/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Contradictions in the Bible



don532
03-19-2007, 03:34 PM
I have been reading much here lately. Thank you to those that have been patiently answering my questions. One thing I have read is that there are 101 contradictions in the Bible. I have seen websites that list some, but I would really like to learn what they are and the Muslim perspective thereon. Thank you.
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
NoName55
03-19-2007, 04:04 PM
I thought that I posted a link to a Christian site (in another thread) that listed 101, but I could be wrong, so here it is again: > http://www.kronosofia.dk/forum/portal.php
http://www.kronosofia.dk/frames/side...teket/101.html
it uses javascript so enable it if not already done
I would really like to learn what they are
List

101 Contradictions In The Bible


1.Who incited David to count the fighting men of Israel?


(a) God did (2 Samuel 24: 1)
(b) Satan did (I Chronicles 2 1:1)


2.In that count how many fighting men were found in Israel?


(a) Eight hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) One million, one hundred thousand (IChronicles 21:5)


3. How many fighting men were found in Judah?


(a) Five hundred thousand (2 Samuel 24:9)
(b) Four hundred and seventy thousand (I Chronicles 21:5)


4.God sent his prophet to threaten David with how many years of famine?


(a) Seven (2 Samuel 24:13)
(b) Three (I Chronicles 21:12)


5.How old was Ahaziah when he began to rule over Jerusalem?


(a) Twenty-two (2 Kings 8:26)
(b) Forty-two (2 Chronicles 22:2)


6.How old was Jehoiachin when he became king of Jerusalem?


(a) Eighteen (2 Kings 24:8)
(b) Eight (2 Chronicles 36:9)


7.How long did he rule over Jerusalem?


(a) Three months (2 Kings 24:8)
(b) Three months and ten days (2 Chronicles 36:9)


8.The chief of the mighty men of David lifted up his spear and killed how many men at one time?


(a) Eight hundred (2 Samuel 23:8)
(b) Three hundred (I Chronicles 11: 11)


9.When did David bring the Ark of the Covenant to Jerusalem? Before defeating the Philistines or after?


(a) After (2 Samuel 5 and 6)
(b) Before (I Chronicles 13 and 14)


10.How many pairs of clean animals did God tell Noah to take into the Ark?


(a) Two (Genesis 6:19, 20)
(b) Seven (Genesis 7:2). But despite this last instruction only two pairs went into the ark (Genesis 7:8-9)


11.When David defeated the King of Zobah, how many horsemen did he capture?


(a) One thousand and seven hundred (2 Samuel 8:4)
(b) Seven thousand (I Chronicles 18:4)


12.How many stalls for horses did Solomon have?


(a) Forty thousand (I Kings 4:26)
(b) Four thousand (2 chronicles 9:25)


13.In what year of King Asa's reign did Baasha, King of Israel die?


(a) Twenty-sixth year (I Kings 15:33 - 16:8)
(b) Still alive in the thirty-sixth year (2 Chronicles 16:1)


14.How many overseers did Solomon appoint for the work of building the temple?


(a) Three thousand six hundred (2 Chronicles 2:2)
(b) Three thousand three hundred (I Kings 5:16)


15.Solomon built a facility containing how many baths?


(a) Two thousand (1 Kings 7:26)
(b) Over three thousand (2 Chronicles 4:5)


16.Of the Israelites who were freed from the Babylonian captivity, how many were the children of Pahrath-Moab?


(a) Two thousand eight hundred and twelve (Ezra 2:6)
(b) Two thousand eight hundred and eighteen (Nehemiah 7:11)


17.How many were the children of Zattu?


(a) Nine hundred and forty-five (Ezra 2:8)
(b) Eight hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:13)


18.How many were the children of Azgad?


(a) One thousand two hundred and twenty-two (Ezra 2:12)
(b) Two thousand three hundred and twenty-two (Nehemiah 7:17)


19.How many were the children of Adin?


(a) Four hundred and fifty-four (Ezra 2:15)
(b) Six hundred and fifty-five (Nehemiah 7:20)


20.How many were the children of Hashum?


