SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Ask God -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 39621
 
click



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 7:19:00 PM
From: Raymond James Norris  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
There is an important subject I'd like to address to all on this Board. I think it is of merit and pray that many people will read and respond with their thoughts. The nature of the subject is the "Seed" of Abraham and God's promised covenant with him.

Note: PBUH stands for Peace Be Unto Him/Her
PBUT stands for Peace Be Unto Them

Many Christians mistakenly believe that Abraham's descendants through Ishmael (Muhammad (Pbuh)and his ancestors) were excluded from God's covenant with Abraham (pbuh) because Ishmael's mother, Hagar, was not a legitimate wife of Abraham, thus, her son Ishmael (the father of the Arabs) was not a legitimate son of Abraham. Therefore, they conclude that Ishmael(pbuh) and his descendants were not included in God's covenant with the sons of Abraham (pbuh) and that this covenant was exclusive to Abraham's second son, Isaac.

In what follows we will disprove each of these claims, in addition to showing evidence of human tampering with the text of the Biblical verses.

The story of Ishmael according to the Bible is as follows: Abraham married Sarah (pbut). Sarah was a barren woman and bore him no children (Genesis 16:1). God then made a great promise to Abraham even before any children were born to him.

"And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed."
Genesis 12:2-3

Not long after, Sarah gave Abraham her handmaid, Hagar, to be his wife according to the legal Jewish custom of polygamous marriages (customary in the Bible among Israelites and many of their prophets).

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.."
Genesis 16:3

In Genesis 16 we are told that after Hagar (pbuh) became pregnant with Ishmael, Sarah (pbuh) felt that Hagar despised her, so she dealt with her harshly until she was forced to escape from this harsh treatment

"And when Sarai dealt harshly with her, she fled from her face"
Genesis 16:6.

The angel of God then appeared before Hagar and told her to return to Sarah and submit herself to her will and that "the Lord has heard thy affliction" and would reward her with a son called "Ishmael" (God hears) and would multiply her seed exceedingly. Hagar willingly bowed to the command of her Lord and returned and submitted herself to Sarah. In A Dictionary of Biblical tradition in English literature, we read:

"The Jewish Haggadah identifies Ishmael as one of the six men who were given a name by God before their birth (Ginzberg, LJ 1.239)."

Abraham was eighty six years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). When Abraham reached ninety-nine years of age, Ishmael was thirteen years old and remained the only son of Abraham. Now, God promises to establish his covenant with all of Abraham's "seed" without exception:

"And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee. And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God.."
Genesis 17:7-8.

God now informs Abraham that his covenant shall be given through circumcision, so Abraham immediately circumcises himself and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs (Genesis 17:23), thus establishing God's covenant with Ishmael.

To this day, all Muslims practice circumcision. The "sign and seal" (Romans 4:11) of the Abrahamic covenant.

We notice that God's covenant was promised to be with Abraham's "seed." But if we read Genesis 21:13 we will find that Ishmael is Abraham's "seed":

"And also of the son of the bondwoman......he is thy seed."

The same arguments can be made for God's covenant with Abraham

"the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates."
Genesis 15:18

As we can see, this covenant was intended to be of the same generality as God's covenants with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17), and David (2 Samuel 7; 23:5). God's covenant was intended to be a covenant with those who are obedient to Him and follow his command.

When Abraham reached one hundred years of age, God blessed him with a second son, Isaac (Genesis 21:5). Isaac was born to him through his first wife, Sarah. The Bible tells us that because of Sarah's jealousy that Ishmael may inherit with her own son Isaac (Genesis 21:10), she had Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael and send them to the wilderness of "Paran" (genesis 21:21). We are told that she was particularly angry with what she considered to be a mockery on the part of Ishmael towards her own son Isaac. This incident is alleged to have occurred after Isaac was weaned (remember this) as narrated in Genesis 21:8.

