Board index ‹ Islam

[Koog]

Why do Christians believe in the NT but not the Qur'an? It seems that the Jews believe the OT is the only word of God, and Christians believe that the OT is the word of God, but then something happened that made God decide that he didn't want those rules to apply that way, so he sent a prophet, Jesus, who was also His Son, to make a rule change (I know I'm simplifying a lot, and probably getting things wrong, I'm trying to get the point across.) Muslims believe that at some point God once again changed His mind and sent the prophet Mohammad to set the rules straight once again.

Is there any specific reason to believe that this happened once but not twice? Especially considering over a billion people believe this is true?

[jimwalton]

First, the New Testament is a discernibly and distinctly different kind of document from the Qur'an. The NT is the story of Jesus and then the theological interpretation of what Jesus on the cross and in his resurrection. It also contains many teachings about how to live well.

The Qur'an is not the story of Muhammed nor the story of Jesus. It is an agglomeration of rather unrelated sayings from which some theological teachings are gleaned. Muslims live more by the Hadith than they do by the Qur'an (which is not to claim that they don't live by the Qur'an, only that the Hadith are more informative).

My problems with seeing the Qur'an as just another phase of revelation from the same God are several:

1. The NT implies that Jesus is God's final and complete revelation (Heb. 1. 1-3). No other revelation is necessary.

2. Islam, though it claims to revere parts of the NT as one some of its sacred writings, in real life reject the whole NT as being corrupt. This is both ironic and misguided, since the NT was written about 30-40 years after Jesus' life, and the Qur'an was written 600 years later. In addition, Muhammad based knowledge of Christianity, as written in the Qur'an, off the NT. So we have a real problem here. If the NT is corrupt, so is the Qur'an.

3. Muhammad was not a prophet in the sense of the biblical prophets. He lived a morally impure and viciously violent life. Holiness was the watchword for biblical prophets, and an analysis of the lifestyle of Muhammad (despite that he is called holy by Muslims) reveals quite clearly that he was not a holy man.

4. God didn't change his mind in the sending of Jesus. The OT is about Jesus and prophetic of Jesus. Interestingly, there are no prophecies of Muhammad in either the OT or NT. Jesus was the fulfillment of the OT, not a reflection of a change of mind on God's part. Islam would indicate something different: not just a change of mind, but a repudiation of virtually all that went before. (The Muslims regard all Scripture—the Bible—as hopelessly corrupt and therefore to be completely disregarded.) This is in direct contradiction to the teachings of the Bible, and therefore Muhammad and the Qur'an can't possibly be just the next sequence in the progression of revelation.

5. It's true that there are over a billion Muslims, but remember how this religion started and spread: "Become a Muslim or you will die." It's distinctly different from how Christianity started and spread (though there were some violent groups and movements even in Christianity, contradicting what the Bible said they should be doing). 64% of the Qur'an, on the other hand, is driven by the question of what to do with the Kafir—infidels, one who doesn't accept Islam, and who is therefore evil.

There is no country on earth where large numbers of Muslims live in peace with non-Muslims. Essential to Islam is the question of how to crush and suppress unbelievers. The Kafir have no human or civil rights. Any non-Muslim can be killed, sold into slavery, sexually abused, raped, mistreated, dismembered, or mutilated—all sanctioned by the Qur'an. "Kafir" occurs over 400 times in the Qur'an. 75% of the Sira describes all manner of jihad and political domination; 40% of the Hadith is the struggle of dealing with the Kafir. This is no successor to the NT, which teaches to love our neighbors, to preach good news, and to be people of forgiveness and grace.

[Sensible]

As Bertrand Russell said, you cannot measure a religion's truth by its social effects, and this was in response to Christians claiming that Christianity is good for the world. This argument can simply be reversed "you cannot measure the truth of a religion by the evil it causes". This aside, I don't think you can measure Islam's truth by unhappy Muslims with non Muslims. I think that's a poor argument.

I think you're essentially confusing two issues. One is the historic truth and the other is divine truth. You cannot say that because the Qur'an is 600 years after, it could not have been the truth about Jesus. The Qur'an claims to be divine, so supernaturally it can have that knowledge. Just like it would not be right for me to claim that Jesus is not the son of God using a scientific method when it's impossible to prove it using a scientific method. However, if you're going to use the historic argument, then there are many things that can be put to the test, such as the myth about Alexander the Great, which didn't appear in writing until 400 years after, and yet we have no issue believing he existed.

