The Bible Is the Word of God Debate - Saaib's Second Statement

My opening statement
Saaib's opening statement/rebuttal
My first rebuttal
Now, Saaib's second statement, originally posted here:



"Rhoblogy", has published his "rebuttal". I was wondering what will he respond to, as what I had presented were facts, facts and facts. Denying the facts could have been a choice. Oh my God!!! This is exactly what he exactly did. (See his last paragraph, "history tells us")

What exactly did Rhoblogy do to evade a possible humiliation?

Rhoblogy dedicated more than 1000 words (1085?) to refute what I never said. He started refuting Bart Erhman and wrote an essay on it. What I made was an entirely different argument, and to make it factual I quoted a scholar. I argued that we have copies which are separated from their sources by centuries, that for me means we don't know what exactly the words of God were. Its like I say 1+1=2, prove me wrong and you reply 3+3 is not equal to 5 therefore you are proven wrong.

Thus my first argument still stands valid.

I have fallen in a pit fall (according to "Rhoblogy") by talking about textual variants but he didn't bother to bring me out of it, so I still remain there. Anyways what exactly was I talking about, "There is no common version of Bible, as the individual books (Biblical Canon), their contents and their order vary among denominations. Main stream Judaism divided the Tanakh into 24 Books while the Samaritans accept only five. 19 are thrown out." The argument was on "canons" not what the content is. He started talking about content throwing all of us in the pit  and covering the pit with his breath taking English.

Myy second (?) argument still stands.

Then "Rhoblogy" quotes us from "Peter" which happens to be the sixth last book of the New Testament. Do the verses prove anything, no absolutely not. "Peter" was written by some "xyz" who was not speaking on behalf of others. The authors of different Books of Bible are different. How do you know who is "xyz" talking about. Do the Gospels claim to be the word of God and how exactly where they "tickled" to write the words. We are still to get an answer for this.

The Quran talks about the Jews and the Christians corrupting their scripture at 2:79. Rhoblogy wants to know why exactly didn't I quote the context and he also wants to know how I concluded that it refers to Ahlul Kitab. (I had already written it in my first paper). Anyways you have quoted the context Mr. "Rhoblogy" but I want my readers to read them after they read verse 75.

75. Do you covet [the hope, O believers], that they would believe for you while a party of them used to hear the words of Allah and then distort the Torah after they had understood it while they were knowing?

So you have the context and it proves nothing and I know that it refers to Christians and Jews because “Az-Zuhri said that `Ubadydullah bin `Abdullah narrated that Ibn `Abbas said, "O Muslims! How could you ask the People of the Book about anything, while the Book of Allah (Qur'an) that He revealed to His Prophet is the most recent Book from Him and you still read it fresh and young Allah told you that the People of the Book altered the Book of Allah, changed it and wrote another book with their own hands. They then said, `This book is from Allah,' so that they acquired a small profit by it. Hasn't the knowledge that came to you prohibited you from asking them By Allah! We have not seen any of them asking you about what was revealed to you.'' This Hadith was also collected by Al-Bukhari.” So unless Mr. "Rhoblogy", can explicitly and demonstrably display where exactly, I misquoted or incorrectly applied this ayah of the Qur’an, I suggest that he brushes up on his trade of deceit.

More proof that Islamic position on Bible is that it was faked and corrupted. Ibn Abi Daud writes in his book, Al-Masahif, quoting Yazid ibn Muawiyah Nakhai who passed on the following (interesting) comment from Huzayfa:
“Those before you (people of the book) differed just like this. By God, I will go riding to the leader of the believers, Uthman, the third caliph.”

Huzayfa was a military officer posted in Armenia and Azerbaijan, and had just come back from doing battle. But when he reached Madina, and witnessed the scene in the Prophet’s mosque, instead of going straight home, he went directly to the third caliph and addressed him thus: “O Leader of the believers! Take care of the people, before they fall victim to the differences regarding the book of God just as the Jews and the Christians did.”

Stop begging Islam, it wont help Mr. Rhoblogy.

Yes, even Quran 18:27 wont help. Not even 6:115.

The Qur’an claims that no one can change the Word of God. (Surah 6:115/116; 10:64; 18:27/28; 48:23; 50:28-29).

