Is the Bible God's Word ? by Ahmed Deedat

lolipop9

Peace.

[quote[yes, he is actually an ummi..illiterate..that is why the first revelation given to him was iqra bismi robbi kallazi halaq...(read in the name of the god that is the creator )[/quote]

Compilation of the word ummiy in the Quran

002.078 And there are among them "ummiy", who know not the Book, but (see therein their own) desires, and they do nothing but conjecture.

003.020 So if they dispute with thee, say: "I have submitted My whole self to Allah and so have those who follow me." And say to the People of the Book and to those who are "ummiy": "Do ye (also) submit yourselves?" If they do, they are in right guidance, but if they turn back, Thy duty is to convey the Message; and in Allah's sight are (all) His servants.

003.075 Among the People of the Book are some who, if entrusted with a hoard of gold, will (readily) pay it back; others, who, if entrusted with a single silver coin, will not repay it unless thou constantly stoodest demanding, because, they say, "there is no call on "Ummiy"s [the arabs] (to keep faith) with these ignorant (Pagans)." but they tell a lie against Allah, and (well) they know it.

007.157 "Those who follow the messenger, the "ummiy" Prophet, whom they find mentioned in their own (scriptures),- in the law and the Gospel;- for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure); He releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honour him, help him, and follow the light which is sent down with him,- it is they who will prosper."

007.158 Say: "O men! I am sent unto you all, as the Messenger of Allah, to Whom belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth: there is no god but He: it is He That giveth both life and death. So believe in Allah and His Messenger, the "Ummiy" Prophet, who believeth in Allah and His words: follow him that (so) ye may be guided."

A messenger is sent to an unliterate society??
062.002 It is He Who has sent amongst the "Ummiy" a messenger from among themselves, to rehearse to them His Signs, to sanctify them, and to instruct them in Scripture and Wisdom,- although they had been, before, in manifest error;-

As you can see if we consider that "ummiy" = illiterate then 62:2 will means that the messenger is sent to a illiterate society? This is totally wrong because we know that the arabs at the time of the prophet is not illiterate.

If we look at the arabic dictionary..there is another meaning of the word ummiy that is GENTILE.

and it fits well it all the verses.. try it out and see it for your self.

Peace.

nightlord

So are you saying that the interpretation of Muhammad is wrong, that he was not illiterate. That the word meant he was a Gentile, a non-believer.

Originally posted by nightlord at 2005-1-25 12:08 AM:
So are you saying that the interpretation of Muhammad is wrong, that he was not illiterate. That the word meant he was a Gentile, a non-believer.

Being illiterate has no connection with being gentile (a non Jew) or not. Being illiterate literally means that the holy prophet was not able to read and write. The 'gentile' part is the manipulation that you would like to trick Muslims into believing so that the God's final messenger can be accused of reading & copying  from Jewish sources. Stop lying..

[ Last edited by KENNKID on 25-1-2005 at 12:25 AM ]

nightlord

What makes you think Muhammad would copy from others even if he knew how to read and write.

You forget I am a christian, and christians believe in angels.

So if Muhammad met up with Angel Jabril what is so strange about that.

In Christianity, alot of prophets have encounters with angels.

It is just that you muslims have to decide which of the stories are true, is he literate or illiterate.

From what I have read abt his life, he seems pretty smart to me.

And a smart man need not go to school to learn how to read.

lolipop9

Peace

So are you saying that the interpretation of Muhammad is wrong, that he was not illiterate. That the word meant he was a Gentile, a non-believer.

The Muslim scholars derived the illiteracy concept for Muhammad from verses 7:157-158 of the Quran. They say that the word ummy means illiterate. It is true that in today抯 standard Arabic, "illiterate" is one of the meaning of this word. But this is not a compelling evidence, since "gentile" is also another meaning of it. In fact, if we study the Quran carefully where this word is found, its usage has always been in the context of "the people of the scripture" vs. "the gentiles" (see for example 3:20, 3:75, 62:2, 2:78). It is even possible to surmise that the "illiterate" meaning is secondary. It came to be used after the Quran was revealed, since it is reasonable to deduct "illiterate" as the opposite of "those who can read." This in turn may well be coming from "those who read the book," or "those who received the book," or "the people of the book" (ahl al-Kitab), which is precisely the opposite of "the gentiles."

Peace

DivinePonytail

Loli might have a valid point. In the first revelation in the Quran that MUhammad pbuh received is "Read! In the name of your Lord who creates..."(96.1). So i assume this is God commandment to all of the people including prophet Muhammad.
   In the second revelation is "the Pen" which what I think is the importance of written communication. So clearly God commandment to Muhammad was to read and write. My question is why the need to believe that Muhammad was illiterate, apart from the word ummy from the Quran.

zy

NOTHING LESS THAN 100%
To demonstrate the degree of plagiarism practised by the "inspired" Bible writers, I asked my audience during a symposium at the University of Cape Town conducted between myself and Professor Cumpsty the Head of the Department of Theology on the subject "Is the Bible God's Word?" to open their Bibles.
Some Christians are very fond of carrying their Bibles under their arms when religious discussions or debates take place. They seem to be utterly helpless without this book. At my suggestion a number of the audience began ruffling the pages. I asked them to open chapter 37 in the "Book of Isaiah." When the audience was ready, I asked them to compare my "Isaiah 37" with their "Isaiah 37" while I read, to see whether they were identical. I began, reading slowly. Verses 1, 2, 4, 10, 15, and so on, until the end of the chapter. I kept on asking after every verse if what I had been reading, was identical with the verses in their Bibles. Again and again they chorused - "Yeh!", "Yeh!". At the end of the chapter with the Bible still open in my hands at the place from which I had been reading, I made the Chairman to reveal to the audience that I was not reading from Isaiah 37 at all but from 2 KINGS 19! There was a terrible consternation in the audience! I had thus established 100% plagiarism in the "Holy Bible." (See page 32)

