Does the Qur'an Prove the Bible Is True?

Bismillah ir rahman ir raheem,

As salamu 'alikum wr wb (May the Peace, Mercy of Allah and Blessings be upon you).

Does the Qur'an Prove the Bible Is True?

Well it looks like Ken from begarsallreformation blogspot is back again! Let's see if we can have fruitful discussion on an issue.

Let's also see if Ken can stay focused on the topic of the Qur'an proving the Bible to be true and leave aside politics, deep space exploration, and the fine art of basket weaving aside for the moment.

As far as my own position. I do not believe any where that the Qur'an names the contents of the 'Torah' the 'Zabur' the 'Suhuf' or the 'Injeel'. I also believe that Christian apologist have gone to desperate links to try and say that the Qur'an ask Muslims to accept the 22 books of the New Testament and the 46 books of the Old Testament.

Now I have already gone into this in great detail in my blog entry here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/01/does-quran-teach-bible-was-corrupted.html

It seems that no Christian to date has offered a rebuttal of this or wanted to interact with it. One wonders why? I am not shy to post links offering rebuttals to the material I present. I do believe in respectful dialouge and discussion.

So before anyone gives this blog entry a read you would do well to see Christian apologist Ken's take on the issue here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/06/quran-proves-bible-is-true.html

So here is the content of Ken in his attempt to say that the Qur'an proves that the Bible is true.

My comments will be in blue.

I interacted with comments by a Muslim named Yahya Snow over at Turrentfan's website/blog: I changed a few details for better wording and added some more thoughts.

here

Turretinfan rightly used Surah 10:94 to exhort Muslims to read the Gospel and ask the people of the previous Scriptures: "To my Muslim readers who live in non-Islamic countries, now too is your chance. Recall what your Koran says was told to Mohammed:

Surah 10:94 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 hath indeed come to thee from thy Lord: so be in no wise of those in doubt."

Comment: Now do you people see the above verse telling Muslims to go and read the Gospel? I mean honestly? What I see is that Allah is asking the Prophet Muhammed (saw) to ask LITERATE people about information given to him IF he was had doubt. Now if this verse of the Qur'an was exorting Muslims to 'read the Gospel' why would than you need to ASK people what it says? Also where do you find the word Injeel in the Arabic text? This to me is simply a dishonest attempt by Ken and Turretinfan to have meaningful understanding of the text.

Turretinfan's combox

Yahya Snow wrote:

Before I do so I would like to stress the Quran does in no way shape or form ask us to consider what you have today as 100% inspired.

Since the Bibles we have today are essentially the same as the Bible manuscripts long before Muhammad came along; you are wrong. Dr. James White has adequately shown in debates with Bart Ehrman( Comment: Actually James White did quite bad in this debate and anyone is welcome to see a written transcript. Ehrman continued to press James on many issues that he tried to wiggle out of.

Please see here:http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/11/apologist-james-white-admits-bible-is.html ) and Shabir Ally and others that the honesty and openness we have about the history of the text and the textual variants do not affect any major doctrines and are a very small percentage and that is an issue of scribal errors, not affecting the doctrines of inspiration or inerrancy.

The Scriptures are essentially the same (textual variants about Mark 16:9-20 and a few other minor passages do not affect any major doctrine of the Bible) as those long before Muhammad's time, (many Manuscripts from 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th centuries - all before Muhammad; and "there is no changing of God's word" (Qur'an 10:65; 6:116; 18:27; 6:34); and "ask the people reading the book before you" means both the Torat (OT) and the Injeel (NT); you are therefore wrong.

My comments: If a Muslim was to ask a Christian at the time of Muhammed (saw) about the issue of Christ resurrection and this Christian happened to quote Mark 16:9-20 which became a part of Christian canon could that Muslim rest assure that what the Christian was quoting was inspired scripture? When Ken says "ask the people reading the book before you means the Torat (OT) and the Injeel (NT); you are therefore wrong:" it is Ken who is actually wrong. This is simply dishonest misrepresentation of the Qur'an. Not only this but by Christian standards themselves Ken made a huge blunder conflating the Torah with the OT.

