THE BBC REALLY WANTS YOU TO BELIEVE THE QUR’AN IS AUTHENTIC [Will bend truth to convince you]

FrontPage Mag ^ | 07/23/2015 | Robert Spencer

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Do you really need elaboration?

Yes it does. Maybe you can help him out and edify us all.

[j.havenfarm]

I’ll decline, thank you. I interpreted the initial comment as an off-topic smug and gratuitous swipe at believers. The capitalization errors, to my mind, just make the self-satisfied author look like a dope.

[Smokin' Joe]

This news is not only of interest to scholars and Muslim intellectuals; it appears to buttress the Islamic claim that the Qur’an’s text has remained unchanged for 1,400 years – which is purported to be proof of its divine origin.

The penalty for changing so much as one dot of the Quran is death.

I reckon the scribes have been very careful to keep it exactly the same, but that is not proof of divinity, only proof of fear.

[Pollster1]

I found an authentic original copy of the Koran in a field. But then the flies started buzzing around, and I realized it had been left behind by a cow.

[Jim Robinson]

well, bye.

[A Formerly Proud Canadian]

vlad, let's start with the simplest question.

The Apocrypha did not become official canon of the Roman church until the Council of Trent in 1546. The Tanakh was codified sometime between 200 BC and 200 AD. It contains 24 books (39 in the OT, as Samuel, Kings and Chronicles are each broken into two books, the book of 'minor' prophets is broken into 13 books in the OT and the books of Ezra and Nehemiah are one book in the Tanakh.) In other words, the non-Apocrypha OT matches the Jewish Tanakh, as it should. The Apocrypha is contained in the GREEK Septuagint but NOT the Hebrew Bible, the Tanakh; therefore it was not and should not have been included as part of what was 'Scripture' in the Israel of Jesus' time. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord. The reasons are very clear. While there is some wisdom in the Apocrypha and the content is valuable, it is most certainly not God breathed. For example, in 2 Maccabees 12:39-46, it states that praying for the dead "...is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.". We know from Jesus' teaching that prayers for the dead is not Biblical (Luke 16:19-31). In addition, Ezekiel 18:20 and Hebrews 9:27 confirm that once someone dies, nothing can change their situation. Prayer for the dead is just not Biblical. The Apocrypha was added, to match some doctrinal changes decided by Rome, which differed from historical and Apostolic practices, such as praying for the dead.

The Latin Vulgate, completed by Jerome in 405, the Bible for a milenia of the Roman church, specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, and the Shepherd "are not in the canon". In the prologue to Esdras he mentions 3 and 4 Esdras as being apocrypha. In his prologue to the books of Solomon, he mentioned "the book of Jesus son of Sirach and another pseudepigraphos, which is titled the Wisdom of Solomon". He says of them and Judith, Tobias, and the Books of the Maccabees, that the Church "has not received them among the canonical scriptures".. Interesting that, by the time of the Council of Trent, what was " not in canon" BECAME canon!

Perhaps 'validated' is the wrong word. Perhaps 'commonly acknowledged as being God breathed' is a more accurate term. I'll answer the rest of your question en masse. (BTW, that means 'all together' not 'in a Roman Mass!')

From Scripture, we know that Paul considered Luke's writing to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7). Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). In Colossians 4:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:27 we know that some NT books were already in circulation amongst the churches. All this during Apostolic times!

Clement of Rome mentioned at least eight New Testament books (A.D. 95). Ignatius of Antioch acknowledged about seven books (A.D. 115). Polycarp, a disciple of John the apostle, acknowledged 15 books (A.D. 108). Later, Irenaeus mentioned 21 books (A.D. 185). Hippolytus recognized 22 books (A.D. 170-235). The Muratorian fragment which was compiled in A.D. 170, included all of the New Testament books except Hebrews, James, and 3 John.

Over 150 years before the First Council of Nicaea, canon was essentially set (Muratorian fragment) but you seem to miss the main point of the comment, like the guys pictured at the top of this posting: Christians resolved canon PEACEFULLY, moslems DID NOT!

[onedoug]

Now that’s funny, if not concise.

[vladimir998]

“The Apocrypha did not become official canon of the Roman church until the Council of Trent in 1546.”

False. Since you started off your post with an objective error I know the rest can only go down hill. All Trent did was reiterate what had been said before (see the Council of Florence decree on reconciliation with the Armenians for instance).

