Missing Books in the Bible

Missing Books in the Bible

By Quran and Bible Blog Contributor stewjo004

pdf
View as PDF

بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمٰنِ الرَّحِيْم

“God had taken a Covenant from the Children of Israel… But they broke their Covenant, so I cursed them and made their hearts hard. They changed the words from their original places and have forgotten a huge piece of what they were told to remember over and over again, so you will continue to find treachery against you or cheats from a few of them. Overlook this and forgive them because God loves those who excel in doing good. I had also took a Covenant from those who say: “We’re Christians,” but they too forgot part of what they were told to remember. So I released animosity and hatred among themselves until the Day of Judgement, when God will tell them what they used to manufacture.”

– The Quran, Surah Maidah 5:13-14

            This will be a short and sweet post this time. In the verse of the Qur’an quoted above, God says that the Jews and Christians have forgotten a piece of the Scripture. Dr. Joel Hoffman in his book “The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor” states (emphasis mine):

“The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. […]

In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. Yet even with seventy-eight books, more material was left out than was included. Additionally, different groups of people order the books of the Bible differently. The modern Jewish order is different from the traditional Jewish order. Christians put the Old Testament books into a third order yet. (For instance, Christians put Daniel near the other famous prophets like Ezekiel and Isaiah, to underscore his centrality. Jews marginalize Daniel by grouping him with the other “writings.”) The Apocrypha, too, appear variously as part of the Old Testament, as an addition to the Old Testament, or—as we just saw—not at all. Underlying all of these differences is the simple fact that there used to be lots of holy writings, and different groups of people compiled different collections of them to form a single book.”[1]

Today we’re going to look into various places in the Torah where references will be made to books that don’t exist in the present day Bible. Here are a few examples:

  1. Moses (peace be upon him) quotes a verse to comfort Aaron (peace be upon him) that doesn’t exist in the Bible.[2]
  2. The Book of the Wars of the Lord.[3]
  3. The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel and Chronicles of the Kings of Judah.[4]
  4. The “Book of Shemaiah, and of Iddo the Seer” (also called Story of the Prophet Iddo or The Annals of the Prophet Iddo.[5]
  5. The Acts of Solomon.[6]
  6. The Annals of King David.[7]
  7. The Book of Nathan the Prophet.[8]
  8. The book of Samuel the seer and the Book of Gad the Seer.[9]
  9. The Story of the Book of Kings.[10]
  10. The Book of the Kings of Judah and Israel.[11]
  11. The Sayings of the Seers (or Sayings of Hozai, in the Masoretic Text).[12]
  12. The Book of Jasher.[13]
  13. The Laments for Josiah.[14]

So this leaves an interesting issue. Jews and Christians might argue that these are apocryphal books or that they don’t matter to the Bible’s overall message. There are two points to make:

  1. If they are “apocryphal books” as some might claim, then why would the canon mention them?
  2. We don’t know the impact the books would have to the message because we don’t have said books.

The Bible’s preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself. And keep in mind these are only books we know of because as Dr. Hoffman stated:

“Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons…”

God however will not allow mankind to remain unguided. After He tells of how the Jews and Christian forgot pieces of the Scripture, in the next verse of the Qur’an, He gives hope saying:

“People of the Scripture! My Messenger has come to you; clarifying what you used to keep hidden of the Scripture and who overlooks much of what you changed. A light has now come to you from God, along with a Scripture making things clear, which God uses to guide to the ways of peace, all who are looking to follow what pleases Him. Leading them from their various shades of darkness into the Light, by His will, and onto one straight path.”[15]

For anyone interested in more detail about this subject, I highly recommend Hoffman’s book. Check it out at your local library.

            With that being said, I’m going to give a choice for what you guys want to hear about next. Leave a comment with your vote below.

  1. The foretelling of the Caliphate in the Bible
  2. Did the Prophet copy from the Bible?
  3. Contentions against the story of the Crucifixion (aka The Passion of the Christ).

[1] Dr. Joel E. Hoffman, The Bible’s Cutting Room Floor: The Holy Scriptures Missing From Your Bible (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2014).  Kindle Edition.

[2] Leviticus 10:3.

[3] Numbers 21:14.

[4] 1 Kings 14:19, 29.

[5] 2 Chronicles 9:29; 2 Chronicles 12:15; 2 Chronicles 13:22.

[6] 1 Kings 11:41.

[7] 1 Chronicles 27:24.

[8] 1 Chronicles 29:29; 2 Chronicles 9:29.

[9] 1 Chronicles 29:29.

[10] 2 Chronicles 24:27.

[11] 2 Chronicles 32:32.

[12] 2 Chronicles 33:19.

[13] 2 Samuel 1:18, Joshua 10:13.

[14] 2 Chronicles 35:25.

[15] Surah Maidah, 5:16-17.

 

153 thoughts on “Missing Books in the Bible

  1. It’s amazing how many lost books are mentioned in the Bible. The weird thing is that this supposedly “inspired” book actually references these lost books, which means that the authors of the Bible got their information from such books!

    For your next article, it would be interesting to see the contending stories against the crucifixion.

    Like

  2. Brothers, has anyone discovered what post resurrected jesus was teaching for forty days? Forty days of teaching would be worth including right? Was it right to sit with gentiles,was it right to eat any food? But in acts ,we see that visions are required to help poor ddisciples, 40 days of teaching seems to have been forgotten pretty quickly.

    forty days of teachings

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Stewjo004

      @ Tony

      To the best of my knowledge no. I can’t even think of Apocryphal writing which claims to be as such. I’m not saying there isn’t but I don’t know of any. I was mostly focused on the Tanakh as opposed to the New Testament but you have to keep in mind even Christian writings are strange. For example, how do you 12 men who ate and learned from Jesus(as) and not ONE writing from any of them? Some of these men like James or Peter are supposed to be leaders of the early Church and you didn’t record a speech or nothing?

      Even in Islam a Sahabi like Abu Bakr(ra) (Who would be the closest parallel) we have some stuff from. And he was leading a country which was engulfed in a civil war. But I wanted to avoid any conspiracy theories and just quote what’s agreed upon lost books in the Bible. Which is why I find the claim it’s been perfectly preserved so weird.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. the jewish jesus who became a pauline jesus CLEARLY went through TRANSITION

    It has to be asked, what happened to the forty days of teaching ?

    How come no one in acts ever refers back to them ?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Stewjo004

      @ Shaad
      Jazakallah Khair for your kind words. All the good is from Allah(swt) who will establish the truth in His words. If you get the chance, show the blog to some of your friends. Also don’t forget to place a vote for what you want to read about next.

      Liked by 3 people

  4. Sorry to go off topic but i need help with understanding few things

    When the quran talks about “the gospel” it is talking about a revelation in the mother tongue of jesus,right?

    It also says that it is an instruction /guidance, so i presume it is Allahs instruction (not jesus’ words) to the beni israeel,

    So injeel according to the quran is what Allah wants people to do.

    injeel can never be pauls dying and rising god gospel as found in NT.

    now it makes sense, when quran said JUDGE by what Allah revealed therein was not what is found in arabia at time of prophet, but the earliest crosstian communities .

    Quran can never see “the gospel” as the greek reconstructed texts available today.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Stewjo004

      @ tony
      Allah hu alim but it appears yes and no. I was going to do a post on this but for clarification, THE Gospel (i.e Injeel) is NOT the gospelS in the Bible. For example, in the Bible, you have verses like:

      Now after John was arrested, Jesus came into Galilee, proclaiming the gospel of God,” (Mark 1:14)

      Then he went throughout Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every disease and every illness among the people. (Matt 4:23)

      And he said unto them, I must announce the gospel of the kingdom of God to other cities also because for this am I sent. (Luke 4:43)

      Obviously, he(as) is not preaching Mark, Matt, and Luke to the people. Some commentary on the verses:

      “As far as regards St. Matthew this is the first occurrence of the phrase. It tells of a vast amount of unrecorded teaching, varying in form, yet essentially the same—a call to repentance—the good news of a kingdom of heaven not far off—the witness, by act for the most part rather than words…” (Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers)

      τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, the Gospel) The chief teaching of Christ was the Gospel: the other things which He taught concerned only the removing impediments [to its saving reception]. (Bengel’s Gnomen)

      the gospel of the kingdom of God] or according to some MSS. the Gospel of God. (Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges)

      Some translate it as good news in the above verse but that doesn’t mean much because we have verses in the Qur’an where you can do a similar thing. For example, I have made it an Arabic recital (Qur’an) for you to understand.

      I personally favor that the Injeel was some sort of oral tradition that wasn’t written down. The reason is I can’t think of a time where Allah calls it a Scripture like He does with the Torah. I could be wrong though and I have to do more research on the subject.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        So this oral tradition is now lost Stew?

        Problem however is the “actual” oral traditions we have, e.g 1 Cor 15, date to within decades after the death of Christ.

        So history is against the muhammadan lies. That’s what happens when you follow an Arab from 6 centuries later blindly. You contradict reality

        Like

      2. Oh Lord, the crosstian’s special pleading is atrocious! There were many oral traditions circulating about Jesus, stupid. It doesn’t mean they were all true. When you have contradictory stories about a rising mangod, you know something is fishy.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. “Problem however is the “actual” oral traditions we have, e.g 1 Cor 15, date to within decades after the death of Christ.