In other words, Isaiah 37 and 2 Kings 19 are identical word for word. Yet they have been attributed to two different authors, centuries apart, whom the Christians claim have been inspired by God.
Who is copying whom? Who is stealing from whom? The 32 renowned Bible scholars of the RSV say that the author of the Book of Kings is "UNKNOWN!" See page 59 for a reproduction from the RSV by "Collins'". These notes on the Bible were prepared and edited by the Right Rev. David J. Fant, Litt. D., General Secretary of the New York Bible Society. Naturally, if the Most Reverend gentleman of Christiandom had an iota of belief about the Bible being the Word of God, they would have said so, but they honestly (shamefacedly?) confess: "Author - UNKNOWN!" They are prepared to pay lip service to Scriptures which could have been penned by any Tom, Dick or Harry and expect everyone to regard these as the Word of God - Heaven forbid!

zy

NO VERBAL INSPIRATION
(For a complete list of all the books of the Bible and their authors, avail yourself of the "Collins'" R.S.V. 'with' its annotations). What have Christian scholars to say about the "Book of Isaiah?" They say: "MAINLY CREDITED TO ISAIAH. PARTS MAY HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY OTHERS." In view of the confessions of Bible scholars, we will not take poor Isaiah to task. Can we then nail this plagiarism on the door of God? What blasphemy! Professor Cumptsy confirmed at question time, at the end of the aforementioned symposium that the "Christians do not believe in a verbal inspiration of the Bible." So God Almighty had not absent-mindedly dictated the same tale twice! Human hands, all too human, had played havoc with this so-called Word of God - the Bible. Yet, Bible-thumpers will insist that "every word, comma and full stop of the Bible is God's Word!"

zy

snipersnake

uh keep em coming zy

Debmey

Thanks ZY, its scripture confirming scripture. Very good.
Unfortunately, Quran has no scriptural basis and nothing to back up its authenticity.

cheers

snipersnake

Originally posted by Debmey at 24-1-2005 03:01 PM:
Thanks ZY, its scripture confirming scripture. Very good.
Unfortunately, Quran has no scriptural basis and nothing to back up its authenticity.

cheers

i have explained the backings before


one of u even called our hafeez superhumans for memorizing the quran
http://forum.cari.com.my/viewthr ... ghlight=&page=2

[ Last edited by snipersnake on 24-1-2005 at 03:37 PM ]

Debmey

There is no ancient scripture to authenticate the Quran.
Thats why the Quran has no legitimacy today.

As for ppl memorisisng teh Quran, these people are never independent from the written qurans. they memorised fom those quranas, so again there is no legitimacy.

snipersnake

Originally posted by Debmey at 24-1-2005 03:44 PM:
There is no ancient scripture to authenticate the Quran.
Thats why the Quran has no legitimacy today.

As for ppl memorisisng teh Quran, these people are never independent from the written qura ...

we dont depend on ancient scriptures we depend on Allah's promise

since u only apply logic..here we go  AGAIN
1. It , itself, declares that it is a Divine Scripture

      2. It remains unchanged upto the Last Day.

      3. The path of right conduct that it prescribes is faultless.

      4. It is practicable.

      5. The history that it teaches is unadulterated and honest.

      6. Its literature is incomparable.

      7. The prophecies made in it can be seen to have come true.

      8. The references in it to the varied phenomena of nature, as representing the signs of God, are free of controversies.

      9. There is no reference, whatsoever, of an unscientific nature in it.

      10. It is free of all contradictions.

     11. None has been able to face the challenge it poses when it calls forth all, and any, to produce an equivalent of at least one of its chapters.

      12. The person who was appointed with it in the world was himself of a truthful and selfless nature.

Debmey

we dont depend on ancient scriptures we depend on Allah's promise

How do you know Allah in the Quran is God? Because the Quran says so? Thats what I call circular reasoning.

since u only apply logic..here we go  AGAIN
1. It , itself, declares that it is a Divine Scripture

Gita declares itself to be divine too. Why don't you believe it?
\

      2. It remains unchanged upto the Last Day.

Diamond sutra and karma sutra remains unchanged too, so does the Illyad. Does that mean it is divine?

      3. The path of right conduct that it prescribes is faultless.

So how can Mohd be coveting another's wife, having sex with a kid, robbing and cheating be divine?
Not to mention rape, torture, persecution murder etc.

      4. It is practicable.

I don't think its practical for the sun to set in a muddy pond, neither is practicality a sign of divinity.

      5. The history that it teaches is unadulterated and honest.

The Quran clearly carries historical in accuracies. Care to defend them?

      6. Its literature is incomparable.

To what? karma sutra?

      7. The prophecies made in it can be seen to have come true.

Firstly, the quran carried no propehcies.
Secondly, there are thousands of propehcies in the Bible, much more than the Quran even if there are any.

snipersnake

i can sum up  all your queries with this:

give me one verse from both books that state its authencity..

Debmey

Both books?

There is nothing to prove that Quran is from God at all. There sre lots of proof though that Quran is not divine.

peace

Originally posted by Debmey at 2005-1-25 11:18 AM:
Both books?

There is nothing to prove that Quran is from God at all. There sre lots of proof though that Quran is not divine.

peace

On the contrary, its the exact opposite: There is nothing to prove that Bible  is from God at all. There are  lots of proof though that the bible is not divine.

Debmey

Muslism stuck, thats why need to copycat like kennkid.

cheers

snipersnake

ah..no answer from deb eh??