1500 Year Old Bible Predicted the Coming of Prophet Mohammed

[sdsolecollector23]

Originally Posted by CashBanks

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

Once I read this part “In line with Islamic belief" I knew its some BS....

what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Its some BS

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by CashBanks

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

Once I read this part “In line with Islamic belief" I knew its some BS....

what exactly is that supposed to mean?

It means that if I find a bible written around the time that Islam was gaining ground that "predicts" muhammad's arrival then how can you take it seriously?
Its like writing a prediction that we will have a black president in December of 2008 and then leaving the book to be found by later scholars as having it "predict" the first black president.

If nothing else it shows a clear conflict of interest by the writers of this text.

It still has to be properly dated and those are preliminary estimates of the dates.

On top of that, it was found in a predominately muslim country (modern day Turkey)...around the time that The Christian bastion of Constantinople was on CLEAR and RAPID decline...it only makes sense to have muslims have texts that "conveniently" predict the arrival of muhammad in the bible. Its one of those "oh look, I have this book that says muhammad is coming... wanna convert now?" 

Originally Posted by tkthafm

What do you mean why it wasn't included ? It's the same exact text. 

Read the source, it already answered all your questions. Your response was "the guy was lying because I said so"

The man in charge of making a new Quran (Uthman) said so...NOT the guy (Mas'ud) who didn't want to adopt the new version

Why else would the guy be reluctant to adopt a new version that doesn't have his stuff included?

...then magically he later turns around and agrees to adopt the new Quran...WITHOUT his inclusions. 

Maybe the ruler, Uthman, coerced him? 

Thats like Black people and Native Americans CHOOSING to have their history left out of textbooks. 

You think about that for a second.

 

[Renaldo Balkman]

Originally Posted by rayray3thousand

Arguing over ancient text that someone wrote about what someone told them?

Cmon son... as a history teacher I always tell my students to remember that its HIS story (as in, the guy who wrote its version)

^ this

 

[cashbanks]

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

Originally Posted by CashBanks

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

Once I read this part “In line with Islamic belief" I knew its some BS....

what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Its some BS

My question is ...is it BS because you dont believe it or is it BS because it's something that goes along with the beliefs of Islam?

Just came off kinda disrespectful dont know if thats how you intended it was just curious

  

 

[onthenephs]

Well just wait for the carbon dating results.
As for whether this is ground breaking, its really not. There are numerous other things that confirm legitimacy of Islam. *for believers*

 

[sdsolecollector23]

Originally Posted by CashBanks

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

Originally Posted by CashBanks


what exactly is that supposed to mean?

Its some BS

My question is ...is it BS because you dont believe it or is it BS because it's something that goes along with the beliefs of Islam?

Just came off kinda disrespectful dont know if thats how you intended it was just curious

  

Sorry if it sounded disrespectful. Its just I dont believe. Its like saying "1500 year old Quran reveals Prophet Muhammad is really the messenger of god Jesus Christ"

 

[cashbanks]

Not a problem at all bro I dig it glad it's dudes on NT that still respond like an adult and dont go flyin off the hook props slime

 

[tkthafm]

It wasn't about "not having his stuff included" ... he had the same stuff.

It was about him wanting to hold onto HIS own copy that he had compiled after years with the Prophet. It was the same (as was testified), but he felt personal attachment to it for obvious reasons. There's no reason to believe it was actually textually different; other than your own opinion. Keep in mind Muslims pray 5 times a day, every day. At the time this was also congregational prayer. The Qur'an is recited at this time, (as well as in numerous other occasions) .. there would have certainly been recorded chaos/disagreement if there were differences in what various companions and early Muslims were reciting; and we have no evidence of this.

 

[elcatfisho]

I cant wait for this to be auctioned on pawnstars.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

It wasn't about "not having his stuff included" ... he had the same stuff.

His quranic versions are NOT included in Uthman's Quran.
Why do you overlook this...again?

He didn't have the same stuff. That was why he was reluctant to get a new Quran. 

How come if Ubayy B. Ka'ab was very close to Muhammed and personally taught by him, how come his version of the quran leaves out HIS two chapters from the "official" version?

It was about him wanting to hold onto HIS own copy that he had compiled after years with the Prophet.

Oh yeah...really? 

Thats like saying, I have have no problem getting a version of the US Constitution...I prefer having the one with the 3/5ths clause still written in it.

If there wasn't a difference why wouldn't he just give it up? 

On top of that, why BURN all the old versions? Weren't they all the same? 

It was the same (as was testified), but he felt personal attachment to it for obvious reasons. There's no reason to believe it was actually textually different; other than your own opinion.

Ah yes...My mistake.

Thats why all the other versions that kept muslims fighting each other were BURNED under Uthman...right? 

Why burn books you're not afraid of? 

Keep in mind Muslims pray 5 times a day, every day.
So?

At the time this was also congregational prayer.

