The Bible is a mess!

Originally posted by whodey
One thing is certain, however, someone is lying. Is it Mohammad or is it the entire New and Old Testament in the Bible?

So it isn't possible that both could contain truth applicable specifically to their respective cultures and times?

The Bible is untrustworthy and full of lies to Muslims, and the Koran is the same to Xians. So what?

Originally posted by whodey
You still don't see what Paul is saying do you? Read 1 Corinthians 13:11 which says, "When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child, but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I know in part; but then will I know even as I am known. And now an mindless ritualistic adherance to the letter of the law in which our heart is not engaged.

Luka: 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good,
save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
-------------
Mark
28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Deut 6:4

30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
----------------------

When ever Jesus is asked , he was refering to the commandments!!!

Heb: 18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.


Paul disannul the commandments that Jesus was refering too.

That is what I understand. That is what the Bible say. So who should I follow, Jesus when he say follow the commandments, or Paul when he disannul them.

Do you still follow this?

Originally posted by telerion
Very few xians actually read the Bible and form their own opinion. They follow study guides and Bible footnotes to interpret passages to be consistent with what they have been taught already.

That's because the Bible is not a book that really works outside of a carefully ordered tradition. Neither are many of the religious texts that exist. So what? At no time in history have such texts been expected to stand on their own legs outside of their respective received traditions.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Not only Quran, but every word the prophet said and everything he did during his life. There is a complete scientific decipline in Islam dedicated to ensure that no lie could be added on the mouth of the prophet, and no corruption could be made.

I sympathize with your desire to have a reliable basis for your faith. I don't envy your insistence that factual and historical authenticity serve as the basis for that faith.

I had that with respect to Xianity, and found it untenable a few years ago.

Similarly, if you think the Koran is the same as it has always been and is free of errors introduced by, say, scribal inaccuracies, dig deeper.

No ancient text is free of such problems.

Originally posted by ahosyney
[b]Luka: 18 And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good,
save one, that is, God.

20 Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother.
...[text shortened]... when he say follow the commandments, or Paul when he disannul them.

Do you still follow this?[/b]

Paul did not disannul the commandments. Do you think Paul would have taught the same theology before Christ had died on the cross? The love of Christ and his sacrifice had not yet become a reality. CHrist was merely restating what was written in the Old Testament. They were still looking through a dark glass so to speak.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
I sympathize with your desire to have a reliable basis for your faith. I don't envy your insistence that factual and historical authenticity serve as the basis for that faith.

I had that with respect to Xianity, and found it untenable a few years ago.

Similarly, if you think the Koran is the same as it has always been and is free of errors introduced by, say, scribal inaccuracies, dig deeper.

No ancient text is free of such problems.

The original one that was written 1400 years ago still exist. You can compare if you want.

But that is not the only insurance. Quran is transmitted by both oral and text. And the oral means that there are many Muslims that memorize the complete book, (I'm one of them). So there is a copy inside the mind of many Muslims. So in every generation there were thousands who memorize Quran and teach to their students the same way the recived it. The student not only memorize the words, but their special way pronouncation. There is a special scince for the pronouncation of Quran, to insure that every one pronounse its words the same way.

Beside all of that , printed text exist, and revised to what is memorized. No printed copy is authorized untill it is compared to what is memorized. And only what is in memory is trusted.

So even if any one try to modify the printed text it will be easily discovered when compared to what is in memory.

Can you tell me how any type of corruption or modification could happen to this system of Quran?

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
That's because the Bible is not a book that really works outside of a carefully ordered tradition. Neither are many of the religious texts that exist. So what? At no time in history have such texts been expected to stand on their own legs outside of their respective received traditions.

In the case of xianity, it's "respective received tradition" is actually a whole set of hundreds of different traditions. I agree though that these texts don't work well outside of ordered tradition.

Originally posted by telerion
In the case of xianity, it's "respective received tradition" is actually a whole set of hundreds of different traditions. I agree though that these texts don't work well outside of ordered tradition.

Yep, I buy that.

Originally posted by ahosyney
The original one that was written 1400 years ago still exist. You can compare if you want.

But that is not the only insurance. Quran is transmitted by both oral and text. And the oral means that there are many Muslims that memorize the complete book, (I'm one of them). So there is a copy inside the mind of many Muslims. So in every generation there were ...[text shortened]... an you tell me how any type of corruption or modification could happen to this system of Quran?

Very similar measures were enacted to preserve ancient Jewish texts, and many of the NT writings.

Turns out that such measures are not proof against time.

I can think of several ways that any ancient text that is reliant on human beings for its preservation is bound for mutation:

-People memorize things; people forget things. Memory fails, to put it bluntly.

-Languages change, and dialects morph. Idioms and other common semantic uses change over time. This is especially true of spoken language.

-No one teaches something the same way he or she received it. No one is a perfectly transparent conduit of external ideas.

-Lastly, not everyone has the same mind or vested interest when it comes to preserving religious texts. Scribes get bored, you know, and when that happens they make mistakes. Mistakes tend to proliferate more than they get corrected.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Very similar measures were enacted to preserve ancient Jewish texts, and many of the NT writings.

Turns out that such measures are not proof against time.

I can think of several ways that any ancient text that is reliant on human beings for its preservation is bound for mutation:

-People memorize things; people forget things. Memory fails, to pu ...[text shortened]... when that happens they make mistakes. Mistakes tend to proliferate more than they get corrected.

Actually all your points are broken with Quran:

-People memorize things; people forget things. Memory fails, to put it bluntly.

