Koran v. Bible

[1robin]

As for the Bible (primarily the Gospels). I will try and make the numbers match up.

1. The Bible has 40 independent authors that span over 1800 years who no matter later or contemporary were infinitely closer to events than the Quran claims about Biblical times. From a historians view point that is devastating. The Bible contains a very simplistic commissioning of it's profits with no unusual physical ailments concerning Gabriel. The gospels have contemporary and multiple eyewitness accounts. Half the apsotles were not killed in a war and we are left to wonder what they knew and whether the living half actually knew everything.
2. Biblical prophets displayed countless miracles and supernatural claims that came true in detail to evidence their claims. There are 2500 prophecies in the Bible. Not one that should have come true has failed. 350 concerning Christ alone and zero concerning Muhammad.
3. What the Biblical authors said was confirmed in many cases by later authors and recorded history. A prophecy made by one comes true hundreds of years later and is recorded by others. This is historical gold. Even Christ himself claims the accuracy of revelations on hand at the time.
4. I will confine this to the Gospels. We have multiple eyewitnesses accounts of the very same events. They all agree and WRITE them down within the lifetimes of thousands that witnessed the events. It records that the holy spirit made sure to impart an accurate account of the events.
5. There is no burning of the Gospel, almost no disagreements among the apostles. I only know of two concerning minor doctrine not stated in the gospels. Circumcision and gentiles. That was straightened out very quickly and all had agreement. Many Gospels state specifically that they made an investigation and consulted witnesses, and verified other texts.
6. The Bible does not quote but one heretical text and it was an example of what to not do. There are no pre-existing stories that the Bible copied. The only possibility is the flood and Gilgamesh and given that the oral tradition for Genesis is likely older than the Babylonian story it is probably two stories that describe the same event.
7. Both the Bible and the Quran lack original copies. However the Bible unlike the Quran has prolific, independent, parallel, and uncontrolled early copying then the original can be reliably known. See textual criticism if you disagree but it is an obvious fact.
There is not a single category a textual scholar or a historian would claim that the Quran is equal to the Bible concerning. Multiple testimony, the type of testimony, lack of incorporation of myth, textual tradition free from manipulation or mandate, the time period and number of authors, and historical corroboration are all on the Bible's side.

You are both bringing up new topics and complaining about me doing so faster than I can answer. I know of no Gospel oral traditions outside of a mention of one that Paul may have maintained concerning some specific things. Even if the Gospel was based soley on oral tradition and is there fore less reliable than scholars claim concerning the texts. The fact that it has multiple INDEPENDANT sources from EYEWITNESSES to what they claimed instead of getting them all from one man and witnessing only a minor amount of what they wrote the Bible would still be more reliable than the Quran. I will add that even if we had no NT books at all we could reconstruct 95% of it from the writings of the early church fathers from docuements many which predate even the books of the gospels. We have something reliable to check any oral tradition with even if you could find one.

 

[Ingledsva]

I believe the Bible is inspired by God.

I don't believe any book that includes the things the Bible allows people to do to others is inspired by any Deity.

 

[1robin]

I don't believe any book that includes the things the Bible allows people to do to others is inspired by any Deity.

I can sympathize with that to some extent however even if you are actually describing the Bible accurately that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I do not dismiss paying taxes because I do not like them. I do not jump of cliffs because I do not like gravity. liking or not liking something is a pitiful way to determine its reality. It also shows my main contention in debate in general to be true. That being that most people decide what is true based on preference not evidence. Cognative dissonance is the most powerfull force on Earth IMO.

That being said as far as the Bible goes I believe you are probably exaggerating the negative actions approved of by God. First the NT which supersedes the OT for Christians contains nothing but turn the other cheek, peace, and love. Only the OT has an eye for an eye or things like that but it has not applied in 2000 years. Regardless if you understand the OT many of those hard teachings are easily resolvable and are much more benign than many critics believe it to be. List some and we can discuss it.

In summary I have no issue concluding truth by valid means but rejecting its adoption based on preference. Evolution has so many negative implications it might be a good idea to dismiss it true or not. I do have a problem with determining truth based on preference. Death exists even though it is the most widely hated concept in human history. IMO Islam was conceived and spread by violence. Even if I thought it was true I would reject it as evil. The Bible is much more benevolent than many critics prefer and it is true of false regardless.

 

[F0uad]

Its funny that you changed subjects i think you have no arguments left to target the preservation of the Quran anymore.

The Q-Source is accepted by many historians not simple "Some" german scholars even Christian debateres and well known Christian Scholars agree on the fact that there was a Q-Source.

That was all the info they had concerning any theory of oral tradition.

Serious R0bin? Don't ly.

The events were recorded by eyewitnesses to Christ from memory or as the Bible says the holy spirit was sent specifically to remind them of the events they recorded. I could not ask a historian to believe that the holy spirit did this or that but as someone who believes God has revealed himself in the Bible then you should not have a problem with it. In fact the gospel writers themselves talk of writings that even predate their own books.
According to Luke "Many people have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among [them]." ,not to mention other "many accounts" that were in circulation at this time.
Luke then says: "For this reason, since I myself having carefully investigated everything from the beginning…" Since it has already been proven that Luke was a traveling companion of Paul, its pretty easy to see how he could have "investigated everything from the beginning."
Luke concludes his preface by saying, "so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught." Quite simply, this means that Luke not only was aware of the other Gospels that were in existence during the time of his writing, but that he is acknowledging that Theophilus has read those other accounts. Theophilus knows the story already. Luke was merely confirming what he already knew. My point is, authors don’t usually investigate and interview eyewitness in order to create a fictional story.
Did the Apostles make it all up?

Its sad that you always have to qoute websites and sources to make up a argument.

Saying that the Holy-spirit inspired them to remember or to write is not a argument but a fallacy and biased to start with. Its funny how you keep claiming that the Gospels were written by the Apostles when many of them date back to 60/150years after Jesus(pbuh). Pointed a couple of things out that contradicts your own claim in the source that you qouted.