So?

The Qur'an is recited at this time, (as well as in numerous other occasions) .. there would have certainly been recorded chaos/disagreement if there were differences in what various companions and early Muslims were reciting; and we have no evidence of this.

Uh....yes we do. 

This is exactly what I'm talking about... You pick some facts and ignore others. We have described instances where different versions of the Quran before Uthman led to factions of islam competing against each other. 

There are 4 versions written by people who claimed to know Muhammed and each person created their unique version of the quran. Muslims show the differences were serious enough to cause Muslims to be divided. "K. al Masahif" shows differences so serious as to cause one Muslim group to call another group heretics:

"Uthman, teachers were teaching this or that reading to their students. When the students met and disagreed about the reading, they reported the differences to their teachings. They would defend their readings, condemning the others as heretical." [Abu Bakr `Abdullah b. abi Da'ud, "K. al Masahif]

or we can talk about how Arabic wasn't even the unique and unified written language that it is now before the quran was made in the 6th century...PERFECT time for the ambiguity to take place.... Hit up any linguist and tell me what they say. They'll even tell you that the arabic at the time the quran was created was subject to variances in phonology and dialect.

Further more...just answer me this if Uthman didn't change anything...what was he unifying?...and why did he leave stuff out? 

 

[tkthafm]

and we're back to "they were different because I said so"

All your "evidence" is your own weak logic/reasoning. You assume people lied (w/o evidence) just to have it fit your agenda. The reasons for the "unification" were already addressed in the sources posted. Same as the claims of 'differences' existing. 

Bottom line is: you got nothing. Done wasting my time. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

and we're back to "they were different because I said so"

All your "evidence" is your own weak logic/reasoning. You assume people lied (w/o evidence) just to have it fit your agenda. The reasons for the "unification" were already addressed in the sources posted. Same as the claims of 'differences' existing. 

Bottom line is: you got nothing. Done wasting my time. 

Why did 4 versions of the quran have be "unified" when a new ruler (Uthman) came to town? 



You're ignoring my statements. Why was one of the writers, Ubayy B. Ka'ab, contributions left out?

Why unify "versions"...if no "versions" exist? ...Hm?...exactly WHAT was being unified? Why unify something thats not in variants? It wasn't about them being in separate parts...but entirely separate VERSIONS...

Very simple questions.

And your source does NOT answer that. Your sources only address the process of making a new version of the quran under Uthman...who burned all the other versions, but claims it was done willingly...

...

Who the hell WILLINGLY burns their versions of their sacred history? 

You ponder that and overcome the dissonance there.

Why streamline something if there aren't different versions? 

The simplicity of the question is almost absurd.

 

 

[kdawg]

Much as it pains me to say it I agree with sillyputty - your argument has no merit. It's a known historical fact that the Quran was tampered with after first writing to provide only one consistent version - and the only thing that tells you that it's the true version is the book itself.

That's the opposite argument I was using for the validity of the bible - sure there are minor variations in copying over the years (and I'm not talking about translations but the oldest texts available) but the bulk of the material is the same - and historically it rings true with place names and people's names etc.

 

[kdawg]

Originally Posted by 85wasagreatyear

im not the one to get into religous discussions, but a Muslim brother i met in prison told me about this a while ago. he quoted text and everything. can't remember anything though, but i def remember him telling me that the arrival of The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was predicted in the Holy Bible.

You can't just throw out a statement like that and not quote anything though. It's like me saying that it predicts that the Mavs will win the NBA again but I can't remember where it is. It's a big book and most people aren't familiar with the bulk of it so without more than that that point is irrelevant.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kdawg

Much as it pains me to say it I agree with sillyputty - your argument has no merit. It's a known historical fact that the Quran was tampered with after first writing to provide only one consistent version - and the only thing that tells you that it's the true version is the book itself.

That's the opposite argument I was using for the validity of the bible - sure there are minor variations in copying over the years (and I'm not talking about translations but the oldest texts available) but the bulk of the material is the same - and historically it rings true with place names and people's names etc.

Uh...I'm not sure if you're a christian or not...but the bible isn't that consistent. At least not before 1600. The bible was still being written up that point..many don't now that. No one really has access to texts before that as they were all kinda consolidated before then. 

I'm posting wiki sites, sue me:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...consistency_of_the_Bible

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_harmony

I mean jeez...look how they treated William Tyndale. He translated most of the bible for King James scholars...and they still killed him http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tyndale

Most of the people have no evidence of existing...Exodus never happened... etc

It shows that much of the bible is fragmented and lacks much consistency. In fact the most consistent chapter is Leviticus based on samples of how the text flows and speech, and writing patterns. 

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by kdawg

Originally Posted by 85wasagreatyear

im not the one to get into religous discussions, but a Muslim brother i met in prison told me about this a while ago. he quoted text and everything. can't remember anything though, but i def remember him telling me that the arrival of The Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) was predicted in the Holy Bible.

