Debate: A Guide to Humanity: In the Qur'an or New Testament? SUMSA IAW 2009

[julio14335]

The subject is nonsense...

[gtxss]

who is jesus? oh yeah he is my God and your God

[shabido1]

You do realize this is like asking 'Which has better rhymes, HOP ON POP, or GREEN EGGS AND HAM?'

Both books rhyme, but a good rapper puts em both to shame.

[ndntakeover24]

great job by Dr. White

[julio14335]

Great job but blind faith

[tonystarks631]

How did the Christians get a new testament.How they just change god words thats crazy,god is perfect wat eva sent down that's wat he meant.Its kno beating around the Quarn.the Quarn has the real signs of the real revelations.

[mansuraus]

Trinity is a comfusing competition which fails almost people to know what it is!!! it makes no sense!!!

[ssahar1]

Jesus never says my father!!!!!

[JabrilAbdullah]

This is why I really can't take some of these christian scholars seriously.

In Greek, John 1:1 is "Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος"

That LITERALLY means:

"In the beginning was the plan, and the plan was toward THE God, and A god was the plan".

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah This is is why us christians can't take you seriously the word "Λόγος" is where we derive the english word "LOGIC"

Logos, Logic, Logos, Logic... hear anything similar there? This was a common word in the Greek that stood for "word" which scholars during the time associated with a deeper understanding being that as of meaning, logic, law and what held all of the world together in perfect ordor.

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 First off, notice I said "christian SCHOLARS". Laymen christians have no clue about this.

Secondly, you're taking the word 'Logos' meaning AFTER the fact. The word 'Logos' actually have a plethora of meanings. However, the greek philosophers who introduced it as a philosophy actually used it as a "plan" or "blueprint". The translation I posted is a consistent translation based on the meaning of the ones who introduced it.

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah And yet the Logos in Greek still translates as WORD as it was commonly used by everyone else.

"blue print" and "plan" are way over simplified English terms. We're not simply talking "blue print" but a active vocal utterance that gives meaning.

And you're definitely a laymen yourself if haven't figured that out by now.

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 It has over 30 different 'simple' and 'common' English meanings.

"Blueprint" and "plan" were the original intention of the meaning of the philosophy. The early English translators of the bible used "word" for their own religious gains(which is why it's "commonly" used). But, John(or whoever wrote the gospel according to John) took "Logos" from Philo and Philo had it as "plan".

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah That's nice but the Greek's during the time still used it on a daily basis for the word we know in english as "Word" which had the same meaning as vocal utterance with meaning. Now why would Philo use the word Logos when there are other terms in Greek that better suit "plan".

You're case is a weak one at best... Who's to say that what John meant by Logos was at all the same as what Philo meant by it? Philo wasn't the only one with a opinion at the time.

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 The using of "logos" by common greeks, still doesn't change the meaning of the philosophy. If you want to know why Philo would use that particular term, then ask him.

It doesn't change the fact that the philosophy John used was the philosophy of Philo and should have the meaning produced by the owner.

But the translation of "logos" is the least of the problems. The English christians translated the verse with out differentiating "The God" and "a god".

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah The philosophical use of the word Logos doesn't change the use of the word by the gospel John either.

And how would you know John used Philo's exact definition? That's you're mere assertion that you have no way of backing up. If John was christian and Philo was not, that would change both of their pressupositional standpoints substantually. Philo's philosophical assertions do not define anything for John if John is speaking from a context of a more commen place understanding.

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 So, basically John plagiarized?

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah The English christians translated the verse with out differentiating "The God" and "a god"."

Your point? Most christians understanding the trinity already know the difference between God the Father "Theon" and God the Son "Theos".

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 HIGHLY doubt most christians even know two words in greek. It's not up to the english christians to translate a verses in light of their own religious gains. If John made sure he 'differentiated' "ton theon" and "theos", so, the english christians should do the same. Especially if they say God dictated it.

Secondly, christians came to this "trinity" for this VERY reason. Mistranslations that appear very intentional.

Peace.

[MRKetter81]

@JabrilAbdullah Besides later on it says in John10

"27τα προβατα τα εμα της φωνης μου ακουουσιν καγω γινωσκω αυτα και ακολουθουσιν μοι 28καγω διδωμι αυτοις ζωην αιωνιον και ου μη απολωνται εις τον αιωνα και ουχ αρπασει τις αυτα εκ της χειρος μου 29ο πατηρ μου ο δεδωκεν μοι παντων μειζον εστιν και ουδεις δυναται αρπαζειν εκ της χειρος του πατρος  30εγω και ο πατηρ εν εσμεν"

[JabrilAbdullah]

@MRKetter81 Most important quote; "My Father is GRATER than ALL else".