(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:19)
(b) Three hundred and twenty-eight (Nehemiah 7:22)


21.How many were the children of Bethel and Ai?


(a) Two hundred and twenty-three (Ezra 2:28)
(b) One hundred and twenty-three (Nehemiah 7:32)


22.Ezra 2:64 and Nehemiah 7:66 agree that the total number of the whole assembly was 42,360. Yet the numbers do not add up to anything close. The totals obtained from each book is as follows:


(a) 29,818 (Ezra)
(b) 31,089 (Nehemiah)


23.How many singers accompanied the assembly?


(a) Two hundred (Ezra 2:65)
(b) Two hundred and forty-five (Nehemiah 7:67)


24.What was the name of King Abijah’s mother?


(a) Michaiah, daughter of Uriel of Gibeah (2 Chronicles 13:2)
(b) Maachah, daughter of Absalom (2 Chronicles 11:20) But Absalom had only one daughter whose name was Tamar (2 Samuel 14:27)


25.Did Joshua and the Israelites capture Jerusalem?


(a) Yes (Joshua 10:23, 40)
(b) No (Joshua 15:63)


26.Who was the father of Joseph, husband of Mary?


(a) Jacob (Matthew 1:16)
(b) Hell (Luke 3:23)


27.Jesus descended from which son of David?


(a) Solomon (Matthew 1:6)
(b) Nathan (Luke3: 31)


28.Who was the father of Shealtiel?


(a) Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12)
(b) Neri’ (Luke 3:27)


29.Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ?


(a) Abiud (Matthew 1: 13)
(b) Rhesa (Luke 3:27) but the seven sons of Zerubbabel are as follows: i. Meshullam, ii. Hananiah, iii. Hashubah, iv. Ohel, v. Berechiah, vi. Hasadiah, viii. Jushabhesed (I Chronicles 3:19, 20). The names Abiud and Rhesa do not fit in anyway.


30.Who was the father of Uzziah?


(a) Joram (Matthew 1:8)
(b) Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1)


31.Who as the father of Jechoniah?


(a) Jos
ah (Matthew 1:11) (b) Jeholakim (I Chronicles 3:16)


32.How many generations were there from the Babylonian exile until Christ?


(a) Matthew says fourteen (Matthew 1:17)
(b) But a careful count of the generations reveals only thirteen (see Matthew 1: 12-16)


33.Who was the father of Shelah?


(a) Cainan (Luke 3:35-36)
(b) Arphaxad (Genesis II: 12)


34.Was John the Baptist Elijah who was to come?


(a) Yes (Matthew II: 14, 17:10-13)
(b) No (John 1:19-21)


35.Would Jesus inherit David’s throne?


(a) Yes. So said the angel (Luke 1:32)
(b) No, since he is a descendant of Jehoiakim (see Matthew 1: I 1, I Chronicles 3:16). And Jehoiakim was cursed by God so that none of his descendants can sit upon David’s throne (Jeremiah 36:30)


36.Jesus rode into Jerusalem on how many animals?


(a) One - a colt (Mark 11:7; cf Luke 19:3 5). “And they brought the colt to Jesus and threw their garments on it; and he sat upon it.”
(b) Two - a colt and an ass (Matthew 21:7). “They brought the ass and the colt and put their garments on them and he sat thereon.”


37.How did Simon Peter find out that Jesus was the Christ?


(a) By a revelation from heaven (Matthew 16:17)
(b) His brother Andrew told him (John 1:41)


38.Where did Jesus first meet Simon Peter and Andrew?


(a) By the Sea of Galilee (Matthew 4:18-22)
(b) On the banks of river Jordan (John 1:42). After that, Jesus decided to go to Galilee (John 1:43)


39.When Jesus met Jairus was Jairus’ daughter already dead?


(a) Yes. Matthew 9:18 quotes him as saying, “My daughter has just died.”
(b) No. Mark 5:23 quotes him as saying, “My little daughter is at the point of death.”


40.Did Jesus allow his disciples to keep a staff on their journey?


(a) Yes (Mark6: 8)
(b) No (Matthew 10:9; Luke 9:3)


41.Did Herod think that Jesus was John the Baptist?