        So history is against the muhammadan lies. That’s what happens when you follow an Arab from 6 centuries later blindly. You contradict reality”

        crosstianity preserved stories about dying and rising pagan god, but did not bother to tell us much about the other side

        for example , acts 15 does not tell us what the view of the judaizers was . oral tradition didnt preserve that part of history.

        why you so happy about cor 15? it makes no mention about jesus predicting his death. it just informs about visions , how does VISIONS prove that they really saw jesus?

        paul thinks jesus became a pnuema , if you want to go buy cor 15, then reject john and put it in bullshit bin because paul had no idea of a resurrected wounded jesus:

        if paul is right, then your bright shining pnuema which blinded paul considers johns account BULLS!

        which scriptures said that the messiah will rise on the 3rd day ? this is your crappy oral tradition ?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. crosstians were so desparate to invent a dying and rising messiah and even do cartoonic play by playing out crucifixion that they even lied about THIRD day…..

        paul said “you foolish galatians who bewitched you before your very eyes….”

        thats what crosstians had. PLAYS and scripture. and then they had visions of unknown pnuemas. lol

        Like

      5. “Oh Lord, the crosstian’s special pleading is atrocious! There were many oral traditions circulating about Jesus, stupid. It doesn’t mean they were all true. When you have contradictory stories about a rising mangod, you know something is fishy.”

        yes, how else one will know what is true and what is falsehood without revelation?
        but here is something interesting. lets look at jesus’ life , he says he was teacher and his companions considered him teacher
        DIDN’T THIS teacher KNOW THAT ONE MAN CANNOT DIE FOR ANOTHER MANS SINS?

        Exodus 32: 30-35
        Deuteronomy 24:16
        Jeremiah 31: 29-30
        Ezekiel Chapter 18

        jesus went around castigating the pharisees ONLY TO TELL them that he gonna die for their sins? lol
        those words about “repent for the kingdom of god is near” and “you swine, bastards , pigs,…” just really meant that he was gonna die for their sins?

        and before paul converted , what were his beliefs about isaiah 53?

        pauline crosstianity FAILED to preserve that lol

        Liked by 1 person

      6. Paulus

        Notice the muhammadans dodging the problem. First, scholars date the oral creed in 1 Cor 15 to decades after Christ. That’s fact. History. Not lost.

        Second, if the Koranic “injeel” was an oral tradition, where is it? What did it contain? Who lost it? And most importantly, since it is “lost”, as per the premise of this blog post, the Koran is now invalidated.

        So the Muhammad’s choose to believe in a tradition that they are unsure if it was oral, can’t locate it or know what it contains, and then when they realise that this demolishes their polemics, try to obfuscate the issue. Hilarious!!

        Like

      7. Oh brother, the crosstian just repeats the same idiotic rant.

        Once again, the “oral creed” was one among many “creeds” that were circulating at that time. Why do you think Paul referred to “other” gospels? Using your logic, we can assume that those “other” gospels are true as well because they can be dated to within “decades after Christ”. LOL, when will you learn you silly pagan? 🙂

        According to your “gospels”, Jesus was preaching the gospel by word of mouth. All scripture starts out as an oral tradition. The Quran was also primarily taught orally before it was written down during the life of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). It is safe to assume that the Injeel was also taught by word of mouth. Whether it was written down or not is another matter.

        But all of this is just your pathetic attempt to save the Bible. The fact remains that your Bible references books that no longer exist. They were removed from the canon for various reasons, which shows that the Bible is not preserved. Moreover, the fact that the Bible used these books as sources shows that it is a man-made book. It cannot possibly be from God or even be “inspired”. Think about it. Why would God refer to an obscure book called the “Book of the Wars of the Lord”? Who wrote that book? And if the Bible refers to it, doesn’t it mean that it would have been well-known in that time? But since you assume that the Pentateuch was written by Moses, then that book must have been written even before the Pentateuch. But who wrote it?

        Liked by 1 person

      8. “Notice the muhammadans dodging the problem. First, scholars date the oral creed in 1 Cor 15 to decades after Christ. That’s fact. History. Not lost.”

        pagan , the creed talks about APPEARANCES, it does not talk about where, by who , and when crucifixion took place.

        and since the crucifixion is a rumour and since jerusalem is a big place and since ehrman thinks that no pal of jesus was a WITNESS to crucifixion, HOW do creeds help one decide that crucifixion REALLY took place?

        CREEDS cannot help one decide that EVENT really happen, since creed could be based on RUMOUR.

        for example

        paul says “he was BURIED…”

        LET me ask you, HOW WAS JUDAS BURIED ? lol

        answer this question and you will get what i am trying to say. CREEDS DO NOT HELP one prove that event really took place

        HOW WAS JUDAS BURIED?

        you see what you will do? you WILL ASSUME A JEWISH burial EVEN if you had NO DETAILS before you. you would assume it. SAME thing for jesus, since there were no eyewitnesses , crosstians had only jewish practices and scripture to FILL OUT THE DETAILS lol

        “Second, if the Koranic “injeel” was an oral tradition, where is it? What did it contain? Who lost it? And most importantly, since it is “lost”, as per the premise of this blog post, the Koran is now invalidated.”

        it could be buried like other gospels ? the koran does not claim to be DEPENDANT ON ORAL SOURCES , but from the MIND OF GOD.


        So the Muhammad’s choose to believe in a tradition that they are unsure if it was oral, can’t locate it or know what it contains, and then when they realise that this demolishes their polemics, try to obfuscate the issue. Hilarious!!”

        are you an idiot?

        Liked by 1 person

      9. Good points bro!

        And yes, it is possible that the true Injeel is still buried somewhere, if it was indeed written down. It wouldn’t be the first time a gospel would be discovered hidden away from the clutches of the pagan church.

        Like

      10. “Second, if the Koranic “injeel” was an oral tradition, where is it? What did it contain? Who lost it? And most importantly, since it is “lost”, as per the premise of this blog post, the Koran is now invalidated.”

        it cant be you nut job. since it claims to be a REVELATION…

        your biblical texts are WRITTEN by “eyewitnesses” and they tell you to SOURCE information which is WRITTEN

        Liked by 1 person

  5. Paulus

    “If they are “apocryphal books” as some might claim, then why would the canon mention them?“- Stew

    “The weird thing is that this supposedly “inspired” book actually references these lost books, which means that the authors of the Bible got their information from such books!“- Britney

    This is dumb. The Koran references the Torah and gospels, therefore they must be true!

    Alhumdulijesus!!

    Like

    1. but the koran does consider the revealed torah and injeel as true because it is directly from God, notice what i said ? DIRECTLY from God, not jesus, matthew, peter, luke, andrew, simon, “we know his testimony is true…”

      btw, your god didn’t come to be praised , he came to serve like a SLAVE lol
      if jesus did not get RITUALLY sacrificed, he would NEVER be able to receive the material “immortal body”
      you should be praising the jews for causing the murder of your god. no murder, no “immortal magical powers”

      why don’t you hold the killers of your god in high praise considering you like worshipping jew?

      Liked by 1 person

    2. still don’t get why you are praising your flesh god.

      i will explain, your “fully god and fully man ” (1 person) had a body which was under the power of pain, suffering , smell and death. had the jews not killed your “fully god and fully man ” (1 person) he would still be under the curse of original sin . thanks to the pagans and jews that your god was able to get a new magical body, they sped up what nature was bound to do . paul of taurus hated his current tent . if you KNEW that by getting killed by your murderers you would get NEW powers , why didnt jesus go back to the pharisees and kiss them on their cheeks and thank them ?

      shouldn’t you crosstians say “thank you pagans for FREEING jesus from his original sin body” ?

      a little APPRECIATION ?

      I mean had you been at the cross, you all would have cried with CROCODILE tears, but inside ” no forgiveness if no shedding of jesus”

      the best things the pagans done for jesus is that they CAUSED him to be free from his current tent.

      since god loves everyone EVEN satan and even the romans while they are KILLING “fully god and fully man”

      jesus was obligated to go to the pagans and love them EVEN more!

      Liked by 1 person

    3. Lol, the idiocy continues!

      So as usual, Cerbie cannot explain the nonsense of his Bible without deflecting to the Quran!

      The Torah and Gospel were true scriptures, you idiot. So, why wouldn’t God refer to them?

      But do you see the Quran quoting from random, unknown and non-scriptural books? No, but your Bible quotes a dozen of them! What kind of “scripture” is that? Hahahahaha!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        The Koran cites known apocryphal works- e.g Jesus talking as a baby. Your point is both moot and refuted. As usual, inconsistency from the muhammadans.

        Frankly, it’s not really a point anyway. Perhaps establish why a scriptural book isn’t allowed to cite other works? Or is this because in your muhammadan mind you only accept dictation theory and eternal words of Allah. See, by trying to islamise everything, or starting with your flawed presupposition, you only end up in trouble.

        Alhumdulijesus!!

        Like

      2. LOL, why would an “inspired” book cite some random book which doesn’t exist anymore? If the authors of the Bible were simply copying material from other books, then what is the point of the Bible? They basically say in a few places: “if you want more information, read this book”. I mean, really? This is supposed to be “scripture”?

        And by the way, the Quran does not “quote” apocryphal works. You assume that just because the gospel of Thomas mentions a talking baby Jesus, then the Quran must be quoting it. This is a non-sequitur because the gospel of Thomas could simply be quoting an earlier oral tradition. It does not follow that the Quran is quoting the gospel of Thomas. If you want an example of verbatim quoting of an apocryphal source, you need not look further than your own Bible. Even the NT resorts to such copying. Jude quotes from the book of Enoch verbatim. Again, why does an “inspired” book need to quote from an “uninspired” book? Try to answer the question for once, instead of deflecting with your asinine fallacies.

        Alhamdullilah!