Sarah now allegedly ordered Abraham to cast Hagar and Ishmael out, (apparently, in Abraham's tribe, children who mock their brothers and sisters are to be thrown out in the nearest desert along with their mothers) Abraham obeyed Sarah and cast the "bondwoman" and her son in the desert and was blessed by God who told him to "hearken unto her voice." Abraham gave Hagar provisions and water and put her child "Ishmael" upon her shoulder and left them in the wilderness of Beer Sheba in Southern Palestine. When they ran out of water, an angel appeared and conveyed to her the words of God: "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand; for I will make him a great nation." God then showed her a well of water and they drank. Ishmael dwelt in the wilderness of "Paran" and begat twelve sons one of whom was called "Kedar." The Arabic form of the word Paran is Faran or Pharan. It means "two who migrated." It appears that the place took it's name from Hagar and Ishmael who came there as two refugees.

Muslims have a very similar narration of the same sequence of events in the Qur'an. However, in the Qur'an, the details differ from the narration of the Old Testament. Muslims respect Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Isaac, and Ishmael (pbut) as very decent, moral and pious people. Muslims believe that the prophet Abraham (pbuh) received a revelation from God to take Hagar and her BABY, Ishmael, to a barren desert in Northern Arabia (Paran), more specifically to the future location of Mecca, and to leave them there. When Abraham began to leave, Hagar called out to him "where are you leaving us?" After repeating the question three times she asked him "Did God command you to do this?" Abraham answered "yes." So Hagar said: "Then He will not forsake us." When Hagar and her baby ran out of water she began to fear for her baby's life and took to running back and forth between the two hills searching for water. Meanwhile, God sent an angel who caused water to gush out of the earth for them. This became the water of the well of "Zamzam" which the pilgrims of Mecca drink from today. Once water was found in this place the Bedouins began to settle there and it became the city of Mecca. Centuries later, Muhammad (pbuh), the prophet of Islam, was born to the descendants of Ishmael.

The major differences in the Biblical and the Qur'anic narrations are that the OT claim that Hagar was (originally) left in Beer Sheba and not Paran as stated by the Muslims, and that this occurred when Ishmael was not a baby, but a fully grown teenager.

This Old Testament narration can be found to contain obvious modifications from the following analysis:

According to the Bible, Abraham was eighty six years old when Ishmael was born (Genesis 16:16). He was one hundred years old when Isaac was born (Genesis 21:5). This makes Ishmael fourteen years older than Isaac. The above expulsion of Ishmael and his mother is alleged to have occurred after Isaac was weaned (Genesis 21:8). Muslims wean their children after two years. Biblical scholars tell us that babies were weaned about the age of three. This makes Ishmael at least seventeen years old at the time of the alleged mockery and expulsion. The profile of Ishmael in Genesis 21:14-19 however, is one of a small baby and not that of a full grown teenager of seventeen years. Let us study it.

1) According to the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible which was compiled from manuscripts more ancient than those of the King James Version of the Bible, the verse of Genesis 21:14 reads "..putting [it] on her shoulder, along with the child." Did Abraham put a seventeen year old boy on Hagar's shoulder? It would be more logical for him to put Hagar on Ishmael's shoulder if he were, as claimed, seventeen years old at the time. So Ishmael must have been a baby at the time.

2) In Genesis 21:15 we read "and she cast the child under one of the shrubs." Did Hagar "cast" a seventeen year old teenager under a shrub? This too is consistent with a baby and not a full-grown teenager.

3) We read in Genesis 21:16 that Hagar sat far away from Ishmael so as not to see him die before her own eyes. Is this the profile of a full-grown teenager who should, more appropriately be worried about his mother or of a helpless baby?

4) In Genesis 21:17 we read the angel's command to Hagar: "Arise, lift up the lad, and hold him in thine hand;" Who would be more capable of lifting the other up, Hagar or her seventeen year old teenage son? This too is the profile of a little baby.

5) Throughout this story we are drawn a picture of Hagar doing this, and Hagar doing that, and Hagar worrying, and Hagar weeping, and so on while Ishmael sits where he was "cast," under the shrub. Would a full grown teenager of seventeen sit under a shrub and wait for his mother and himself to die while his mother looked for water for him, or would he have her sit in the shade while he went in search of water?