As with the Bible, yes, it was written around 30 years after jesus. The earliest books were the letters of Paul which were around 40 ad then Mark around 65 ad then Matthew and Luke around 70 and then John around 80-90 ad. The problem is we only have fragments of the early manuscripts which are so small they barely provide anything more than a verse or two. P75, which talks about Jesus being crucified from the Gospel according to Luke, omits "father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing." The full manuscript of Mark appears 150 years after Jesus. The complete manuscript, the codex sinaiticus, comes from the fourth century. You simply cannot use this argument, we do not have the originals or the copies, or the copies of the copies, or even the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies. Now here is the real issue at hand, and this is a very major problem that I struggled with and many other people do. From the codex sinaiticus to the Textus Receptus, there are differences. If something is not in the earliest manuscript, it must be a forgery or the later manuscript is using a source even earlier than the earliest, but there is no evidence of that. So, if there are differences between the codex sinaiticus and the Textus receptus, it follows logically that there could be differences between the codex sinaiticus and the ones before.

Acts 8:37 has been removed from many bibles because it isn't in the earliest manuscript.

1 John 5:7 "for there are three that bear witness in heaven, the Father, the son, and the Holy Spirit" this has also been removed from the New International version because it isn't in the earliest manuscript.

The story of the adultress women is also not in the earliest manuscript.

From Mark 16:8 where it ends, there is an addition which is not in the earliest manuscript.

Even the verse about baptise all nations in the name of the Father, the son and the Holy Spirit is seen as being dubious.

These are all major issues. I am not making this up, you can check it out for yourself. If I am wrong about something then please correct me.
I also don't find the arguments against Muhammad particularly compelling. Moses in numbers 31 :17 orders his men to kill boys and men along with women but take the women for yourselves.
David kills a woman's husband to sleep with the wife. There are various other issues with biblical prophets, if you're seriously going to use this as an argument then I'd question the other biblical prophets too.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the comments.

First of all, I disagree with Bertrand Russell. We certainly evaluate the truth of a religion based on whether it's true or not (fundamentally), but religion also inevitably and necessarily has social effects. And if the social effects of said religion are harmful, negative, or detrimental, then that religion cannot be a reflection of truth. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam all claim that God is good and that spreading his goodness on the earth is a mission of His adherents. Therefore we should be able to assess the veracity of a religious belief by its social effects. Russell is incorrect. Any religion that is the arm of evil is an untrue religion.

> I think you're essentially confusing two issues. One is the historic truth and the other is divine truth.

I would argue that truth is truth, and what is true in one sphere is also true in another. Science, psychology, philosophy, theology, mathematics, and all other disciplines must fundamentally agree if they are genuinely true. Truth accords with reality, and any discipline that also accords with reality is going to be equally true, whether historical truth or divine truth. The Bible (and therefore both Judaism and Christianity) shows how God is at work in history, and that history is an outworking of God's revelation of Himself and his actions in the lives of people. Again, therefore, there will be an accord between historic truth and divine truth.

But then you want to talk about manuscripts. You're right that we only have fragments until about 350 AD when we have an entire "book" (codex). But along with those fragments we have an abundance of references in other writings (the Church Fathers) to the content of the NT writings, so much so that we have a profuse amount of reference material.

> we do not have the originals or the copies, or the copies of the copies, or even the copies of the copies of the copies of the copies.

You can't say this with certainty. It has been shown that important manuscripts were kept around and used for several centuries. For all we know, some of the fragments we have are direct copies of the originals. It's possible that even some of the codexes are copied directly from the originals (we just have no way of knowing that for sure). So it's not a very major problem.

> From the codex sinaiticus to the Textus Receptus, there are differences.

The differences are mostly minor. We can be fairly certain of about 99% of the text. And of the 1%, there is nothing in those that changes any doctrine. We have a very reliable text.

> So, if there are differences between the codex sinaiticus and the Textus receptus, it follows logically that there could be differences between the codex sinaiticus and the ones before.

We have such a multitude of fragments, uncials, manuscripts and codexes that this is not a problem. We pretty much know, to 99%, the NT text.

