- Jul 20, 2019
What’s more, no Christian would make the claim about their Bible that Muslims are now making about their Qur’an. We would never suggest that our Bible is eternal, nor uncreated, nor that it was sent down from heaven to one man (inspired by God, yes, but not ‘sent down’). We would, however, claim that the Bible was complete in its original form, and though we admit there have been changes in the Bible since the first century, we would be clear that what we have today, because of the enormous manuscript and textual trove at our disposal today, is pretty much 99.9% the same as that which was written down in the first century AD.
You record Prophets receiving revelation in past-tense without any specificity, that's the best you get. Moses' Torah is far lost to history, even according to the Bible itself, yet events like the theophany on Mount Sinai would surely give you a second thought about the concept of Revelation?
The idea of taking later person's accounts of history as authentic over that of God's direct revelation, just doesn't sit right with me.
Aside from this, the Bible also reminds me a lot of the Mahabharata.
From Christian (particularly, because Jews usually don't bother in that area) polemics against Islam and the Qur'an, I do get the sense that Christianity tends to not be a religion that takes prophets/prophethood as a serious thing. For Christianity it tends to be secondary to the compilation of texts (Bible).
I think a lot of it is to do with how Christianity does promote a very different hermeneutical worldview through these massive differences.