<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  

Stolen From The Bible

August 20 2007 at 3:23 AM
  (Login iris89)
Forum Owner

Stolen From The Bible

FIRST, Many take exerts and information from the Bible which of course is fine as long as they give full credit to their source. However, when they fail do so this is a form of stealing known as plagiarism.

Now exactly what is plagiarism according to the dictionary? Well here is a dictionaries definition of it in its various forms:

Plagiarism
<XPAGE=1093Pla"gia*rism (?), n. [Cf. F. plagiarisme.]
1. The act or practice of plagiarizing.
2. That which plagiarized.
Plagiarist
<XPAGE=1093Pla"gia*rist (?), n. One who plagiarizes; or purloins the words, writings, or ideas of another, and passes them off as his own; a literary thief; a plagiary.
Plagiarize
<XPAGE=1093Pla"gia*rize (?), v. t. [imp. & p. p. Plagiarized (?); p. pr. & vb. n. Plagiarizing.] To steal or purloin from the writings of another; to appropriate without due acknowledgement (the ideas or expressions of another).
[source - Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition]

Now that we understand what 'plagiarism' is, keep this in mind when reading the facts to be presented.

SECOND, Internal construction linguistically speaking, and information or data contained within the Qur'an as it now exist, whether distorted or not distorted could only have come from the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible - Now the facts:

1A. Presented in brief exerts from the works of Christoph Luxenberg a renown scholar of language who writes under a pseudonymic name to protect himself against possible violent repercussions which is testimony to the violent nature of some in Islam. But the quality of his work speaks for itself. An encyclopedia says the following of him,
<<" Christoph Luxenberg is a German scholar and professor of ancient Semitic and Arabic languages [1]. He is the author of The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran: a contribution to the decoding of the language of the Qur'an (2007)), and several articles in anthologies about early Islam.
Luxenberg came into the public eye in the years after 2000, following the publication of his first book (at least the first one under this pseudonym) The Syro-Aramaic Reading Of The Koran which asserted that the language of the early compositions of the Qu'ran's is not exclusively Arabic, as assumed by the classical commentators, but rather is rooted in the Syrio- Aramic dialect of the 7th century Meccan Quraysh tribe which is associated in the early histories with the founding of the religion of Islam. Luxenberg's premise is that the Aramaic language ­ prevalent throughout the Middle East and during the early period of Islam was the the language of culture and Christian liturgy ­ and had a profound influence on the scriptural composition and meaning of the contents of the Koran. [2][reference - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia]">>.

In his latest work, he has conclusively proven linguistically speaking that the Qur'an was written using information taken from the Bible without giving due credit to the source. See,

---" Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache". Berlin, Germany: Das Arabische Buch, First Edition, 2000. Pp. ix + 306, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2003.---

On this book, Newsweek, said,

<< "Challenging the Quran." The Newsweek article reports on a 2000 book in German, Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache, by a scholar using the pseudonym Christoph Luxenberg. The details of Luxenberg's intricate and ambitious philological study are too complex to enter into here; for a detailed English-language synopsis, see the review by Robert R. Phenix Jr. and Cornelia B. Horn in Hugoye: Journal of Syriac Studies.) (For a simplified presentation, see the interview with Luxenberg in Süddeutsche Zeitung.) Suffice to say that Luxenberg's most famous conclusion is that the houris awaiting Muslim martyrs in paradise are not the anticipated wide-eyed virgins but white grapes. Newsweek concludes with the apt prediction that "Luxenberg may be ushering in a whole new era of Qur'anic study."[reference - Newsweek International's July 28, 2003 article]">>.

More details from Luxenberg's book,
<<"The rest of the section draws on personal names of Biblical origin in the Qur'an to demonstrate that the so-called Arabic matres lectionis, 'alif, waw, and ya, must also be polyvalent. Luxenberg points out that Islamic tradition admits a reading of the mater for long /a/ in certain instances as /e/ because this pronunciation was a peculiarity of the Arabic of Mecca. Luxenberg shows that the term harf, "sign" must also carry a meaning synonymous to qira'at, "(way of) reading" and that this is not only supplying the vowels in an unvocalized text, but also supplying the diacritical points that distinguish consonants. It is only gradually that these diacritical points became fixed so that consonants came to have just one reading. This process of determining the value of each letter of the Qur'an unfolded over some three hundred years. This is known from the oldest manuscripts of the Qur'an which do not have the diacritical points distinguishing readings of a single consonant. By the time these became commonly used, Arabian commentators were no longer aware that many words were either straight Aramaic or were calques peculiar to Meccan Arabic. From this resulted the difficulties that the Qur'an posed to even the earliest Arabian commentators...

The section concludes by demonstrating that the technical meaning of "lectionary" is preserved in the word qur'an. Most striking is the conclusion that the term umm kitab, an aramaism, must be a written source and that the Qur'an was never intended to replace this written source. One might complain that the details of the argument for the reading of suras 12:1-2 and 3:7 are squeezed into footnotes, but nevertheless the argument is clear. Luxenberg proves that the term qur'an itself is the key to unlocking the passages that have given commentators in and outside of the tradition frustration. If quryan means "lectionary," and if the text itself claims to be a clarification of an earlier text, then that earlier text must be written in another language. The only candidate is the Old and New Testament in Syriac, the Pe****ta. Hence the influence of Aramaic on the Arabic of Muhammad has an identifiable, textual origin. At the very end of the work, Luxenberg makes a compelling argument that sura 108 is a close allusion to the Pe****ta of 1 Peter 5:8-9. Indeed this sura, which is only three lines long, is one of the most difficult passages for the Arabian as well as the Western commentators. Luxenberg shows why: it is composed of transcriptions into Arabic writing of the Syriac New Testament text, i.e., there is almost no "Arabic" in the sura. These are "revealed" texts, and insofar as the Qur'an contains quotations or paraphrases of them, the Qur'an is also "revealed." ...

Many dialects of Arabic existed at the time of Muhammad. In the ten places where the Qur'an claims to have been written in Arabic, Luxenberg shows first that these passages have grammatical forms which are difficult for the commentators and have varying interpretations among the translators. He notes that in sura 41:44, the Arabic fassala means "to divide," but the context here requires "make distinct" or better "interpret." Nowhere else does the Arabic word have this meaning, and the Syriac-Arabic lexica do not give the one as a translation for the other; tarjama (a direct borrowing from Syriac) is the usual Arabic word for "interpret." However, the Syriac praš / parreš can mean both "divide" as well as "interpret" (like Hebrew hibdil; also this is an example of a "semantic calque" mentioned above). Tabari too understands fassala to be a synonym for bayyana (sura 44:3), which also has the meaning "interpret." Sura 41:44 also clearly attests to a source for the Qur'an that is written in a foreign language. Luxenberg, following Tabari, notes a corruption in the text of this verse that clearly shows that part of the Qur'an has a non-Arabic source. His argument here is somewhat weak if not for the further evidence deduced from eleven other locations in the Qur'an where Luxenberg consistently applies these and similar arguments to difficulties all of which center on the terms related to the revelation and language of the Qur'an. These arguments leave little doubt, that Luxenberg has uncovered a key misunderstanding of these terms throughout the Qur'an....

In section twelve Luxenberg demonstrates that not only the origin and language of the Qur'an are different from what the commentators who wrote two hundred years after its inception claim it to be, but that several key passages contain words or idioms that were borrowed from Syriac into Arabic. From his analysis of sura 19:24 (in the so-called "Marian Sura"): "Then he called to her from beneath her: 'Grieve not; thy Lord hath placed beneath thee a streamlet,'" he concludes that it should be read "He called to her immediately after her laying-down (to give birth 'Grieve not; thy Lord has made your laying-down legitimate.'" Luxenberg's lengthy discussion of the complexities of this passage resolve grammatical difficulties in the Arabic in a way that fits the context: Jesus gives Mary the courage to face her relatives even with a child born out of wedlock. The section then presents lengthy arguments dealing with various lexical, morphological, syntactic and versification problems in sura 11:116-117...

In that same section, one also finds a study of how Syriac roots were misread and altered by later commentators. In one case, the word jaw (sura 16:79) misread "air, atmosphere" is from Syriac gaw, which means both "insides, inner part" and can also be used as a preposition meaning "inside." In sura 16:79 Luxenberg demonstrates that the prepositional use makes more sense than the solution posed by the commentators. Classical Arabic grammar, which was created three hundred years after the Qur'an, does not recall the prepositional meaning of the word. However, dialects of Arabic preserve the original Syriac prepositional use. So where sura 16:79 reads fi jaw as-sama' "in(side) heaven" referring to birds held aloft and kept from falling down by God, the dialects agree: fi jawwat al-bet "inside the house" is perfectly good Arabic. The misreading of Qur'anic Arabic jaw as "air" has become part of the technical vocabulary of modern standard Arabic: "air mail," "air force," "airline," and "weather report" all use jaw. The imaginary meaning of the grammarians lives on. ...

Section sixteen follows this investigation as it points to a similar misreading of paradise's grapes as youths, Arabic wildun. Sura 76:19 "Round amongst them go boys of perpetual youth, whom when one see, he thinks them pearls unstrung" (sura 16.1, citing Bell's translation). Wildun is a genuinely Arabic word, but it is used in a sense which is borrowed from Syriac yalda. Youths like pearls is somewhat suspicious, especially given that "pearls" are a metaphor for the grapes of paradise from the previous section. Luxenberg uncovered that Syriac has the expression yalda dagpetta, "child of the vine," appearing in the Pe****ta: Matthew 26:29, Mark 14:25, and Luke 22:18, in which Christ foreshadows his death and resurrection: "I will not drink of this child of the vine (yalda dagpetta) until the day when I drink it new in the kingdom of my Father." Here it is the juice of the grape that is the "child." Entries in the Arabic-Syriac lexica for each of yalda and gpetta give in addition to "child" and "vine" "fruit" and "wine," respectively. Luxenberg gives further evidence from suras 37:45, 43:71, and 76:15 that Ephraem the Syrian's depiction of the grapes of paradise is behind the original Qur'anic text.

A central question that this investigation raises is the motivation of cUthman in preparing his redaction of the Qur'an. Luxenberg presents the two hadith traditions recounting how cUthman came to possess the first manuscript. If Luxenberg's analysis is even in broad outline correct, the content of the Qur'an was substantially different at the time of Muhammad and Uthman's redaction played a part in the misreading of key passages. Were these misreadings intentional or not? The misreadings in general alter the Qur'an from a book that is more or less harmonious with the New Testament and Syriac Christian liturgy and literature to one that is distinct, of independent origin. " [source - book review is contained in, "HUGOYE: JOURNAL OF SYRIAC STUDIES," book review of Christoph Luxenberg (ps.) Die syro-aramaeische Lesart des Koran; Ein Beitrag zur Entschlüsselung der Qur'ansprache. Berlin, Germany: Das Arabische Buch, First Edition, 2000. Pp. ix + 306, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 2003.]>>.

No objective counter with facts was presented by any in Islam, only opinionated conjecture.

2A. Presented scripture in Bible from which Muhammad had his scribes present information regarding birth of Jesus in Qur'an, i.e., Luke 1:35, "And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." (Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible; DRCB).

In Qur'an, the information taken from the Bible without due credit:

Sura 3:47:
YUSUFALI: She said: "O my Lord! How shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth: When He hath decreed a plan, He but saith to it, 'Be,' and it is!
PICKTHAL: She said: My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me? He said: So (it will be). Allah createth what He will. If He decreeth a thing, He saith unto it only: Be! and it is.
SHAKIR: She said: My Lord! when shall there be a son (born) to I me, and man has not touched me? He said: Even so, Allah creates what He pleases; when He has decreed a matter, He only says to it, Be, and it is.]