These articles below from www.answering-islam.org by Sam Shamoun show that Muhammad did doubt a lot in the Meccan period after Warqa died - the Islamic sources show this.

(Ken's use of Sam Shamoun a man who is very insulting and degrading in his discussion with Muslim is very disheartening. It is disheartening to me because I begin to question Ken's own sincerity when he claims that he is shocked by things that he sees Muslims doing but does not take Sam Shamoun to task for his filthy mouth)

They also show that it means the Scriptures before the Qur'an including both OT (Torat) and NT ( Injeel) and that the Qur'an and the Muslim sources did not believe that the texts of the previous Scriptures had been altered.

Surah 10, Yunis (Jonah) was revealed in the Meccan period, Pickthall says in the last 4 years of the Meccan period before the Hegira. (The Meaning of the Glorious Koran, Mohammad Marmaduke Pickthall, p. 157)

Surah 10:94 is talking to Muhammad. It was a encouragement for him to stop doubting. He is to ask the people reading the book that was revealed before the Qur'an. ( Includes both Torah and the Injeel. - both OT and NT)

These articles show that "no one can change the word of Allah" and since our Bible today is the same as in 600-700 AD; it has not been corrupted; never was. The articles show that the commentaries say that the "Christians and Jews distort the meanings of the words", but it never accuses them of changing the text itself.

(Comment: Ken's own admission above that Mark 16:9-20 was in the same Bible that was used around 600-700 AD refutes his claim in the paragraph above. Not only that but Ken really needs to learn the difference between textual variant and extra text altogether. Mark 16:9-20 is NOT a textual variant if it is maybe he can show us the version of Mark 16:9-20 that is supposed to be in the Bible. Mark 16:9-20 is a complete ADDITION of text and NOT a textual variant.

Not only this but the Qur'an indeed accuses them of changing the text itself. (Holy Qur'an chapter 2 verse 79) "Thefore woe unto those who WRITE THE SCRIPTURE with thier OWN HANDS and than say, "This is from Allah, 'that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for what their hands have written, and woe unto them for what they earn thereby."

So now that article has been completely refuted.

The articles below by Sam Shamoun also use famous Muslim commentators like Ibn Kathir and Ibn Abbas; and Hadith of Al Bukhari and other Muslim sources.

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_s10_94.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Osama/zawadi_q10_94.htm

http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran/Bible/ibnabbas.html#ibnkathir


Yahya Snow wrote:

“The Quran is al-Furqan(the Criterion) thus it is used to confirm what parts of your book is correct and which parts are incorrect.“

The Bible is also called “Al Furqan” (the Criterion) الفرقان
by the Qur'an: (Surah 2:53; 21:48)

My comments: The Qur'an chapter 2:53 is in the context of Moses and same with Holy Qur'an chapter 21:48. This is incredbily dishonest of Ken. It also shows the lengths that Christian apologist will go to in their quest to misrepresent the truth. So is Ken saying that the New Testament was given to Moses and Aaro? This is a terrible blunder indeed.Notice also that the Qur'an does not say what the contents of that revelation given to them were. It is Christian apologetic and imagination that would like it to consist of today's pentateuch or in Ken's case the entire Bible!

It is also called a light
And a Reminder - ذ کر
21:49

And in Surah 21:7 - it says that the OT was inspired (وحی)
And to go ask the follower of the Reminder “if you know not”.

My comments: Again more dishonesty from Ken. Maybe he can give us the translation he is using where "it says that the OT was inspired". I wish I had 10 cents for every time this was true. This is what I have in the Holy Qur'an chapter 21 verse 7 "And We did not send before you any but men to whom We sent revelation, so ask the followers of the reminder if you do not know." Where does one get the 44 books of the ;Old Testament' out of this? Where does this tell me that Tobit, Baruch, and Deuteronomy are inspired scripture? Maybe Ken would like to try again?