“The Tanakh was codified sometime between 200 BC and 200 AD.”

According to whom? Seriously, when EXACTLY did this happen? Where? Who made the decision? What records do you have to prove this? The answer of course is that there is no proof for your claim whatsoever.

“The Latin Vulgate, completed by Jerome in 405, the Bible for a milenia of the Roman church, specifically mentions that Wisdom...”

Why not just cite the fact that you’re borrowing this from Wikipedia?
Here’s what it says on Wikipedia:

“Jerome completed his version of the Bible, the Latin Vulgate, in 405. ... he specifically mentions that Wisdom, the book of Jesus son of Sirach, Judith, Tobias, ..”

If you’re going to pass on the work of others as your own, what does that tell us?

Then you wrote:

“From Scripture, we know that Paul considered Luke’s writing to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7).”

Okiedokie, once again we see you are borrowing this from an online source without saying so. Here it is in the original:

“Paul considered Luke’s writings to be as authoritative as the Old Testament (1 Timothy 5:18; see also Deuteronomy 25:4 and Luke 10:7).” http://www.gotquestions.org/canon-Bible.html

And that doesn’t even work because Paul, the man who taught Luke to be a Christian - in 1 Timothy 5:18, for instance - was not quoting Luke but quoting but quoting what he himself had taught Luke as a catechetical summary of Leviticus 19:13 and Deuteronomy 24:15. Remember, Paul wrote his letters BEFORE Luke wrote. If Paul had been martyred by the time Luke wrote, he would have said so. The simple fact is that Matthew 2:23 shows us there were interpretations of scripture that were not based solely on the explicit written word.

“Peter recognized Paul’s writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). In Colossians 4:16 and 1 Thessalonians 5:27 we know that some NT books were already in circulation amongst the churches. All this during Apostolic times!”

And what about Hebrews? 2 Peter? Revelation? Plenty of people in the early Church believed those books were not canonical. Did you even know that?

“Over 150 years before the First Council of Nicaea, canon was essentially set (Muratorian fragment)...”

Nope. It only covers the New Testament canon.

Not surprisingly, you didn’t actually answer any of my questions.

I asked:

“Unlike the Bible, whose 66 books were peaceably validated centuries before the First Council of Nicea,”

By whom?

When?

Where?

And where did you get the number 66?

[Campion]

The Apocrypha did not become official canon of the Roman church until the Council of Trent in 1546.

This statement is absolutely false. The same canon was given by the Council of Florence a century before, and by local councils and a Papal decree ("the tome of Damasus") a millennium before that.

The only thing Trent did that was new was to attach a penalty to denying the canon promulgated by Florence.

[onedoug]

The ravings of an authentic thief, murderer and pedophile.

That authenticity?

[SunkenCiv]

Note: this topic is from 07/23/2015. Thanks SeekAndFind.

the Birmingham Koran keyword:

• Brass tacks discussion on Islam
• Inside the abandoned City of Libraries
• 'Birmingham Koran' fragment could shake Islam, carbon-dating suggests it is OLDER than Muhammad
• Oldest Koran 'Destabilises' Islamic History, Scientists Say It Pre-dates Mohammed
• 'Oldest' Koran Fragments Found in Birmingham University
• The Yemeni Koran
• Higher Criticism of the Koran Resisted
• What is the Koran?

more sidebars:

• How Timbuktu's manuscripts were smuggled to safety
• NBC News Covers For Muslims' Vicious Destruction of Non-Islamic Artifacts
• Mali: Timbuktu Locals Saved Some of City's Ancient Manuscripts from Islamists
• Timbuktu mayor: Mali rebels torched library of historic manuscripts
• Timbuktu mayor: Mali rebels torched library of ancient manuscripts
• Islamists in Mali renew attacks on Timbuktu tombs
• Timbuktu mausoleums "destroyed"
• Islamists destroy 2 more tombs in Mali's Timbuktu
• Islamist rebels destroy UNESCO World Heritage sites in historic Mali city of Timbuktu
• Mali: Islamists destroy Timbuktu heritage sites
• The Rush to Save Timbuktu's Crumbling Manuscripts
• Libraries in the sand reveal Africa's academic past
• Libraries in the sand reveal Africa's academic past
• From the Desert, a Wellspring of Ancient Manuscripts