Peace.

[medsheikh]

James white he knows the new testament is false but,

he will do the best he can to convince you and brain wash you.

may ALLAH protect us from the whispering of evil like(James white).

we are very thankful to almighty GOD with the brain that he gave us

and the powerful knowledge of Quran & Islam the complete way of life.

again very we are thankful to ALLAH the beneficent & most merciful.

[johnyehyeh]

allah is not my god ,jesus is my lord.

[theyasin33]

@johnyehyeh I mean this with no intention of complacency and with humility and grace, but how can a man be God? I know that you have the three spirits of God but that contradicts the meaning of monotheism.. Please do explain?

[danamakaveli15]

@theyasin33 he cannnot...man cannot be god for needs to be sustained...a sustainer of things need not to be sustained

[dcash1717]

Who is Allah? He is my God and he is YOUR GOD.

[robbie778]

he isnt mine! mine is yahweh

[tryingtobegood1]

@robbie778 lol yahweh? how did you manage to pull out yahweh from yhwh??

amazing!

[atomac23]

How christianity , or Bible can be guide for humanity if they teach that Law is a curse from the God becouse nobody is able to hold on it. This topic does not suite christians to talk or deabate about.

[ananiasacts]

9:12 "in him all things hold together" Doesn't that imply that Allah is a Higgs boson?

I think the last thing a god of truth would want from us is respect or acknowledgement. Because those things could only hinder our progress in discovering truth.  Knowledge of our world is what empowers us, and is discovered mostly by trying to disprove what we think might be true.

Religions say god is a terrorist. Worship or else. Nonsense. If you want to know the mind of god study the world he made.

[i7o999]

GLORIOUS QURAN

In the name of God, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

2 By the Qur'an, full of Wisdom,-

36:2

This Qur'an is not such as can be produced by other than God. on the contrary it is a confirmation of (revelations) that went before it, and a fuller explanation of the Book - wherein there is no doubt - from the Lord of the worlds. 10:37 Do they not then consider the Qur'an carefully? Had it been from other than Allah, they would surely have found therein many a contradiction.

4:82

[ananiasacts]

@i7o999, But if you believe Allah wants us to live a certain way, isn't that a reason to reject him? Isn't that like giving in to a terrorist just because you can't think of a way to fight them?

[AfghDude]

i've seen better debates.

[MrPeachess]

forgiveness in Islam.

"O son of Adam, as long as you call upon Me and put your hope in Me, I have forgiven you for what you have done and I do not mind. O son of Adam, if your sins were to reach the clouds of the sky and then you would seek My forgiveness, I would forgive you. O son of Adam, if you were to come to Me with sins that are close to filling the earth and then you would meet Me without ascribing any partners with Me, I would certainly bring to you forgiveness close to filling it."

[MrPeachess]

this black muslim man saying thank u Allah(God) for guiding me into this religion thank u God.

[1MoreMuslim]

James White tried to establish that Christianity is universal, but failed to demonstrate that it is a guidance. Off topic.

[oombuddah]

Original Sin - The doctrine of Falsehood - Judaism taught that God is all merciful and all forgiving. How will God be all forgiving if God creates us with a human inclination to Sin, and uses this to test us to see if we are worthy of eternal life.

God created us imperfect! How is it Justice if God doesn't show us mercy for some sins we do?

How is it merciful if God REQUIRES A PAYMENT for Adam's sin, and God will make sure He is not merciful to SOMEONE. He's not merciful to Christ!! Astagfirula

[oombuddah]

James White - What on earth man, this is a debate about guide to humanity, not Deity of Christ?!

[oombuddah]

Islam without a doubt eliminates all bad things. It is the solution of humanity.

[ericcruzstealth]

@oombuddah hmmn solution of humanity please elaborate?

[ananiasacts]

@oombuddah, I wasn't aware that I needed a "solution." Why assume everyone else is broken?

