOT equal three co-equal divine beings in 1 God.

      Try again.

      Maybe you can explain because my bible says…

      Act 2:32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

      And then the three scriptures I mentioned explains who the God is who raised him, I’m using scriptures what are you using.

      Remember the Bart Erhman the Muslim champion says that it is a fact that Jesus was crucified.

      Your book says it didn’t take place…I would rather believe the bible and Erhman than you guys.

      Like

    • The full context of Acts 2:32:

      ‘You that are Israelites, listen to what I have to say: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with deeds of power, wonders, and signs that God did through him among you, as you yourselves know— 23 this man, handed over to you according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of those outside the law. 24 But God raised him up, having freed him from death, because it was impossible for him to be held in its power.’

      Notice that Peter says Jesus is just “a man”. Thus refuting your Trinitarianism.

      Like

    • “Who invented it?”

      A lot of people over a long period of time. They are still at it.

      Come on, you know the story, don’t you?

      Like

    • defendchrist

      I recommend

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/

      See History of Trinitarian Doctrines

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hey Burhamuddim
      You need inform me of the people responsible for creating the doctrine of the trinity and putting verses in the bible,.

      You need to let us who is responsible for changing all the manuscripts S of the bible that we know are written different languages.

      Greek, Latan,Coptic, etc.

      Like

    • Can you produce the info for these people who started the trinity myth. I have quoted early Christians before and after Nicea that quote the 1st John 5:6-8

      You guys think you are weakening a Christians faith because of 1st John 5:7 I’m sorry but that does nothing to weaken our belief.

      The Father the Son and the Holy Ghost are ALL in heaven and they are ALL in agreement. Do,you disagree that the three are in heaven?

      Even without the verse it is still true…the three are in heaven.

      Like

    • LOL. Need I?

      Liked by 1 person

  28. DC, you’re obviously a little confused. The church fathers you mentioned are not “early”. They all lived centuries after Jesus (pbuh). Also, your post actually proves exactly what I said, that the trinity concept developed over time. You referred to Tertullian and his “truncated” reference to the trinity. Really?! “Truncated”?! What happened to the holy spirit?

    Also, many of these church fathers quoted the forged verses from 1 John!!! So, they were led astray just as you have been by dishonest scribes who had to make up verses to link the trinity to scripture!

    Why were these verses forged? Why did it take an act of forgery to produce “evidence” for the trinity? You need to answer this question.

    You also a very dumb question about who “invented” the trinity. That’s not my problem. It’s yours. Also, theological ideas usually aren’t the invention of just one person or even a group of people. They usually develop over centuries, and this is what we see with the trinity. So your question is utterly ridiculous.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Hi Faiz
    Anytime you guys can’t answer things you start the name calling and attack people’s characters, furthermore you were not there to say these men were led astray they know far more than you in regards to the scriptures.

    Cyprian 200 – 258 AD. “The Lord says, ‘I and the Father are one;’ and again it is written of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, ‘And these three are one’.”
    If Cyprian quotes I John 5:7 from his Bible in 200• 258 AD, it must be a valid reading. His Bible was copied from an older manuscript containing this verse.

    The claim of “invention” was made up by the Muslims not us you need to prove that the verse was not mentioned early or should I say written early.

    For your information 1st John 5:7 is not about proving the Trinity it’s about something in the text that maybe I should quickly explain to you.

    1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.
    1Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
    1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.
    1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
    1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
    1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.

    The key word in the text is RECORD because it is about our salvation through Jesus Christ.

    Record= THAT GOD HATH GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE, AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON.

    You are wasting your time about the Trinity this is not the text I would go,to, furthermore the verses are speaking about eternal life given to us who believe.

    Beareth witness…bear record.

    The Holy Ghost bearing record.

    Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
    Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
    Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

    The Father bearing record.

    Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
    Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

    Jesus bearing record.

    Joh 8:18 I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

    These are three that bear record of the Son of God…and they are all in heaven.