6) Even the angel did not address both of them but only Hagar, the only one who would understand. Once again the profile of a baby and not a seventeen year old teenager.

7) Ishmael is always referred to as "the child" and "the lad" in the story. Do people usually refer to seventeen year old teenagers as "child" and "lad"?

8) In Genesis 21:20 we read that after this incident, "God was with the lad; and he grew, and dwelt in the wilderness, and became an archer." Is this a profile of a fully developed teenager or a child who is growing up, learning, and developing?

The above analysis clearly exhibits evidence of human modification to the text of this story. The claim that Ishmael mocked Isaac and that this had anything to do with Hagar's journey is an obvious fabrication since Isaac was not even born yet when this story occurred (Ishmael was still a baby). The reason for Hagar's journey was not Sarah's jealousy, Ishmael's mockery, or the racial superiority of Sarah. It was only the command of God, pure and simple. In an effort to keep all prophets of God Israelites, even God himself is alleged to have submitted to, and even blessed the alleged jealous whims of Sarah. Further, if such elaborate additions to the story could be inserted into the text, then how much simpler to change the original journey to Paran to take a detour into Beer Sheba.

The Interpreter's Bible compares the texts of Genesis 21:14-19 with Genesis 16:1-16 and draws the following conclusion:

"The inclusion in Genesis of both stories so nearly alike and yet sufficiently different to be inconsistent, is one of the many instances of the reluctance of the compilers to sacrifice any of the traditions which has become established in Israel."

As damaging and conclusive as this proof of the modification of the Old Testament is, still, it pales to insignificance before the much more devastating proof of this same fact as contradictions that I have posted here on a number of occasions.

Someone may now object: well then, the verses stating Abraham's age must be the ones which have been (unintentionally) modified. This is a valid theory, however, the problem with this theory is that first of all, these numbers were spelled out in letters and not written using numerals. Second, the transmitters of the Old Testament (the Jews) claim that every word and every letter was faithfully counted and preserved and thus, they can confidently claim that it would be impossible for unintentional errors to creep in, even by accident.

We also notice that even in the New Revised Standard version of the Bible, Genesis 16:16 and 21:5 state the same ages mentioned above. Is this not proof of the Qur'an's claim that the previous books of God were tampered with by the hands of the unscrupulous few?

It now becomes evident that sometime after God sent down the Old Testament, someone decided that they did not want the Arab descendants of Ishmael to be included in God's covenant with Abraham. Therefore, the Old Testament was "corrected" and Ishamel's lineange entirely removed.

Some people will claim that even though Ishmael was Abraham's "seed," still, "seed" is a lesser designation than "son," and only Isaac was Abraham's "son." However, the Bible also bears witness to the fact that Ishmael was Abraham's "son":

"And Abraham took Ishmael his son."
Genesis 17:23

Not only that, but the Bible tells us that Ishmael remained the legitimate son of Abraham until even after his death,

"Then Abraham gave up the ghost, and died in a good old age, an old man, and full [of years]; and was gathered to his people. And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah"
Genesis 25:8-9

So was Ishmael a lesser "son" than Isaac because Isaac's mother was Abraham's wife while Hagar was not? Once again, let us read the Bible:

"And Sarai Abram's wife took Hagar her maid....and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.."
Genesis 16:3

So the Bible also bears witness that Hagar was Abraham's legitimate wife. In fact, if this were not the case then we would be labeling prophet Abraham an adulterer. A serious accusation indeed.

Once the legitimacy of Hagar as Abraham's wife and Ishmael as his son has been established, now the objection of many becomes that Isaac was a better and truer son of Abraham because he was the son of the free woman not the bondwoman. However, this claim is not supported by the law of the Old Testament. According to this law, the first born son was to have double portions of honor, and even inheritance, and this right could not be affected by the status of his mother.