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Paulus

        “LOL, why would an “inspired” book cite some random book which doesn’t exist anymore?“

        “This is a non-sequitur because the gospel of Thomas could simply be quoting an earlier oral tradition. It does not follow that the Quran is quoting the gospel of Thomas.“

        You answered your on question. If the Koran isn’t citing false apocryphal books, then it’s citing “lost” ones. Either way, the Koran can’t be inspired by your own logic.

        Oops, failing Faiz failed again!

        Like

      4. Still trying to deflect? Come now Cerbie…try to use your reason for a change.

        Again, an oral tradition is different from a written source. Written sources can survive so long as they are written and passed down, but oral traditions can only be passed down by word of mouth until they are written down. Even Jesus referred to unknown oral traditions in the NT. The story of the talking baby Jesus was simply one of many oral traditions.

        But why would your Bible refer to so many lost and apocryphal written sources? You have yet to answer this question. So try Cerbie. Try to answer instead of dancing. Come on, speak boy!

        Liked by 1 person

    4. Stewjo004

      @ Paulus
      I never made an argument against the Torah or the Gospel, and Muslims do believe in them so I don’t see the relevance of your comment. Can you please explain why the canon would quote them as authoritative sources? I’ll quote a few for you:

      Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the LORD spoke of when he said: “‘Among those who approach me I will be proved holy; in the sight of all the people I will be honored.'” Aaron remained silent. (Leviticus 10:3)

      The rest of the events in Jeroboam’s reign, including all his wars and how he ruled, are recorded in The Book of the History of the Kings of Israel. (1 Kings 14:19)

      Now the rest of the acts of Rehoboam and all that he did, are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah? (1 Kings 14:29)

      And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher?… (Joshua 10:13)

      You really don’t find it strange that the Bible quotes other books as a source and those books don’t exist anymore? I mean Dr. Hoffman a practicing Jewish scholar in the book I quoted above says they straight up deleted books for a variety of reasons. What more of an argument can someone present? The people(the Jews) whose books are used in the Christian canon said: “We deleted a lot of books for theological, political and lack of book technology reasons.” And you’re like “Naw! They’re lying it’s all there.”

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “You really don’t find it strange that the Bible quotes other books as a source and those books don’t exist anymore? I mean Dr. Hoffman a practicing Jewish scholar in the book I quoted above says they straight up deleted books for a variety of reasons. What more of an argument can someone present? The people(the Jews) whose books are used in the Christian canon said: “We deleted a lot of books for theological, political and lack of book technology reasons.” And you’re like “Naw! They’re lying it’s all there.””

        Exactly, but Cerbie just doesn’t want to accept the facts. He’s going to keep trying to dance around the crystal-clear facts just out of arrogance.

        Like

      2. Paulus

        No I don’t find it strange. Nor should you since the Koran quotes apocryphal books also. Britney tried to dance around this by saying they both cite a common source. Ok, let’s accept that for arguments sake. What and where is this common source? If it’s lost (which you have to admit it is) then the same “argument” equally disqualifies the Koran.

        I’m honestly stunned that you utilise such poor argumentation. Muhammadans are so fixated on their hatred of Christ and the church that they routinely undermine their own theological basis

        Like

      3. LOL, it’a amazing how stupid you really are! Oral traditions are not the same as written sources. Your Bible references written sources which no longer exist, such as the book of the wars of the Lord, as well as those which have survived, despite Christian attempts to destroy them, such as the book of Enoch.

        I am honestly stunned at your inability to grasp this difference. Crosstians are so fixated on their hatred of facts the about their idiotic church and its shady history that they routinely have to deflect and dance.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. Stewjo004

    To begin the Qur’an didn’t cite the Gospel of Thomas you’re really late on scholarship on that one. This will God willing be a future article. And my argument is not that apocryphal works are false. I’m arguing that these books cited are no longer in existence.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stewjo004

      P.S. You sound really ignorant saying alhamdolijesus. Linguistically, it should be qlhamdoli ISA. And even then, you are refuting Christianity. Al hamd means “all praise and gratitude is the noun’s alone.” So you are actually committing a heresy and are claiming Jesus is more powerful than God.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. Paulus

    “The Bible’s preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself.“

    Can I modify this to make a point?

    “The Korans preservation as a whole is seriously called into question because as we have seen, lost texts (torah and injeel according to orthodox Islam) are clearly mentioned within the official canon itself”

    Ergo, your summation is roundly refuted. Unless you will equally abandon muhammadism?

    Like

    1. Hahahaha, how is it “refuted”? You seem to think that deflecting counts as a “refutation”.

      What does the Quran’s preservation have to do with this issue? The Quran referred to an oral tradition about Jesus. How does that affect it’s preservation? Do you willingly try to humiliate yourself?

      Oops, it happened again!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Paulus

        Stop telling lies. You muhammadans can’t even agree if the injeel was oral or not. Why? Because it is apparently LOST so you don’t know. But let’s say it is oral. The Torah isn’t, and as a muhammadan you believe it is Lost. Ergo, your same argument disqualifies the Koran. Ergo, refuted

        Like

      2. Bwahahaha, look at the pathetic crosstian trying to desperately cling to his refuted logic! I asked what does the Quran’s preservation have to do with its referring to other scriptures? The Quran is still preserved, isn’t it? In contrast, your Bible references lost books as if they were scripture. Why weren’t these books included in the canon? Why were they lost? The Quran references past scriptures, but is also supersedes those scriptures, so whether they are lost or not is irrelevant, because we now have the Quran and that’s all we need.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Paulus

        Still telling porkies? Look, I’ll give you a shot. Where does the Koran say the injeel is oral?

        Then, once you failed to show that, since you can’t, tell me how an oral tradition is lost? How do you know it is lost when you don’t even know what it contained?

        So, since the premise of the OP is that citation of lost material renders the bible false, I can apply the same argument to the Koran. Since the injeel is lost, the Koran is false. Since the Torah is lost, the Koran is false. Since the psalms are lost, the Koran is false. Shall we go on?

        You’ve tried to avoid this problem by latching on to Stew saying he believes the injeel is oral with zero credible evidence. Well, that’s one muhammadan opinion. But Torah? That wasn’t oral, was it? But you’ve played silent on Torah cause oh knownit humiliates you.

        You can run little Britney but I’ll always catch you mwahahahaha

        Like

      4. Are you paying attention Cerbie? Come on, pay attention boy.

        Your continued deflections do not prove anything, except that you cannot defend your Bible without deflecting to the Quran.

        And your desperate repetitions of the same debunked logic only shows that you have nothing substantive to add to the discussion. But let me destroy your logic once again. As I said, the Quran is not reliant on the previous scriptures, because it supersedes them. In contrast, your Bible refers to a dozen different books which no longer exist but were obviously known to the authors, who regarded them as reliable sources. Why weren’t any of these books preserved?

        Another reason why your pathetic deflection fails is that the Quran was sent to all mankind, whereas the Bible was entrusted to the Israelites. They obviously did a bad job of preserving it. Thus, it is not the Muslims’ problem that the previous scriptures no longer exist, especially since they were probably taught originally by word of mouth. If they were written down later, those writings have undergone so many changes that it is impossible to trace the original teachings back to Moses or Jesus (peace be upon them). In contrast, the lost books of the Bible were the responsibility of the Israelites. They failed to preserve them. Thus, your Bible is not preserved and it is therefore completely unreliable.

        Oops, it happened again! Cerbie’s “logic” got debunked! Now, will your defend your Bible without deflecting to the Quran for once? Let’s see if you have the courage, little cowardly dog. You can run little Cerbie, but I’ll always catch you! I’m a seasoned dog-catcher, mwhahahaha!

        Like

      5. “Still telling porkies? Look, I’ll give you a shot. Where does the Koran say the injeel is oral?”

        where does it say it is a text? where is there proof that the pals of jesus saw 26 books of the new testament? before something was penned, where was it? in minds of people? where did mark get his stories from? how much did mark change the oral stories before he put them to paper?

        Liked by 1 person

      6. The irony is that Cerbie’s own so-called “scripture” answers his own question! When were the gospels written down? Even Cerbie’s “conservative” scholars says that at least 30 years went by before the gospels were written. So until that time, how were Jesus’ teachings circulated? How were they taught? Obviously, it must have been…wait for it…wait for it…oral!!!

        Like

      7. I dont get moron like you,the written torah is corrupt according to quran since the koran says the words when recited orally are changed and when written are changed thats why we need divine revealation coz all the original text is gone even the original oral recitation of torah. James wbite was told by ehrman that the MANY variants which came later on can only reconstruct copy of copy NOT the original

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Paulus

        Ok. So it boils down to “I believe the Koran superceeds everything therefore it is immune from the same argumentation” got it.

        Here’s my response:

        The bible superceedes all the lost books it mentions therefore it is immune from the same argumentation.

        Wow, that was easy. Why didn’t I just rely on my unfounded presupposition this whole time.

        Thanks Stew, we’ve now got no reason to talk.

        Like

      9. Hahaha, how so, stupid? How is the Bible superseding (not superceeding) those dozen other books? And how is the bible’s situation the same as the Quran’s? The Quran is for all mankind. The Bible was for the Israelites. It was in their care, and they obviously did a terrible job of preserving it. So, how are they the same?

        Hey Stew, look! Cerbie’s running away again! How many times is that now? LOL!!

        Like

      10. “The bible superceedes all the lost books it mentions therefore it is immune from the same argumentation.”

        you silly crosstian, the bible cannot supersede a book it tells you to go and check out. lol

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Paulus

      Stew, I’m making a valid point. If the bible is to be considered false, and if we apply your same logic to the Koran, then it too is to be considered false.