    We can have confidences!

    1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
    That You May Know

    1Jn 5:13 These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have

    You don’t even understand why Christians believe what they believe these verses are about salvation.

    Like

    • DC, don’t blame me if your posts are riddled with fallacies and false assumptions. Do a little better research and you won’t have these problems! 😉

      Case in point: your rather simplistic approach to Cyprian. Here is what Daniel Wallace says on the matter (remember, he’s the guy who is much beloved in Christian circles for debating Bart Ehrman):

      “that Cyprian interpreted 1 John 5:7-8 to refer to the Trinity is likely; but that he saw the Trinitarian formula in the text is rather unlikely. Further, one of the great historical problems of regarding the Comma as authentic is how it escaped all Greek witnesses for a millennium and a half. That it at first shows up in Latin, starting with Priscillian in c. 380 (as even the hard evidence provided by Maynard shows), explains why it is not found in the early or even the majority of Greek witnesses. All the historical data point in one of two directions: (1) This reading was a gloss added by Latin patristic writers whose interpretive zeal caused them to insert these words into Holy Writ; or (2) this interpretation was a gloss, written in the margins of some Latin MSS, probably sometime between 250 and 350, that got incorporated into the text by a scribe who was not sure whether it was a comment on scripture or scripture itself (a phenomenon that was not uncommon with scribes)” (https://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprian).

      So, Cyprian was not quoting the Johannine Comma, but most likely interpreted the particular passage as referring to the trinity. Furthermore, the passage in question has virtually NO historical evidence to support it. Here is what Wallace says:

      “The Comma occurs only in about 8 MSS, mostly in the margins, and all of them quite late. Metzger, in his Textual Commentary (2nd edition), after commenting on the Greek MS testimony, says this (p. 648):

      (2) The passage is quoted in none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.

      (3) The passage is absent from the manuscripts of all ancient versions (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Arabic, Slavonic), except the Latin; and it is not found (a) in the Old Latin in its early form (Tertullian Cyprian Augustine), or in the Vulgate (b) as issued by Jerome … or (c) as revised by Alcuin…

      The earliest instance of the passage being quoted as a part of the actual text of the Epistle [italics added] is in a fourth century Latin treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus (chap. 4), attributed either to the Spanish heretic Priscillian (died about 385) or to his follower Bishop Instantius. Apparently the gloss arose when the original passage was understood to symbolize the Trinity (through the mention of three witnesses: the Spirit, the water, and the blood), an interpretation that may have been written first as a marginal note that afterwards found its way into the text.”

      Is this really the best you guys can do? This is the best evidence for your trinity, the most important concept in your religion??

      I am not interested in the meaning of the verse. I could care less. I am not a Christian. I want you to prove that your trinity was known to the early followers of Jesus. Thus far, you have failed miserably to do so. You even keep deceitfully using the Johannine Comma as if it is part of the original, when every reasonable person knows it is not. The evidence is against you on this matter. Will you man up and admit that you are simply mistaken?

      Liked by 1 person

  30. “The evidence is against you on this matter. Will you man up and admit that you are simply mistaken?”

    Evidence. All you have done is quote “scholars”, for what they are worth, and the church fathers.

    All fallible and uninspired.

    Like

    • ‘All fallible and uninspired.’ – like much of the New Testament…

      Like

    • LOL, so what “evidence” do you have to prove me wrong?

      Like

    • To,Faiz
      I don’t think you have read a word what I wrote about the text it is to do with eternal life throughJesus Christ…the record

      And then Paul comes out with the classic statement…the NT is uninspired that’s great coming from a backslider.

      Your last days effort against the word of God and the Jesus Chrost is going to fail miserably.

      Faiz you haven’t dealt with the text it’s the record on the earth and in heaven that is the issue, you keep on about the trinity and church fathers

      Deal,with the record in heaven The Father the Word and the Holy Ghost.

      We know the Father is in heaven.

      Jesus says he was from heaven and is there now.