You can't just throw out a statement like that and not quote anything though. It's like me saying that it predicts that the Mavs will win the NBA again but I can't remember where it is. It's a big book and most people aren't familiar with the bulk of it so without more than that that point is irrelevant.

I already did.
As for your other post, you cannot claim "it was a known historical fact" with 0 evidence. I've already presented more than enough sources that address the various lies about edits/different versions etc. The only historical FACT here... is how corrupted the Bible we have today is. Please pick up the book I linked to earlier (by a respected Biblical scholar/textual critic); at countless points various verses that were nothing more than a random scribes comments in the margin are now considered "the word of God" this is fact. - this isn't to mention the massive problem of there being no "Bible". The Bible is not a book; but a process. Various different Christian sects accept different books and others view them as fabrications - the Bible varies greatly depending on just which Christian you happen to ask and at what point in history you did. There's little agreement on who exactly wrote what and when. Further more, the Bible contains so many contradictions/scientific errors it's become a problem for OTHER religions. Let me explain how: atheists have become so used to easily pointing out the absurdities in the Bible/Bible thumpers or the simple logical stretches (God/Son/3 in 1/God "died"/ eating flesh etc etc) that they then assume all religions/texts are also corrupted etc and then use the same blanket arguments/memes without digging deeper. There was a thread recently pointing out the various laws in the Bible that pretty much (if not literally) everyone ignores... why ? Is it not the word of God ?

Islam of course has none of these problems. 

In fact, the Qur'an corrects the Bible's mistakes on over 200 occasions: 

 

[mo matik]

I stumbled upon this correction by chance.

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

Prof Van Wolde, 54, who will present a thesis on the subject at Radboud University in The Netherlands where she studies, said she had re-analysed the original Hebrew text and placed it in the context of the Bible as a whole, and in the context of other creation stories from ancient Mesopotamia.

She said she eventually concluded the Hebrew verb "bara", which is used in the first sentence of the book of Genesis, does not mean "to create" but to "spatially separate".

The first sentence should now read "in the beginning God separated the Heaven and the Earth"

Source 

"Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were joined together as one united piece, then We parted them? And We have made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?"

(Qur'an 21:30)

 

[tkthafm]

^ It's incredible that the more you look into the Qur'an, the more you see how amazing it really is.







*inb4 claims that Muhammad (pbuh) was secretly taught Hebrew etymology by a Jewish Rabbi*

 

[sdsolecollector23]

How come the rape of woman is okay in Islam? Do you really get 20 virgins when you die? How come you can convert to Islam? But can't convert to other religion? Are all non muslim's going to hell? And why if a shia and sunni muslim get married  they get stoned to death?

 

[noodles]

in the words of prodigy, i stopped praying 'cause i wasn't seeing results. besides i need dollars not holy ghosts. f a story book, show me where the money at yo. i don't believe nothing that they say or wrote. so f a Koran, and all of that bro. i need to see some facts, 'cause that aint goin' hold.

 

[kiendienn]

so what has muhammad done for his believers lately? [needs proof]

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by sdsolecollector23

How come the rape of woman is okay in Islam?

It's not.

Do you really get 20 virgins when you die?

How come you can convert to Islam? But can't convert to other religion? 

Are all non muslim's going to hell?

And why if a shia and sunni muslim get married  they get stoned to death?

I believe you are referring to this:

"honor killing" has no basis in Islam.

 

[kiendienn]

Originally Posted by tkthafm

^ It's incredible that the more you look into the Qur'an, the more you see how amazing it really is.







*inb4 claims that Muhammad (pbuh) was secretly taught Hebrew etymology by a Jewish Rabbi*

why is it amazing? miracles? honest question.
what sets it apart from any other religion / historical text?

what does it prove?  what keeps it relevant?

how is it pertinent to the present / future?

 

[maldonado]

Originally Posted by ElCatfisho

I cant wait for this to be auctioned on pawnstars.

expert says:

"wow, this is my holy grail! I can't believe I'm holding this.. It's worth, easily 20million dollars."

rick:
"so, how much do you want?"

owner"
"well since the fella said its worth 20million, how abour 47million?"

rick:

I'll give you $47 dollars for it."

owner:
......ok.

 

[tkthafm]

Originally Posted by kiendienn

Originally Posted by tkthafm

^ It's incredible that the more you look into the Qur'an, the more you see how amazing it really is.







*inb4 claims that Muhammad (pbuh) was secretly taught Hebrew etymology by a Jewish Rabbi*

why is it amazing? miracles? honest question.
what sets it apart from any other religion / historical text?

what does it prove?  what keeps it relevant?

how is it pertinent to the present / future?

All these have been addressed in previous threads so I might as well copy/paste.
http://niketalk.com/reply/12273835/Good-Guy-Lucifer-Is-An-Underrated-Meme#reply-12273835