[atomac23]

iwatched many debates, but i would like to watch just one where christians would hold the topic of the debate. This one was most obvious. Guidance to humanity , but this guy is talking how Jesus is savior. Topic is New Testament he is quoting Old testament in half of his presentation. I watch him and before , same staf, when ther is no answer just talk how Jesus is savior, died for our sins, we just have to wait for judgment day. I need answer from bible about homosexuals, credits, alcoholism

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

There are differences between the Sana'a, Samarkand and the Cairo edition.

Lets take an example from the Samarkand codex and 1924 Royal Cairo Edition.

Surah 37 ayat 103

Samarkand Codes: wa ma aslamA

Today's version: falammAslamA

Did they or did they not submit?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

I think the problem here, stengline2, is that you have no idea what you are talking about. Evidently, you have never read any scholarly work on the transmission of the Qur'an, textual variants, early versions, the contradictory compilation narratives, etc.

Maybe you should read for a bit and then do some apologetics that aren't about flaunting your ignorance on the topic.

[1999sis]

ur jelous of the fact that the quran has not been changed since muahmmed pbuh.  show me wer the quran is different.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

I already gave you an example below comparing the Samarkand Codex to today's version.

[stengline2]

You do realise that Hijazi script (which is what the Sana'a text is written in) doesn't have ortographical marks?

What scholar suggested that is is proof of a variant? Can I see his/her paper please? Because, obviously, the do not know that wa/fa are written the same way in hijazi? I'd be happy to look at it if you gave me a reference, please.

[1MoreMuslim]

Wa ma aslama " Doesn't make sense , no one would believe that Quran teaches that Abraham and his son refused to obey God, but followed his order.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

So - who here can backup Kunde's claim?

Evidently, stengline cannot so he lies instead.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

All these responses but you still cannot backup anything. How very odd!

[stengline2]

What exactly do you want me to back up?

You asked from a quote from Rippin that suggests early collection and composition of the Qur'an: I delivered.

I asked for you to give me the Rippin reference you quoted, to be honest to the people: you haven't.

I asked you to represent the variant in the Bellamy article correctly: you didn't and now are quoting ahadith based variants.

I've also asked you to even show me where Br. Abdullah mentions Rippin: You haven't.

Who's not backing?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

1) You neither backed up your or Kunde's claim with any quotes by Rippin. Simple deception on your part.

2) I gave you a Rippin reference. You didn't like it so you lied about it coming from Ibn Warraq. More deception on your part.

3) I presented a variant from Bellamy's articles. You have not read Bellamy's articles or his work. More deception on your part.

4) Abdullah mentions it in this presentation. You can check it as his reference on the slides.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

I believe the fact that those first Muslims who collected the Qur'an and the first Muslim commentators (such as Ibn Abbas who was Muhammad's cousin) don't agree with today's version of the Quran is evidence enough in itself. It is neither perfectly preserved not was there ever a standardised version to perfectly preserve.

Trying to put the contemporary Muslim apologetic position into the mouth of scholars is simply pathetic and dishonest.

[sexyarii]

Poor little lying Muslim apologists.

[stengline2]

Well perhaps we should give respect to the Nag Hamadi 'Library' - because early Christians wrote those. Or maybe start praying to Mary, cause early Christians did that.

Even scholars like Bellamy and his forerunner Arthur Jeffrey differentiate between manuscript evidence and 'reported' variants.

What if I told you all the sayings attributed to Ibn Masud about variants were rejected by Muslim scholars in the 9th Century? It wouldn't matter, because you're preferring hearsay over evidence.

[stengline2]

So putting this a bit more on the front foot:

1) Where did you get the Rippin article from? What journal is it published in?

2)Present MANUSCRIPT evidence and then we can discuss it.

3)What do you say about the quote I gave from Rippin (with evidence)?

Lets recall the original issue is Br. Abdullah quoting Rippin. Did he quote Bellamy too? Did he not also say in his presentation:

"...There are some other opinions among scholars, but there are some that agree the Qur'an is..."?

[stengline2]

So, in effect, he is saying that there are some scholars that disagree, but there are some that agree the Qur'an was collected/complete c. 650CE.

Perhaps he should have been extreme and quote the secular scholars that say the NT is all made up as if its the only opinion out there. That would have been fairer for this discussion we're having now.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

More deception. Here, we note that you cannot deal with the overwhelming evidence so you go for a straw man attack.

Now, to your next fallacy you intentionally misrepresent me. You seem to be implying that I do not differentiate between manuscript variants (like many we would get when we place some of the Sana'a manuscripts against the Samarkand Codex and today's Royal Cairo edition of the Quran) with the plethora of variant readings recorded by the earliest Muslims.