      We know the Holy Ghost is in heaven.

      The bible says the Father spoke from heaven “this is beloved Son” …this is a heavenly witness

      The bible says the Holy Ghost came upon Jesus….this is a heavenly witness.

      Deal,with the text just deal with the text.

      Paul says ouch! This is painless.

      Like

  31. DC, you still don’t get it. I am not interested in the verse. This is not Bible class. I am interested in why Christian scribes felt the need to forge a verse to prove their trinity and why such a concept is absent from the Bible. Your presuppositions are not going to persuade anyone. Why don’t you admit that you are mistaken about the Johannine Comma? Even your scholars disprove your opinions.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      And that’s the problem you are not interested in what the verses are really speaking about, you want to home in on verse 7 even though I showed you without verse 7 the trinity is still a reality. I have already showed you the heavenly witnesses.

      Well if the verse is not authentic then who are the witnesses in hesven? I already gave you the answer but maybe you can give me the correct scholarly answer.

      I’m not going to heaven because of what a scholar says my salvation has to do with who Jesus is, didn’t the scripture say the Word became flesh so didn’t the word come FROM heaven.

      Nothing I have said from the bible is twisted to suit my opinion.

      The witness of God is greater…The Father The Word and the Holy Ghost. Without the verse they are still the witnesses.

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      If you are not interested in the verse why are you debating about it…if you can’t answer the question i put forward just say so.

      …presuppositions. What are you talking about? You say it’s not a bible class and I know that but you are debating about bible verses so unless you studied the bible yourself how did you come to your present position is it by what others have told you?

      My point to you is that there ARE heavenly witnesses even if you take verse 7 out, I gave you the verses that prove the witnesses that are in heaven.

      The Father…Son…The Holy Ghost…all three are in the NT and involved because this is all about Eternal life in the Son, if you have the Son you have life.

      This verse speaks about the witness of men and the witness of God which is greater.

      1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

      So answer me this question please…

      If verse 8 is the witness of men…in the earth where is the witness of God? John says that witness is greater.

      1Jn 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.

      Then we read these verses…

      1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
      1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
      1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

      So Faiz please tell me where the record of God is in these verses, more to the point who testified of Jesus as the Son of God in the gospels?

      Let me put the verses because you still don’t get it.

      The Father speaks about the Son

      Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
      Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

      The Son

      Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

      The Spirit remaining upon the Son.

      Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
      Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
      Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

      These are three that bear record in heaven…this is witness of God!

      This is just reading the scriptures no twisting and turning and stretching just plain old reading, I don’t need what scholars say to deal with you.

      Like

  32. LOL DC, no the problem is that I don’t care about your personal exegesis, which has already been shown to be flawed. Your presuppositions are part of the problem.

    Like I said, this isn’t Bible class. I am not interested in learning about Christianity. I have learned about it already and I don’t need you to explain it to me. Know your place, dude.

    I am interested in why Christians cannot provide explicit references to their so-called trinity, except through personal exegesis based on their presuppositions and/or forged verses! You have failed to answer this question, in a fashion typical of other apologists.

    Why can’t you admit that the Johannine Comma is not authentic? Obviously, without the Johnannine Comma, 1 John was ambiguous so Christians had to apply their personal exegesis and interpret the verse in a way that confirmed their presuppositions. It’s a Christian tradition apparently! LOL!!

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You see you can’t even discuss and produce anything…”know my place” you know nothing about me, and anyone can talk big online it means nothing to me.

      You show me where what I have said is flawed, you try to wax eloquent on the blog but you can’t even refute what am I saying to you.

      If you don’t want to discuss and debate on the blog why are you on here, talking big on the blog doesn’t mean jack to me.

      Everything time you some of you guys encounter a bit of difficulty you start name calling or attack character or for you at this moment start acting like you know everything.

      Well Faiz if you already know then deal with the issue of the RECORD of the heavenly witnesses

      What do you want me to admit that there are no heavenly witnesses?

