18 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyI didn't know the Bible had hair.
I did open this thread to prove a point, however, and that is I think the Bible has gotten a bad wrap. .
I don't think the "errors" in the Bible have any relevance unless you are (tragically) defending or (cruelly) attacking a fundamentalist outlook based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
18 Dec 06
3 edits
Originally posted by telerionThere may have not been very many praising the Quran, however, there was no one questioning it either. Christians on this site are constantly attacked in regards to thier holy book with charges that the Bible is inaccurate and full of errors and on and on and on. If you want to question the validity of the Bible that is all well and good, however, why only the Bible? I just thought it was time to share the love, so to speak. I think what got me was that the Quran was being presented as being the one true religion based upon its lack of "contradictions" and no one was raising objections. As we can see there appears to be as many contradictions to the Bible as there are to the Quran whether they be accurate contradictions or not but no one was saying this. I think part of why this occured was the lack of familiarity with the Quran compared to that of the Bible or lack of interest. I then felt the need to speak up.
Uh . . . I don't think too many people here are praising the Quran consistency. Maybe one or two.
Here's another site for hacking up the Quran, the Bible, and the Book of Mormon. Ignore whichever one you don't like and exploit the others.
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/BOM/index.htm
What makes religious texts different from other types of texts is that religous texts have the unenviable task of making unprovable claims which often involve leaps of logic. This is because when discussing a God the subject of faith and the unknown must also follow after due to the fact that God is indeed mysterious and unkown except for what he chooses to reveal to man. In terms of contradictions, however, I am not sure this can be avoided and this is why. There are two types of contradictions. The first type is the one that appears to be a contradiction but is not and the other appears to be and actually is a contradiction. It seems to me that as the level of compexity rises about a subject matter so does the understanding about that subject. What subject matter is more complex than God? Therefore, the number of apparant contradictions in the subject matter discussing God should also rise accordingly whether they be true contradictions or not. For example, should we believe in a God incapable of miracles? If so, is he really a God? If he can do miracles, how? If it is possible to understand how then we would be equal to God in understanding such matters but we are not so why demand to know how they occured? This is why it baffles me how people try to exlain away miracles mentioned in the Bible such as Jesus walking on water or Moses spliting the Red Sea. You get Yahoo's who attempt to explain it away saying such things as ice was foud in the Sea of Galilee so this is how Jesus walked on the water. You also should factor in personal bias whether you actually believe what you are reading or oppose what you are reading as to whether contradictions are actually present. I think we all have our personal bias one way or the other and it will naturally influence how or if we see contradictions. I don't think open minded objectivity exists in such matters.
So in conclusion, I would say that the issue of personal faith should therefore not rely 100% on the logic and on our limited understanding of what a religious text is saying, rather, it should also rely on how we are effected spiritually by the text that we are reading. Granted, logic and understanding should also not be devoid in ones faith either, there is a balance. Therefore, what does it matter who wrote it or how long ago? I say what matters is how what was written as a whole registers as being the truth or a lie. This includes both intellect and spiritual revelation but not one without the other. You should never say that a religous text is 100% provable. If you could then you should be able to prove that God exists, no?
18 Dec 06
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWould you say the same about the Quran?
I didn't know the Bible had hair.
I don't think the "errors" in the Bible have any relevance unless you are (tragically) defending or (cruelly) attacking a fundamentalist outlook based on a literal interpretation of the Bible.
18 Dec 06
2 edits
Originally posted by VarqaThis line of logic is what baffles me. On the one hand you have the Bible that is the inspired word of God. As you have outlined it both Muslim and Christian thinks so. On the other hand, you have Muslims saying that the Bible have been corrupted. You said in your post that if a Muslim says that the Bible is full of mistakes that it would be unjust. However, to be a Muslim you must say so, otherwise you would be a Christian and every Muslim I have talked to tells me that the Bible has been corrupted. You also are told by Muslims that Mohammad is just one of many prophets. However, is this really the case? After all, Muslims adhere to the Quran and not the Bible and Mohammad wrote the Quran. We all know this to be the case even though one may try to deny it. The prophets and their teachings, therefore, are only as good as what Mohammad says about them. If the Quran becomes heretical in reference to the Bible the Quran will be taken as the truth every single time. You may argue that the Quran is, in fact, not heretical towards the Bible, however, if this were the case we would not have another religion. You may also argue that Mohammad is not held in higher esteem than any of the other prophets. However, as I have pointed out, when prophets such as Christ are blasphemed there is no outcry from the Muslim world. However, if a word is spoken out against Mohammad all hell breaks loose. So how are they equally respected if they are both prophets of equal value in the eyes of the Almighty considering these facts? This is why I said previously that Mohammad is the Christ of the Muslim world. In other words, they follow Mohammad above all else just as Christians follow Christ above all else. Christians are free to admit this because they believe Christ to be divine. However, this presents a problem for Muslims because they must conceede that Mohammad is a mere mortal and, therefore, must not be glorified above other prophets of God even though in reality he is.
