The HQ often states that it’s from God. Where does the Bible say it’s inspired by God? [GIVE + points if you CAN'T answer, GET + points if you CAN]

Very good. I expect 2 Timothy 3:16 is part of a letter written by Paul to Timothy.

• Report

by borasalama on January 21st, 2008

This is how the KJV puts 2 Peter 3:15 "even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you" Anyhow, we can accept the quotes from both epistles as relevant, but there is no escaping the fact that they are from letters written by two individuals for the attention of a named person or group of persons. These individuals never wrote them as holy scripture or intended them to form part of any holy scripture. Somewhere down the line some people decided that these letters were holy scripture and included whatever could be salvaged into the Bible.
.
Here by contrast are just a few of the relevant verses from the HQ
HQ 2:2 "This is the Book (the HQ); there is no doubt in it, a guidance for those who are aware of God"
HQ 56:80 "A Revelation from the Lord of the Worlds"
HQ 15:9 "We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (the HQ) and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption)"

• Report

by borasalama on February 14th, 2008

Paul repeatedly claimed to have been inspired by God, to be an Apostle of God, to be writing the very words of God. He claimed to have been taught directly by Jesus, he was mentored by the disciples. He most certainly believed he was writing Scirpture, and 2 Peter 3:16 (which you convieniently left off) makes it clear that Peter believed Paul's writings to be on the same par as the Old Testament Scirpture. Besides, who do you think this wisdom was given by. All wisdom comes from God, so if Paul had recieved wisdom it was that of God's. The same attacks you use to discredit the writings of Peter and Paul apply to Muhammad as well, who was merely trying to support his belief of Islam.

• Report

by smsedmc on February 15th, 2008

Yes, I would also point out that all the books included in the canon were placed there due to their ties to the apostles or close agreement with their writings. I would answer this but you've already covered all the points I would, smsedmc.

• Report

by ninja man on February 22nd, 2008

First of all please do not regard what I say as an attack this kind of terminology only puts us on opposite sides of a dividing line.
.
We are discussing an issue and in that process making statements which are either correct, in which case we should have the honesty of accepting them as such or they may be erroneous, in which case we should point out the error.
.
To say that when Paul and Peter were writing they were not writing scripture is not to attack. It is a statement of fact. To say that these letters were later selected for inclusion in the Bible is not to attack. It is again a statement of fact.
.
If by discredit you mean I am denying that Paul and Peter were the authors of what is credited to them, then all I can say is that I never touched on the subject of who the authors of those letters were.
.
You cannot dicredit Mohammed because he never claimed credit for writing anything. The HQ is not his work, and serious historians of all faiths agree with that. Unless you believe he was a sheer genius. In reality he was an unschooled orphan, a shepherd who later earned his living doing trade for other people through the caravans that crossed the deserts.

• Report

by borasalama on February 24th, 2008

You asked where in the BIBLE does the BIBLE claim to be God's word. If you merely wanted OT references you should have asked about the Tanakh instead. Just so we're perfectly clear that BOTH claim this inspiration, here are some OT references (since the Tanakh was compiled long before the Bible as a whole); Isaiah 30:9, 34:16; Psalms 1:2; Daniel 10:21; Exodus 19:7; Exodus 20:1; Exodus 24:4; Exodus 24:12; Exodus 25:21; Exodus 31:18; Exodus 32:16; ...

• Report

by ninja man on February 24th, 2008

I can't speak for the HQ as I have yet to study it in depth, though my cursory examination so far has led me to conclude (thus far) that it teaches many of the same principles as the Bible and the earlier Judaic Tanakh, but adds to it as well.

• Report

by ninja man on February 24th, 2008

Thank you ninja man. The situation has arisen because you are starting off from a perspective of disagreement. If you had looked at my first comment without that perspective you'd have seen that I accept the references. Here's what I said again "we can accept the quotes from both epistles as relevant". All I did then was to contrast that with the HQ's claim to authenticity, and to give you a flavour of that I quoted a few lines from the HQ.
.
You see I accepted your first two quotes and now you are waving a whole string of others at me. This is unnecessary. In fact when I look at the first two OT ones I find they are weaker than the NT ones. You can't sincerely say that either of them is claiming that the Bible is from God. But there's no need to go further down this road anyway. We've already got agreement in my opening comment. That the HQ's claims is more clearly stated than the Bible's is there for all to see, we can't do anything about it. We accept that the quotes from the epistles are the best claims regarding the Bible and we should perhaps leave it at that.

• Report

by borasalama on February 24th, 2008

Sounds good to me, borasalama. Thank you for your insight!

• Report

by ninja man on February 24th, 2008

You're welcome ninja man.
We will all benefit, inshaallah (that simply means God willing) if we make finding and agreeing on common terms our main goal.
In that respect I admire your courage to study the HQ, and from what you said about it in your earlier comment it appears that you are approaching it with an open mind. That way you will, as you say find "that it teaches many of the same principles as the Bible and the earlier Judaic Tanakh" because it comes from the same God that inspired Noah, Abraham,Moses and Jesus and a whole host of other prophets before and in between.
Thank you for a very sensible discussion and God bless.

• Report

by borasalama on February 25th, 2008

Thanks, but you didn't give a Bible quote. The question arises - which version did God 'whisper'?

• Report

by borasalama on January 22nd, 2008

God did not write different versions of His holy Word. God only wrote one Bible.

• Report

by ...trust in the Lord Jesus Christ. on February 7th, 2008

borasalama: There are many versions of the HQ, just as there are of the Bible, so do you really want to go down this road? For example, I know of at least 4 accepted English versions of the HQ.

• Report

by smsedmc on February 14th, 2008

Good point smsedmc. I don't know what versions you've seen but I can guarantee you that if you look carefully at them you'll see that none of what you call different versions of the HQ will call itself a different version. Well, how do I know that? No. I'm not psychic, it's just that if you are a little serious about the subject you soon know that the HQ has no versions. There is only one HQ recorded as it was revealed over a period of 23 years and preserved word for word till this day. It is available in every Muslim household throughout the world with the original words. What you have seen are translations, not versions. There is only one HQ and every Muslim accepts it. Here you'll find a Texan preacher explaining the differences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHVzeoKmVM&feature=related. If the link doesn't work then copy and paste www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNHVzeoKmVM&feature=related.

• Report

by borasalama on February 14th, 2008

If you look at the Greek and the Hebrew manuscripts that the Bible translations are based on, then you will see that not one of the discrepencies affects a theological issue. There are differences in the ancient manuscripts of the HQ, just as there are of the Bible. The difference is that with the Bible we have kept the manuscripts so that we can use textual criticism to justify our belief in what we hold to be accurate. With the HQ, when it was compiled by the 3rd caliph, Uthman, all of the texts except his compilation were burned.

• Report

by smsedmc on February 15th, 2008

Thank you smsedmc.
You've raised good points here and elsewhere. To do them justice I have posted answers at http://www.answerbag.com/a_view/2303227. Please let me know if I've left any of your points unanswered.

• Report

by borasalama on February 17th, 2008

I thought.. Headquartes...

• Report

by Sheriff Raff -Answerhag on January 19th, 2008

Thank you Anonymous. Just a minor correction if you don't mind. HQ is not just "An Islamic text", it is the Islamic text. In Islam it has the highest authority. Anyone can pick up a free copy here: http://islamtomorrow.com/downloads/index.asp. It's worth a read just out of curiosity. It defends Jesus against many negative statements you'll find elsewhere. It's even got a chapter on Mary (mother of Jesus) Now you will not find that even in the Catholic Bible.

• Report

by borasalama on January 21st, 2008