      Didn’t I say to you at the beginning I don’t need the 1st John 5:7 to prove my case and I did so I’m waiting for you to refute me.

      Like

  33. LOL DC, I’ve produced a lot of evidence. You just want to dismiss it because you don’t want to admit the truth. So again I say, know your place. No one asked you to be a teacher. Like I said, I have done my research. You obviously haven’t. Don’t take your frustrations out on me!

    The silly thing about your entire premise is of the “witnesses”. You keep harping about “witnesses” in “heaven”, but 1 John 5 says nothing about “witnesses” in “heaven”.

    “For there are three that testify: 8 the[a] Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”

    See? Nothing about “witnesses in heave”. You’re still relying on the unreliable Johannine Comma, which states:

    “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.”

    But as I have already established, the Johannine Comma is a forgery. Your failures to defend the trinity are your problem. Don’t take it out on me. 😉

    Like

    • Faiz
      You are missing the whole point of what the verses are about in the chapter of 1st John 5. This is not about the trinity, this is about WHO Jesus is and the heavenly and earthly testimony

      There are three that bear witness in the earth…the spirit…the water…the blood.

      There are three that bear record in heaven…The Father…The Word…The Holy Ghost.

      You said…
      The silly thing about your entire premise is of the “witnesses”. You keep harping about “witnesses” in “heaven”, but 1 John 5 says nothing about “witnesses” in “heaven”.

      Ok what or where is the witness of God concerning Jesus because verse 9 says it greater than the testimony of men

      1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

      What is the witness of God about Jesus?

      The Father

      Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
      Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well please

      The Word

      Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

      The Holy Ghost.

      Joh 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him.
      Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
      Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God.

      This is what 1st John 5 is all about its about who heaven says Jesus is.

      Without verse 7 from scripture we can still see who God is and his testimony of Jesus is.

      Like

  34. LOL DC, you keep proving again and again how your presuppositions dictate everything you see in the Bible. There is nothing in the NT that points to a trinity. Christians developed the concept over many decades and centuries. It’s no wonder that they had to forge verses to “prove” it.

    You guys can’t pinpoint any explicit reference to the trinity, so you quote snippets from different books to try to pin it down. But even then, there is nothing about the trinity. It’s just you applying your preconceived belief onto an unwilling text, kind of like putting the cart before the horse.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      I don’t know what your attraction is to the Trinity this is probably the fourth time I have said this.
      1ST JOHN 5:1-11 IS NOT ABOUT THE TRINITY IT IS ABOUT THE TESTIMONY THAT JESUS IS THE SON OF GOD.

      I don’t know how much clearer I can make this for you, I have said that the witness of God is greater than the witness of men.

      Here is my point that you just don’t seem to get…if verse 7 is not meant to be in the chapter that’s fine, but please explain to me what the witness of God is about Jesus.

      So me believing that verse 7 should in the text or not isn’t the issue, the question answered by the text is that Jesus IS the Son of God.

      One more time…WE DONT NEED VERSE 7.

      We know from scripture the following…

      Father testifies…Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

      Jesus testifies…Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

      Holy Ghost testifies…Joh 1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
      Joh 1:34 And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God

      You said…
      The silly thing about your entire premise is of the “witnesses”. You keep harping about “witnesses” in “heaven”, but 1 John 5 says nothing about “witnesses” in “heaven”.

      You guys can’t pinpoint any explicit reference to the trinity, so you quote snippets from different books to try to pin it down. But even then, there is nothing about the trinity.
      Ok Faiz read the verses carefully remember what the verses are actually saying not what you want them not to say.

      Read this please…

      Mat 3:16 And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him:
      Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

      Where did Jesus say he came from?
      Where did the spirit come from?
      Where did the voice of the father come from?

      The answer to the question is heaven right? Isn’t that what 1st John 5:7 says in fact where are the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost right now?