More of your dishonesty.

[stengline2]

What evidence?

1)You still have not quoted a reference for your Rippin quote - you've just named the article, not its source.

2) Your now claiming there are differences between Sana'a and Samarkand and the Cairo ed. with what evidence?

3) You again revert to sayings attributed, which as I said, were rejected by even the earliest Muslim scholars.

[stengline2]

1) What do you say about the Rippin quote I gave?

2) What journal was the Rippin article you quoted published in? Did you access the E-Version?

3)Bellamy himself distinguishes between ahadith variants and manuscript variants found at Sana'a. All I asked is that you stipulate which is which. Why can't you do that?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Once again, you cannot interact with any of my arguments nor can you backup Kunde's false claims.

If dishonesty is all you have I see no reason to continue. If you ever bring forward some evidence do feel free to contact me.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Once again - no evidence to contradict my claims or to support Kunde.

1) Your quote of Andrew Rippin neither supports your (or Kunde's) claim nor contradicts does it contradict mine.

2) Bellamy gives many examples - such as noting that Ibn Abbas (one of the first Muslim commentators) used variants extremely different from the Uthmanic version. You haven't actually read his work so do not see what you are trying to achieve from the standpoint of ignorance.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Your attempt at playing down variants to pronunciation differences such as how to say tomato is rather pathetic and simply dishonest.

"In 13:31 we find a-fa-lam yay'asi lladhina amani, "Have not those who believed despaired?" Ibn Abbas, following Ibn Massud, read yatabayyan, "Have they not seen clearly?" and said that the copyist must have been sleepy when he wrote yay'as."

[stengline2]

See, I think perhaps, my friend, you are confusing when a Qur'an scholar quotes a reported variant contained within the sayings attributed to Ibn Masud and Ibn Abbas with actual manuscript evidence.

You're now quouting when Bellamy refers to sayings, not manuscripts. The sayings themselves are widely disputed, and were even in the past. So again, that isn't evidence. Having something written on a manuscript is.

You still have not quoted the article from Rippin. Nice!

[stengline2]

Also, I've asked where Br. Abdullah says the name of Andrew Rippin? I can't see it.

But assuming your quote is correct (perhaps you've been to one of his talks not on youtube) and he said something like he says in this one with Rippin's name "Secular scholars that are respected say the Qur'an we have today is the one the Prophet delivered. What does that mean? The Qur'an we have now can be traced to c. 650CE, which is what Rippin says in that quote and others have said about Sana'a mansucrips

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Once again, no engagement or evidence from your side - just more baseless and deceptive insults.

The point has been proven. Your pathetic attacks against myself will add nothing of value.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Dare I ask - where is Kunde's evidence that Rippin et al hold to his position?

Where is your evidence against the claims of the aforementioned scholars?

Are childish remarks the only straws you have left to grasp to?

[stengline2]

I'd assume Br. Abdullah has probably read:

Rippin, A. (2005) Muslims: their religious beliefs and practices, p35 'The Evidence of the Manuscripts': "In 1972 a treasure trove of ancient manuscripts of the Qur'an was discovered in... Sana'a... Certainly, the existence of the manuscripts indicates that the text (or, at the very least, substantial parts of it) existed in some sort of collected form by the eighth century.

I asked you re: Bellamy, did you read the example he gave?

[stengline2]

The example he gave shows that there is no change in the rasm (Rippin terms the 'primative text') or the understanding of the verse. Just a single word pronounciation. It's like two people saying to-may-to or to-mah-ta regarding the red juicy fruit.

I've now quoted Ripping with a reference you can check. I've also paraphrased Bellamy from the article that you have said you hold.

As Br. Abdullah says in another one of his talks, "Bring you're evidence and lets discuss it".

[stengline2]

I've just watched the debate and didn't actually see anywhere where Br. Abdullah quoted Andrew Rippin anyway. Where you there?

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Once again, more strawman arguments.

Evidently, you cannot refute any of the arguments nor can you substantiate the false citation by Kunde. As is clear - scholars do not believe today's Quran to be identical to what Muhammad apparently 'delivered'. The fact that we had variant versions (e.g. Ibn Massud, Ibn Ubayy, etc) with diffferent Surahs and missing ayas means the Islamic sources do not even testify to the modern claim!