"If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated: Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn: But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his."
Deuteronomy 21:15-17

As we have already seen, God's covenant was with the "seed" of Abraham (pbuh), among whom was Ishmael. Secondly, there are many verses which specifically single out Ishmael for God's blessing. After the birth of Ishmael and before the birth of Isaac, God repeats his promise to Abraham to bless all the earth through his progeny.

"As for me, behold, my covenant [is] with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations."
Genesis 17:4

Also, "And also of the son of the bondwoman (Hagar) will I make a nation, because he [is] thy seed. ......... I will make him a great nation."
Genesis 21:13

I'd like to end with a verse from the Qur'an

"And (remember) when Abraham and Ishmael were raising the foundations of the House (the Ka'aba in Mecca), (praying): Our Lord! Accept from us (this service). Verily! You, only You, are the Hearer, the Knower. Our Lord! And make us submissive unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive unto You, and show us our ways of worship, and relent toward us. Verily! You, only You, are the Relenting, the Merciful. Our Lord! And send among them a messenger from among them who shall recite unto them Your verses, and shall instruct them in the Book and in wisdom and shall purify them. Verily! You, only You, are the Mighty, the Wise. And who desires other than the path of Abraham except he who befools himself? Truly, We chose him in this world, and Verily! In the Hereafter he shall be among the righteous. When his Lord said unto him: Surrender! he said: I have surrendered to the Lord of creation. The same did Abraham enjoin upon his sons, and also Jacob, (saying): O my sons! Verily! God hath chosen for you the (true) religion; therefore die not save as men who have surrendered. Or were you witnesses when death came to Jacob? When he said unto his sons: What will you worship after me? They said: We shall worship your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham and Ishmael and Isaac, One God, and unto Him we have surrendered. That was a nation which has passed away. They shall receive the reward of that which they earned, and you of what you earned. And you will not be asked of what they used to do. And they say: Be Jews or Christians, then you will be rightly guided. Say: Nay, rather the religion of Abraham, the upright, and he did not associate partners (with God). Say: We believe in God and that which was revealed unto us and that which was revealed unto Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the twelve sons of Jacob, and that which was given to Moses and Jesus, and that which the Prophets received from their Lord. We make no distinction between any of them, and unto Him we have surrendered. And if they believe in the like of that which you believe, then they are rightly guided. But if they turn away, then they are in discord, and God will suffice you against them. He is the Hearer, the Knower. The religion of God!, and which religion can be better than God's? and we are His worshippers. Say (unto the People of the Scripture): Do you dispute with us concerning God when He is our Lord and your Lord? Ours are our works and yours your works. And we are sincere in worship to Him(alone). Or do you say that Abraham, and Ishmael, and Isaac, and Jacob, and the sons of Jacob were Jews or Christians? Say: Do you know best, or does God? And who is more unjust than he who hides the testimony which he has from God? And God is not unaware of what you do. That was a nation which has passed away. They shall receive the reward of that which they earned, and you of what you earned. And you will not be asked of what they used to do."
The noble Qur'an, Al-Baqarah(2):127-141

Peace,

Ray



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 8:12:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 39621
 
By: Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer

"The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him." (Proverbs 18:17)

The Charge of Contradiction

Muslims talk often about the many contradictions in the Bible. The number of contradictions vary depending on whom you are talking to. Kairanvi's Izhar-ul-Haq presents 119 numbered contradictions, while others such as Shabbir Ally have supposedly found 101 contradictions. The problem as they see it concerns their supposition that any religious book claiming absolute divine authority must not include any contradictions, as a message emanating from an Omniscient being must be consistent with itself.

The Muslims quote from the Qur'an (4:82) which says "do they not consider the Qur'an (with care). Had it been from any other than Allah, they would have found there-in many a discrepancy."

A definition of Revelation:

In order to respond to this challenge it is important that we begin by recognizing and understanding clearly the presupposition and thinking that underlies such a challenge. The principle of non-contradiction has been elevated to the status of an absolute criterion, capable of being applied by human beings in judging the authenticity of God's word. This is not a proposition to which Christians can or should give assent. The Christian will gladly admit that scripture is ultimately non-self-contradictory. But the Christian cannot agree that the principle of non-contradiction is given to men as a criterion by which they are to judge God's word. It is this criterion which the Muslims have imposed upon the discussion of revelation.