      1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.
      1Jn 5:10 He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son.
      1Jn 5:11 And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.
      1Jn 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

      Verse 9…The witness of God is greater ( where is God in heaven)

      Joh 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.
      Joh 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
      Joh 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

      I won’t be addressing this again.

      Like

  35. DC, you just don’t get it. Whether you want to “address” it again or not (I could care less), the issue is why your Bible does not have any explicit reference to the trinity. You don’t get it that every attempt you make at defending the trinity is based on your presuppositions. You believe in the trinity from the get-go, and so you read the Bible with that assumption. It’s a circular argument.

    I showed that there is nothing in 1 John 5 about the trinity or heavenly “witnesses”. You need to get over it.

    Like

    • Hi Faiz
      You don’t seem be understanding what I am saying…is Jesus the Son of God? You are obviously going to say no!

      Is there anyone in the gospels that witnessed to the fact that Jesus is the Son of God? Yes!

      The Father said so…where is the Father? In heaven.

      The Son said so…where is the Son? In heaven.

      The Holy Spirit abides upon him…where is the Holy Spirit? In heaven.

      You said…

      I showed that there is nothing in 1 John 5 about the trinity or heavenly “witnesses”. You need to get over it.

      Well…

      1Jn 5:6 This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

      The bible just said…and the spirit that beareth WITNESS. Where is the Holy Ghost from?

      And…

      1Jn 5:9 If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

      What is the WITNESS of God that is greater?

      Mat 3:17 And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

      Where did the voice come from? Heaven! The Father gave WITNESS that Jesus is his Son.

      Are you telling me now after what I have just written that there are no WITNESSES in heaven?

      You are the one that needs to get over it, reading verses 6 straight to verse 8 doesn’t seem straight forward to me.

      Is there anyone out that can understand what I am saying to Faiz because the context of the 1st John 5 is nothing to do with the Trinity but Jesus as the Son and who we get Eternal life.

      Like

    • LOL, still not getting it? Your presuppositions are the problem! You read everything in the Bible with your trinitarian presuppositions.

      To be called the “son of God” did not mean a person was divine. And even if it did, you still have to explain where the trinity came from because the Bible simply does not mention it.

      The fact is that Christians invented the trinity after the fact. You interpret everything in light of that invention. It’s like putting the cart before the horse. Your personal exegesis is not very impressive at all!

      I have shown you ample evidence that the trinity is a made-up concept, which is why Christians had to forge verses to “prove” it. And when those forged verses are exposed, Christians are forced to make up their own exegesis, as shown in your posts.

      Like

    • Hey Faiz
      It’s your ignorance and your own presupposition something you like to accuse everyone else of.

      Can you please explain what you mean by “trinitarian presupposition” I suppose you don’t read anything about God with a “Unitarian presupposition” you are so full of pride and intellectually dishonest!

      The problem you have is at no time have you with scripture refuted what I have said, that shows how shallow you I’m not even using scholarly works I have dealt with you with scripture.

      the truth is, is everyone has presupposition so stop talking about the trinity and refute me in 1st John 5 about what it is really talking look at the CONTEXT not what you want to see.

      Like

    • LOL DC, get over yourself man! A Unitarian position is much more logical than a trinitarian one. There is nothing to suggest a trinitarian God. Be honest with yourself. If you didn’t know anything about the trinity, and you were to read the Bible, do you honestly think you would conclude that God is a trinity?

      Why did Christians have to invent verses to “prove” their trinity? You still haven’t answered this question. I wonder why?!

      Like

    • Hi Faiz
      Maybe I can get your thoughts on this because you are adamant that the Angels had sex with women.

      Does God call demons his sons?

      And if he doesn’t are you saying that this is the act of righteous Angels?

      Like

  36. DC said:

    “Hi Faiz
    Maybe I can get your thoughts on this because you are adamant that the Angels had sex with women.

    Does God call demons his sons?

    And if he doesn’t are you saying that this is the act of righteous Angels?”

    LOL, wrong thread DC! I will answer your question on the correct thread. Get it together!

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: