Abdullah of the UK on Textual Claims, Part 6

Textual Criticism, Manuscripts, and the Quran

See the Texas receptors is not authentic so anyway. J what next. Next. We're going to have maybe an archaeological stumble in Egypt upon an earliest manuscript more early manuscript. They're going to find verses not in there and then we're going to come back onto the YouTube with a lot of videos saying that oh no we found these verses and we found these verses that don't exist in the modern day.

Ones and now we've got the pure version. Abdullah let's turn this back upon you. According to Sahih al-Bukhari there was a mushaf produced under the direction of Uthman. Zayed bin Thabit is involved and and let's look at the the final one that is compiled not the original ones put away for a while and then brought back out and added to the final one that becomes the archetype.

It's copied and copies are sent to all the Islamic centers in the world around 655 or so. What if that mushaf and we can prove that that's that's it that mushaf was found. What would you do with it. Would you reject it for the 1924 Egyptian printing that's so popular today.

Or would that not be your final authority. And what if there were differences between that mushaf and the current edition of the Quran. What would you do. I would hope that you would go with the oldest most representative sample you can get now.

I'm not arguing that that Uthman or Zayed bin Thabit or anybody else was inspired. I think that's a major major problem with the entire textual history of the Quran as you have it. But the point is what would you do.

You keep saying what have you found in Egyptian manuscript. And then you come back and you say well now we have the pure form. That's not how it's functioned. Abdullah look at what happened with the discovery of the papyri around 1900 1930 in that that time frame when those papyri began to start surfacing and and and look at how they impacted textual criticism.

You bet they're vitally important. But it's not like what was found in the papyri with some different New Testament. Instead it really verified that the tradition that had been passed down had been passed down in a very pure form.

And so I'm sorry but when you sit there and say well what do you. What do you do. Jay if another manuscripts found. Well that manuscript is is probably going to be very much like all the other manuscripts that we've found.

That's been our experience in the past. And we certainly have moved our knowledge New Testament back farther and farther and farther. But shouldn't our desire to be to have exactly what was written by the men we believe to have been inspired by God the very Apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And why should our openness about that be a negative. It really seems to me that most Muslims have this idea of textual criticism exactly backwards rather than what you should have. And that is a desire to have in pure form that which was actually written by the Apostles.

Corruption, Variants, and Defining the Claim

Themselves look Jay the Bible is corrupted. It's time to face facts and the sooner you admit to yourself in a better I don't mean to ask. Just admit to yourself first and maybe you know you can make some progress now once.

Again if what you're saying is the Bible is corrupt in that we have no idea what originally said because it contains textual variance. Well you've been proven wrong. If what you're saying is the Bible's corrupt simple because it contains textual variance then you need to say.

And so is the Quran because it does too. What do you say. Do not traffic on the use of the term corrupt and using it one way here and one way there. Be very specific be very clear. Because if you claim to honor the truth then that's what you want to do and that's what I'm going to assume you want to do.

And so define what you mean by corrupt so that we can examine that claim. Because what we've seen is so far the accusations you're making really are not grounded in historical truth. And returning back.

The Galatian Decree, Gospel Burnings, and the Inquisition

To the issue of gospel burnings in the Galatian decree. Although it does not mention explicitly in the Galatian decree that these books are to be burnt but it does say that they are an anathema and anyone who possesses them are excommunicated.

Now it doesn't take a great leap of the imagination to wonder what the church does to when it finds these books and it doesn't take a great leap of imagination to work out what the church does to people who possess.

These books. Now I really don't have enough time in this video to go all the way back through church history and deal with the development of such things as the Inquisition such things as the development of a state church over time.

My objections those things my consistent historical objections to Roman Catholicism as being even properly identified as biblically Christian that does not possess the gospel the fact that the Inquisition murdered many a simple believing Christian and all the rest of those things.

But I do want to make sure that people understand that there is absolutely no valid parallel whatsoever between what I think you're talking about. And that is of course Uthman's destroying the previous sources he used to create the final edition of the Quran and something that happens long long after the New Testament or the Bible as a whole has been collated completed.

In regards to the Galatian Decree or the identification of heretical books or whatever else it might be. There can be no parallel between the two. And I think just throwing it out there without even trying to establish a meaningful foundation again greatly weakens your argument.

What's more is the role that is about to take place here of alleged Gospels primarily Gnostic Gospels is again very destructive of the argumentation trying to present because again for a Muslim to suggest that the work of Gnostics is in any way shape or form representative of the original Apostles is self-contradictory and quite simply ridiculous.

It's only used for shock effect and it's only usable on people who don't know anything about Gnosticism. So why bother doing that doesn't work for me. It doesn't work for well-read Christians. What's worse is we're gonna see here in a moment.

The Gospel of Barnabas as a Modern Fraud

I'm gonna isolate it. You include the glowing fraud of the Gospel of Barnabas written in the late 14th century at the earliest as if it's somehow relevant and honestly it is very difficult for any serious minded person to give a lot of respect to someone who could promote the Gospel of Barnabas which is so utterly ridiculous in its pretensions and so clearly a modern fraud filled with errors from beginning to end as seriously having been an ancient document is it's truly amazing and and I again it's just very destructive of the credibility of those who would use it.

But let's let's look at what you had to say by the way just in passing. What.

Would your response be if a Christian took a citation from the Quran and altered it the way you did that text in John 114 and then placed it up there wouldn't Muslims be rioting in the streets and burning restaurants.

That's very similar to the Danish cartoons isn't it. So why do you think that's an effective apologetic. I don't understand it especially since as we've demonstrated you don't really have any foundation for it to begin with again.

Very destructive to one's credibility and argumentation. There's so much that.

Could be said about the sources that are listed here because so many of them are not even semi-valid but there you have the Gospel of Barnabas the the glowing fraud listed as if this is somehow relevant.

Again. Abdullah I would strongly recommend you really increase the level of your apologetic at that particular.

Point no it doesn't take a PhD but it certainly would be helpful if you took a.

Less simplistic view of church history and took into consideration a much wider range of information than you have so far because the relationship of Gnosticism the issues relating to those early writings is far more complicated and really wants to dig into it much more destructive your position than you seemingly understand and so I know that providing six videos in response to one seems a little excessive but obviously I've been trying to educate a wide variety of folks in regards to the issues of the Texas Receptus and textual critical issues and I appreciate the opportunity of doing so and I look forward to your response thanks a lot.