> Acts 8.37

That's right, and we know that. We know it wasn't there originally and so have been removed. That's what an abundance of manuscripts accomplishes for us.

> 1 John 5.7

That's right, and we know that. It has been removed from most versions, and footnoted in the others, generally. (I can't speak for ALL translations.)

> John 7.53-8.11

That's right, and we know that. It doesn't belong, though it's an intriguing story and very much like the personality of Jesus.

> Mark 16.9-20

That's right, and we know that.

These things aren't a problem, and they aren't an issue. These things are well known, deeply studied, and honestly handled. They are not major issues.

> Numbers 31.17

The Midianites had attacked Israel. Their women had seduced the Israelite men and led them into idolatry. Numbers 25.18 says that Midianites had been deceitful with unprovoked hostility and treachery. This was not a war from the Israelites to enlarge their territory, as were the wars of Muhammad.

They were to kill the boys and men because they were crippling their ability to field an army. They were "taking the women for themselves" in marriage, not in rape or sexual abuse. These were not sex slaves, but wives. There is nothing in the text implying sexual abuse or mere sexual pleasure. It means simply "do not kill them, but you may let them live." In Deuteronomy 21.10-14, it is against the law for a Gentile female POW to be used as a sex object. An Israelite male had to carefully follow proper procedures before she could be taken as a wife. In light of the highly sensitive nature of sexual purity in ancient Israel, and for Israel's soldiers, specific protocols had to be followed. Rape was most certainly excluded as an extracurricular activity in warfare. It's a picture vastly different from the lifestyle of Muhammad.

> David kills a woman's husband to sleep with the wife.

Yes, and God lets him know how abominable that behavior is, and there is great punishment for that act. This doesn't help your case regarding Muhammad.

[Sensible]

Well, if you're going to measure the truth of something by the social effects, then Christianity would be seen as evil, but I think we need to put that aside. The issue of what Muhammad did is very complex and it requires a lot of background knowledge as well as an understanding of the culture at the time.

I don't think you can seriously claim that in Numbers 31;17 the women were simply taken as wives, that may be true but Moses did order the women to be killed and the boys to be killed and the girls who had not known a man to be shared amongst themselves. In the Islamic concept moses did not do this, he would not have boys murdered. The old testament is loaded with things like this, I know it, you know it, everyone knows it. Christians have tried to escape this by saying it's the God of the old testament and so on. I can bring up many verses which are brutal. That's not a good indication of anything.

What adding verses to the Bible proves is that it's not infallible. It can be changed. The issue is we don't know whether the Bible we're reading now is corrupt or not, the earliest full manuscript is still from the 4th century. There's a very strong possibility that it's corrupt. Yes the verses may have been taken out but before they weren't, people read and believed them as scripture. They believed in something that was not part of Christianity. Then there's obviously the issue of who wrote the Bible.

Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not write the Bible. Mark was written first, Matthew is 92% similar to Mark. Not just similar in stories, the exact words are used. If Matthew was an eye witness then why did he copy from Mark? Many scholars agree that it's very similar. The disciples of Jesus were aramaic speaking peasants, they did not speak Greek but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they did, that does not mean they could write Greek. In Acts Peter is said to be illiterate, so clearly Peter didn't write 1 Peter.

The four gospels don't agree on the story of the resurrection, was it two women like in Matthew, four like in Mark or one like in John. Was it an angel or was it no one like in John? You can say you're using the argument from silence but it's more than that, it's a contradiction.

Matthew: 2 people only (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James)

John: 1 person only (Mary Magdalene)

Luke: 3 for definite but possibly more (Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joanna)

Mark: 3 people only (Mary the mother of James, Mary Magdalene and Salome)

Then there's the issue of the angels.

Mark: 1 man (possible angel)

Matthew: 1 angel and guards (two or possibly more)

Luke: 2 men (possible angels) no guards.

John: no men or angels.

Then we have the rock

In Matthew an angel rolled it back when the women got there

In Mark it was moved before they got there

In Luke it was moved before they got there

In John it was moved before Mary arrived.

These are contradictions. The Gospels are different accounts written by different people at different times for different people. They are prone to errors and change.