Muslims believe both the Bible and the Quran are the Word of God. After the prophets of God, the only source for the truth is the Word. If the Word is corrupted, the world plunges in darkness. How can we then be expected to find our way? Christians believe in the Bible, and the Bible must lead them to the Quran. It will be unjust for a Muslim to say that the B ...[text shortened]... Bible will be lost. The mistakes must be in interpretation.
I apologize for "butting in."
Edit: If you conceede that the Bible has been corrupted as other Muslims, how then can you use it to discern the truth? It seems to me that you only then need the Quran and not the Bible since the Quran is seen as the only holy book not corrupted. In fact, Muslims will go to great lengths in telling you the history of the Quran as evidence that it has escaped such corruption. The Bible, therefore, is only as relevant to Muslims in terms of how it agrees with the Quran. In reality, however, the Bible then becomes the lesser holy book of the two because it is dependent on the Quran for validity.
19 Dec 06
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyI was thinking not to answer you again , and I really don't see it useful. But I thought there might be a chance.
This line of logic is what baffles me. On the one hand you have the Bible that is the inspired word of God. As you have outlined it both Muslim and Christian thinks so. On the other hand, you have Muslims saying that the Bible have been corrupted. You said in your post that if a Muslim says that the Bible is full of mistakes that it would be unjust. Howe ...[text shortened]... then becomes the lesser holy book of the two because it is dependent on the Quran for validity.
I will comment on this pragraph and may be this will make it clear for you:
You may also argue that Mohammad is not held in higher esteem than any of the other prophets. However, as I have pointed out, when prophets such as Christ are blasphemed there is no outcry from the Muslim world.
Here you claim that Muslims care only about Prophet Mohammed but of course you are wrong. I wonder if you lived between Muslims before to know what they feel.
Although that is not only it, the main reason Muslims can't accept the Bible is that they do care about all the prophet, and so:
1- They can't accept the Book that say the prophet Noah drink wine until he get naked. If a book say something like that about a man choosen by GOD to carry his message it must be corrupted.
2- They can't accept the Book that say the prophet Ibraham the father of all the prophets, give his wife to a king to save his life. And lie to cover himself. If a book say something like that about a man choosen by GOD to be the grand prophet and the father of all other prophet then it must be corrupted.
3- They can't accept a book say the Lut do adultry with his two daughter after drinking wine. If a book say something like that about a prophet choosen by GOD how can you belive in that GOD, so the book must be corrupted.
4- They can't accept a book that the prophet David like the wife of his army leader so he make adultry with her and send her husband to death. And that result in another prophet Solomon. And after that say that son of adultry don't go to heaven. The book that say that on two choosen men from GOD then it must be corrupted. Unless you want me to belive that prophet Solmon will not be in Heaven.
5- A book that say the prophet Solmon perform idoltry in the last of his days can't be true.
6- You claim we don't care about Jesus Christ, but comparing the picture of Jesus in Quran and in the Bible show you who really care about Jesus. Can you show me where in the Bible it say that, Jesus Christ is not a son of Adultry? According to the Bible at least two of his Grand mothers were prostitute. That beside that it doesn't say how Jesus left his mother Mary withour killing her for Adultry. If you accept that for Jesus, I don't.
7- You claim you love Jesus although you have no problem that a book that say that he was beaten , got naked, and died on the cross, and you will be happy about that and call him GOD. If you were there will you stop Jewish killing him or will leave him get killed for your salvation.
8- They do car about Jesus so I can't accept that blaspheme his followers and negelect his mother. If a book say so I can't accept it.