So, these passages confirm that our understanding of Surah 10:94 is correct. Muhammad is instructed to not doubt the previous revelations, because no one can change the word of God; and they were true, inspired, perfect, guidance, light, criterion, and reminder of the true path and give wisdom for salvation. ( 2 Timothy 3:15-17)

My comments: (Amazing! One wonders if these apologist even follow through with thier own thoughts. When I write things besides checking for my atrocious spelling mistakes I often ask myself is this coherent? Does it follow through logically? Am I insulting the intelligence of my readers? So he was told not to doubt the previous revelation which is supposedly still intact as the words of God, yet God continues to send down revelation to him... Ummm what for? I mean let's let the logic follow through shall we? )

Yahya Snow wrote:

So whatever agrees with the Qur'an from your book then we know this material within your books is correct.

It is the opposite, whatever comes later (the Qur’an) and does not agree with the previous revelation, the Bible, the later supposed revelation is proved to be the false revelation. (Galatians 1:8-9; Jude 3, Revelation 22:18 and the Qur’an also teaches this in Surah 2:79 – “Woe to those who write Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah” . . . I realize this, according to the Qur'an, is not applied to Muhammad and his revelation, but the principle is correct. If the Bible is true, OT and NT, then the Qur’an is false. Only what agrees with the previous Scriptures is correct.

My comments: (Circular logic. If the Qur'an is false this also means we cannot trust what it says. That means if your hermenutic is correct that it says to accept the 22 books of the NT or the 73 books of the Bible than logically speaking we cannot accept it's testimony.) Isn't this equivocation? Don't Christian apologist claim Muslms do this when we establish points from the Bible concerning some our doctrine) What is meant by Jude 3. Also as a participant of Beggarsall is he not aware of Martin Luther's feelings about the book of Revelation? Is he also not aware that many believe that the passage of Revelation 22:18 is internal; dealing with Revelation alone?

Yahya Snow wrote:

“At-Tabari goes further and states “do not ask those who are dishonest or are unbelievers”

Problem with that is the Qur’an calls the Christians honest, that the disciples of Jesus are true believers, followers of Allah, helpers of Allah, and therefore, full of integrity. (Surah 61:14; 5:111 (the disciples of Jesus are believers and helpers of Allah); 5:68-69 (the Christians believe in the Scriptures, Allah as One (Mark 12:29; Deut. 6:5; I Timothy 2:5-6); and believe in judgment day, and seek to do the right things); 5:82 (the monks at the time of Muhammad in the east who are not proud). It also calls some of the Christians and Jews dishonest and unbelievers – and those who believe God has a physical son with a wife as unbelievers – Surah 6:101; 112 – this is true; since no true Christians have ever believed this; nor that there are three gods, nor that Mary was a part of the Trinity (Surah 5:110); it proves the Qur’an mis-understood what Christianity was all about; and the true Christians are vindicated in history; and God did indeed cause true Christians to be the uppermost, victorious (Surah 61:14) in history.

My comments: I would like to call Ken to account for the following information above, "It also calls some of the Christians and Jews dishonest and unbelievers – and those who believe God has a physical son with a wife as unbelievers – Surah 6:101; 112 – this is true; since no true Christians have ever believed this; nor that there are three gods, nor that Mary was a part of the Trinity (Surah 5:110); it proves the Qur’an mis-understood what Christianity was all about;....

My comments: I grandverbalizer19 will shut down this blog if he can show me one place in the Qur'an where the members of the Trinity are identified. Just one! I have already shown Ken that he is wrong to thumb suck James White's lack of research in this regard once before and am glad to refute him once again. So Ken stop with the tomfoolry already and simply show us where the Qur'an identifies the members of the Trinity.

Finally Ken Runs Out of Gas....talks about space exploration and basket weaving etc...below...