Sura 3:48:
YUSUFALI: "And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom, the Law and the Gospel,
PICKTHAL: And He will teach him the Scripture and wisdom, and the Torah and the Gospel,
SHAKIR: And He will teach him the Book and the wisdom and the Tavrat and the Injeel. ]

Only opinionated conjecture offered to refute plus nonsense about Qur'an wording being better than the Bible from which it was taken without due credit being given. Fact 1, Both Bible and Quran wording given is only a version or translation, Fact 2, Information given in Suras clearly show their source in example - the Bible.

3A. Evidence given from Qur'an to prove ancient Kingdom of the Hebrews and one of its kings, Solomon, clearly indicate Bible as the reference and show no credit given to source which today is known as plagiarism. For details, read Suras 27:20 to 27:45 and 21:81 to 21:82, and see for yourself information that Muhammad could only have gotten from the Bible, but failed to give credit to the Bible. [note: this information was originally presented to show that the Jews had an ancient kingdom in Palestine and not to show Muhammad got his information from the Bible which it also does.]

4A. Same as '3' but on the Queen who visited King Solomon, see Suras 34:12 to 34:14.

THIRD, Dispelling the false claim made by many in Islam that Muhammad did not have access to the Bible:

1B. Many in Islam claim that Muhammad could not have copied nor gotten his ideas from the Inspired Word of Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible, but this is not so. The fact is that Muhammad had Christians in his family from whom he learned about the Bible from and scribes to read it to him as he was illiterate. After learning much about the Bible, he started dictating to his scribes what he wanted written down, and as all know a process like this can only product a distorted product as compared to the original, the inspired word of the true Almighty God (YHWH), the Bible.

Now most in Islam will not agree with this fact, the truth, per John 8:32, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (Authorized King James Bible; AV), but the facts sustain it. Let's look at his connection to Christianity through his relatives as reported in an Islamic source.

Many Muslims have argued that Muhammad only met Jews or Christians only on very few occasions, by far too short to be sufficient to gain any real knowledge of the earlier scriptures. In particular, they were not translated into Arabic at this time. The content of the Qur'an therefore does not come from human sources but can only be through direct revelation from God.

It is quite possible that the scriptures probably did not exist in Arabic at that time, at least not completely or widely known, but even the non-existence of scriptures in Arabic is irrelevant as we shall shortly see.

A Muslim sources tell us about a certain Waraqa bin Nawfal, a Christian, and in what way Muhammad was related to him.
<<"Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 1, Number 3: Narrated 'Aisha:

(the mother of the faithful believers) The commencement of the Divine Inspiration to Allah's Apostle was in the form of good dreams which came true like bright day light, and then the love of seclusion was bestowed upon him. He used to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days before his desire to see his family. He used to take with him the journey food for the stay and then come back to (his wife) Khadija to take his food like-wise again till suddenly the Truth descended upon him while he was in the cave of Hira. The angel came to him and asked him to read. The Prophet replied, "I do not know how to read.

The Prophet added, "The angel caught me (forcefully) and pressed me so hard that I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read and I replied, 'I do not know how to read.' Thereupon he caught me again and pressed me a second time till I could not bear it any more. He then released me and again asked me to read but again I replied, 'I do not know how to read (or what shall I read)?' Thereupon he caught me for the third time and pressed me, and then released me and said, 'Read in the name of your Lord, who has created (all that exists) has created man from a clot. Read! And your Lord is the Most Generous." (Suras 96.1, 96.2, 96.3) Then Allah's Apostle returned with the Inspiration and with his heart beating severely. Then he went to Khadija bint Khuwailid and said, "Cover me! Cover me!" They covered him till his fear was over and after that he told her everything that had happened and said, "I fear that something may happen to me." Khadija replied, "Never! By Allah, Allah will never disgrace you. You keep good relations with your Kith and kin, help the poor and the destitute, serve your guests generously and assist the deserving calamity-afflicted ones."