9- Because they belive in Jesus, they can't accept a book that curse him.
10- Because they belive in GOD they can't accept a book the say GOD died on a cross. I can't accept a book that say GOD is weak. I can't accept a book that say GOD was not able to forgive. I can't accept a book that say that GOD is three. A book that descripe GOD as a lamp can't be accepted.
They can't accept the Bible because they care about all the prophets. The book that give a chance to anyone to make fun of the prophets can't be accepted.
If they belive in GOD then they can't accept the Bible. Not becuase Quran say so, but because according to the Bible GOD can't be existing.
I think now you know a sample of how Muslims care about all the prophet.
I hope you can understand this and don't ignore it as you did with all what we discussed before.
-----------------------------------
Edit: I don't how many time you did read the complete Bible, but I know you didn't read Quran. I wish you can give yourself a time and read Quran and you will know why Muslims can't accept the Bible.
-----------------------------------
Edit 2: I suggest you start by Sura Maryam (Mary), here is a link to a translation:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/019.qmt.html
Then go read Sura AL-E-IMRAN (THE FAMILY OF 'IMRAN, THE HOUSE OF 'IMRAN) starting from verse 33, here is the link you want:
http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/003.qmt.html
Please read them and get back to me, I do read in the Bible a lot, why don't you try.
19 Dec 06
I am sorry to disagree, but Mohammad calls Christians and Jews "people of the Book." For Muslims, Bible is the Word of God. The only reason we see differences is because we are looking for them. Our Muslim friend is nitpicking, being overly critical. God's word is the only source of light in this world of darkness. I can not imagine that God will allow those who believe in the Bible to lose his guidance.
Unfortunately, since both books are written in a poetic manner, they are prone to misinterpretation. I propose that we should try to put away what we have learned so far and try a new interpretation, one that will lead to unity instead of division.
19 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneyWell thank you for answering once again as I feel 😳 about the way I acted previously.
I was thinking not to answer you again , and I really don't see it useful. But I thought there might be a chance.
I will comment on this pragraph and may be this will make it clear for you:
[b]You may also argue that Mohammad is not held in higher esteem than any of the other prophets. However, as I have pointed out, when prophets such as Christ are d get back to me, I do read in the Bible a lot, why don't you try.
Anyhew, I hear what you are saying. You are saying that Muslims do care about the other prophets and that is why they think the Bible is corrupt because the Bible does not hide the skeletons in their respective closets. However, I do not think that caring about them does not mean that Muslims do not hold Mohammad in higher esteem. As I said before, if they held them in equal esteem there would be equal reactions for blaspheming the prophets of the Bible as there is for blaspheming Mohammad.
Having said that I would direct your attention to the theological theme throughout the entire Bible that man has become a fallen race. Having talked with you beforehand about the concept of "sin nature" I assume that you do not believe in such teachings. It is my understanding from you that you think we are born without a sin nature but later choose to sin despite this fact. Therefore prophets such as Mohammad would then be able to live a sinless life as is depicted in the life of Christ. There is, however, a problem with this belief. Why do we die? According to the Bible sin brings death and before sin entered the world via Adam and Eve no one died or would have died. Therefore, why would a sinless Mohammad die or a sinless Noah? In the Bible there is only one man who is sinless and that is Chrsit himself and this was only possible because he was not born with a sin nature. This is because he was not born with the seed of a man with a sin nature, rather, God implanted him in the womb of Mary thus he had no sin nature. This means that although he was tempted to sin at times he did not have a predisposition to do so and therefore he had a fighting chance not to give into sin.
If, however, I am wrong and you do not think the prophets as perfect or sinless, what does it matter what sin they commit? It seems to me that if you sin only one time you are labeled a sinner in the sight of a holy God.
For me the fact that the Bible does not attempt to glorify man in any way by portraying any one man as perfect as God is perfect gives it an air of authenticity. Why would men purposefully corrupt the Bible by showing the faults of the men in the Bible? If it is to diminish the prophets in an attempt to destroy the Jewish/Christian faiths it has failed miserably. Those men are still revered in both respective religions despite knowing their faults.
19 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyI am a non-believer of any religion; and any of the holy books. But I have said here before, if I am forced to choose one, I would reluctantly place my bet on the bible.
