Comparing the Quranic and New Testament manuscripts

sam1528

The big news is that the University of Birmingham has made a remarkable discovery. 2 fragments of the Quran in their collection have been carbon dated with a 95% chance that these pages were produced between 568 and 645 CE.

Prof Bart Ehrman commented :

How good is that? The prophet Mohammed, who (in traditional Islamic teaching) was responsible for producing the Qur’an was engaged in his active ministry in 610-632 CE. These pages may have been produced during his lifetime or in a decade or so later.

In case anyone is missing the significance of that, here is a comparison. The first time we have any two-page manuscript fragment of the New Testament is from around the year 200 CE. That’s 170 years after Jesus’ death in 30 CE. Imagine if we found two pages of text that contain portions, say, of the Sermon on the Mount, in almost exactly the same form as we have them in what is now our Gospel of Matthew, and suppose that these pages received a carbon-14 dating of 30 BCE – 40 CE. Would we be ecstatic, OR WHAT???

Questions by the Prof :

And so back to my question. If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? Here I should stress that within Judaism as well, at least in the Middle Ages, there was exorbitant care taken to ensure that every page, every sentence, every word, every letter of the Torah was copied with complete and resolute accuracy (that’s not true for an earlier period of Judaism, to be sure; but it became true in Judaism in a way that never, ever was true in Christianity). Christian scribes did not do the same thing. We have many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. They all have mistakes in them. Lots of accidental mistakes (hundreds of thousands) from times that scribes were inept, inattentive, sleepy, or otherwise careless; and even lots of mistakes that appear to be places that scribes altered the text to make them say something other than what it originally said.

You don’t appear to get that with the Qur’an. And so my historical question. Why was that? For Christians the New Testament was a sacred book, the Word of God. Why didn’t they *make sure* that it never got changed? I can understand on one level why they didn’t. The scribes who copied it, especially in the early period, were not professionals. In the early centuries, the copyists were simply the local people who happened to be literate who could do a decent job. And they made lots of mistakes and changed the text in places intentionally. But why didn’t anyone go to the trouble of making sure that didn’t happen? It’s a genuine question.

My second point has to do with modern attempts to defend the truth of Christianity. I hear a certain perspective expressed a LOT by Christian apologists who are determined to show that Christianity is true (and that, as a result, not just non-belief but all other religions are flat-out wrong). If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this view I would buy a summer home in Provence. It is this: since the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world, we can trust it.

In addition :

And that raises my second point, which is really THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. The fact that you do (or do not) know what a book originally said, has no bearing – no bearing at all, not a single bearing – on the question of whether you can trust it or not. It is completely irrelevant to the question. An absolute non sequitur. I wish Christian apologists would learn this, instead of continuously filling people’s heads with nonsense. Being the best-attested book from antiquity has no bearing on the question of whether the things that are said in the New Testament are true. No bearing at all.

I can prove that. Take a Christian fundamentalist apologist and ask him whether Mein Kampf (Hitler’s autobiography) or The Communist Manifesto (a writing of a very different order indeed!) or … well, take your pick of a modern book – whether there are serious textual problems with such writings so that you do not know what the author wrote. The answer is NO. There is not a huge question about how well these books are attested. They are extraordinarily well attested. And here’s the point: Does the fact these books are well attested prove that you can trust them? That what they say is true? Of course not. It’s completely irrelevant. Whether you can trust a writing and accept its views as true is unrelated to the question of how well it is attested.
The New Testament is well attested. Does that mean you can trust that what it says is true? Of course not. You have to make that judgment on *OTHER* grounds.

I can already hear 'wkk5159-maslan' tearing his hair out .....

orangbesi

good one bro!
really appreaciate it


cakap melayu boleh maaa
pasal english broken sangat lah

ur comparison masih tak kuat lah
pasal BIBLE ditulis 170 tahun lepas Jesus tiada(diangkat)
dan dah jadi 4 cabang kan
ALQURAN ditulis beberapa tahun lepas MUHAMMAD meninggal (susah mo dapat yg ni maaa)

dan napa tak dikenali sebagai TORAH n BIBLE je
napa jadi OLD n NEW TESTEMENT?

maaf ya kalau terkasar, tapi saya suka berbincang dgn fakta2
tq n teruskan

wkk5159

Hahaha.....Maslanic shemale ustazy sam1528 is frying his rancid worthless argument again, just like he recycles his putrid deceptive terrorist chart from Loonwatch , and worse still quoting from "rof Bart Ehrman"......

This so called Prof Bart Ehrman had been dismantled by me long long time ago in other thread and seems to me that this shemale ustazy is enjoying this masochism...

Bart Ehrman: A Hero for Islam?

Many Muslims adore the New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman because he is a former Christian who is now a critic of the New Testament. He has authored numerous books attacking the validity of the New Testament including Misquoting Jesus. In turn Ehrman’s claims have been challenged and addressed in subsequent articles and debates.1 Muslims often exploit Ehrman’s work and parade his anti-Christian rhetoric in videos and articles. But is Ehrman really a hero for Islam? Or does he hold to historical views that are detrimental to Islam?