      Of course, the real elephant in the room is your presupposition. No one has demonstrated why citing non canonical sources disqualifies a text as inspired. I’ve ignored that key piece of the puzzle you miss, but assume in the hopes that by looking st the same logic applied consistently you might at least realise how silly your argument is. Alas, not to be…

      Like

      1. stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        No it is not a valid point there fallacies which are never considered refutations plain and simple. I’ll show you for the sake of argument I give up my premise on the Quran and apocryphal books.

        I’m a completely neutral party. Please explain how a text can quote lost books as authoritative sources and then Jewish leaders delete these sources for political; theological and lack of bookmaking technology and then still claim to not have been corrupted?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Hi Stew.

        You think that is neutral? Good grief! Look at the presupposition in the question. Since I don’t accept it, nor have you proven it, why should I accept it?

        Let’s get basic- who deleted these books? Name them. You said leaders, plural. I assume then that you can cite them and their reasons for doing so? If not, you’ve merely argued from an unfounded assumption.

        Like

      3. ROFTL, Cerbie thinks that we have to know the identities of the people who deleted the books, and only that will prove that they were deleted from the canon.

        Cerbie, perhaps you can let us know who removed the book of Enoch from your canon? And why, if the author of Jude regarded it as scripture?

        Like

      4. You question is like asking who was the guy who added trinitarian idea to the book of john and who was thee guy who added the ending to mark? Sometime you crosstians dont think.

        that the text refers you to those books means the authors knew them, the question is where are they now ? If they did not exist did the author repeat heresay?

        Liked by 1 person

      5. Paulus

        No, Britney, I think you need to tell me who “deleted” the books. Since you are so sure they were deleted, surely you can demonstrate how this happened.

        Ah, who am I kidding. You have no idea. You’re just peddling google

        Like

      6. Bwahahahaha, it’s not me, it’s the scholars of your Bible, you dingbat!

        Again, who removed the book of Enoch from your canon? Jude thought it was reliable. So who removed it? The point is we don’t need to know the exact identities of these people, you infantile moron. We just need to know whether they were deleted or not. And since your Bible refers to these books as scriptures, then it stands to reason that they were removed later on.

        Like

      7. Paulus

        It wasn’t in the canon. Geez, you muhammadans really can’t bypass dictation theory. It infects your infantile brain like the plague. Newsflash- citation of a document doesn’t mean it is canonical. Perhaps try to demonstrate why it must be canonical rather than assume it. I’ve asked you to do this several times now and you keep failing little Faiz.

        My scholars? Come now little piglet, don’t be silly. Just because someone claims they are Jewish doesn’t mean their academia is universally accepted, unless you accept al-bagdadi as your caliph. Let me guess, you’ll abandon consistent right about….

        …now.

        Again I ask, since you are so sure these books were deleted for nefarious reasons, then it should nt be hard to prove. Who did it? When did it happen? What sources do we have to demonstrate and prove it happened this way?

        C’mon Britney, stop playing the pop star and start succeeding in your dawah. As it stands, you only being shame and dishonour to your household and religion

        Like

      8. Lying for Jesus again? The book of Enoch is in the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox church! Also, Tertullian literally referred to it as “scripture”!

        “I am aware that the Scripture of Enoch, which has assigned this order of action to angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either” (http://torahdrivenlife.com/articles/enoch/the-church-fathers-and-the-book-of-enoch/).

        You keep failing little Cerbie!

        Come now Cerbie, we know that you regard any scholar who doesn’t agree with your a priori Christians assumptions as “liberal” and therefore not to be trusted. Don’t pretend to be “consistent” in this regard. LOL, you’re comparing Baghdadi to a scholar like Dr. Hoffman? Read the book “Refuting ISIS” to get an idea of how “scholarly” Baghdadi is, you moron.

        C’mon Cerbie, stop playing the dog of hell and start succeeding in winning souls for Christ. As it stands, you only bring (not being) shame and dishonor and laughter and mockery to your household and pagan religion. By the way, how’s Australia these days? Make any friends among the Aborigines? 😉

        Like

      9. More from Tertullian on Enoch:

        “But since Enoch in the same Scripture has preached likewise concerning the Lord, nothing at all must be rejected by us which pertains to us; and we read that ‘every Scripture suitable for edification is divinely inspired.’ (2 Timothy 3:16) By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, just like all the other portions nearly which tell of Christ. Nor, of course, is this fact wonderful, that they did not receive some Scriptures which spake of Him whom even in person, speaking in their presence, they were not to receive. To these considerations is added the fact that Enoch possesses a testimony in the Apostle Jude.””

        Like

      10. Paulus

        Precisely. “Not admitted into the Jewish canon”. Tertullian told you straight up!!

        Citing a fringe church as evidence is like me citing a Shia as evidence for Sunni theology.

        When all else fails you get really desperate.

        Like

      11. Lol, oh you little dunce! Tertullian said that it SHOULD be in the canon! He told you straight up that it is SCRIPTURE!

        “Fringe church” you say? Bwhahahahaha! The Ethiopian Orthodox church may be the only modern church that has the book of Enoch in its canon, but as I already showed, the early church fathers considered it to be scripture. So, this “fringe” church is actually following the earliest views more than you are. So guess what? You’re the “fringe” church!

        Let’s see some more church fathers, shall we?

        Origen:

        “Enoch also, in his book, speaks as follows: ‘I have walked on even to imperfection;’ which expression I consider may be understood in a similar manner, viz., that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its scrutiny and investigation of all visible things, until it arrived at that first beginning in which it beheld imperfect matter existing without ‘qualities.’”

        Irenaeus:

        “… illicit unions took place upon the earth, since angels were united with the daughters of the race of mankind; and they bore to them sons who for their exceeding greatness were called giants.”

        Here, Irenaeus is quoting the book of Enoch even though he does not name it.

        Athenagoras:

        “Athenagoras of Athens, in his work 2nd century work Legatio, claims to regard Enoch as a true prophet, and this same work relies heavily upon the angelic cosmology presented in the Book of Enoch.”

        “The earliest literature of the “Church fathers” is filled with references to this mysterious book. Second and Third Century “Church fathers” like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origin and Clement of Alexandria all make use of the Book of Enoch. Tertullian (160-230 C.E) even called the Book of Enoch “Holy Scripture”” (http://www.spiritualawakeningradio.com/enochcase.html).

        By the way, the book of Enoch was included in the Dead Sea Scrolls, so some Jews did regard it as scripture:

        ”First Enoch was included amongst the Dead Sea Scrolls, in fact was one of the most widely read holy books at Qumran (400 BC — 70 AD). This observation is based upon the large number of Aramaic Enoch fragments that have been found there. Many Jews were studying Enoch before and during the time of Jesus” (http://www.spiritualawakeningradio.com/enochcase.html).

        Cerbie gets humiliated again!

        Where will you go now in your desperation?

        Like

      12. Paulus

        And to make things worse, youvejust admitted that Enoch isnt actually “lost” hahahaha.

        Oh man, you fail more regularly than muhammad drank camel urine hahahaha

        So Porky, where is the injeel and Torah that the Koran talks about. Doubt run now. If you can’t produce it by the muhammadan logic we can reject the Koran. Quick now, you don’t want to shame the deen…

        Like

      13. Oh my goodness, pay attention Cerbie! When did I say the book of Enoch was lost? I said the dozen or so books mentioned in the Tanakh are lost. You didn’t “make things worse” for me with your strawman, I’m afraid! You made it worse for yourself! Hahahahaha!!

        So still running from the dozen lost books, eh? When all else fails, poor Cerbie has to attack Islam in his frustration. Poor, poor Cerbie…

        So Cerbie, where is the Book of the Covenant which the Israelites read and considered to be the word of God? Come on Cerbie, focus. You asked a question, and I answered it. So, will you man up and finally explain to us why your Bible has so many lost books? Quick now, you don’t want to shame the pagan church…

        Like

      14. Paulus

        You didn’t answer anything. You made a claim that Enoch was canonical and was deleted. Yet you haven’t provided any evidence that is was ever considered canonical by the church. You cited a fringe group like the pathetic muhammadan you are.

        If you had any shred of honesty you’d know that many books were discussed to be included in the canon. While fathers might lean one way on Enoch the majority did not because it didn’t meet the criteria for inclusion. So random citing fathers doesn’t prove your claim. It’s just a typical muhammadan deflection to avoid the inevitable fact that the Koran is disqualified based on the criteria of this post 😂😂😂

        Case in point- you muhammadans can’t even agree if the injeel was oral. Should I then cite one of you and draw a conclusion as proof of a position? And here goes your consistency right…about…

        …now.

        Like

      15. Hahahaha, I have provided “no evidence”? Obviously, you don’t know what “evidence” means! I showed you that the Qumran community read Enoch. It was in their canon. I showed you that the church fathers Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen and Athenagoras all regarded Enoch as authoritative. Tertullian even called it “scripture”! Since when are these a “fringe group”, you pathetic crosstian? LOL, I’ve said this before. You idiots cite the church fathers when they suit your purpose, but when they don’t, you throw them under the bus! How consistent of you!

        Moron, I’m completely aware that there were debates about your pathetic “canon”! Appealing to that doesn’t help your case, though! The very fact that there were so many debates and opinions on what was scripture and what wasn’t just shows how confused and idiotic your so-called “church” was. If you had a shred of honesty, you would admit that the book of Enoch was considered scripture by some Christians, not just a “fringe group”. But alas, you are a liar for Jesus (or Paul), so truth doesn’t mean anything to you if it will make your religion look bad.

        Here is how the Catholic Encyclopedia describes the support for the book of Enoch:

        “Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and even St. Augustine suppose the work to be a genuine one of the patriarch. But in the fourth century the Henoch writings lost credit and ceased to be quoted. After an allusion by an author of the beginning of the ninth century, they disappear from view” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01602a.htm).