This is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur'an. Their book, the Qur'an, is believed to have been 'sent down' (Nazil or Tanzil), from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this belief in scripture as a revelation which has been 'sent down' which they then impose upon the Bible as well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur'an.

The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur'an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author's intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author's contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration.

A Definition of Inspiration:

In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means "God-breathed," inferring that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were "carried along" by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.

The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit." This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, "...you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God..." Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, "...Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters..." Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit." And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, "...if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life..."

Charles Wesley summarizes this high view of inspiration brilliantly when he says, "The Bible must be the invention either of good men or angels, bad men or devils, or of God. However, it was not written by good men, because good men would not tell lies by saying 'Thus saith the Lord;' it was not written by bad men because they would not write about doing good duty, while condemning sin, and themselves to hell; thus, it must be written by divine inspiration" (McDowell 1990:178).

How does God inspire the writers? Does He simply move the writers by challenging their heart to reach new heights, much like we find in the works of Shakespeare, Milton, Homer and Dickens, all of which are human literary masterpieces? Or does that which He inspire contain the words of God-along with myths, mistakes and legends, thus creating a book in which portions of the Word of God can be found, along with those of finite and fallible men? Or are the scriptures the infallible Word of God in their entirety? In other words, how, Muslims will ask, is this inspiration carried out? Does God use mechanical dictation, similar to that which we find claimed for the Qur'an, or does He use the writers own minds and experiences?

The simple answer is that God's control was always with them in their writings, such that the Bible is nothing more than "The Word of God in the words of men" (McDowell 1990:176). This means that God utilized the culture and conventions of his penman's milieu, a milieu that God controls in His sovereign providence. Thus history must be treated as history, poetry as poetry, hyperbole and metaphor as hyperbole and metaphor, generalization and approximation as what they are, and so forth. Differences between literary conventions in Bible times and in ours must also be observed: Since, for instance, nonchronological narration and imprecise citation were conventional and acceptable and violated no expectations in those days, we must not regard these things as faults when we find them in Bible writers. When total precision of a particular kind was not expected nor aimed at, it is no error not to have achieved it. Scripture is inerrant, not in the sense of being absolutely precise by modern standards, but in the sense of making good its claims and achieving that measure of focused truth at which its authors aimed.

cont. next post



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 8:13:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 39621
 
The truthfulness of Scripture is not negated by the appearance in it of irregularities of grammar or spelling, phenomenal descriptions of nature, reports of false statements (for example, the lies of Satan), or seeming discrepancies between one passage and another. It is not right to set the so-called 'phenomena' of Scripture against the teaching of Scripture about itself. Apparent inconsistencies should not be ignored. Solution of them, where this can be convincingly achieved (as we have attempted in this paper), will encourage our faith. However, where for the present no convincing solution is at hand we shall significantly honor God by trusting His assurance that His Word is true, despite these appearances, and by maintaining our confidence that one day they will be seen to have been illusions.

This is not a blind hope. For instance, a century ago there were about 100 parts of the body whose function were mysterious to doctors, and people would say "This is proof of evolution as these are left over parts which we don't need anymore". However, because of on-going and diligent research we are now left with only one organ in the body which appears to be redundant. In time, perhaps we will find a use for that organ as well. This principle can also be

seen with the Bible. So many 'discrepancies' have also been cleared up due to greater research and understanding. Had Shabbir been around a century or even 25 years ago his list could easily have been 1001 contradictions. As new data is uncovered, we are continually finding answers to many of the historical mysteries. Therefore we have every reason to believe that, in God's time, the rest will be solved as well.