[stengline2]

Pardon me, I'm obviously not presenting myself well.

But perhaps, friend, it is you that should consider your 'evidence'. You're sliding from Rippin (which you still won't quote), to holding on to Bellamy's straw to now quoting ahadith. If you can't engage in an evidence based discussion, what is the point? You just want to throw out accusations which you either : won't reference, won't place into a context and won't allow to be questioned.

How very Xian of you, my friend :)

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

*is wondering why his posts won't work on this video anymore*

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Did anyone notice that Kunde claimed that Andrew Rippin and other scholars believe that the Koran is "the same Quran as the Prophet delivered."

The fact that those scholars hold that the Koran was in many various forms until its final recension long after the death of Muhammad makes this kinda impossible.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Andrew Rippin commenting on the oldest Qur'anic manuscripts we possess:

"Their VARIANT READINGS and verse orders are all very significant. Everybody agrees on that. These manuscripts say that the early history of the Koranic text is much more of an open question than many have suspected: the text was less stable, and therefore had less authority, than has always been claimed."

- Professor Andrew Rippin

A very different sentiment than that claimed by Kunde.

[truquran]

'Variant readings' doesn't mean that the scripture was changed, it means there were different ways of RECITING the Qur'an. The Qur'an can be recited in VARIANT ways, but the words are not changed.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

The point that was being made actually is that the Qur'an was not a stable text pre-Uthman (or even post for that matter). This is the opinion of Rippin and it most definitely does not agree with Kunde's false citation.

Now, on the topic of variant readings (vowelisation differences, etc) we know that they do change the meaning in many instances.

See: James A. Bellamy (2001), 'Textual Criticism of the Koran'. Journal of the American Oriental Society.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

I can't help but find your comment ironic. You claim poor scholarship on my part when both your criticisms against me were wrong.

1) No, I did not quote an essay edited by Ibn Warraq.

2) I have the article by Bellamy in my hand so finding no error on my part and accusing me of not reading is simply childish.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Just to quote him here (and don't pretend this has also been edited by Ibn Warraq):

"These variants, however - I have counted more than two-hundred that make a difference in the meaning - are important in that they tell us there was no solid oral tradition stemming directly from the prophet to prove which variant was correct."

You might also find Bellamy's work on textual emendations interesting. My favourite is the suggestion that 'Isa is a mistake and corruption.

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Once again, you can't actually respond. Your only criticisms seems to be a strawman - attacking Bellamy for not discussing variants that arise from the different razms despite that not being the point. Rather pathetic.

His evidence is all in the articles - I guess you haven't actually read them (ironic). Or do are you really going to continue to attack me for not copying an 8 page article 500 characters at a time?

[stengline2]

Not my intention, at all.

My mere asertion is: quote the entirety of the finding. Yes - the single word difference is present. But - rasm (i.e. the arabic spelling) is not different (so no different TEXT) and the meaning in the context of the verse is the same (so consistent ORAL UNDERSTANDING). Ergo, no significant difference.

It's important we be fair. If a Muslim said no two greek manuscripts are SIMILAR - you'd complain. If they say none are IDENTICAL they are correct.

Differences...

[stengline2]

And in terms of his 'evidnce', the issue is '\how reliable is the evidence and is it based on incorrect assertions/improveable conclusions. For example, I could say the start of the Gospel of John is different to the rest of it, so likely not written by the same person. I've supplied evidence. Does that mean the claim is bulletproof? No.

Validity of claim is based on validity of evidence. It's silly to suggest any old 'evidence' prooves this or that.

And non Ibn Warraq reference for AR?

[taylord1996]

Did anyone else notice that after establishing Matt. 28:18-20 ("The Great Commission") as the basis for his presentation, Dr. White never once quoted Jesus. The instructions clearly say "Go therefore... teaching them to observe all that I commanded you"

[OnlineBibleMinistry]

Did anyone else notice that taylord1966 removed everything from the verses that contradicted the point he was trying to make?

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

[stengline2]

How does that change taylord's point?

Dr. White quotes Jesus once through the whole debate. Even Kunde quoted Jesus once - perhaps Dr. White was afraid of such quotes and needed to stick to Paul?

[taylord1996]

Dr. White seemed more concerned with establishing the deity of Jesus, in lieu of the announced topic.

For me, this particular presentation re-enforces the old saying, Christianity has become a religion about Jesus, not necessarily the religion of Jesus