        Notice that it was ONLY by the 4th century that the book “lost credit”. Until then, it was quoted by major church authorities! Why don’t you just admit that you are wrong for once, you pagan? I swear I won’t laugh at you. I’ve already laughed at you so many times!!! LOL!!

        Liked by 1 person

  8. “No I don’t find it strange. Nor should you since the Koran quotes apocryphal books also. Britney tried to dance around this by saying they both cite a common source. Ok, let’s accept that for arguments sake. What and where is this common source? If it’s lost (which you have to admit it is) then the same “argument” equally disqualifies the Koran.”

    you silly munmooch , the quran is a REVELATION . so for example it will REVEAL something which took place in moses’ time , since God has knowledge of all time, then Quran is revealing information. meaning the muslims believe the quran is NOT DEPENDANT on SOURCES.

    if the Quran is dependant on SOURCES, then one can say GOODBYE to the idea of revelation.

    what was jesus DOING when he was 6 year old? how about when he was 4 year old?

    how can we know OTHER than revelation ?

    on the other hand :

    your bible says there were WRITTEN sources that it asked people to go back to.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Ok tony, we’ll say goodbye because ge Koran is dependent on earlier apocryphal sources.

      Even worse, the Koran is dependent on the Hadith for clarification and application. Ergo, by your logic, it is false

      Like

      1. So you dont believe that god reveal unknown information about events long time ago ? You know,you cant PROVE even one of jesus’ or moses miracles coz its all gone in history. There is absolutely nothing to show that jesus cured people in an unknown village ,there is absolutely no evidence that his fame spread. The only way is for God to reveal the unseen. many events have been lost or distorted

        for example

        the virgin birth through gospel narration is in doubt. Mary is found pregnant and joseph pretends to be father of jesus ,his evidence to the ppl? A dream.

        this is why quran is not dependant on these FOOLISH stories. Lol the woman is virgin YET married lol

        the woman pbuh js taken in bouse and is found pregnant and then she gives birth,nobody in family asks “how did u give birth so fast”
        ?

        poor joseph pretends to be father

        The is why revelation is required to tell the truth. Quran is not dependant nativity

        Liked by 1 person

  9. Stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    It’s not a presupposition to quote what a Jewish scholar has said. Next, (and this is off the top of my head) most scholars say the Torah (aka the first 5 books of the OT) had major revisions around the time of King Josiah.

    Finally, your argument doesn’t make sense. Just because you don’t know the names of someone changing the book doesn’t mean the book wasn’t changed. For example, we don’t know the name of the scribe who wrote in the ending of Mark (16:9-20). It doesn’t mean Mark’s ending wasn’t changed.

    But here since you said you don’t agree with modern scholarship, why don’t you explain what happened to everybody then regarding these books?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Hahahaha, isn’t is amazing how often Cerbie just seems to know more than all the scholars combined?

      The fact is that he is a brainwashed zombie. He will never admit to anything that undermines his religion, even if the proof is staring him right in the face.

      Like

      1. Stewjo004

        I think he believes the beginning of the article was my personal writing? I’m quoting directly from a Jewish scholar. He pretty much just straight up is saying. The book is pretty much yep, we changed it… here’s why…

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Look! Another presupposition.

        Let’s go again- britney, when we’re these books listed as canonical or accepted as such. You’ve done it now- let’s see the evidence.

        Oh, and since you love lost things bro f canonical, can you tell what the lostkoranic ayat was that was eaten by the sheep?

        Like

      3. I already humiliated you about the book of Enoch. Let’s see…hmmm…some examples of these lost books as scripture:

        “Moses then said to Aaron, “This is what the Lord spoke of when he said:

        “‘Among those who approach me
        I will be proved holy;
        in the sight of all the people
        I will be honored.’”

        Aaron remained silent.”

        What book is this verse from? Moses quotes it verbatim as something that God said. But where is it from? Regardless, it’s clear that it is scripture because it is literally God’s word. What else could it be?

        Here is another example that brother John didn’t mention: the book of the covenant.

        “Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.””

        Clearly, this is scripture. The Israelites believed it was the word of God.

        Oh me, oh my! Cerbie get humiliated again! When will the insanity stop?!

        Like

    2. Paulus

      Stew.

      The list you provided- it only has two citations from Torah.

      Second, it certainly is a presupposition when one claims that the books are “lost” because of political or religious deletion. Surely we can assume that to make such a claim one would have evidence? Are they lost? Of course! We don’t have them. But we’re tbey removed for nefarious reasons? Well, you’d need to show me some evidence that such is the case. You haven’t. Like usual, you’ve simply quoted the nearest liberal argument to suit your muhammadan agenda.

      So yes, it’s a huge presupppsition to claim something without evidence. Your parallel with mark doesn’t work because we are not making claims as to why the ending might have been changed. We can hypothesise, but we don’t actually know, do we? Yet apparently you know exactly why books were lost thousands of years ago

      Like

      1. Stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        Okay, then let’s go down this road together. Just so I can be clear, may you please give an example of something you would want to see? Obviously, if someone had nefarious intentions they’re not going to go:
        “I’ve changed it Muwahahaha.”

        Like

      2. “So yes, it’s a huge presupppsition to claim something without evidence. Your parallel with mark doesn’t work because we are not making claims as to why the ending might have been changed. We can hypothesise, but we don’t actually know, do we?”

        the question is WHO changed it?
        mark HAS NO appearances of jesus. mark never has the women REPORT. WE do know why it was CHANGED, to make it accord with crosstian BELIEFS .

        so your stupid question “but do we ACTUALLY know….”

        yes we do.

        Like

      3. Paulus

        Stew.

        You’ve made the claim (by approval of citing the Jewish scholar). What evidence do you base it your position on?

        You provide the evidence then we can discuss it’s merit. You say books were deleted for political and religious reasons. If you are simply assuming the leaders did this, then man up and just admit your assumptions

        Like

    3. Paulus

      Oh Britney, you still haven’t proven how any of these cited works were canonical. The onetime you tried your own source said it wasn’t 😂😂

      Moses was citing Yahwah. Who says it was a lost book? Even a silly muhammadan like you accepts revelation. But here goes your consistency right about…

      …now

      Like

      1. Stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        I’m going to list evidence in a moment (it’s an entire book, originally I was going to leave a pdf link for the book but the administrator was worried about copyright. Also as another note, Dr.Hoffman is not liberal if you look at his other works you can see this), however, I want to know what you would need to agree that it’s been changed?

        Like

      2. Paulus

        Well, a good start would be to demonstrate the books you mentioned were canonical.

        To say they were deleted from the canon one would first need to demonstrate they were part of the canon. Correct?

        Like

      3. PATHETIC!! Is this the best you can do, Cerbie? Come on now. Your religion needs your help. You are doing a terrible job of providing substantive rebuttals.

        Who says it was a book? LOL!! Your Bible says it was a book!

        “Then he took the Book of the Covenant and read it to the people. They responded, “We will do everything the Lord has said; we will obey.””

        Hmmm, let’s see. It says “book”. Even a silly crosstian pagan like you knows that the word “book” means “book”. But here goes your dignity right about…

        …now.

        Liked by 1 person

  10. paulis, your thoughts :

    There are more genuinely lost documents than that. We know from the canonical Pauline epistles that Paul wrote quite a few more letters than were preserved. For example, 1 and 2 Corinthians (as we call them) were actually in the middle of a series of at least four letters. In 1 Cor 5:9, Paul refers to “my previous letter,” and 2 Cor 2:4 refers to his “letter of tears,” which some believe exists in 2 Cor 10-13 and some think was lost. Either way, there were at least four letters from Paul to Corinth, and we only have at most three of them.

    Additionally, Colossians 4:16 refers to Paul’s letter to the Laodiceans. If Colossians is genuinely Pauline, that implies the existence of at least one additional letter we don’t have.

    This raises a fascinating question about authorship and canonicity. If archaeologists were to recover, say, Paul’s first letter to Corinth and validate its authorship beyond reasonable doubt (obviously impossible, but this is a hypothetical), would it hold the same authority as the canonical Pauline epistles? What about compared to the deutero-Pauline epistles, assuming that they could be shown with equal certainty to be non-Pauline?

    /////

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Still lying?

      Still running?

      C’mon, when were these lost books listed as canonical? No more lying for muhammad.

      Just admit that hey never were. That you’re telling lies for the deen. That you worship muhammad and he leads you astray

      Like

    2. Paulus

      This was a key discussion when I did my degree. Obviously, Christians are supernaturalists, like Muslims, so we believe in divine inspiration. Only the books God wanted were canonised. Simple really.

      The criterion for canonisation would she impossible to replicate if say a new mss was discovered, so no, they wouldn’t be included.

      Now, what about you. Where was Allah when he allowed the injeel and Torah to be lost? Especially when he tells Jews and Christians to judge by the books they have with them? Considering we know what the Jews and Christians had with them in the sixth century, and it’s the same as now, I can only conclude that Allah is actually fake and the Koran is what we expect from an ignorant Arab trader.

      Like

      1. LOL, if you believe in “divine inspiration”, then why do your “scriptures” quote from supposedly “non-canonical” books? Why do the “inspired” writers quote “non-inspired” works as if they were authoritative?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Paulus

        Because that’s completely in sync with biblical inspiration. Remember, not every one worships muhammad and only believes in dictation theology

        Like

      3. “Now, what about you. Where was Allah when he allowed the injeel and Torah to be lost?”

        thats like asking why did the holy spirit inspire christians to add, change and make up verses to conform with beliefs .

        ” Especially when he tells Jews and Christians to judge by the books they have with them?”

        impossible since we know that the stuff available at the prophets time were not the reconstructed bible BOOKS we have today.