We are fully aware that the Christian criteria for revelation is not acceptable to Muslims, as it is in seeming conflict with their own. Yet, by simply measuring the Bible against the nazil or Tanzil ('sent down') concept which they claim for their Qur'an, Muslims condemn themselves of duplicity, since they demand of the New Testament that which they do not demand of the previous revelations, the Taurat and Zabuur, though both are revered as equally inspired revelations by all Muslims. Muslims believe that Moses wrote the Taurat and David the Zabuur. However, neither claimed to have received their revelations by a means of a nazil ('sent down') transmission. So why insist on such for the New Testament, especially since the document makes no such claim itself?

The underlying reason perhaps lies in the belief by Muslims that the Qur'an, because it is the only revelation which came "unfettered" by human intervention, is thus the truest and clearest statement of Allah's word, and therefore supersedes all previous revelations, even annulling those revelations, as they have supposedly been corrupted by the limitations of their human authors.

Left unsaid is the glaring irony that the claim for a nazil revelation for the Qur'an comes from one source alone, the man to which it was supposedly revealed, Muhammad. Yet there are no external witnesses both before or at the time who can corroborate Muhammad's testimony. Not even miracles are provided to substantiate his claims, nor are there any known documents of such a Qur'an from the century in which it is claimed to have been revealed (see the paper on the historicity of the Qur'an versus the Bible.)

Even if we were to disregard the historical problems for early Qur'ans, a further problem concerns the numerous Muslim traditions which speak of the many differing copies of Qur'anic codices which were prevalent during the collating of the Uthmanic recension of the Qur'an in the mid-seventh century, and that the conflicting copies were all destroyed, so that we cannot know today whether the Qur'an in our possession was even similar to that which was first revealed.

What Muslims must understand is that Christians have always maintained that the Word of God, the Bible, was indeed written by men, but that these men were always under the direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1:20-21).

Whereas the Qur'an is alleged to be free of any human element, God in the Bible deliberately chose to reveal His Word through individuals who were inspired prophets and apostles, so that His Word would not only be conveyed to humanity correctly, and comprehensively but would be communicated to their understanding and powers of comprehension as well. This the Qur'an cannot do if it has no human element, as is generally alleged.

There are other problems with the contention maintained by Muslims that the Bible is full of contradictions. For instance, what then will Muslims do with the authority which their own Qur'an gives towards the Bible?

cont. next post



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 39621
 
The Qur'an gives authority to the Bible:

The Qur'an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives authority to the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:

Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur'an, saying, "...the revelation given to us...and Jesus...we make no difference between one and another of them." Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, "Allah...He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)...as a guide to mankind." Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, "...Believe...and the scripture which He sent before him." In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: "...We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel... Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel..." Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: "People of the Book!...Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD."

To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament's authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord." And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, stating, "...the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message."

Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, "And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you."

If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur'an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians believe, as well.

In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur'an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur'an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur'an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.

There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), "...who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah...?" Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed "the testimony they have from Allah." In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.

cont. next post......



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 8:19:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 39621
 
God does not change His Word

Furthermore, both the Christian scriptures and the Muslim Qur'an hold to the premise that God does not change His word. He does not change His revelation (despite the law of abrogation found in the Qur'an). Sura Yunus 10:64 says, "No change can there be in the words of Allah." This is repeated in Sura Al An'am 6:34: "There is none that can alter the words of Allah," found also in Sura Qaf 50:28,29.

In the Bible we, likewise, have a number of references which speak of the unchangeableness of God's word; such as, Deuteronomy 4:1-2; Isaiah 8:20; Matthew 5:17-18; 24:35; and Revelation 22:18-20.

If this is the recurring theme in both the Bible and the Qur'an, it is hardly likely that we would find a scripture with such a multiplicity of contradictions which Muslims claim are found in the Bible.

What then should we do with the contradictions which the Muslims claim are there?

Contradictions analyzed:

When we look at the contradictions which Muslims point out we find that many of these errors are not errors at all but either a misunderstanding of the context or nothing more then copyist mistakes. The former can easily be explained, while the latter need a little more attention. It is quite clear that the books of the Old Testament were written between the 17th and the 5th century BC on the only parchments available at that time, pieces of Papyrus, which decayed rather quickly, and so needed continual copying. We now know that much of the Old Testament was copied by hand for 3,000 years, while the New Testament was copied for another 1,400 years, in isolated communities in different lands and on different continents, yet they still remain basically unchanged.