You are both bringing up new topics and complaining about me doing so faster than I can answer. I know of no Gospel oral traditions outside of a mention of one that Paul may have maintained concerning some specific things. Even if the Gospel was based soley on oral tradition and is there fore less reliable than scholars claim concerning the texts. The fact that it has multiple INDEPENDANT sources from EYEWITNESSES to what they claimed instead of getting them all from one man and witnessing only a minor amount of what they wrote the Bible would still be more reliable than the Quran. I will add that even if we had no NT books at all we could reconstruct 95% of it from the writings of the early church fathers from docuements many which predate even the books of the gospels. We have something reliable to check any oral tradition with even if you could find one.

No i didn't bring up new Subjects it was just a counter-argument. It was you who claimed that oral-sayings are less reliable not scholars or historians please remember that, actually you said that oral-sayings or memorization wasn't reliable at all. I never made the claim that the Gospels were fully depended on Oral-Sayings but partly such as Matthew. Are the Documents of the Church Fathers older then the gospels? Serious... Are you talking about Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and so forth?

The Majority of Christian Scholars and Historians belief that Matthew used Oral sayings (refering to the Q-Source) and Mark. Now you can disagree with them but since we don't know who wrote Matthew nor from where he got hes work could you please tell me where he got hes writings off? Since he himself is reffering to other sources.

 

[1robin]

Its funny that you changed subjects i think you have no arguments left to target the preservation of the Quran anymore.

This is starting to get a little old. You are becoming more petty and hypocritical here lately. I did not change the issue to the Bible, you did. I had a half written post began when you switched subjects and lost it somewhere along the way when I switched over to respond to the new subject you invented and accused me of.

The Q-Source is accepted by many historians not simple "Some" german scholars even Christian debaters and well known Christian Scholars agree on the fact that there was a Q-Source.

No it is a German invention and they are the majority of the few that are still hanging on to it. There is no Q document. If you can show me one then fine but you are making an argument from silence and that is a fallacy besides being false as well. I am sure there are some scholars somewhere that believe every theory there is. Q source is no longer mainstream. It peaked a few decades ago and has been fading ever since not unlike a thousand other stupid secular dismiss the Bible attempts.

Serious R0bin? Don't ly.

If you are going to be insulting at least be literate. How could I "Ly", I gave you the site and said that you can check for yourself. Do not make the mistake of assuming I care enough about what you think about what I post enough to bother lying. I may make mistakes I have no need to lie. In fact I have downloaded over 3 hours of Shabir Alli and Khalid Blankenship concerning the early Quran to watch this weekend to additionally check my claims.

Its sad that you always have to quote websites and sources to make up a argument.

F0uad you have complained when I did not use websites, you have also complained when I did. I think complaining is what you are actually interested in. There is absolutely no reason a site should not be used. You use them constantly. So far in this post as usual you have made one mere incorrect assertion. One sarcastic remark, one offensive accusation or implication, and one hypocritical accusation of something you are responsible for.

Saying that the Holy-spirit inspired them to remember or to write is not a argument but a fallacy and biased to start with.

No it is not. Muhammad as well as you insist that Gabriel gave Muhammad his revelations even though the characteristics do not match any account in the Bible of Gabriel's actions. I as a believer in divine revelation have never suggested that Muhammad was not talking to a supernatural entity. I said It does not appear that it was Gabriel. I am consistent you are not. You believe in supernatural revelation for Muhammad and the Bible I might add, but claim it is a fallacy. That is the same old double standards as usual. NO matter what you accuse the Bible of it is worse for Muhammad and the Quran. If the Holy Spirit didn't help the apostles then even more so Gabriel did not help Muhammad.

Its funny how you keep claiming that the Gospels were written by the Apostles when many of them date back to 60/150years after Jesus(pbuh).

I have already posted many many reasons and a large portion of scholars who put them all before the temples destruction and your dates are the very fringe of mainstream scholarship and are not accurate. We actually have fragments that date to an earlier time than you claim. There are no Quranic fragments of Muhammad's time or even for many years afterward. In fact they were all burned. Once again it is far worse for the Quran than the Bible.

No i didn't bring up new Subjects it was just a counter-argument.

A counter argument that contained a completely different subject and contained claims I believe were false and so must be addressed.

It was you who claimed that oral-sayings are less reliable not scholars or historians please remember that, actually you said that oral-sayings or memorization wasn't reliable at all.

No I know they are not because I learned it in college from scholars. I had many hours in history classes and am an amateur historian. No respected historian who ever lived believes that oral traditions are more reliable than written ones in general. It is like saying, "it is only you who thinks humans need oxygen" no that is a fact, and so is the worth of oral tradition compared to written texts. I am almost un offendable and usually laugh at the strange things people believe but the one thing that frustrates me is when someone because of preference will not acknowledge even the most universally obvious and virtually unanimous facts. Oral tradition in no way is as reliable as written texts according to scholars, historians, legal professionals, and even six year olds that are playing telephone.

I never made the claim that the Gospels were fully depended on Oral-Sayings but partly such as Matthew.

What is it in Mathew that you think is solely based on oral traditions. I assume you know the difference between a tradition and a fact gained orally by something like interviewing someone.

Are the Documents of the Church Fathers older then the gospels? Serious... Are you talking about Didache, Epistle of Barnabas and so forth?

Some of them are and most are very early.

The Majority of Christian Scholars and Historians belief that Matthew used Oral sayings (referring to the Q-Source) and Mark.

No they don't.

Now you can disagree with them but since we don't know who wrote Matthew nor from where he got his work could you please tell me where he got his writings off? Since he himself is referring to other sources.