        QUOTE :

        No. I am saying what is historically fact that no manuscripts of the Bible in Arabic exist from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) but, rather, the earliest appeared hundreds of years later. All of the manuscripts and codices date to the 9th Century CE.

        What existed among the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula was an amalgam of oral and sparsely documented tradition that was largely gnostic and heretical. In historical record it appears that the Christians were the most heretical, whereas, the Jews were less so. The 3 questions that Rabbi Abdullah bin Salam asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) are found in the Old Testament, the Targumim, and the Talmud.

        So what the Christians and Jews had in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sparse fragmentary material and their religious life was mostly dictated by clergy and not individuals studying the texts. Historically, Jews did not allow the laity to handle the scripture.

        //////////////////

        Like

      4. Stewjo004

        @ Paulus
        I think you misunderstood my question. What was the criterion that was used? I’m just making things up for example purposes:
        “We agree to the following: The book has to literally be God’s words and not an explanation, 2 or more witnesses from the Disciples, etc.”

        Like

      5. Paulus

        Oh boy, clearly Britney doesn’t have a clue about biblical inspiration. He thinks inspiration excludes dictation theory hahaha. What a fool!

        Biblical inspiration includes all manner of revelatory process, including the ability for human authors to quote non canonical works. Including the ability for Hid to dictate. Including the ability for songs of worship to be inspired. Shall I go on.

        Muhammadism rots the brain.

        Like

      6. Hahahaha, Cerbie has to backtrack now. Let’s see what “inspiration” means, according to Christian sources:

        “…the theologians of today, whilst retaining the terminology of the older school, have profoundly modified the theory itself. They no longer speak of a material dictation of words to the ear of the writer, nor of an interior revelation of the term to be employed, but of a Divine motion extending to every faculty and even to the powers of execution to the writer, and in consequence influencing the whole work, even its editing. Thus the sacred text is wholly the work of God and wholly the work of man, of the latter, by way of instrument, of the former by way of principal cause” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08045a.htm).

        “The “inspiration” of the human writers did not mean that they were mere transcribers. God employed their human personalities and experiences in the process. Inspired men were not omniscient or personally infallible. But what they wrote was from the mind of God — and it was recorded without error.

        They also used firsthand knowledge, the aid of eyewitnesses, and written sources in the composition of Scripture (cf. Lk. 1:1-4). All of these methods, however, were under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, with the guarantee of accuracy (cf. Jn. 16:13)” (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1158-what-is-bible-inspiration).

        “If God had dictated the Bible, however, the style and vocabulary of each book of the Bible would be the same throughout. Yet, a simple reading of the Scriptures proves that the mechanical dictation viewpoint is incorrect. The fact is, the personality and style of each author are evident in every book of the Bible. Paul’s writings are different from Peter’s, and John’s are different from Luke’s. At times, Bible writers even used different words to teach the same story or to give the same commands.”

        “The correct view is to understand that the Bible’s inspiration is verbal and plenary. This means that the Bible writers penned exactly what God wanted them to write, without errors or mistakes, yet with their own personalities evident in their writings. By “verbal,” we mean that every word in the Bible exists because God permitted it (via the direction of the Holy Spirit).” (http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=565)

        LOL, poor Cerbie always seems to point his dirty finger in the wrong direction. It seem he’s the one who doesn’t “have a clue about biblical inspiration”. It does not include “dictation”. God did not dictate the words, while some prophet was busily jotting it down.

        Crosstianism rots the brain.

        Like

      7. Paulus

        Tony.

        Perhaps in Arabic. But muhammad was a prophet for all people remember. And we literally have hundreds, possibly thousands, of variants in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, etc from the era before and during Muhammad.

        So you either except that we have the bible from that time, or you reject that muhammad is for all people. Either way, you lose 😂😂😂

        Like

  11. there is no eyewitness testimony for the crucifixion of jesus.
    they CREATED criterion because their scholars knew that none of the synoptic writers and john knew ANY eyewitnesses?.

    these same criterion are now being called into question by these same scholars.

    paul is too late, he doesn’t even mention who crucified jesus. in ALL his letters, there is no mention of who crucified jesus, in the forged letters there is blame on the jews, but that could be something paul was parroting from other crosstians who themselves parroted others

    scholars have identified psalms and isiah as SOURCES for the crucifixion narratives and scholars also say that jewish PRACTICES were used as sources to FILL out the details

    but then there are scholars who say mark does a mess up of jewish law.

    how were the two crucified beside jesus buried?
    how was judas buried?

    exactly, JUST GUESS and thats what they had for jesus, guess he got jewish burial and then his burial gets “sexed up” like dodgy dossier for iraq war .

    marks story has all the players run away to galilee
    mark never says he WITNESSED any of the stuff in his story.

    marks plot requires that close friends and associates abandon the dead and failed crucified man god.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Paulus

      No eyewitnesses? Telling lies for muhammad again!

      Mark 15:40-41 also says many women watched from a distance and specifically mentions “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.”

      Matthew 27:55-56, says that many women were “watching from a distance”, and specifically names “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.”

      Luke 23:49, says that some of them watched from a distance

      John mentions several eyewitnesses, including the beloved disciple.

      Then we can add Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders and other civilians.

      Oops, looks like the korans fabricated version of events form an uneducated Arab man who drank camel urine is proved false 😂

      Why anyone would follow the historically proven falsehood of the Koran only demonstrates to prove how true original sin really is hahahaha

      Like

      1. “No eyewitnesses? Telling lies for muhammad again!

        Mark 15:40-41 also says many women watched from a distance and specifically mentions “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the younger and of Joses, and Salome.””

        you see what kind of a scum bag you are? this SAME source says that the WOMEN ran off and didn’t tell anyone, this same source says that IT (mark) DID NOT witness any of the events. you would have to GUESS how mark knew from the women.

        how did mark know this information ? he DOESN’T say that the women told him . he said THEY TOLD NO ONE.

        why did john , the last gospel, bring women closer to the cross?

        All patristic sources and most modern Christian scholars agree that John was written later than the other 3 canonical gospels.


        Matthew 27:55-56, says that many women were “watching from a distance”, and specifically names “Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee’s sons.””

        that stories looks so similar to a written document, i mean if matthew was there, he would have said “i SAW him , he instead chose to quote story which sounds very similar to another story .

        how does matthew parroting another story mean that crucifixion took place?


        Luke 23:49, says that some of them watched from a distance”

        John mentions several eyewitnesses, including the beloved disciple.”

        ALL late documents trying to fix up the original problem that did not have anyone near the cross


        Then we can add Roman soldiers, Jewish leaders and other civilians.”

        yeah ALL witnessed a god get murdered. all the world. everyone was there . like everyone was there when they saw the crosses in the clouds ,

        Roughly 25 years after Emperor Constantine’s conversion, Eusebius wrote that the cross had appeared to Constantine in the sky in front of his entire army! But we know this is a myth because we have a report from Lactantius, an adviser to Constantine, who wrote only three years after the conversion, says only that Constantine had a dream about the cross the night before the battle! Eusebius’ mass vision story is a complete myth. Now think about: Eusebius wrote 25 years after Constantine’s vision, Paul wrote about 25 years after the alleged resurrection of Jesus, and most scholars agree that the appearance to the 500 is Paul’s addition to the list (thus it does not date back to within 3 years of Jesus’ death as other parts of the creed may), so it isn’t reliable evidence of anything. The Constantine example also completely destroys Strobel’s assertions that it takes two generations or more for legends to grow up. Not so: in 25 years you can turn a dream into a mass vision.

        look man AN ENTIRE ARMY !

        and if we did not have the report you would have BELIEVED that an ENTIRE army was present to witness this cross.

        Liked by 1 person


      2. Luke 23:49, says that some of them watched from a distance”

        John mentions several eyewitnesses, including the beloved disciple.”

        okay, when were these stories WRITTEN? you said “john mentions SEVERAL witnesses….”
        WHY didn’t he MENTION that “they ALL FORSOOK him and fled..”

        why didn’t he mention that the women LOOKED from AFAR?

        why is the LAST gospel not CORROBORATING the EARLIEST gospel which says “they ALL FORSOOK him AND FLED ” ?

        Like

  12. Stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    I never said these books were officially codified as canon. These books are said to be mentioned and taught from for example:
    Then David chanted with this lament over Saul and Jonathan his son, and he told them to teach the sons of Judah the song of the bow; behold, it is written in the book of Jashar. (2 Samuel 1:18)

    So David (as) a prophet felt it was important for the sons of Judah to learn this. My original contention as mentioned in the ayat of Qur’an I quoted at the beginning of the article is God said the Jews forgot pieces of the Scripture which shows they have or else the sons of Judah would still be reciting it today.

    My second point, is I need to know what evidence YOU personally would need to see to agree that the Jews and Christians changed God’s Scripture. The reason I ask is that I personally feel the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt and you obviously disagree. It’s kinda like if we were talking to an atheist and they asked for proof of God. Logically, we would have to ask them what do they want to see. Once that’s established, it’s much easier to show points that particular person will care about as opposed to shotgunning points and insulting each other.

    Same thing when I asked you what do you believe God is. Once we establish where we agree and disagree regarding God it’s easy to then discuss the critical points that we disagree on.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Paulus

      Stew, you cited and argued that books were deleted for political or theological reasons.

      Deleted from what? If you aren’t arguing that they were canonical then you’ve made no point. Of course one could dismiss a book or teaching if it wasn’t canonical. That’s hardly revolutionary.