Today many older manuscripts have been found which we can use to corroborate those earlier manuscripts. In fact we have an enormous collection of manuscripts available to which we can go to corroborate the textual credibility of our current document. Concerning the New Testament manuscripts (MSS) we have in our possession 5,300 Greek manuscripts or fragments thereof, 10,000 Latin Vulgate manuscripts and at least 9,300 other early translations. In all we now have more than 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament from which to use! Obviously this gives us much more material with which to delineate any variant verses which may exist. Where there is a variant reading, these have been identified and expunged and noted as footnotes on the relevant pages of the texts. In no way does this imply any defects with our Bible (as found in the original autographs).

Christians readily admit, however, that there have been 'scribal errors' in the copies of the Old and New Testament. It is beyond the capability of anyone to avoid any and every slip of the pen in copying page after page from any book, sacred or secular. Yet we may be sure that the original manuscript (better known as autograph) of each book of the Bible, being directly inspired by God, was free from all error. Those originals, however, because of the early date of their inception no longer exist.

The individuals responsible for the copying (scribes or copyists) were prone to making two types of scribal errors, well known and documented by those expert in the field of manuscript analysis. One concerned the spelling of proper names (especially unfamiliar foreign names), and the other had to do with numbers. The fact that it is mainly these type of errors in evidence gives credence to the argument for copyist errors. If indeed the originals were in contradiction, we would see evidence of this within the content of the stories themselves. (Archer 1982:221-222)

What is important to remember, however, is that no well-attested variation in the manuscript copies that have come down to us alter any doctrine of the Bible. To this extent, at least, the Holy Spirit has exercised a restraining influence in superintending the transmission of the text.

Since God has nowhere promised an inerrant transmission of Scripture, it is necessary to affirm that only the autographic text of the original documents were inspired. For that reason it is essential that we maintain an ongoing textual criticism as a means of detecting any slips that may have crept into the text in the course of its transmission. The verdict of this science, however, is that the Hebrew and Greek text appears to be amazingly well preserved, so that we are amply justified in affirming, with the Westminster Confession, a singular providence of God in this matter and in declaring that the authority of Scripture is in no way jeopardized by the fact that the copies we possess are not entirely error-free.

Similarly, no translation is or can be perfect, and all translations are an additional step away from the autograph. Yet the verdict of linguistic science is that English-speaking Christians, at least, are exceedingly well served in these days with a host of excellent translations and have no cause for hesitating to conclude that the true Word of God is within their reach. Indeed, in view of the frequent repetition in Scripture of the main matters with which it deals and also of the Holy Spirit's constant witness to and through the Word, no serious translation of Holy Scripture will so destroy its meaning as to render it unable to make its reader "wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus" (2 Tim. 3:15)"

cont.



To: Raymond James Norris who wrote (18767)7/3/1998 8:23:00 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 39621
 
With that in mind let's now take a look at the examples forwarded by Shabbir Ally in his pamphlet to better ascertain whether or not the scriptures can stand the test of authority espoused above?

While answering the below challenges it has proven obvious to the four of us that Shabbir made a number of errors in his reasoning which could easily have been rectified had he simply looked at the context. This may offer us an idea as to why Muslims in general seem so fond of looking for, and apparently finding "contradictions" in the Bible - most of which are very easily explained by appealing to the context. When we look at the Qur'an we are struck with the reverse situation, for the Qur'an has very little context as such to refer to. There is little narration, and passages interject other passages with themes which have no connection. A similar theme is picked up and repeated in another Sura, though with variations and even at times contradictory material (i.e. the differing stories of Abraham and the idols found in Suras 21:51-59 and 6:74-83; 19:41-49). It stands to reason, then, that Muslims fail to look in their Holy Book for other passages to derive a context. Is it no wonder that they decline to do the same with the Bible.