Well thank you for answering once again as I feel 😳 about the way I acted previously.
Anyhew, I hear what you are saying. You are saying that Muslims do care about the other prophets and that is why they think the Bible is corrupt because the Bible does not hide the skeletons in their respective closets. However, I do not think that caring about them do ...[text shortened]... rably. Those men are still revered in both respective religions despite knowing their faults.
I'd quote your response:
For me the fact that the Bible does not attempt to glorify man in any way by portraying any one man as perfect as God is perfect gives it an air of authenticity. Why would men purposefully corrupt the Bible by showing the faults of the men in the Bible?
This, I find, a very honest and brave comment, and I admire you for it.
19 Dec 06
Originally posted by whodeyYou are saying that Muslims do care about the other prophets and that is why they think the Bible is corrupt because the Bible does not hide the skeletons in their respective closets.
Well thank you for answering once again as I feel 😳 about the way I acted previously.
Anyhew, I hear what you are saying. You are saying that Muslims do care about the other prophets and that is why they think the Bible is corrupt because the Bible does not hide the skeletons in their respective closets. However, I do not think that caring about them do ...[text shortened]... rably. Those men are still revered in both respective religions despite knowing their faults.
The Bible is showing the skeletons in their respective closets.
The Bible is lying about the prophets. I didn't want to say it but I have too. It is lying.
Prophets are the link between GOD and their followers. Do you think GOD was no able to choose respectable people to carry his message. How do you expect the followers to follow a man who don't follow the message he claim he got for them from GOD?
Do you really belive that a prophet can do adultery. If this is the case how can he ask his followers not to do it?
There is a difference between being a man and not doing a sin. There are different types of sin. Why does GOD choose always choose men who do the worst sins to be his prophets?
How can you want anyone to belive in GOD and he is not able to choose good people for his message?
It is not a matter of Glory to man, it is a matter of logic. Not doing adultry is not glory. It is what all men should be. Not lying is not glory, all men shouldn't lie.
I don't know how do you belive in that....
As I said before, if they held them in equal esteem there would be equal reactions for blaspheming the prophets of the Bible as there is for blaspheming Mohammad.
Your statement is not true. I'm a muslim and I can tell you that every muslim hold the same thing for each prophet. He will not be a muslim if he didn't do so. But you want to talk about a reaction of Muslims of blaspheming the Prophet Mohammed. Yes of course we muslims should react. Because you don't belive in him. And if we didn't defend him no one will do. While other prophets who you should belive in, you are the source of the attack. And refusing you is our reaction.
Having talked with you beforehand about the concept of "sin nature" I assume that you do not believe in such teachings.
You I don't belive it , simply because it is not in the Bible.
I will ask you a question: If baby die after one month will he be in heaven or not? What did Jesus say about them?
I think he said they will be with him in heaven. How could they be in heaven while they born sin. Besides there is no evidence in the Bible say that we born sin.
It is my understanding from you that you think we are born without a sin nature but later choose to sin despite this fact.
Yes, I do. Can you tell me why there contradiction in this? Yes we born clean. Then we are given the free will to do sin or not.
Therefore prophets such as Mohammad would then be able to live a sinless life as is depicted in the life of Christ.
There are two point:
1- No man without a sin. But if GOD want someone without a sin, he can do that.
2- You claim that Christ was sinless. Although the Bible don't say that. Do you consider blaspheming a sin or not? I think yes. If this is the case how can Jesus be sinless while he did several times?
Why do we die? According to the Bible sin brings death and before sin entered the world via Adam and Eve no one died or would have died. Therefore, why would a sinless Mohammad die or a sinless Noah?
Again it seems to me either you don't know christian faith or you want to change it to prove your point.
As I understand from Christian faith , death hear mean being away from GOD. Because if Jesus came to remove sin, why do we still die. Why Jesus christ himself died?
If the sin bring physical death , why Adam didn't die at once? As the Bible say he lived until the age of 900 or somthing. Why didn't he die directly? Because death mean being away from GOD and that is what happen.
Same goes for etrnal life. It is being close to GOD.
So if this is the case then there is no problem. If prophet didn't sin, they will not die, because they will be the clother to GOD than anyone.
If, however, I am wrong and you do not think the prophets as perfect or sinless, what does it matter what sin they commit?