      I gave you my criteria, based on your comments and citation. So again I ask, what were they deleted from? If not from the canon, then what? And if not from the canon, then why are we arguing? Neither of us then believes that these books or writings were “biblical”

      Like

    2. Paulus

      P.s you might like to Pm old Britney cause he’s arguing non stop that these books were deleted from the bible. Without a shed of evidence of course. You guys don’t seem to know what your point is, apart from joint hatred in Christ and the church.

      Like

      1. Stewjo004

        My point has remained the same you were just responding “the Qur’an quotes the Injeel and Torah” the entire time. My entire my point was that books in the OT were lost or forgotten for 3 reasons:
        1. Theological
        2. Political
        3. Due to lack of bookmaking technology
        Here let’s look at the Book of Enoch that you 2 are discussing (I’m going to edit for speed purposes):

        He first gives background about Enoch the person,

        “What he did do is lend his name to the Book of Enoch, which was among the most well-known religious writings throughout the ancient world, even though it isn’t in our Bible today. Jude in the New Testament, though, quotes the book directly (in verse 1:14), and the theology and general worldview from the Book of Enoch permeate other parts of the New Testament. Enoch himself appears in genealogies in 1 Chronicles and Luke, along with his ancestors and descendants. Hebrews (11:5) expands on Genesis 5, explicitly telling the reader that Enoch was taken so that he would not see death and adding, in the context of what faith means, that Enoch was taken up “by faith.” These are only some of the reasons that such influential church fathers as Origen (an early Christian scholar and theologian born in the second century A.D. in Alexandria) thought so highly of Enoch and why we are not surprised that fragments from Enoch were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls.
        Yet for all its fame, popularity, and influence, the Book of Enoch moved into near obscurity after it fell out of favor around the fourth century A.D. The Book of Enoch was rejected by Saint Jerome (the influential Christian theologian of the third and fourth centuries A.D. who translated the Bible into the Latin version called the Vulgate), for example, and by Saint Augustine (another influential Christian thinker from about the same time period), as well as by great rabbis who wrote the Talmud and shaped rabbinic Judaism. In fact, we might not even have the Book on Enoch had it not been preserved in Ethiopia, where it remained central to religious thought. (Though the
        Ethiopian church is tiny in the United States, and equally marginal in most Western nations, Ethiopian Christianity, like Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is a mainstream church with a rich history and its own traditions and theology. It is also one of the six major denominations that control the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem—the others being Roman Catholic, Armenian, Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, and Coptic.) ”

        (Note: I don’t know who told you that the Ethiopian Church is a “fringe Church” but that is incorrect)

        He then goes through themes etc. And the overall story.

        “Based on its style and content, and because Enoch doesn’t play a role in it, some people suspect that the passage about the Watchers is either based on or even a direct copy of a now-lost Book of Noah, rather than an original composition. Either way, it meshes seamlessly with the biblical narrative. Starting in Genesis 6:1, we read about the time when “people multiplied … and daughters were born to them, and the sons of angels took wives for themselves” from among the humans. That’s why, in those days, there were “the nephilim upon the earth … when the sons of angels entered the daughters of humans, who in turn bore children to them.”

        The phrasing in Genesis—and, in particular, the use of “the” in “the giants”— suggests that the ancient reader was expected to be familiar with the story and that Genesis was just providing a summary to remind people of what they already knew.”

        He then goes through the connection between the son of man as it’s used in the NT and OT. And explores the book of Enoch’s parables. He then notes it was rejected mainly because it questioned God’s plan for the universe.

        Now several points. For obvious religious reasons, I don’t believe in the book either. However ancient Jews, the writer of Jude of the NT which you believe in and heavy hitter early Church Fathers did. 400 years after the fact it was thrown out and would’ve been lost if not for the Ethiopian Church. Christians and Jews can’t even agree on what was the revelation given to them which is my ENTIRE point. It is not unreasonable to then say: “Yeah they more than likely threw out other things out as well.”

        Now if you were looking more a tit for tat points, where he shows issues he does pick the LXX and it’s story apart. I just quoted Enoch because you and the administrator of the blog were discussing it. And for all intents and purpose, it was considered Scripture by Jews and Christians for a very long time.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “And for all intents and purpose, it was considered Scripture by Jews and Christians for a very long time.”

        Exactly. Just because it’s not in the canon now does not mean it was never in the canon. The Qumran community believed in it. So did Jude. So did the earlier church fathers like Justin and Clement. When will Cerbie face the facts?

        Like

      3. Oh boy, you simply cannot offer any explanation for what these documents were, why they were even quoted, why they are now lost, etc., and can only whine about “hatred for Christ and the church”. LOL, I don’t hate Christ. In fact, I love him as a prophet of God. I don’t even hate your church. I mock it of course because it is a deceitful institution, but that’s a far cry from “hatred”. Your emotional deflections will not save your Bible.

        Now, I see you ignored my last posts. I proved even more that the book of Enoch was considered canonical by many church fathers, the earliest ones in fact. It was not officially discredited until the 4th century. I also showed you that the book of the Covenant was a physical document. Moses read from it, and the Israelites believed it was God’s word. What more proof do you need for its basis as scripture? Face it. You just don’t want to admit you are wrong, so you keep moving the goal post and going off on tangents. Typical behavior from a brainwashed church zombie.

        Like

      4. Paulus

        “My entire my point was that books in the OT were lost or forgotten for 3 reasons:“

        Stew- only yesterday you told me that you weren’t arguing that these books were canonical. Yet here you affirm that they were part of the OT and are now lost.

        “I never said these books were officially codified as canon”

        Are you lying or what? It’s hsrd to tell. Honestly, I suspect you are simply confused and dont really know what your point is. You’ve read the introduction of this book, then cited it against Christians, and now continually contradict yourself.

        So I ask again. If these books were deleted from the OT, can you demonstrate that they were ever officially part of the OT canon? If not, you stand refuted.

        (Enoch was rejected as canonical by the Jews as discussed above, so it too doesn’t fit into your argument. It was considered “useful” like most of the apocryphal works but never entered into the canon as scripture. Jude quoting it doesn’t make it scripture anymore that the apostle Paul citing Greek philosophers makes them scripture. You guys need to stop assuming that citation of a work makes it inspired scripture.)

        Like

      5. Paulus

        Britney- I read John Calvin because I find his works edifying and helpful. Doesn’t make them scripture.

        You probably read some nonsense extra Koranic material for edification. Doesn’t mean it makes them scripture.

        Many early books were considered edifying for Christians but did not meet the criteria of inspired scripture. Citing a few fathers on this doesn’t prove a thing. That’s why they discussed it in the first place!!

        Sadly for you, and I repeat this for the millionth time, non of these works were ever considered canonical. Ergo, they weren’t lost or removed from the canon. Your point is simply moot and boring. It’s stems from muhammadism and it’s obsession and hatred against Christ and the church. Geez, I even bet your Friday sermon was a tirade against us, correct?

        Like

      6. There he goes again, barking his own personal opinions while contradicting what his “church” actually teaches!

        Tertullian was not merely using Enoch because he found it to be “edifying and helpful”. He literally referred to it as “scripture”! And to make things worse for you, here is what your fellow crosstians say about the meaning of the word “scripture”:

        “Paul said that “scripture” is inspired of God. The word “scripture” comes from the Greek term graphe, which means “writings.” Paul was considering a specific body of writings. The word “scripture” is used in the Bible in a technical sense to distinguish writings whose origin is God, from those that originate with men. Practically speaking, the terms, “inspired of God” and “scriptures,” are interchangeable” (https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1158-what-is-bible-inspiration).

        The fact that the fathers quoted extensively from the text shows that they considered it scripture. Justin even quoted it despite Trypho’s opposition to it. By calling it “scripture”, Tertullian was saying that Enoch was “inspired of God”.

        Sadly for you, and I repeat this for the millionth time, Enoch and other words WERE considered canonical. Your church authorities confirmed this.

        Your idiotic and laughable opinions, which you repeat ad nauseum without any support whatsoever, will not refute these simple facts. Your refusal to accept the facts stems from crosstianism and it’s obsession and hatred against the truth. Geez, I even bet your Sunday sermon was a tirade against truth and honesty, correct?

        By the way, the last Friday sermon was actually about Ramadan, which is coming up in a few weeks. I bet you have nightmares about Muslims coming out of your closet at night! ROFTL!!

        Like

  13. Stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    You said: “While fathers might lean one way on Enoch the majority did not because it didn’t meet the criteria for inclusion.”
    What were the criteria?

    Like

      1. Paulus

        Ah, well that explains a lot. If you don’t know what the criteria for canonicity was, then how can you be blogging about books being removed from this canon?

        You’ve just exposed yourself and this blog as a fraud. It really is frustrating when uneducated muhammadans insist on biblical corruption without even understanding the basic tenents of the discussion.

        Do your homework and then come back.

        Cheerio

        Like

      2. Oh boohoo, woe is us brother John! Cerbie has declared us to be “frauds”. Whatever shall we do?

        And now he has run away as he usually does, pretending he knows everything. Is it time for your afternoon tea or something, Cerbie? How’s the weather there in the land of the Aborigines?

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Brother John, maybe Cerbie means the “criterion” used by Irenaeus to determine which gospels were canonical or not. It had to do with numbers:

        “The Gospels could not possibly be either more or less in number than they are. Since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the Church is spread over all the earth, and the pillar and foundation of the Church is the gospel, and the Spirit of life, it fittingly has four pillars, everywhere breathing out incorruption and revivifying men.”

        So there. Christians simply had to canonize four gospels, because there are four winds. A very thorough criterion, wouldn’t you say?

        Liked by 1 person

  14. Stewjo004

    @ Paulus

    P.S. You said hatred for Christ and the Church.