I did not say he did not use other sources but they are written sources or an interview of witnesses. In fact I think I even said point blank he did, because I wanted to point out that many writings preceded the "official" gospels. What we have proof of is different from what most likely existed. Most people think they are other Gospels that were being written at the time or Paul's writing which are earlier than the Gospels.
Summary:
Here recently you have defended a few things that are not defendable in any way.
1. You have defended a terrorist group (Hamas) who claims responsibility for and rejoices in the killing of women and children.
2. You have for some unknown reason disagreed with the fact that in historical and legal studies written records are always considered more reliable than oral traditions. There might be an exception or two but it is true in general and would require much more information to determine. In virtually all cases oral tradition is the absolute worse form of historical transmission.
Now if you will defend two indefensible issues and accuse me of lying when I had no reason to and didn't, and accuse me of changing the subject when you were the one that posted all that stuff on the Bible not me. As well as complain when I copy sites and complain when I give you my ideas and no references, then what are the chances that you are being accurate about the Quran's history. That is a more complex and debatable issue but how much of your claims are again defending the indefensible. I am going to spend sometime this weekend to hopefully learn enough to know for sure one way or another. I imagine you were sincere and correct at times and biased on others but will have to sort that out.

 

[seeking4truth]

" They are made to do it in most cases as children. As I pointed out to F0uad these techniques are exactly the same as what is used in brain washing efforts by the military."

You are speaking as a person who does not believe.

Teaching children to memorise the whole Quran does not account for those thousands if not millions who continue to read and refresh their memory throughout their lives. Is school education 'brainwashing'? Don't all parents 'force' their children to learn what they believe to be important.

I can show you colleges in UK, Canada, Ghana, India and Pakistan where young people choose to memorise the Holy Quran and love to do it without any pressure or 'brainwashing'.

 

[1robin]

" They are made to do it in most cases as children. As I pointed out to F0uad these techniques are exactly the same as what is used in brain washing efforts by the military."

You are speaking as a person who does not believe. [/quote} Hello seeking for the truth. I have made it no secret that I do not believe the Quran is from God. I think it is far from it. I think it is a combination of the same demonic influence Muhammad himself first suspected, pre Islam Arabian myth, Gnostic and Heretical teachings that are wll known to have existed in Arabia in Muhammads time, and Muhammad just made up the rest. I apologize if you find that offensive but my duty is to the God of the Bible and truth and I sincerely believe what I said.

Teaching children to memorise the whole Quran does not account for those thousands if not millions who continue to read and refresh their memory throughout their lives. Is school education 'brainwashing'? Don't all parents 'force' their children to learn what they believe to be important.

Brain washing is a technique. It has been used for good and for bad. Since I believe that the Quran is not divine then it would be bad in that case. I understand you do not agree. There may be a few Christians who force it on their children but by and large it is left as God intended it to be, chosen not mandated. Compulsion as it exists overwhelmingly in Islam is the hallmark of a religion that would not survive unless enforced. I do not support compulsion for any religion.

I can show you colleges in UK, Canada, Ghana, India and Pakistan where young people choose to memorise the Holy Quran and love to do it without any pressure or 'brainwashing'.

I did not mean to imply that memorising the Quran is not a persons right to do. I also did not mean to say that all memorization of the Quran or adoption of it is forced. I meant that in many of the most fundamental Islamic nations not only is Islam forced on children not yet able to determine truth for themselves, but leaving it at any point can mean death. Christianity is a kingdom not of this world as it should be. It is not a political system, does not publically indoctrinate children without parents voluntarily taking them to church, does not automatically make you a Christian at birth, is not oppresive to women, does not enforce ceremony and ritual, and allows anyone to leave without fear of any retribution. Islam is all those things in it's truist form and they are all signs that it isn't from God IMO. Selah,

 

[seeking4truth]

" It is not a political system, does not publically indoctrinate children without parents voluntarily taking them to church, does not automatically make you a Christian at birth, is not oppresive to women, does not enforce ceremony and ritual, and allows anyone to leave without fear of any retribution. Islam is all those things in it's truist form and they are all signs that it isn't from God IMO. Selah"

If you look into history Christianity has done all of these things.
Have you not heard of the inquisition, of witch burning, of trial by fire.
It is interesting to think about the time scales. Islam is at the moment in it's 15th century. If you look at Europe in it's 15th century you will find everything there that is presently found in Islam. Politics, repression and compulsion. In UK it was illegal not to go to church.

Neither in Judaism, Christianity nor Islam is any of this allowed. They are all religious movements and while truth, justice and morality are required in all of them unfortunately religions were and are used by immoral men to exert power over less educated or perceptive people. ( I just happen to be listening to a BBC programme about the Borgias including the Pope of the time).

You are right there are many many things done in the name of Islam that do not come from God. That is why the muslims and Islam generally are seen in such bad light and seem to have lost all decency. God Himself does not support such actions nor the people who do them.

 

[F0uad]

This is starting to get a little old. You are becoming more petty and hypocritical here lately. I did not change the issue to the Bible, you did. I had a half written post began when you switched subjects and lost it somewhere along the way when I switched over to respond to the new subject you invented and accused me of.

You make no sense please read the previous posts. I just used the bible as counter-argument you were the one who went on babbeling about it and feelt that you had to defend it with a whole post instead of replying on the other things i said.

No it is a German invention and they are the majority of the few that are still hanging on to it. There is no Q document. If you can show me one then fine but you are making an argument from silence and that is a fallacy besides being false as well. I am sure there are some scholars somewhere that believe every theory there is. Q source is no longer mainstream. It peaked a few decades ago and has been fading ever since not unlike a thousand other stupid secular dismiss the Bible attempts.

You make no sense, the majority of Historians and Scholars regarding the Gospels do belief that there is a Q-Source even Christian ones. Your disshonesty here is shocking but to be honest i am used to it.

