The Bible of Christianity has different versions and remains under modification and revision from time to time.
The Quran of Islam has one single version from the time of Prophet Muhammad up till this moment, for the last forteen centuries. All the copies of the Quran are the same: no word more and no word less.
Which book is more divine: a book that has many different versions and is subjected to continual revision or an unchangeble book? Which is more godly and divine: the Bible or the Quran? Let us assume that you do not know either. Just judge on the basis of changeability and variety of versions of the Bible versus the unchangeability and oneness of the version of the Quran. Which is the book of God: the Bible, which changes through time, OR the Quran, which has remained as it was revealed?
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Original Language
Christianity says that the gospel of Matthew was originally written by Matthew in Hebrew. But this Hebrew original exists nowhere; it has been lost forever. What exists is a translation of that lost original.
Islam says that the original language of the Book of Islam i.e., the Quran, is Arabic. The Arabic Quran was and has always been available in Arabic since it was revealed about fourteen centuries ago.
With the authenticity criterion, which is more reliable: a book with a lost original or a book with an available original? What would you choose as more dependable?
Islam says that the original language of the Book of Islam i.e., the Quran, is Arabic. The Arabic Quran was and has always been available in Arabic since it was revealed about fourteen centuries ago.
With the authenticity criterion, which is more reliable: a book with a lost original or a book with an available original? What would you choose as more dependable?
Who Made the Choice?
Christianity says that there were scores of gospels one day, but the church selected four of them, i.e., the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The other gospels were banned or burnt or destroyed.
Islam says that there has always been one single version of the Holy Quran and no similar process of selection was ever made or needed.
On what basis did the church make its choice? Why those four gospels in particular? Why not three or five or ten gospels? Why not the other gospels? Who had the right to select and eliminate gospels? Who gave him that right? If the gospels were God's word, why would some of them be ruled out?
As you may feel, which is more reliable; a religion, the books of which are chosen by voting or religion, the book of which is revealed by God? Let us accept what each religion says as for granted and then judge each accordingly. You stand as an objective neutral evaluator or judge. Forget that you are whatever you are for a moment and decide objectively.
Islam says that there has always been one single version of the Holy Quran and no similar process of selection was ever made or needed.
On what basis did the church make its choice? Why those four gospels in particular? Why not three or five or ten gospels? Why not the other gospels? Who had the right to select and eliminate gospels? Who gave him that right? If the gospels were God's word, why would some of them be ruled out?
As you may feel, which is more reliable; a religion, the books of which are chosen by voting or religion, the book of which is revealed by God? Let us accept what each religion says as for granted and then judge each accordingly. You stand as an objective neutral evaluator or judge. Forget that you are whatever you are for a moment and decide objectively.
Contradictions
The four gospels of the New Testament show hundreds of disagreements on the same incidents although the church says that they are God's word.
The Quran, God's word according to Islam, shows no internal disagreements or contradictions.
For the sake of argument and by handling one issue at a time, let us take what each side says as for granted. Which, to you, sounds more divine: the New Testament which includes hundreds of inter-gospel disagreements or the Quran which has no internal inconsistencies? Churchmen says that the gospel disagreements are due to differences in human reporting. But remember that the gospels are not human reports, as they claim. According to the Church, they are God's word and revelation. How can the gospels contradict one another if they are God's word? They cannot be God's word and human reports at the same time.
Which do you accept as God's pure word: the New Testament with its four contradictory gospels or the Quran with its invariable consistency?
The Quran, God's word according to Islam, shows no internal disagreements or contradictions.
For the sake of argument and by handling one issue at a time, let us take what each side says as for granted. Which, to you, sounds more divine: the New Testament which includes hundreds of inter-gospel disagreements or the Quran which has no internal inconsistencies? Churchmen says that the gospel disagreements are due to differences in human reporting. But remember that the gospels are not human reports, as they claim. According to the Church, they are God's word and revelation. How can the gospels contradict one another if they are God's word? They cannot be God's word and human reports at the same time.
Which do you accept as God's pure word: the New Testament with its four contradictory gospels or the Quran with its invariable consistency?
Authenticity
Jesus' language was Aramaic as proven in "Eli, Eli, lama sa - batcha - ni" (Matt. 27:46). But this sentence was the only Aramaic sentence reported about Jesus. No gospel is available in Aramaic. The exact Aramaic words of Jesus are lost.
Muhammad's language was Arabic. All that Muhammad said is available in Arabic, the original language which he spoke.
Here you have two persons. Jesus spoke Aramaic and nothing is reported about him in Aramaic. What we have is only translations of lost originals. Muhammad spoke Arabic and all that is reported about him is in the same language which he spoke. Which reports are more authentic in your opinion: those about Jesus or those about Muhammad? Just decide on the basis of one factor at a time. Which reports sound more authentic? What would happen to reports translated from originals that no more exist?
Muhammad's language was Arabic. All that Muhammad said is available in Arabic, the original language which he spoke.
Here you have two persons. Jesus spoke Aramaic and nothing is reported about him in Aramaic. What we have is only translations of lost originals. Muhammad spoke Arabic and all that is reported about him is in the same language which he spoke. Which reports are more authentic in your opinion: those about Jesus or those about Muhammad? Just decide on the basis of one factor at a time. Which reports sound more authentic? What would happen to reports translated from originals that no more exist?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