I know 6 years old boys who memorize the whole book. They don't forget it. Even if one forgot, he can easily remember it again, there millions today memorize the complete book. I know Muslims not only memorize the words, but page numbers, location in the page, and even the line number. They memorize every single word. I finished memorizing the complete book when I was 15, my brother when he was 13. I learned it from my teacher, who I have never seen read it from a book. His eye sight was so week to read. He only teached me from his memory. And guess what, there was no single difference between what he tought me and what in the book.

Languages change, and dialects morph. Idioms and other common semantic uses change over time. This is especially true of spoken language.

Quran originaly in Arabic, and remain in Arabic. The semantic used in the Quran is the same one in the Original. Actually because the Arabic language itself didn't change so much. So the language has no effect.

-No one teaches something the same way he or she received it. No one is a perfectly transparent conduit of external ideas.

I answered this before. Muslims memorize Quran acts as recorders. They say what they memorize as is.

Study the Quran is something else.

In my university we study Quran, there are several scinces related to Quran. One of them is to study its meaning. Other to study its pronounsation. This study doesn't allow any change in the pronounsation of the Quran. Every one who memorize Quran and read it should study this scince.

-Lastly, not everyone has the same mind or vested interest when it comes to preserving religious texts.

Quran is a book you like to read specially in Arabic. Memorizing it is not a big job. And when you love something you easily memorize it. I memorize it all, so my brother, and many of my friends. And I know many others. Millions are memorizing the book today the same way.

Several contest held every where in the Islamic world in memorizing Quran. I wish you can attend one of them to see how muslims care about memorizing the Book.


Scribes get bored, you know, and when that happens they make mistakes. Mistakes tend to proliferate more than they get corrected.[/

Originally posted by ahosyney
Actually all your points are broken with Quran:.......

[b]I know 6 years old boys who memorize the whole book. They don't forget it.....

I am not a doctor, and so I can't comment from a professional point of view. But I am convinced that humans have the tendency to forget the stuff they memorize....... Just in case you have forgotten, we are not computers with perfect database systems.

Oh on second thought, even computers get corrupted! Data get lost etc.

Originally posted by ahosyney
Actually all your points are broken with Quran:

[b]-People memorize things; people forget things. Memory fails, to put it bluntly.

I know 6 years old boys who memorize the whole book. They don't forget it. Even if one forgot, he can easily remember it again, there millions today memorize the complete book. I know Muslims not only memorize the word ...[text shortened]... that happens they make mistakes. Mistakes tend to proliferate more than they get corrected.[/[/b]

Your answer to #1 is based on both inductive reasoning and hearsay and therefore unverifiable.

Your answer to #2 is not an answer, but rather an assertion. The statement that "the language has no effect" is never, ever true, in any context.

Regarding #3, you believe that Muslims act as recorders. Again, though, that's inductive hearsay. In actual fact, they do not "say what they memorize as is"; rather, they say what they remember of what they memorized, as they remember it. Maybe I'm missing something here.

And the fourth point still stands. I appreciate your respect for the text, and your enthusiasm for your community of fellow believers. However, not everyone has the same perspective or the same level of care with the text, even among so-called recorders. That's human nature.

I think that in the end we are approaching this differently. You reference many examples, but do not engage the theoretical questions per se. I engage the questions, but in turn have no examples from which to draw.

I'm taking a historicist approach, and you appear to be taking a confessional approach. Never the twain shall meet, I'm afraid.

Originally posted by blakbuzzrd
Your answer to #1 is based on both inductive reasoning and hearsay and therefore unverifiable.

Your answer to #2 is not an answer, but rather an assertion. The statement that "the language has no effect" is never, ever true, in any context.

Regarding #3, you believe that Muslims act as recorders. Again, though, that's inductive hearsay. In actual f ...[text shortened]... ou appear to be taking a confessional approach. Never the twain shall meet, I'm afraid.

I don't understand how can I make it clear for you.

I memorize the whole book, I read regularly. I don't claim my memory is good but I still memorize it.

I can tell you thousands who memorize the book more than their names.

The prove is simple, come to visit Egypt and go to Al Azhar university. There you will find in the student of this university thousands who memorize the Book.

Not only that, there is a record or every teacher. Which mean teachers of Quran are registers from today to the Prophet. Every one in the chain is know. And It is not only a single chain. It is huge tree. So thousands memorize the Book from the Prophet and the tought to their students. If one forget the others not. If it is only one may be but thousands I don't think.

And the thousands tought Quran to their students and so, until today when we have millions of Muslims memorize Quran today.

If you cann't Imagin that it is your problem, but it is a fact.

If you know Arabic you can easily verify that.

http://quran.muslim-web.com/

In this site you can listen to Quran from different readers. Those readers don't read from the Book. they read from their memory. You can compare between them to find any difference.

If you can't do that, you can ask and read about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur.27an

Originally posted by ahosyney
I don't understand how can I make it clear for you.

I memorize the whole book, I read regularly. I don't claim my memory is good but I still memorize it.

I can tell you thousands who memorize the book more than their names.

The prove is simple, come to visit Egypt and go to Al Azhar university. There you will find in the student of this university ...[text shortened]... bout that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qur%27an#Origin_and_development_of_the_Qur.27an

Amazing feat to memorize the whole book. Well, maybe it is possible to do it. I'll take your word for it. Sorry to come in at this late stage, but has this got anything to do with the claim that the contents came from God? Even if the present day contents of the Koran are verbatim of the original one 1400 years ago, how is it that they came from God?

Originally posted by ckoh1965
Amazing feat to memorize the whole book. Well, maybe it is possible to do it. I'll take your word for it. Sorry to come in at this late stage, but has this got anything to do with the claim that the contents came from God? Even if the present day contents of the Koran are verbatim of the original one 1400 years ago, how is it that they came from God?

Because Allah (GOD) say that Quran will never change.