The aim of this article is to do two things. 1. Show that Bart Ehrman grants four major and fundamental things concerning the life of Jesus and about Christianity that Islam denies. 2. To give reference material to those who are confronted with Muslims who appeal to Bart Ehrman as a hero for Islam. This article will demonstrate that many of Bart Ehrman’s writings are useful tools against Islam.

Topic 1: The Crucifixion of Jesus

The vast majority of Muslims reject the Crucifixion of Christ because their Quran rejects this historical event. In the Quran we read:

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. (Quran 4:157, Pickthall)

It is quite clear that this religion teaches its followers that Jesus’ crucifixion was just an act of deception on the part of Allah. The Quran teaches that Allah deceived everyone to think Jesus was crucified but that it didn’t actually happen historically speaking. This claim is very problematic and it flies in the face of 1st and 2nd century historical data. For this reason the supposed hero of Islam, Bart Ehrman rejects Islam’s position that Jesus wasn’t crucified and he has openly stated that he believes Jesus was crucified according to the available data. In his work ‘The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings,’ he states:

In any event, Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate.2

So it seems that the hero for Islam agrees with the Christians about Jesus being crucified. This is valuable information and is very useful to bring up to anyone who touts Ehrman as the hero of Islam.

                                                                                                                                

Topic 2: Paul the Usurper or Real Apostle of Christ?

Many modern Muslims hate Paul because Paul clearly taught Christ’s divinity in his writings. Even though there is a strong case to be made that Paul was a true apostle according to the Quran and early Muslim sources (*), many Muslims do not hesitate to slander and even mock the Apostle Paul. Many Muslims claim that Paul was not a true apostle. They claim that he simply came in later and corrupted everything somehow.

However, Bart Ehrman does not share this radical belief. In fact Bart Ehrman defends Apostle Paul as an early reliable source of information for the life of Jesus. Ehrman contends that, based on the evidence, the Apostle Paul knew the original disciples of Jesus and became one of them.

In a radio interview the Infidel Guy challenged the notion that Jesus even existed and claimed that there is no real evidence for him existing. Ehrman, confused at the assertion because virtually no scholars hold this view, corrects the deceived radio host. They then debate and Ehrman states the following:

We have one author who actually knew Jesus’ relatives and knew his disciples… Paul…. It’s not an embellishment that Paul met with James in Jerusalem.3

So what we have is Islam’s hero Bart Ehrman destroying modern Muslim belief about Apostle Paul. Ehrman, along with the majority of serious scholarship holds the view that Paul was a true disciple of Jesus Christ who met with the leaders of the early church shortly after Jesus’ crucifixion, not a usurper.

Topic 3: Jesus was buried & His Apostles Reported Visions

Muslims deny that Jesus was crucified. Islam teaches that Jesus was rescued from the cross by Allah and that someone was made to appear like Jesus on the cross. However the hero of Islam, Bart Ehrman, although he disputes the type of burial Jesus had, does concede that Jesus was most likely buried and that his disciples most likely did have visions where they believed they saw the risen Christ!

Dr. Ehrman remarks:

What I think we can say with some confidence is that Jesus actually did die, he probably was buried, and that some of his disciples (all of them? some of them?) claimed to have seen him alive afterward. Among those who made this claim, interestingly enough, was Jesus’ own brother James, who came to believe in Jesus and soon thereafter became one of the principle leaders of the early Christian church.4

Since Islam denies that Jesus died and was buried one can logically assume that they deny that Jesus’ followers had multiple experiences in which they thought that they had seen the risen Christ. I am not aware of any Islamic text which states that the post resurrection appearances were delusions from Allah. However the supposed hero of Islam grants all of this based on the early data. It looks like Bart Ehrman holds to historical views which undermine Islam in a very strong way.

                                       
                                                                                       

Topic 4: Does the Bible anywhere teach that Jesus is God?

It is a common theme for Muslims to assert that nowhere in the Bible does it teach that Jesus is God. Many debates have been waged on this very subject. Muslims believe that it is shirk (unforgivable sin) to associate partners with Allah. This is why Muslims will try to make a case that the Bible doesn’t teach that Jesus is God. Because they don’t understand the Trinitarian doctrine they believe we are associating another being with God. However the Trinity doctrine teaches that there is one being of God existing in three persons, not three beings. One Muslim apologist Sami Zaatari has stated:

I don’t believe the first four gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John … I don’t believe preach he is God at all. I believe they preach that he is the Messiah, a prophet and that’s it. And he did mighty miracles and great works.5

This is a bold claim but does Islam’s anti-Christian hero Bart Ehrman share the same view as Zaatari? Or does Bart Ehrman admit that there are passages in the Gospels that teach Jesus’ deity?