Khadija then accompanied him to her cousin Waraqa bin Nawfal bin Asad bin 'Abdul 'Uzza, who, during the PreIslamic Period became a Christian and used to write the writing with Hebrew letters. He would write from the Gospel in Hebrew as much as Allah wished him to write. He was an old man and had lost his eyesight. Khadija said to Waraqa, "Listen to the story of your nephew, O my cousin!" Waraqa asked, "O my nephew! What have you seen?" Allah's Apostle described whatever he had seen. Waraqa said, "This is the same one who keeps the secrets (angel Gabriel) whom Allah had sent to Moses. I wish I were young and could live up to the time when your people would turn you out." Allah's Apostle asked, "Will they drive me out?" Waraqa replied in the affirmative and said, "Anyone (man) who came with something similar to what you have brought was treated with hostility; and if I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." But after a few days Waraqa died and the Divine Inspiration was also paused for a while. ...

Some essential statements above:
1. "his desire to see his family."
2. "You keep good relations with your Kith and kin"

This shows that Muhammad was a "family man", and given that the middle eastern culture is well known for its family orientedness (something I very much appreciate in Muslims) and that in this setting Muhammad was seemingly even a very good example (otherwise this would not have been mentioned as special virtue) we can deduce that he probably spend much time with his relatives keeping a good relationship, and that means regular visiting.

Furthermore, nobody will deny that Muhammad was already religious before he had this first encounter in the cave on Mt. Hira. After all, he went there to meditate and pray. As the hadith says, it was a habit of his: "He USED to go in seclusion in the cave of Hira where he used to worship (Allah alone) continuously for many days..."

The big question now is:
What will such a religious man talk about when he visits his relatives? Would it be too much to guess that religion will be a major part of these conversations?
And what do we see happening here when Muhammad is disturbed and frightened by a "religious experience"? After calming down a bit at home with his wife, who is the person they visit first?

Waraqa bin Nawfal. Seemingly, he is seen by Khadija and Muhammad as an authority in spiritual matters. And he is the cousin of his wife. And he is a Christian familiar with the scriptures since, after all, he is making copies of the scriptures, whether for personal study or for a fellowship/church of Christians.
So, these are the facts:">>.

So Islam's argument that he, Muhammad had little contact with either Jews or Christians is an outright lie as is the other claims made for the Qur'an. Most of the other claims are quite similar to those of Joseph Smith for the Book of Mormon; to wit, the book was received from an angel - but no factual proof has ever been produced for either of this alleged receipts from angels.

2B. Jewish comment on the Qur'an, <<"Critics of the Qur'an say it is nothing more than the combination of the Bible and Jewish and Christian folklore with Muhammad appended. Critics reject the idea that the Qur'an is miraculously perfect and impossible to imitate. Jewish Encyclopedia, for example, writes: "The language of the Koran is held by the Mohammedans to be a peerless model of perfection. An impartial observer, however, finds many peculiarities in it. Especially noteworthy is the fact that a sentence in which something is said concerning Allah is sometimes followed immediately by another in which Allah is the speaker; examples of this are suras xvi. 81, xxvii. 61, xxxi. 9, and xliii. 10".[14] However other scholars argue that this sudden shift in the pronoun of the speaker or the person spoken about is known as iltifat (to turn/turn one's face to) in balagha (Arabic Rheotoric).[15] Many peculiarities in the positions of words are due to the necessities of rhyme (lxix. 31, lxxiv. 3), while the use of many rare words and new forms may be traced to the same cause (comp. especially xix. 8, 9, 11, 16)."[16].
According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, "The dependence of Mohammed upon his Jewish teachers or upon what he heard of the Jewish Haggadah and Jewish practises is now generally conceded."[17]

Referneces:
[15] Jewish Encyclpoedia: comp. also xvi. 70
[16] Jewish Encyclpoedia: comp. also xvi. 70
[17] Jewish Encyclpoedia: comp. also xvi. 70
[source - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Qur'an ]">>.

FOURTH, There are distortions of facts in the Qur'an as ideas and concept were either not understood or comprehended by Muhammad or his scribes just goofed up.

1C The Qur'an says that Jesus (Yeshua) did not die, but the Bible clearly shows he was executed as does history.

The Qur'an at Sura 4:157,
YUSUFALI: That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not:-
PICKTHAL: And because of their saying: We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger - they slew him not nor crucified him, but it appeared so unto them; and lo! those who disagree concerning it are in doubt thereof; they have no knowledge thereof save pursuit of a conjecture; they slew him not for certain.
SHAKIR: And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.