If you are going to be insulting at least be literate. How could I "Ly", I gave you the site and said that you can check for yourself. Do not make the mistake of assuming I care enough about what you think about what I post enough to bother lying. I may make mistakes I have no need to lie. In fact I have downloaded over 3 hours of Shabir Alli and Khalid Blankenship concerning the early Quran to watch this weekend to additionally check my claims

The Grammer fallacy again, you know that English isn't my native langauge and i am not the only one making mistakes here. There is plenty of historical records and information regarding oral-tradition so its a lie. I told you earlier that i will label you a liar if your making up false statements just to support your arguments. Did Shabir Ally or Khalid Blankenship support the view that only few things were known about oral-tradition in the time of the early Arabs?

F0uad you have complained when I did not use websites, you have also complained when I did. I think complaining is what you are actually interested in. There is absolutely no reason a site should not be used. You use them constantly. So far in this post as usual you have made one mere incorrect assertion. One sarcastic remark, one offensive accusation or implication, and one hypocritical accusation of something you are responsible for.

My complain is about that you actually never used a single argument from yourself not once in all our discussions. You are very known on this forum to simply qoute without reading the text it makes you look stupid and dishonest.
I use them constantly? No i don't i only use websites that support a claim or statement i am making and i dont qoute them directly when i have a dicussion. To be honest i don't really care about being sarcastic or offensive towards you nor do i care what you think about me or my methods. I am done with you after this message.

No it is not. Muhammad as well as you insist that Gabriel gave Muhammad his revelations even though the characteristics do not match any account in the Bible of Gabriel's actions. I as a believer in divine revelation have never suggested that Muhammad was not talking to a supernatural entity. I said It does not appear that it was Gabriel. I am consistent you are not. You believe in supernatural revelation for Muhammad and the Bible I might add, but claim it is a fallacy. That is the same old double standards as usual. NO matter what you accuse the Bible of it is worse for Muhammad and the Quran. If the Holy Spirit didn't help the apostles then even more so Gabriel did not help Muhammad.

1. Your first setence has nothing to do with anything we talked about.
2. Your mixing up arguments
3. I never used a double-standard because i was not trying to proof that the Quran was god's revelation using a fallacy like Mohammed(saws) spoke to a Angel. Nor did i use a argument that a Angel, Spirit or God has inspired people to remember anything. These arguments do not hold to scientifcal, academical or any reasonable discussion. A preservation has to be proven outside of religious beliefs. Because one can argue that Book A is right because it says so.

I have already posted many many reasons and a large portion of scholars who put them all before the temples destruction and your dates are the very fringe of mainstream scholarship and are not accurate. We actually have fragments that date to an earlier time than you claim. There are no Quranic fragments of Muhammad's time or even for many years afterward. In fact they were all burned. Once again it is far worse for the Quran than the Bible.

Stop these lies please. Again Mainstream scholars date Mark back to 65/90 and all the other gospels are seen later not by me but by Historians and Scholars a miniority? No a majority! I dont care about your dates.
There are Quranic fragments coming from 15/10years after Mohammed's(saws) death.

If you really downloaded 3hours of Shabir Ally he would have told you to visit this site: The Qur'anic Manuscripts regarding Quranic manuscripts.

No I know they are not because I learned it in college from scholars. I had many hours in history classes and am an amateur historian. No respected historian who ever lived believes that oral traditions are more reliable than written ones in general. It is like saying, "it is only you who thinks humans need oxygen" no that is a fact, and so is the worth of oral tradition compared to written texts. I am almost un offendable and usually laugh at the strange things people believe but the one thing that frustrates me is when someone because of preference will not acknowledge even the most universally obvious and virtually unanimous facts. Oral tradition in no way is as reliable as written texts according to scholars, historians, legal professionals, and even six year olds that are playing telephone.

Well i don't care about your history or the classes that you followed to be honest. Its quite stupid to say if the bible is tranmissted Orally as your sources said its ok but if its for the Quran its a no deal.

What is it in Mathew that you think is solely based on oral traditions. I assume you know the difference between a tradition and a fact gained orally by something like interviewing someone.

Are you blind or what!? Ill REPEAT this for the third time: I don't belief that Matthew is SOLELY based on oral traditions but partly! Historians and Scholars agree that Matthew copied most of Mark and used some Oral-Sayings what is considerd to be the Q-Source.

Some of them are and most are very early.

Lol ok but you have to know that many of them vary in ages and i don't see any good refrence to the authors from the gospels inside them.. So not sure why you mentioned them.

No they don't.

I am not going to act childish you can have it.

1. You have defended a terrorist group (Hamas) who claims responsibility for and rejoices in the killing of women and children.
2. You have for some unknown reason disagreed with the fact that in historical and legal studies written records are always considered more reliable than oral traditions. There might be an exception or two but it is true in general and would require much more information to determine. In virtually all cases oral tradition is the absolute worse form of historical transmission.
Now if you will defend two indefensible issues and accuse me of lying when I had no reason to and didn't, and accuse me of changing the subject when you were the one that posted all that stuff on the Bible not me. As well as complain when I copy sites and complain when I give you my ideas and no references, then what are the chances that you are being accurate about the Quran's history. That is a more complex and debatable issue but how much of your claims are again defending the indefensible. I am going to spend sometime this weekend to hopefully learn enough to know for sure one way or another. I imagine you were sincere and correct at times and biased on others but will have to sort that out.

Great Job R0bin i lost any patience i had left. See you when i see you.

 

[crocusj]

That being said as far as the Bible goes I believe you are probably exaggerating the negative actions approved of by God. First the NT which supersedes the OT for Christians contains nothing but turn the other cheek, peace, and love. Only the OT has an eye for an eye or things like that but it has not applied in 2000 years. Regardless if you understand the OT many of those hard teachings are easily resolvable and are much more benign than many critics believe it to be. List some and we can discuss it.