On the second page of his booklet "101 Clear Contradictions in the Bible", Shabbir Ally states "Permission Granted! Please copy this booklet and spread the truth."

We, the authors of this paper, have been delighted to fulfil this request of Mr. Ally. Although we have not directly copied all his words, we have reproduced his alleged contradictions in this booklet and replied to them. Therefore, through these rebuttals we are doing what Shabbir has asked, spreading the truth! Showing the firm foundation of the Bible, which is the truth.

Please weigh the words of Mr. Ally against the rebuttals found herein.

You will note that a number of the questions contain more then one answer. This is done to show that there are different ways to understand a seeming problem in the Biblical text.

1.Does God incite David to conduct the census of his people (2 Samuel 4:1), or does Satan (1 Chronicles 21:1)?

(category: misunderstood how God works in history)

This seems an apparent discrepancy unless of course both statements are true. It was towards the end of David's reign, and David was looking back over his brilliant conquests, which had brought the Canaanite, Syrian, and Phoenician kingdoms into a state of vassalage and dependency on Israel. He had an attitude of pride and self-admiration for his achievements, and was thinking more in terms of armaments and troops than in terms of the mercies of God.

The Lord therefore decided that it was time that David be brought to his knees, where he would once again be cast back onto the mercy of God. So he let him go ahead with his census, in order to find out just how much good it would do him, as the only thing this census would accomplish would be to inflate the national ego (intimated in Joab's warning against carrying out the census in 1 Chronicles 21:3). As soon as the numbering was completed, God intended to chasten the nation with a disastrous plague which would bring about an enormous loss of life (in fact the lives of 70,000 Israelites according to 2 Samuel 24:15).

What about Satan? Why would he get himself involved in this affair (according to 1 Chronicles 21:1) if God had already prompted David to commit the folly he had in mind? It seems his reasons were entirely malicious, knowing that a census would displease the Lord (1 Chronicles 21:7-8), and so he also incited David to carry it through.

Yet this is nothing new, for there are a number of other occurrences in the Bible where both the Lord and Satan were involved in soul-searching testings and trials:

In the book of Job, chapters one and two we find a challenge to Satan from God allowing Satan to bring upon Job his calamities. God's purpose was to purify Job's faith, and to strengthen his character by means of discipline through adversity, whereas Satan's purpose was purely malicious, wishing Job as much harm as possible so that he would recant his faith in his God.

Similarly both God and Satan are involved in the sufferings of persecuted Christians according to 1 Peter 4:19 and 5:8. God's purpose is to strengthen their faith and to enable them to share in the sufferings of Christ in this life, that they may rejoice with Him in the glories of heaven to come (1 Peter 4:13-14), whereas Satan's purpose is to 'devour' them (1 Peter 5:8), or rather to draw them into self-pity and bitterness, and down to his level.

Both God and Satan allowed Jesus the three temptations during his ministry on earth. God's purpose for these temptations was for him to triumph completely over the very tempter who had lured the first Adam to his fall, whereas Satan's purpose was to deflect the saviour from his messianic mission.

In the case of Peter's three denials of Jesus in the court of the high priest, it was Jesus himself who points out the purposes of both parties involvement when he says in Luke 22:31-32, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

And finally the crucifixion itself bears out yet another example where both God and Satan are involved. Satan exposed his purpose when he had the heart of Judas filled with treachery and hate (John 13:27), causing him to betray Jesus. The Lord's reasoning behind the crucifixion, however, was that Jesus, the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world should give his life as a ransom for many, so that once again sinful man could relish in the relationship lost at the very beginning, in the garden of Eden, and thereby enter into a relationship which is now eternal.

Thus we have five other examples where both the Lord and Satan were involved together though with entirely different motives. Satan's motive in all these examples, including the census by David was driven by malicious intent, while the Lord in all these cases showed an entirely different motive. His was a benevolent motive with a view to eventual victory, while simultaneously increasing the usefulness of the person tested. In every case Satan's success was limited and transient; while in the end God's purpose was well served furthering His cause substantially.


#2 to come