I don't understand this. They can't do what they ask their followers not to do. Why all the prophet should do adultery. Didn't you notice that?
Yes it matter because Prophets are examples for us of what GOD want? If prophets didn't follow what they came with then how can GOD ask us about his message.
For me the fact that the Bible does not attempt to glorify man in any way by portraying any one man as perfect as God is perfect gives it an air of authenticity.
Given what I said earlier then it is a big sign that the Bible can't be trusted.
Why would men purposefully corrupt the Bible by showing the faults of the men in the Bible?
Because he don't want you to belive in prophets. Becuase he want to make all people like prophets, bad people. Because he don't want people to belive in GOD. And the result of that work is clear now. Increasing number of people who don't belive in GOD. Adultry, stealing, murdering, and all types of crimes is spreading every where becaue the men who should be an example for their follower (Prophets) did it before.
If it is to diminish the prophets in an attempt to destroy the Jewish/Christian faiths it has failed miserably. Those men are still revered in both respective religions despite knowing their faults.
What the ratio of Christians who really belive in Christian faith? And how many go to the church just because they used to do so?
-------------------------------
I listened to many Christians, I didn't find two christians have the same explaination for their faith.
20 Dec 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ahosyneySo tell me, if Adam and Eve did not sin would they have died? It seems to me that this is why they died and is why the Bible said they died. Am I missing something here?
Having talked with you beforehand about the concept of "sin nature" I assume that you do not believe in such teachings.
You I don't belive it , simply because it is not in the Bible.
I will ask you a question: If baby die after one month will he be in heaven or not? What did Jesus say about them?
I think he said they will be with him in heave tians, I didn't find two christians have the same explaination for their faith.[/b]
As far as babies go, it seems to me there must be a level of mental awareness to be able to choose sin even if they were born into sin. I don't believe people to be inherently evil, rather, they are prone to sin. There is a difference.
As far as the sin nature not being in the Bible this is simply not the case.
Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
Isaiah 53:6 All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him (Christ) the iniquity of us ALL.
Romans 3:23 For ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.
Jeremiah 17:9 The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperatly wicked; who can know it?
I am not really sure why giving you scripture would even make a difference though. You could simply say that the scripture I provided was corrupted, no? However, one of my favorite scriptures is Ephesians 2;9 which says that we are not saved via works lest any man should boast, rather, we are saved via grace from faith in the sacrifice of Christ. Could you imagine what heaven would be like with people running around proudly boasting what "good" lives they lived? I think it would probably go something like Luke 18:9
"And he (Jesus) spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others. Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself,"God, I thank you, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I posses. And the publican, standing afar off, would not so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other...."
One more point I would like to make. You say that you believe God can forgive us our sins if we ask, no? Why then should it matter if a prophet sinned and then later asked for forgiveness? Would it not be as though he had not sinned at all if God forgave him?
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyI will direct your attention to Hebrews chapter 9 if you are interested in understanding the Christian perspective of Christs blood sacrifice on the cross. It brings together the Old and New Tesatament theology. In verse 14 it refers to Christ as being without spot of blemish. In other words, without sin.
2- You claim that Christ was sinless. Although the Bible don't say that. Do you consider blaspheming a sin or not? I think yes. If this is the case how can Jesus be sinless while he did several times?
Why do we die? According to the Bible sin brings death and before sin entered the world via Adam and Eve no one died or would have died. Therefore, why w ...[text shortened]... ristians, I didn't find two christians have the same explaination for their faith.
BTW you say that Christ blasphemed several times? How so?
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by VarqaOf coarse this was written well before the time of Christ, therefore, man born sinless, ie not born from the seed of a man, was a foriegn concept at that time.
Job 25:4 How then can man be justified with God? Or how can he be clean that is born of a woman?
Jesus was born of a woman. How can He be clean then?
20 Dec 06
Originally posted by ahosyneyWe may as well ask the same of Muslims. I know of several Muslims who do not take their faith seriously. In fact, they do not even attend a Mosque. Does this negate the faith of Islam? I suppose your point is the one with the most true believers is the true religion, no?
What the ratio of Christians who really belive in Christian faith? And how many go to the church just because they used to do so?
-------------------------------
I listened to many Christians, I didn't find two christians have the same explaination for their faith.[/b]