1. Noah's Flood.

 

[1robin]

You make no sense please read the previous posts. I just used the bible as counter-argument you were the one who went on babbeling about it and feelt that you had to defend it with a whole post instead of replying on the other things i said.


You make no sense, the majority of Historians and Scholars regarding the Gospels do belief that there is a Q-Source even Christian ones. Your disshonesty here is shocking but to be honest i am used to it.



The Grammer fallacy again, you know that English isn't my native langauge and i am not the only one making mistakes here. There is plenty of historical records and information regarding oral-tradition so its a lie. I told you earlier that i will label you a liar if your making up false statements just to support your arguments. Did Shabir Ally or Khalid Blankenship support the view that only few things were known about oral-tradition in the time of the early Arabs?


My complain is about that you actually never used a single argument from yourself not once in all our discussions. You are very known on this forum to simply qoute without reading the text it makes you look stupid and dishonest.
I use them constantly? No i don't i only use websites that support a claim or statement i am making and i dont qoute them directly when i have a dicussion. To be honest i don't really care about being sarcastic or offensive towards you nor do i care what you think about me or my methods. I am done with you after this message.


1. Your first setence has nothing to do with anything we talked about.
2. Your mixing up arguments
3. I never used a double-standard because i was not trying to proof that the Quran was god's revelation using a fallacy like Mohammed(saws) spoke to a Angel. Nor did i use a argument that a Angel, Spirit or God has inspired people to remember anything. These arguments do not hold to scientifcal, academical or any reasonable discussion. A preservation has to be proven outside of religious beliefs. Because one can argue that Book A is right because it says so.


Stop these lies please. Again Mainstream scholars date Mark back to 65/90 and all the other gospels are seen later not by me but by Historians and Scholars a miniority? No a majority! I dont care about your dates.
There are Quranic fragments coming from 15/10years after Mohammed's(saws) death.

If you really downloaded 3hours of Shabir Ally he would have told you to visit this site: The Qur'anic Manuscripts regarding Quranic manuscripts.


Well i don't care about your history or the classes that you followed to be honest. Its quite stupid to say if the bible is tranmissted Orally as your sources said its ok but if its for the Quran its a no deal.


Are you blind or what!? Ill REPEAT this for the third time: I don't belief that Matthew is SOLELY based on oral traditions but partly! Historians and Scholars agree that Matthew copied most of Mark and used some Oral-Sayings what is considerd to be the Q-Source.


Lol ok but you have to know that many of them vary in ages and i don't see any good refrence to the authors from the gospels inside them.. So not sure why you mentioned them.


I am not going to act childish you can have it.



Great Job R0bin i lost any patience i had left. See you when i see you.

Fine with me. I was getting frustrated by the introduction of new topics by you and then the accusation of the same made by you concerning me. This picking up your toys and going home is becoming common for you. Anyway, God Bless.

 

[1robin]

1. Noah's Flood.

Ok, as I said that exists in the OT and dates from over 3000 years ago and so has no application today. It also does not mean the Bible is not true but is only relevant for making a decision to adopt it or not. There are many terribly undesirable things that are never the less true. Death being the main one.

Do you know if the flood story is literal or symbolic?
Is it more consistent with love to wipe out a race of people who have turned completely evil or let them abuse and kill each other for a hundred generations? The only alternatives are take away freewill or allow it to devestate all of creation. The Bible says God tried to get them to repent for many many years and they refused. Or is it more loving to leave the people alone and have universal oppression, slavery, injustice, murder, and tyranny for thousands of years? I would hope a good God would put an end to it not sit back and watch a thousand years of pure misery and brutality. People only remember God as the lamb and forget the lion of Juda. They do not realise he is also perfectly just and will eventually wipe out evil if it renders creation meaningless. He is within his sovereignty to take back the soul and life he gave if it is used to promote complete depravity. The Bible says their every thought was evil continuously.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ok, as I said that exists in the OT and dates from over 3000 years ago and so has no application today. It also does not mean the Bible is not true but is only relevant for making a decision to adopt it or not.

Seems like a "convenient" answer. A logical conclusion could be that many of the things in the in the bible just aren't true...or told from the perspective of unlearned nomads.


Do you know if the flood story is literal or symbolic?
Is it more consistent with love to wipe out a race of people who have turned completely evil or let them abuse and kill each other for a hundred generations? /QUOTE]

Neither. The stories are older than what's listed in the bible. The flood narrative was taken from the Sumerian's.

 

[crocusj]

Ok, as I said that exists in the OT and dates from over 3000 years ago and so has no application today.

So you say. Same god.

Do you know if the flood story is literal or symbolic?

You mean, did your god do it or does he want us to believe he would do it? Principle's the same.

Is it more consistent with love to wipe out a race of people who have turned completely evil or let them abuse and kill each other for a hundred generations?

Well, not a race, all species.

The only alternatives are take away freewill or allow it to devestate all of creation. The Bible says God tried to get them to repent for many many years and they refused. Or is it more loving to leave the people alone and have universal oppression, slavery, injustice, murder, and tyranny for thousands of years? I would hope a good God would put an end to it not sit back and watch a thousand years of pure misery and brutality. People only remember God as the lamb and forget the lion of Juda. They do not realise he is also perfectly just and will eventually wipe out evil if it renders creation meaningless. He is within his sovereignty to take back the soul and life he gave if it is used to promote complete depravity. The Bible says their every thought was evil continuously.

This does, obviously, involve killing countless innocents as well. I can see why NT supersedes the OT in some eyes.

 

[1robin]

Seems like a "convenient" answer. A logical conclusion could be that many of the things in the in the bible just aren't true...or told from the perspective of unlearned nomads.

That would be a valid point if I was applying the criteria inconsistently. My personal official position is that anything prehistoric (before recorded history) is kind of a Grey area. Since this story is in a portion of the Bible that was transmitted by oral tradition it is also less reliable or at least quantifiable. I gave some pretty explanatory scenarios either way so I do not get the equivocation. I sincerely do not know if the flood, tower of Babel, creation scriptures are even supposed to be literal, partly literal or entire symbolic. There is no historical reason that they could not be any one of the three but it is just a blank spot as far as I am concerned. I do not spend much time debating Biblical prehistoric claims.