Bart Ehrman refutes Zaatari’s distortion and states:

The Gospel of John … goes a long way toward identifying Jesus himself as divine (see e.g., John 8:58; 10:30; 20:28).6

These are the verses which Ehrman believes attest to Jesus’ divinity in the Gospel of John:

Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am." (John 8:58, NASB)

"I and the Father are one." (John 10:30, NASB)

Thomas answered and said to Him, "My Lord and my God!" (John 20:28, NASB)

Although Muslim apologists will claim that the Gospels don’t teach that Jesus is God, Islam’s supposed hero Bart Ehrman lists three passages in the Gospel of John that he feels clearly attest to Christ’s divinity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, we learn that Ehrman grants many things that Islam emphatically denies which should make people wonder why they hold this man in such a high view. We learn that Ehrman accepts four important historical facts that Islam rejects about Jesus and early Christianity. Ehrman grants Jesus’ death on the cross, the reliability of Paul as an apostle and acquaintance of the disciples, Jesus’ burial, that Jesus’ followers had experiences in which they believe Jesus appeared to them, and that the Gospel of John teaches the deity of Christ. This information should be useful to anyone who is confronted by Muslims who tout Bart Ehrman as a hero for Islam. Bart Ehrman’s views should in fact be used as a weapon against Islam.

This shemale ustazy sam1528 must be plucking and pulling his balding head bald now....

  

wkk5159

Conclusion : Only retarded inbred like shemale ustazy sam1528 will quote from a so called scholar, Prof Bart Ehrman who disagrees and hold views contradict with the teaching of Islam......

sam1528

wkk5159 replied at 26-8-2015 05:07 PM
Hahaha.....Maslanic shemale ustazy sam1528 is frying his rancid worthless argument again, just like  ...

LOL , you did not even attempt to address my argument. Can you focus on the argument instead of scampering everywhere like a person on 'pill kuda'.

Prof Ehrman Questions :

And so back to my question. If Muslim scholars over the centuries – from the very beginning – made dead sure that when they copied their sacred text they didn’t change anything, why didn’t Christian scribes do the same thing??? Here I should stress that within Judaism as well, at least in the Middle Ages, there was exorbitant care taken to ensure that every page, every sentence, every word, every letter of the Torah was copied with complete and resolute accuracy (that’s not true for an earlier period of Judaism, to be sure; but it became true in Judaism in a way that never, ever was true in Christianity). Christian scribes did not do the same thing. We have many thousands of manuscripts of the New Testament. They all have mistakes in them. Lots of accidental mistakes (hundreds of thousands) from times that scribes were inept, inattentive, sleepy, or otherwise careless; and even lots of mistakes that appear to be places that scribes altered the text to make them say something other than what it originally said.

You don’t appear to get that with the Qur’an. And so my historical question. Why was that? For Christians the New Testament was a sacred book, the Word of God. Why didn’t they *make sure* that it never got changed? I can understand on one level why they didn’t. The scribes who copied it, especially in the early period, were not professionals. In the early centuries, the copyists were simply the local people who happened to be literate who could do a decent job. And they made lots of mistakes and changed the text in places intentionally. But why didn’t anyone go to the trouble of making sure that didn’t happen? It’s a genuine question.

My second point has to do with modern attempts to defend the truth of Christianity. I hear a certain perspective expressed a LOT by Christian apologists who are determined to show that Christianity is true (and that, as a result, not just non-belief but all other religions are flat-out wrong). If I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard this view I would buy a summer home in Provence. It is this: since the New Testament is the best attested book from the ancient world, we can trust it.

In addition :

And that raises my second point, which is really THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT ONE. The fact that you do (or do not) know what a book originally said, has no bearing – no bearing at all, not a single bearing – on the question of whether you can trust it or not. It is completely irrelevant to the question. An absolute non sequitur. I wish Christian apologists would learn this, instead of continuously filling people’s heads with nonsense. Being the best-attested book from antiquity has no bearing on the question of whether the things that are said in the New Testament are true. No bearing at all.

I can prove that. Take a Christian fundamentalist apologist and ask him whether Mein Kampf (Hitler’s autobiography) or The Communist Manifesto (a writing of a very different order indeed!) or … well, take your pick of a modern book – whether there are serious textual problems with such writings so that you do not know what the author wrote. The answer is NO. There is not a huge question about how well these books are attested. They are extraordinarily well attested. And here’s the point: Does the fact these books are well attested prove that you can trust them? That what they say is true? Of course not. It’s completely irrelevant. Whether you can trust a writing and accept its views as true is unrelated to the question of how well it is attested.
The New Testament is well attested. Does that mean you can trust that what it says is true? Of course not. You have to make that judgment on *OTHER* grounds.

I am not talking about
Topic 1: The Crucifixion of Jesus
Topic 2: Paul the Usurper or Real Apostle of Christ?
Topic 3: Jesus was buried & His Apostles Reported Visions
Topic 4: Does the Bible anywhere teach that Jesus is God?

The above issues have been discussed and in the end you scampered away with no answers (as usual).

Can you focus on the questions by Prof Ehrman?

Ha ha , you sudah pekena 'pill kuda' ke Goh Mas Lan or 'wkk5159-maslan'?

sam1528

wkk5159 replied at 26-8-2015 05:18 PM
Conclusion : Only retarded inbred like shemale ustazy sam1528 will quote from a so called scholar, P ...

Refer to my previous post