The history of the church of the first 4 Centuries shows that the Christians won the Roman Empire by evangelism in love and good deeds under persecution and torture. They were victorious through weakness. The message of the cross is foolishness to unregenerate people because it means we must be weak and admit we are sinners and in need of a Savior and that we must die in order to live. This is the opposite of the flesh – human efforts and human striving for power in politics and military might and force and externalisms and legalisms; these are the very heart and emphasis of the Islamic religion.

All Christians and all history shows Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead. So, the victory of the Christians is the victory of the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. This was the message that won the Roman Empire and all subsequent western history. Much of the Middle East and N. Africa also held to this message until Islam forced by the sword and wiped out the churches in N. Africa and most of the Middle East.

My comment: No Ken history does not show that at all. Ken used to believe that the Talmud mentioned that Jesus died for people's sins until he was corrected on this point. Isn't that right Ken? For those interested in seeing the biggest cover up in Christian history: namely that there is NO historical evidence that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead I would invite you to read more about that here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2009/05/more-thrilling-than-davinci-code.html

A rebuttal to the Tacitus material is found here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/04/is-there-historical-evidence-that-jesus.html

According to the Qur'an, Allah deceived the Jews and Christians and everyone else to believe that Jesus was killed on the cross - Surah 3:54-55; 4:157-158.

Allah is the best of deceivers. (kheir ol makkareen- الله خیر المکارین
Qur'an 3:54

But the living and true God cannot lie (Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18) and God cannot sin (1 John 1:5; Habakkuk 1:13).

My comments: I have found that the issue of makr and makkareen seems to be one of Ken's favourites! I have refuted him on this issue time and again. Usually what happens is that Ken runs away after my own questions and than comes back and decides to beat a dead horse one last time.

You can see my refutation of Ken's idea that Allah is a deciever here: http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/05/what-was-james-swan-thinking.html comment section. After refuting Ken he was gone in the wind.....only to return with the same argument again.

After quoting to Ken a statement of Islamic Aqidah (creed or theology) that states:

"Tyranny is inconceivable in Him, for there is no right upon Him towards anyone."

Than I asked Ken ....

"For example could you show where the term Makr or Makreen is used in any context with people who are doing righteous, or intending to do something good?

If you could do that you would have a very interesting case."

In all of the cases where all allows people to be decieved are cases where the people themselves were trying to decieve others.

So I interacted with Ken and his statements. But than Ken the master of the dissapearing act was done with the exchange......only to return some months latter.

So than he was refuted once more for old times sake here: http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/06/rc-sproul-drops-ball-cruel-calvinist.html comment section:

I brought to Ken's attention that this word Makr that he really loves to play ball with is the word of choice by Arab Christians! That is 2 Corinthians 12:16

http://www.copticchurch.net/cgibin/bible/index.php?r=2+Corinthians+12:16&version=SVD&btn=View

That is 2 Corinthians 12:16

Ken's God is the one who is filled with deception. He makes people believe lies! Christians have asked Ken and others like him to stop denying what the following verse in the Bible says,

2 Thessalonians 2:11 'And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie." Christians have asked Ken and his kind to not be in denial any longer here: http://www.iswasandwillbe.com/strongdelusion.php

I have asked Ken now for the 5th time if he can find any where in the Qur'an where the term Makr or Makreen is used in any context with people who are doing righteous, or intending to do something good. I wonder why he refuses to do this. I have found it very curious.

This is a big contradiction in the Qur'an, because the "uppermost" and victorious group was the Christians who believed in the death of Christ on the cross and the resurrection and the Deity of Christ and the Trinity.

Surah 3:55 says that the true believers would be the victorious ones until the day of resurrection.

My comments: What Ken does not understand is that Muslims believe that Christ Jesus will return BEFORE the day of resurrection and that We (Muslims) will be that victorious group and not Tri-theistic Christians who believe that God has two wills within himself in a constant state of conflict and believe in an oxymoron that God has an 'eternally-begotten' son.