    Don’t hate Jesus(as) I just don’t go to the extreme in my love for him and place him equal to or above God.
    Next, which Church are you referring to? You have 6 to choose from.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. “Tony.

    Perhaps in Arabic. But muhammad was a prophet for all people remember. And we literally have hundreds, possibly thousands, of variants in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, etc from the era before and during Muhammad.”

    lol , so which VARIANTS is the quran talking about ?
    the RECONSTRUCTED crap in today’s bible?

    are you admitting that in the prophets time , the heresies that were AVAILABLE should have been the ONES u CROSSTIANS should have followed?

    since what we had were gnostic crap, then that should have been the TRUE teachings, ERGO all the hebrew, greek coptic aramaic SHOULD be FLUSHED down the toilet !


    So you either except that we have the bible from that time, or you reject that muhammad is for all people. Either way, you lose 😂😂😂”

    u need to accept that GNOSTIC stuff is the TRUTH .

    I WILL QUOTE :
    QUOTE :

    No. I am saying what is historically fact that no manuscripts of the Bible in Arabic exist from the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) but, rather, the earliest appeared hundreds of years later. All of the manuscripts and codices date to the 9th Century CE.

    What existed among the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula was an amalgam of oral and sparsely documented tradition that was largely gnostic and heretical. In historical record it appears that the Christians were the most heretical, whereas, the Jews were less so. The 3 questions that Rabbi Abdullah bin Salam asked the Prophet (peace be upon him) are found in the Old Testament, the Targumim, and the Talmud.

    So what the Christians and Jews had in the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him) was sparse fragmentary material and their religious life was mostly dictated by clergy and not individuals studying the texts. Historically, Jews did not allow the laity to handle the scripture.

    //////////

    of oral and sparsely documented tradition that was largely gnostic and heretical.

    ////////

    so if according to you the quran TELLS U TO CONSULT injeel in time of muhammad , then SUPPORTS then this is YOUR INJEEL which should have been COPIED and replaced all the CRAP all over the world.

    yes ? u agree?

    Like

    1. “Perhaps in Arabic. But muhammad was a prophet for all people remember. And we literally have hundreds, possibly thousands, of variants in Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Coptic, etc from the era before and during Muhammad.””

      those variants were ALL useless , since we NEED to know the STUFF the crosstians were READING in the time of MUHAMMAD. and what we see is :


      What existed among the Jews and Christians of the Arabian Peninsula was an amalgam of oral and sparsely documented tradition that was largely gnostic and heretical.”

      so lets play historian, ACCORDING TO THE QURAN oral TRADITIONS AND LARGELY GNOSTIC AND HERETICAL stuff SHOULD have been followed, right?

      i want to see if a dirty filthy man worshipping kafir like you agrees to this.

      Liked by 1 person

  16. “Enoch was rejected as canonical by the Jews as discussed above, so it too doesn’t fit into your argument. It was considered “useful” like most of the apocryphal works but never entered into the canon as scripture. Jude quoting it doesn’t make it scripture anymore that the apostle Paul citing Greek philosophers makes them scripture.”

    PIG, in time of NT where is the proof that OT was CLOSED canon ? any BOOKS not NOW in the OT could have BEEN SEEN as SCRIPTURE . THERE WAS NO CLOSED CANON when MARK wrote his gospel.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. pig

      There’s a big difference between Jude’s and paul’s quotes.

      QUOTE :

      Even though it may not be ‘included’ in the Bible, its influence can still be (easily) detected in the Dead Sea scrolls, the New Testament, and among the early Christians/early church. First intimations as to its controversial status appear in Tertullian, who comments that it’s not accepted in Jewish canon because of the logical improbability of it having survived the flood (it’s, of course, set in antediluvian times). Later, Augustine is skeptical of its extreme antiquity and an unclear line of transmission: it was “not brought forward as genuine by the persons who were found to have carefully preserved the canonical book by a successive transmission.” He also seems to hint at its clearly ‘fabulistic’ nature – however, he also says he “cannot deny” that Enoch indeed “left some divine writings.”

      Just some general comments at the outset: while in modern times it may have indeed been expunged from the canon (except for, as noted, from the canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church), the Enochic book(s) exercised a very sizable influence on the Judaism leading up to – and during/after – the birth of Christianity. In fact, in recent decades, scholars of Second Temple Judaism have spoken of an entire sectarian ‘brand’ of Judaism dubbed Enochic Judaism, which has been proposed, for example, to have been a formative influence on the ideology of the community/texts of the Dead Sea scrolls (considering the preponderance of Enochic manuscripts and motifs found within). Although various aspects of this model have been somewhat challenged – for an overview see Collins in Roitman et al. 2011 – it’s undeniable that many things that first appear in the Enochic books would become ‘mainstays’ in later theology. It’s only really in the earliest Enochic books that members of the angelic entourage (of YHWH) receive personal names: Michael, Gabriel, Raphael, etc. Further, the Enochic books give an etiology for evil spirits and the presence of evil in the world that was taken up by many early Christians. Its eschatology was also fairly unique as well, and influential.

      Dozens of places in the New Testament can be illuminated by reference to the Enochic literature. As I’ve commented here recently, according to the earliest Enochic book(s), evil spirits derive from the deceased giants from primeval times, themselves the hybrid offspring of angels and humans; and Archie Wright (and myself, among several others) have argued that this is the implied background to some of Jesus’ exorcisms in the gospels. Most importantly – and this might be a nice segue into the issue of why the status of Enoch in early church was ambiguous – an eschatological prophecy in the canonical epistle of Jude is explicitly attributed to (the book of) Enoch.

      Liked by 1 person

  17. Stewjo004

    @ Quranandbible

    Naw… I refuse to believe that’s the criteria used. It is strange Paulus wouldn’t answer my question though. Because the other question I had to ask was does he believe the Book of Enoch is false or not?

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Pingback: Lost gospels or apocryphal writings | Bijbelvorser = Bible Researcher

  19. Pingback: What Allan Ruhl Can Learn From Muslims Christine Ford – The Quran and Bible Blog

  20. You stated — “In the end, correct answers to the question, How many books are in the Bible? range from thirty-three to seventy-eight. ”

    My response — The Ethiopic Bible comprises a total of 84 books and I think those may be all old test.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. stewjo004

      @ Lander7

      Hi, Lander first welcome to the blog.

      The part of the article you quoted came from Dr. Hoffman’s book ‘the Bible’s Cutting Room Floor’. He is a Jew so he mainly focused on the Hebrew Bibel (aka “The Old Testament”)

      However canonical issues were also in play regarding what Christians thought was Scripture. For example probably one of the most known books “Revelation” almost didn’t make the cut.

      And admittedly I’m being lazy today and if you need me to go more in-depth with more sources I will, but you can see a chart for what was accepted as canon from the NT for the early churches at “Comparison between earliest biblical canons’ of this Wikipedia page:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

      Like

  21. stewjo004

    No problem Lander, stick around because I have some more articles coming soon God willing. Were there any topics you were interested in?

    Like

    1. Hey Stew, Ruhl responded to me about the lost books. I am currently writing a response to him which should be published today or tomorrow, inshaAllah. Basically, as you would expect, he thinks it’s not that big of a deal that the Bible mentions lost books, but seems to have a problem with the Quran mentioning books like the Injeel or Taurat. Go figure…

      Like

  22. Pingback: Refuting Allan Ruhl on the Missing Books in the Bible – The Quran and Bible Blog

  23. stewjo004

    How does he not make a big deal when their canon book quote these books as if canon?

    Or the fact that a Jewish Scholar himself says “Yeah we lost them due to writing technology or changed them for political and theological reasons and only kept a “greatest hits” collection?

    ““The Bible you usually read is the abridged version. Its contents were culled from a much larger selection of holy scriptures when new realities forced religious leaders to discard some of their most cherished and sacred books, resulting in what we now call the Bible. Some writings were left out for political or theological reasons, others simply because of the physical restrictions of ancient bookmaking technology. At times, the compilers of the Bible skipped information that they assumed everyone knew. Some passages were even omitted by accident. For these reasons and more, your Bible doesn’t give you a complete picture. ”

    Finally very simple logic on the Taurat and Injeel. We know Musa(as) and Isa(as) received revelation, right? Obviously, Moses (as) wasn’t reading the Book of Exodus to the Jews and Jesus (as) wasn’t reading the gospel of Luke to them. The ORIGINAL revelation(i.e. the thing they don’t have) is what we as Muslims believe in.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Christians and Jews who deny the existence of the Taurat should heed Dr. Hoffman’s explanation. People like Allan Ruhl are simply living in a fantasy world. They deceive themselves and others. Notice Ruhl’s overt hostility. His explanations are largely condescending but completely lacking in evidence. Basically, whatever he says goes.

      Like

    1. stewjo004

      @ Qb

      Might need an update here. Isa(as) allegedly quotes a verse that does not exist in the current form in the Bible:

      On the last and greatest day of the feast, Jesus stood up and called out in a loud voice, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink. Whoever believes in Me, as the Scripture has said: ‘Streams of living water will flow from within him.’” (John 7:37-38)

      From Cambridge:
      38. as the scripture hath said] This phrase undoubtedly refers to the words that follow: but inasmuch as no such text is found in Scripture, some have tried to force the phrase into connexion with what precedes, as if the meaning were ‘He that believeth on me in the way that Scripture prescribes.’ Although the exact words are not found in Scripture there are various texts of similar import: Isaiah 44:3; Isaiah 58:11; Zechariah 13:1; Zechariah 14:8, &c. But none of them contain the very remarkable expression ‘out of his belly.’
      https://biblehub.com/commentaries/john/7-38.htm

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s