From: Chris Ho-Stuart <  >
Newsgroups: aus.religion,aus.religion.christian,nz.soc.religion
Subject: Re: Attempt by Homosexual activist to silence a Christian speaking
Date: 23 Apr 1999 05:24:00 GMT
Organization: Queensland University of Technology, Australia

I'm snipping to comparisons between the Bible and the Qur'an.

In aus.religion.christian Able <  > wrote:
[snip]
> >To illstrate with a concrete example: Christianity is not centered
> >on a book in the way that Islam is centered on the Qur'an.
>
>  It depends who you talk to.
> I have a very interesting tape on the aramaic translation of the
> Bible. It is a conversation that took place between a Christian Bible
> translator who was born in a village near Damascus where ancient
> aramaic is still spoken., and the Elders of the Westminster
> Presbyterian Church (1957)..it is most revealing.
>  
> >In Islam, the Qur'an is the center, and Muhammed is significant
> >because he received and passed on the Qur'an.  The Qur'an *does*
> >make claims about itself in a way that the bible does not.
>
>  Wrong, wrong, brimming over with wrongability.
> Tigger would appreciate that.

Have you read the Qur'an? My statement is trivially true. The
Qur'an speaks of itself as a unit. The bible does not.

The unity of the bible is not expressed or explicit in the bible, but
it is inferred and believed on the basis of additional reasoning or
revelation beyond what the bible says (and does not say) of itself
directly. The bible has no word for itself as a unit; and never
refers to itself as a unit.

The bible contains references to "scripture" and "scriptures", of
course; but this term denotes a collection of writings. The singular
is usually used of a phrase or passage, and the plural of writings
in general. The bible contains references to scriptures which were
not included in the final biblical canon.

For example, Matthew 4:3-4 is from Jesus refuting the devil:
     And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be
     the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread.
     But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live
     by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of
     the mouth of God.

Jesus here is quoting from the Wisdom of Solomon; a scripture,
but not a part of the biblical canon.

> >In Christianity, Jesus is the center, and the bible is significant
> >because it is the record of Jesus and the history leading up to him.
>
>  The Bible is the word of God.
> It is the word that God breathed.

Neither of the above statements is in the bible; though 2 Tim 3:16
comes very close. But 2 Tim 3:16 actually refers to "All scripture"
rather than to the canon we now call the bible; which was defined
in any case well after 2 Timothy was written.

How would you interpret 1 Cor 7? In this chapter, Paul writes down
text which is now part of our bible, and states explicitly that
what he is writing is HIS OWN judgement, given under his own
authority and not as a direct commandment of God.

    Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet
    I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord
    to be faithful.

[Paul's judgement follows; he concludes...]
    But she is happier if she so abide, after
    my judgment: and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.

That is, this word in the bible, is a word of Paul, and not direct
from God. Paul gives it under his own authority, as one who has
the Spirit of God.

This is pretty much the biblical model for inspiration. The word
of God is dynamic, and can come to any. (cf Luke 3:2) Humans will
write down words, words which they themselves choose, as people
inspired by God.

Paul's letters are by Paul. The gospel of Luke is by Luke.
Christians believe these writers to be inspired by God, but they
(generally!) recognise that the books still have human authors.

The model for writing of the Qur'an is quite different. The Qur'an
claims to be dictated.  The Qur'an claims to be by Allah. Muhammed's
involvement is as a scribe; not an author.

Another contrast -- the bible is about Jesus (though Jews and
Christians disagree on whether the TaNaK, or Old Testament, is
about Jesus).  Jesus wrote none of it down; the New Testament
was all written after his death and resurrection, by a range of
writers, and later still the various records were combined into a
single canon, identified by the inspiration of early church fathers
and not by any written word on the texts to be included or omitted.

The Qur'an is not about Muhammad. He is mentioned therein in
a few places; but Muhammad is significant not as the TOPIC of
Islamic scripture, but as the one through whom it was given. For
Christians, Jesus is the TOPIC of scripture; not the one through
whom it was given.

The Qur'an also refers to scriptures; but unlike the bible it has
a clear term for itself, as a unit, distinguished from other divine
writings.

I'll cite three verses from the Qur'an, from Pickthall's translation,
Sura 3:144

Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers (the like of whom) 
have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth 
or is slain, ye will turn back on your heels? He who turneth 
back doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful.
Sura 9:111

Lo! Allah hath bought from the believers their lives and 
their wealth because the Garden will be theirs: they shall fight 
in the way of Allah and shall slay and be slain. It is a promise 
which is binding on Him in the Torah and the Gospel and the 
Qur'an. Who fulfilleth His covenant better than Allah? Rejoice 
then in your bargain that ye have made, for that is the supreme 
triumph. Sura 10:38

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be invented
in despite of Allah; but it is a confirmation of that
which was before it and an exposition of that which is
decreed for mankind - Therein is no doubt - from the Lord
of the Worlds.

Cheers -- Chris

This statement is in error. Jesus is quoting Deuteronomy 8:3, and
the Wisdom of Solomon quotes that same source. My thanks to Able
for pointing out my error, and to John Mark Ministries for allowing
me to add this correction and acknowledgement to the original article.
The article continues to reflect my views; but I concede that this
particular example failed in its intent. 

(Chris Ho-Stuart, Dec 1999)