Neither. The stories are older than what's listed in the bible. The flood narrative was taken from the Sumerian's.

Well that is certainly a common claim. However there is no proof and very good reason to doubt it. Most cultures have flood stories. It is very likely that there was a proto flood story transmitted by Hebrew oral tradition which goes back as far as anything else. It is likely that the Babylonian story came from the Hebrews not the other way around and being that it was Middle Eastern and close to the Hebrews it suffered less corruption as did far flung flood myths. Like I said there is no way to access prehistory in this detail. That means there is no way to determine which story came from which if either did. They could be parallel stories about an event. We are simply talking about unknowable’s here. I covered the flood literal or symbolic so it really does not need a historical solution. Unlike grant hungry scientists I claim my prehistoric beliefs are primarily a matter of faith while they refuse to.

 

[1robin]

So you say. Same god.

So he says, not me. Christ inaugurated a new covenant. There is no NT verse that promotes violence of any kind that I can think of. As for the same God idea. As it is with an individual child so it is with the human race. It is called progressive revelation. As the Human race advances God may change the way he relates to us yet he never changes. The same way a parent my spank a pre-teen child for doing something as he grows it may become acceptable. As for the flood in particular, literally or symbolically I guess in your infinite wisdom you would have let the sad twisted tale of a race gone insane commit atrocities for a thousand generations. I said God requires that we do not take life without justification. I do not know what to point to that proves he could not do so but that isn't the issue. The issue is that he had morally justified reasons to start over. It is really pointless to debate something the true nature of is unknown. It is like discussing what type of Governments extra-terrestrials favor.

You mean, did your god do it or does he want us to believe he would do it? Principle's the same.

That is why I addressed both possibilities.

Well, not a race, all species.

I am not a biologist and find classifications made up out of this air meaningless. Wait a minute are you saying God is terrible because he killed deer and chickens. We do the same thing. God made the animals and it is well within his sovereignty to do with them as he pleases. Unless he tortures them for no reason then I really have no objection. My objection to torture is made on presence not right. I really do not know by what standards it may be determined what God may or may not do. I do however have standards that may or may not allow me to follow him. They are two separate issues. You seem to be suggesting that if you find a thing undesirable that has something to do with it's reality.

This does, obviously, involve killing countless innocents as well. I can see why NT supersedes the OT in some eyes.

It cannot be shown that God did not have morally sufficient reasons for what he did. You and I both have killed hundreds of thousands of "innocent" insects and other creatures with our cars, for food, and hunting if you do. Do you wish your child to reject that you exist because of that? That makes no sense. This is really a meaningless line of reasoning. It starts from an unknown point and just gets worse. You are making reality determinations based of desirability of actions you have no access to critique. You might as well say that you reject Jupiter because it is Red and you have decided it has no right to be red. There could just as well be an evil God that would torture all creation. He would be just as real even if evil. Or there could be a God that gave life and is perfectly justified taking it for any reason even if he denies that right to creatures who did not give that life in the first place. Or we could have the God of the Bible who has promised to act consistent with his revelation but who says we being limited fallible creatures many times will not understand what he is doing. Your conclusion does not follow your premise and your premise is based on very shaky and unknowable ground. It has no explanitory power or scope.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That would be a valid point if I was applying the criteria inconsistently. My personal official position is that anything prehistoric (before recorded history) is kind of a Grey area.

I can agree to this to an extent. We can extrapolate from various pieces of evidences to give us a picture of pre-history. We do it with age of the universe, Earth and its various inhabitants. Scientific progression has afforded us the ability to discern plenty in the various scriptures throughout the world of what is true and what is unlikely.

I sincerely do not know if the flood, tower of Babel, creation scriptures are even supposed to be literal, partly literal or entire symbolic.

I suspect they were to be presented and believed upon as literal. The genealogy recordings from the start gives us a clue that various writers were presenting a version of history. Gazing upon the supposed genealogy of Yeshua it harkens back to Adam and Eve and vice versa.

There is no historical reason that they could not be any one of the three but it is just a blank spot as far as I am concerned. I do not spend much time debating Biblical prehistoric claims.

I can see your point. I guess this thread should really be more in the (comparative religion) section if not for debate. That way we could be discussing the similarities and/or differences between the Bible and Quran.

Well that is certainly a common claim. However there is no proof and very good reason to doubt it. Most cultures have flood stories.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is hardly a claim. It is the quintessential prototype for the biblical creation narrative. In many respects the stories mirror each other. We couple that story along with the Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis.

It is very likely that there was a proto flood story transmitted by Hebrew oral tradition which goes back as far as anything else. It is likely that the Babylonian story came from the Hebrews not the other way around and being that it was Middle Eastern and close to the Hebrews it suffered less corruption as did far flung flood myths.

You will have to qualify this assertion. From Everything I have read...the Sumerian epics are first and everything after it is an evolution...including the biblical creation narrative. There's a difference in the (pre-history) hypothesis here. The Hebrews come much later than the Sumerians. About time the Hebrews emerge and begin to record their history we had already had a couple thousand years of written Sumerian culture. One can argue they existed at the same time and in fact the Hebrews are actually descendants of the Sumerians etc... but this would hardly make the Hebrew culture unique at this point as portrayed by the religious.

Unlike grant hungry scientists I claim my prehistoric beliefs are primarily a matter of faith while they refuse to.

I can respect that. I personally side with the scientific method of it all which points me in the direction of similarity, commonality of the various cross sharing of ideas and knowledge. Because I look at it in a historical and connected context it dispels the notion of an original man and woman whom all of humanity originated.