[jimwalton]

> if you're going to measure the truth of something by the social effects then Christianity would be seen as evil

I'll admit that Christianity doesn't have a clean history. There are some eras and some events where people falsely representing themselves as Christians did abominable things. There's no doubt about it. But taken as a whole (which is what we have to do to be responsible), Christianity has had extremely positive effects on culture: hospitals, schools, water wells, food relief, medicine, and a large list longer. Here in Western culture our legal system, government, philosophy, literature, music, art, economics, education, and science have all been shaped around the principles of Christianity to a positive effect.

> The issue of what Muhammad did is very complex and it requires a lot of background knowledge as well as an understanding of the culture at the time.

I agree with this.

> I don't think you can seriously claim that in Numbers 31;17 the women were simply taken as wives

I absolutely can claim it and prove it, but that's a different discussion and longer than we have room for here. There is no evidence to take the story in any other direction. But as I said, that's a different discussion.

> Christians have tried to escape this by saying it's the God of the old testament and so on. I can bring up many verses which are brutal. That's not a good indication of anything.

These verses, I have learned through many discussion on this forum, are widely misunderstood and greatly distorted to make YHWH a brutal beast of a deity. But again, these are discussion we would have to have about the specifics, and it's longer than we can get into here. If you want to discuss them, start a new post, and I'll interact with you on them.

> What adding verses to the Bible proves is that it's not infallible.

We know about these verses, and we don't consider them to be authoritative. Their presence doesn't detract from the Bible being authoritative. Our Bibles mark that these verses were added later and aren't part of the original.

> It can be changed.

No it can't. We mark that these verses were added and they don't belong. We recognize the text that is authentic and the text that isn't, because it can't be changed.

> The issue is we don't know whether the Bible we're reading now is corrupt or not, the earliest full manuscript is still from the 4th century.

The point is that we DO know that they Bible we're reading now is 99% accurate. The research is extensive and thorough. The manuscripts and fragments are abundant.

> Mark, Matthew, Luke and John did not write the Bible.

I would argue very strongly that they did. The evidence is greatly in their favor. I don't know what you've been reading, but again, we can have this conversation as you wish.

> Matthew is 92% similar to Mark.

This is not true. Matthew is almost twice the length of Mark and has large blocks of teaching that aren't in Mark. It's not even close to 92% similar to Mark. I don't know where you got this tidbit, but it's false.

> If Matthew was an eye witness then why did he copy from Mark?

Scholars seem to think there was a common document that they both used as resource, called "Q". You can't guarantee to me, however, that if Q is real, that Matthew didn't either write it or contribute to it. So how you can you say with such confidence that Matthew's Gospel isn't an eyewitness account? You can't, really.

> The disciples of Jesus were aramaic speaking peasants, they did not speak Greek but I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and say they did, that does not mean they could write Greek.

Many of the people of the ancient world were multi-lingual. Aramaic was the language of the region, but Latin was the legal language and Greek was the language of commerce. How do you know the disciples didn't speak Greek? I would be pleased to see your evidence. Jesus spoke Greek, because he addressed soldiers, Gentiles, and even Pilate. So if Jesus spoke Greek, possibly the other disciples did also.

As far as writing Greek, the Bible authors used secretaries (1 Peter 5.12; Jeremiah 36.4).

> In Acts Peter is said to be illiterate, so clearly Peter didn't write 1 Peter.

I don't know where you got this. But in any case, Peter used a secretary to write his book (1 Pet. 5.12).

> The resurrection

You're just throwing things at me here. Would you like to have a reasonable discussion about these things? I would be glad to, but you're just tossing things around.

Women at the tomb. There were many. Because John only mentions 1 doesn't mean only 1 was there. He mentions the one he is telling a story about. This is not a problem.

Angels at the tomb. There were several, and they came and went as needed. That's why people see different angels and different numbers of angels at different times. This is not a problem.

The rock. It was rolled away sometime before dawn, before the women arrived. Matthew 28.2-4 is a parenthesis explaining what happened earlier.

These are not contradictions. Somehow you have gotten a bunch of bogus information about many things. I would guess it's from the Internet, but maybe not. I don't know your sources, but they are distortions, misrepresentations, and sometime outright falsehoods. You can't believe everything you read on the Internet.

> The Gospels are different accounts written by different people at different times for different people.

This is undeniably true.

> They are prone to errors and change.

This is false, and this point doesn't follow from your previous sentence. Let's talk more.