History shows that the Allah of the Qur'an failed; because where are those "Muslim" believers in the first century? There is no evidence of their existence. This shows the Qur'an is wrong.

My comment: Ken it is your understanding that has failed.

Then, there are more verses that are perhaps the strongest in the Qur'an that show the Bible is true - Surah 5:46-47 (below) and 5:68, which many Christians have pointed out before. Sam Shamoun (the guy who likes to talk about stuffing people in Muhammed's va*gi$a-may Allah forgive me for repeating that here but I have to show the world what sickness draws people like Ken to not rebuke Shamoun) did a great job recently here with Dr. White and here on the program "Jesus or Muhammad?" on the Aramaic Broadcasting Network that "confirming what had come before him" actually literally says, "confirming what is between his hands".

My Comments: And what was that between his hands? Are the Christians ever go to share that with us? Do they have any proof of what was 'between his hands'? More empty apologetic and polemic that seems like a pot of gold but ends up being an empty pot of broken promises. Think about it. What was in Jesus hands that was confirming the Torah? Do Christians believe that Jesus had his own written Gospel? Not that I am aware of!

So let us plus in thier new fangled 'translation' and see if it makes sense shall we?

Holy Qur'an chapter 5:46, "And We sent, following in their footsteps, Jesus the son of Mary, confirming what is between his hands in the Torah; and We gave him the Gospel, in which was guidance and light and confirming that which was between his hands of the Torah as a guidance and instruction for the righteous."

Notice that if Jesus had the Torah in his hands the first sentence makes no sense the way they want to translate it. What was 'between his hands' that confirmed the Torah? Also since we do not have the Gospel that Jesus had how can we use it as criteria to know which of the Torah 'between his hands' was confirmed and which was not? Again it was clever but no cigar.

بین یدیه
Farsi speakers know these words also from Arabic, we use بین
(be'n) for "between" and know of "yad" (ید) as "the hand". We can see it. (Farsi is not a Semitic language, but contains about 40% Arabic in it; because of the Arab Islamic conquering of Persia and converting Iranians to Islam and changing their script and affecting their language.)

وَقَفَّيْنَا عَلَىٰ آثَارِهِم بِعِيسَى ابْنِ مَرْيَمَ مُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ ۖ وَآتَيْنَاهُ الْإِنجِيلَ فِيهِ هُدًى وَنُورٌ وَمُصَدِّقًا لِّمَا بَيْنَ يَدَيْهِ مِنَ التَّوْرَاةِ وَهُدًى وَمَوْعِظَةً لِّلْمُتَّقِينَ

46 And in their footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him: We sent him the Gospel: therein was guidance and light, and confirmation of the Law that had come before him: a guidance and an admonition to those who fear Allah.
وَلْيَحْكُمْ أَهْلُ الْإِنجِيلِ بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فِيهِ ۚ وَمَن لَّمْ يَحْكُم بِمَا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ فَأُولَٰئِكَ هُمُ الْفَاسِقُونَ

(47 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.

Comment: I believe in the end I have given sound refutation of all of the points that Ken brought. As I mentioned before my believe is that the Qur'an does not say that the Bible IS NOT the word of God. However, I also have not found any text that says the Bible IS the word of God. I have not found anything in the Qur'an that would ask me to believe in the 22 books of the 'New Testament' or the 46 books of the 'Old Testament'.

Allah-willing if anyone Christian or Muslim are looking for clarification of points you are most welcome to comment in the comment section. You are also most welcome to provide links of rebuttals to my material as long as we keep it respectful. May Allah open the hearts of the Christians who are being duped by decietful missionary tactics and may it be transparent to all on which side is upon the truth. Ameen! A link to part 3 is here:

A link to part 2 is here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true-part-2.html

A link to part 3 is here:

http://thegrandverbalizer19.blogspot.com/2010/07/does-quran-prove-bible-is-true-part-3.html < Notice that Ken is now silent!