 

[1robin]

I can agree to this to an extent. We can extrapolate from various pieces of evidences to give us a picture of pre-history. We do it with age of the universe, Earth and its various inhabitants. Scientific progression has afforded us the ability to discern plenty in the various scriptures throughout the world of what is true and what is unlikely.

I was mainly driving at the fact that I have no idea if I am supposed to take Genesis as literal days, epochs, or as some Christian scientists (like Schroeder) say a cosmic relative time. I would rather defend events that have corresponding historical context so I know what it is I am supposed to evaluate.

I suspect they were to be presented and believed upon as literal. The genealogy recordings from the start gives us a clue that various writers were presenting a version of history. Gazing upon the supposed genealogy of Yeshua it harkens back to Adam and Eve and vice versa.

Let me throw an example of the wrinkles and problems involved. I gave up on very ancient genealogies when I learned that at different periods in history only Patriarchs of families were recorded. This accounts for slight differences in genealogies based in different genealogical practices. Even later Christ based genealogies have very significant issues that have to be known. These issues before written records get very vague.

I can see your point. I guess this thread should really be more in the (comparative religion) section if not for debate. That way we could be discussing the similarities and/or differences between the Bible and Quran.

I believe you know well that I do not mind debate in any way by now hopefully. Prehistoric Biblical history is just a very hard thing to nail down in order for a debate to take place. I will say that the Quran claims something like seven heavens, above seven earths, and some donkeys thrown in for good measure. There might even be a turtle that makes an appearance (not sure about the turtle). Now that must either be shown to specificaly be symbolic or is obviously wrong however six literal days or six periods of time is quite hard to resolve.

The Epic of Gilgamesh is hardly a claim. It is the quintessential prototype for the biblical creation narrative. In many respects the stories mirror each other. We couple that story along with the Enuma Elish and the Atrahasis.

I admit their similarity.
1. The Biblical oral tradition is older than the Babylonian texts that record the story.
2. They are parallel stories from an earlier proto event so to speak.
3. The Babylonian story is older but had no connection to a later but more authentic Biblical recording of the true story.
All of these and their opposite are possible and irresolvable so I can't offer any argument one way or another.

You will have to qualify this assertion. From Everything I have read...the Sumerian epics are first and everything after it is an evolution...including the biblical creation narrative. There's a difference in the (pre-history) hypothesis here. The Hebrew come much later than the Sumerians. About time the Hebrews emerge and begin to record their history we had already had a couple thousand years of written Sumerian culture. One can argue they existed at the same time and in fact the Hebrews are actually descendants of the Sumerians etc... but this would hardly make the Hebrew culture unique at this point as portrayed by the religious.

Biblical oral tradition as far as I know precedes all forms of writing as well as oral traditions of many other cultures. It at least potentially does. Again we are in a independent voiceless black hole here. I can't resolve these issues. I have never seen a historian that could either.

I can respect that. I personally side with the scientific method of it all which points me in the direction of similarity, commonality of the various cross sharing of ideas and knowledge. Because I look at it in a historical and connected context it dispels the notion of an original man and woman whom all of humanity originated.

I believe there is truth in all religions. I do not believe there is revelation truth in all of them. If God were as it were hiding bits of truth in contradictory texts also filled with contradictory and historical garbage than can be checked against known historical events that would be one diabolical God. IMO any God worth worshiping would be able to give one sufficient relatively pure revelation. I also believe that men would address the same issues in similar ways in other cultures but even though they contain similar stories because they are concerning the same issues and similar historical context they are not all from God. For example Muslim's claim that the Quran is pure and from God and it claims that JESUS DID NOT DIE BY CRUCIFIXION. The Bible claims the be the word of God and it claims in multiple contemporary claims that HE DIED BY CRUCIFIXION.
1. Both are true and God is a liar.
2. Both are wrong and God is something different.
3. Only one is correct.
The weight of evidence suggests the Bible is correct.
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

The site contains the conclusions of the greatest experts in testimony, evidence, and history in human history. An example is Simon Greenleaf who put Harvard law on the map and literally wrote the three volume book on evidence used today in western law. Another is Lord Lyndhurst who held every single one of the most senior legal offices in Britain. The only man to ever do so. In other words when men like them and countless others like them say the Gospels meet every standard of modern law and the historical method it kind of narrows things down. I have run out of steam here but I also wanted to indicate that much of what is called science violates its own scientific method. Some of the most important even violates its own law but this is another subject. By the way I have been wondering what the significance of dirty penguin is? I think I have heard of the term before.

 

[Ingledsva]

I can sympathize with that to some extent however even if you are actually describing the Bible accurately that has nothing to do with whether it is true or not. I do not dismiss paying taxes because I do not like them. I do not jump of cliffs because I do not like gravity. liking or not liking something is a pitiful way to determine its reality. It also shows my main contention in debate in general to be true. That being that most people decide what is true based on preference not evidence. Cognative dissonance is the most powerfull force on Earth IMO.

That being said as far as the Bible goes I believe you are probably exaggerating the negative actions approved of by God. First the NT which supersedes the OT for Christians contains nothing but turn the other cheek, peace, and love. Only the OT has an eye for an eye or things like that but it has not applied in 2000 years. Regardless if you understand the OT many of those hard teachings are easily resolvable and are much more benign than many critics believe it to be. List some and we can discuss it.

In summary I have no issue concluding truth by valid means but rejecting its adoption based on preference. Evolution has so many negative implications it might be a good idea to dismiss it true or not. I do have a problem with determining truth based on preference. Death exists even though it is the most widely hated concept in human history. IMO Islam was conceived and spread by violence. Even if I thought it was true I would reject it as evil. The Bible is much more benevolent than many critics prefer and it is true of false regardless.

Let's get real! Christianity was also spread by violence.