But his does not jive with reality, the Bible, or history. The historical facts are, <<" This passage denying Jesus' actual death absorbs Gnostic teaching circulating around the larger Mediterranean world, which holds that the flesh, the physical body, is evil. Therefore, a divine person like Jesus could not really die in the flesh, but would merely appear to do so, though Muhammad did not hold that Jesus was divine, but merely a prophet like himself. (For more information on Gnosticism and other sources inspiring this belief in the Quran, see this chapter, and scroll down to "Denial of the Crucifixion of Jesus.") Thus, later Muslims who adopt an absolutist interpretation of straightforward verses have difficulties in showing that Jesus was not crucified. Some commentators, for example, Maulana Muhammad Ali, assert without reliable evidence that Jesus traveled to Kashmir and was buried there (Sura 23:50). Though he belongs to the Ahmadiyyah sect, this shows how far revelation and the interpretation of revelations can go astray. But how can we blame Maulana Ali? After all, Muhammad went astray in Sura 4:157.
The following syllogism reflects the conflict between an absolutist doctrine of the inspiration of the Quran, a clear verse that is impossible to rationalize away (Sura 4:157), and unadorned history.
(1) Every historical fact that contradicts the revealed Quran did not actually happen.
(2) The crucifixion of Jesus is an historical fact that contradicts the revealed Quran.
(3) Therefore, the crucifixion of Jesus did not actually happen.
The conclusion can be shown to be false because the death of Jesus is supported by seven ancient texts outside of the New Testament by writers who did not favor Christianity-indeed, some were biased against it.
First, the "letter of Mara Bar-Serapion" (c. 73 AD), housed in the British Museum, asks of Jesus' crucifixion: "What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King?"
Second, the third-century Julius Africanus (c. 221 AD) reports that the first-century historian Thallus says that "when discussing the darkness which fell upon the land during the crucifixion of Christ," it was an eclipse.
Third, the Roman historian Cornelius Tacitus (c. 55-117 AD) wrote: "a wise man who was called Jesus . . . Pilate condemned him to be condemned and to die." Tacitus also notes that the disciples of Jesus "reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive."
Fourth, Josephus (c. 37-100 AD) the Jewish historian wrote: "Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him [Jesus] to the cross (18.3).
Fifth, the second-century Greek satirist Lucian (born c. 120), who traveled widely in the eastern Mediterranean world where Israel is located, in his On the Death of Peregrine, speaks of Christ "[A]s the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced a new cult into the world," also calling him a "crucified sophist."
Sixth, the Roman author Phlegon, freedman of the Emperor Hadrian (who reigned 117-38 AD) never doubted that Jesus was crucified: "Jesus, while alive, was of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death and exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been pierced by nails."
Seventh, even the Talmud does not deny the death of Jesus (his divinity is another matter): "on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth)" . . . . (Sanhedrin 43a, "Eve of Passover").
Therefore, in light of all this extra-Biblical evidence-quite apart from its theological interpretation-the historical fact of the crucifixion is verified, and the much-later Quran, to speak plainly, is wrong on this matter. This should surprise no one, for Muhammad never conducted historical research.
Therefore, the first absolutist syllogism collapses under the weight of historical facts.
For a superb analysis of how absurd this denial of the crucifixion can become even within the Quran itself, see this article.
[source - http://www.muslimhope.com/JamesArlandson/FactsVsRevelationsInTheQuran.htm]">>;.

This passage just shows that Muhammad adopted Gnostic spurious text as he did not know better.

FIFTH, As can be seen from the foregoing, Muhammad obtained all his data from the Bible, certain Jewish writings, and certain Gnostic writings so it is just a mish-mash of items for which he gave no credit to his main source copied from the Bible or any other source.

[note - written by my husband at my request]

Your Friend in Christ Iris89

 

 Respond to this message   
Current Topic - Stolen From The Bible
  << Previous Topic | Next Topic >>Return to Index  
Find more forums on ChristianityCreate your own forum at Network54
 Copyright © 1999-2014 Network54. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use   Privacy Statement