Now, in as much as I am sure he can read, this really made me change my mind. We have something which we (the educated people) call contextual analysis or literary analysis. Meaning, we do not appeal to the fallacy of reading between the lines, nor do we isolate any verses for our own prejudices. To answer this rather absurd claim, all we must do is lay forth three premises:

1. The Qur’an says the Kalamullah cannot be altered.
2. The Qur'an says that the scripture the Ahlul Kitab have is corrupted.
3. The Qur’an says that Allah’s word was not changed.

So how do we reconcile these three premises? Simple! The Qur’an says quite clearly that Allah’s word cannot be changed, it then goes on to say that the scripture of the Ahlul Kitab was fraudulent, therefore implying that the words of Allah and the scripture of Ahlul Kitab are two different things. This is confirmed in the first ayah which I quoted, of Qur’an Surah 2, Ayah 79. As in lieu of the Ayah "rhoblogy" quoted, it means that Ahlul Kitab wrote words and claimed it to be from God! Simple!

Under the heading "Other Tidbits" Rhoblogy again denies the facts again keeping me in the same pit which I had fallen into (according to him).

God is more reliable than History. (True) But that is what we are debating. "Is the Bible God's word?"

Anyways the question remains, "WHAT HAD THE POOR DONKEY DONE?"

Let me summarize:

Argument 1: The problem of what exactly did God reveal.
Me: What did god actually reveal and how.
Rhoblogy: No answers
Verdict: Busted.


Argument 2: Scripture is self-affirming.
Rhoblogy: Scripture is self affirming.
Me: Not really.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Refuted.

Argument 3: God's actions that can never be explained.
Me: Mass murder, killing of donkeys etc.
Rhoblogy: God does whatever he wishes.
Status: Busted.

Argument4: What has the poor donkey done?
Me: What has the poor donkey done that he should be hanged till death.
Replies: God cant be produced in court.
Status: Busted

Argument 5: Unfulfilled prophecies.
Rhoblogy: Bible has many fulfilled prophecies.
Me. 1. Nostadamus’ book should be the best book to be called the word of God.
2. Prophecy related to Cain. Unfulfilled.
3. Prophecy related to David. Unfulfilled.
4. Prophecy related to Tyrus. Unfulfilled.
5. Forced unfulfilled prophecy of Jesus.
Rhoblogy: No answers for 1, 2, 3, 5. 4: Deny the fact.
Me: Lol.
Status: Busted

Argument 6: Isaiah prophecy about Jesus.
Me: On one end, the Christian Greek Old Testament places divinity on a child, while the Hebrew Old Testament places divinity on God.
Rhoblogy: Keep mum.
Status: Busted.

Argument 7: "An argument from Jesus".
Rhoblogy: Jesus confirms the OT.
Me: Only if we know what Jesus confirmed was OT.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 8: Quran on Bible.
Rhoblogy: Quran affirms that Bible is the word of God.
Me: Quran affirms that Bible is a forged scripture an some parts are corrupted.
Rhoblogy: Skips a few points and replies to a few.
Me: remove any further doubts.
Status: Pending.

Argument 9: Versions of Bible and What exactly did Muhammad confirm.
Me: Different versions of the Bible, Muhamamd confirmed none.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.


Argument 10: Bible in Muhammad's time.
Me: Bible is Muhammad's time was different and very unlike today's.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted

Argument 11: Quran confirms previous scriptures.
Rhoblogy: Surah 2:86, Surah 2:89, Surah 2:91, Surah 3:84, Surah 4:136, Surah 5:45 confirm the Bible.
Me: No buddy, not really. The don't confirm LXX or Pope Damuscus Canon. Only because it confirms the previous scriptures do we Muslims believe that there were scriptures revealed to other prophets.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 12: Old Testament existence in history.
Me: Old Testament not known historically. Gets destroyed twice.
Rhoblogy: No answers.
Status: Busted.

Argument 13: Muhammad in The Bible. (Off the topic)
Rhoblogy: Muhammad not found in Bible.
Me: Found indeed.
Rhoblogy: No replies.
Status: Busted.

Argument 14: No one can change God's words.
Rhoblogy: Quran says no one can change God's words.
Me: Yes exactly.
Status: Busted.

I didn't talk about Bart Erhman's methodology and  Quran's authenticity because it is not part of the debate. What we are debating is Bible not Quran. So we can't conclude Quran is not the word of God unless we debate the issue.

(Word count [as in Wordpress]: 1500)
(Link to comment repository post)