And we are not talking about not liking something. We are talking about laws supposedly from God - that allow selling children, owning slaves, owning sex slaves, raping war child trophies, murdering people because they belong to a different religion, etc. The person that suggested the Bible needed an "Explicit warning label/over 18" was correct. A lot of the things the Hebrew do in the Bible is just awfull - they even kidnap and rape the women of Shiloh!

 

[1robin]

Let's get real! Christianity was also spread by violence.

Well that is one I do not hear very often.
1. Early Christianity never used violence to further it's claims.
2. Early Christianity was persecuted horribly by the greatest empires on Earth at the time.
3. The witch trials, inquisition, and all other similar events have a grand total of a few thousand deaths over their several hundred year entire history. That is a few thousand too many but were the result of CATHOLIC doctrine not BIBLICAL doctrine. The NT and the OT say do not murder. If someone does it anyway it is silly to say the Bible or God caused it. That is less than a slow year for Islamic terrorism.
4. Now for the actual violence of the crusades and the wars between the Catholics and Protestants. The Crusades were another Catholic creation and no ordered by God, the OT, or the NT. They were demanded by a few Popes primarily. They were carried out for land, wealth, and power and God was only used to attempt to justify the unjustifiable. I condemn them but they were not the religions fault and did not have anything to do with the spread of Christianity but the acquisition of land and power alone. The wars between Catholics and Protestants were not to spread Christianity either. It was an attempt to impose doctrine of people who were already Christians or to gain freedom to practice a doctrine. It had much more to do with politics than religion at it's core. I forgot the conquests, which were for one thing only GOLD. Any reference to evangelism was to put a white mask on a black mask.
5. In short neither the Bible nor God allowed or promoted the actions taken by any of these groups and is therefore not responsible. I can kill a bunch of people and claim it is in the name of Ingledsva. Will you take responsibility?

And we are not talking about not liking something. We are talking about laws supposedly from God - that allow selling children, owning slaves, owning sex slaves, raping war child trophies, murdering people because they belong to a different religion, etc. The person that suggested the Bible needed an "Explicit warning label/over 18" was correct. A lot of the things the Hebrew do in the Bible is just awful - they even kidnap and rape the women of Shiloh!

The Bible is partially a historical book. It records the actions good or bad of people it concerns. That is actually a hallmark of authenticity. If a text records things unflattering about it's characters it is viewed as more reliable (principle of embarrassment). It does not mean God condoned their actions. In many cases he punished them severely for them.
You are going to have to clarify a few things.
What in the Bible suggests God promoted the sale of Children?
What general command was ever issued that allowed rape?
Many times God took things practiced by virtually every single culture on Earth at the time and made them more benevolent because it was impractical to ask people to completely quit living as they had for centuries. I will give a single example to indicate a general principle. Slavery in Biblical times was practiced by every culture on Earth and the death of everyone who was conquered in battle was common. God made both of them much less diabolical. Slavery as it existed in Israel was more like indentured servitude and with the exception of war combatants always voluntary. It was a common practice at the time to work off debts by serving the debt holder. God even made it mandatory that they could leave with their debts paid in full if they chose to. Many stayed because they had a better life. If you will research God's passive will (his decision to allow something to stand but possibly modify it to make it more benevolent), and his active will (his decision or instruction to actively promote something). Jesus is Gods most pure revelation and he neither killed nor enslaved anyone.
"If a fellow Hebrew, man or woman, is sold to you, he shall serve you six years, and in the seventh year you shall set him free. When you set him free, do not let him go empty-handed: Furnish him out of the flock, threshing floor, and vat, with which the Lord your God has blessed you. Bear in mind that you were slaves in the land of Egypt and the Lord your God redeemed you; therefore I enjoin this commandment upon you today.
Biblical Slavery - My Jewish Learning
Slavery was permitted in the Bible because of sin in the world. It existed before the Jews were formed as a nation and it existed after Israel was conquered. God allows many things to happen in the world such as storms, famine, murder, etc. Slavery, like divorce, is not preferred by God. Instead, it is allowed. While many nations treated their slaves very badly, the Bible gave many rights and privileges to slaves. So, even though it isn't the best way to deal with people, because God has allowed man freedom, slavery then exists. God instructed the Israelites to treat them properly.

• The Bible acknowledged the slave's status as the property of the master (Ex. 21:21; Lev. 25:46).
• The Bible restricted the master's power over the slave. (Ex. 21:20)
• The slave was a member of the master's household (Lev. 22:11).
• The slave was required to rest on the Sabbath (Exodus 20:10; Deut. 5:14).
• The slave was required to participate in religious observances (Gen. 17:13; Exodus 12:44; Lev. 22:11).
• The Bible prohibited extradition of slaves and granted them asylum (Deut. 23:16-17).
• The servitude of a Hebrew debt-slave was limited to six years (Ex. 21:2; Deut. 15:12).
• When a slave was freed, he was to receive gifts that enabled him to survive economically (Deut. 15:14).

The reality of slavery cannot be denied. "Slave labor played a minor economic role in the ancient Near East, for privately-owned slaves functioned more as domestic servants than as an agricultural or industrial labor force."1
Why is slavery permitted in the Bible? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
The Bible and Slavery
http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html
Reasons To Believe : How Come the Bible Doesn
http://www.churchsociety.org/crossway/documents/Cway_102_Slavery1.pdf
Those sites give an exhaustive discussion on slavery in the Bible and every single one and countless more draw the same conclusion it was an existing practice God made far more benevolent in Israel. I have mentioned slavery to represent a type of resolution to all your claims as the problems are the same with your all the claims. CONTEXT and detail.
There is comparison with striking of the heads of the unbelievers, no fight them until they submit. No general mandate for war and not a single word that allows Christianity to be spread by coercion. Not a single disciple or Christ ever did anything by force or violence and that is the purest revelation of God there is. Muhammad fought 68 battles and raided countless caravans, his followers (desciples so to speak) conquored most of the mediteranian after he died.