(a) Yes (Matthew 14:2; Mark 6:16)
(b) No (Luke 9:9)


42.Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus before his baptism?


(a) Yes (Matthew 3:13-14)
(b) No (John 1:32,33)


43.Did John the Baptist recognize Jesus after his baptism?


(a) Yes (John 1:32, 33)
(b) No (Matthew 11:2)


44.According to the Gospel of John, what did Jesus say about bearing his own witness?


(a) “If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true” (John 5:3 1)
(b) “Even if I do bear witness to myself, my testimony is true” (John 8:14)


45.When Jesus entered Jerusalem did he cleanse the temple that same day?


(a) Yes (Matthew 21:12)
(b) No. He went into the temple and looked around, but since it was very late he did nothing. Instead, he went to Bethany to spend the night and returned the next morning to cleanse the temple (Mark I 1:1- 17). 46.The Gospels say that Jesus cursed a fig tree. Did the tree wither at once?


(a) Yes. (Matthew 21:19)
(b) No. It withered overnight (Mark II: 20)
47.Did Judas kiss Jesus?


(a) Yes (Matthew 26:48-50)
(b) No. Judas could not get close enough to Jesus to kiss him (John 18:3-12)


48.What did Jesus say about Peter’s denial?


(a) “The cock will not crow till you have denied me three times” (John 13:38).
(b) “Before the cock crows twice you will deny me three times” (Mark 14:30). When the cock crowed once, the three denials were not yet complete (see Mark 14:72). Therefore prediction (a) failed.


49.Did Jesus bear his own cross?


(a) Yes (John 19:17)
(b) No (Matthew 27:31-32)


50.Did Jesus die before the curtain of the temple was torn?


(a) Yes (Matthew27: 50-5 1;MarklS: 37-38)
(b) No. After the curtain was torn, then Jesus crying with a loud voice, said, “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” And having said this he breathed his last (Luke 23:45-46)


51.Did Jesus say anything secretly?


(a) No. “I have said nothing secretly” (John 18:20)
(b) Yes. “He did not speak to them without a parable, but privately to his own disciples he explained everything” (Mark 4:34). The disciples asked him “Why do you speak to them in parables?” He said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given” (Matthew 13: 1 0-11)


52.Where was Jesus at the sixth hour on the day of the crucifixion?


(a) On the cross (Mark 15:23)
(b) In Pilate’s court (John 19:14)


53.The gospels say that two thieves were crucified along with Jesus. Did both thieves mock Jesus?


(a) Yes (Mark 15:32)
(b) No. One of them mocked Jesus, the other defended Jesus (Luke 23:43)


54.Did Jesus ascend to Paradise the same day of the crucifixion?


(a) Yes. He said to the thief who defended him, “Today you will be with me in Paradise” (Luke 23:43)
(b) No. He said to Mary Magdelene two days later, “I have not yet ascended to the Father” (John 20:17)


55.When Paul was on the road to Damascus he saw a light and heard a voice. Did those who were with him hear the voice?


(a) Yes (Acts9: 7)
(b) No (Acts22: 9)


56.When Paul saw the light he fell to the ground. Did his traveling companions also fall to the ground?


(a) Yes (Acts 26:14)
(b) No (Acts 9:7)


57.Did the voice spell out on the spot what Paul’s duties were to be?


(a) Yes (Acts 26:16-18)
(b) No. The voice commanded Paul to go into the city of Damascus and there he will be told what he must do. (Acts9: 7; 22: 10)


58.When the Israelites dwelt in ****tin they committed adultery with the daughters of Moab. God struck them with a plague. How many people died in that plague?


(a) Twenty-four thousand (Numbers 25:1 and 9)
(b) Twenty-three thousand (I Corinthians 10:8)


59.How many members of the house of Jacob came to Egypt?


(a) Seventy souls (Genesis 4&27)
(b) Seventy-five souls (Acts 7:14)


60.What did Judas do with the blood money he received for betraying Jesus?


(a) He bought a field (Acts 1: 18)
(b) He threw all of it into the temple and went away. The priests could not put the blood money into the temple treasury, so they used it to buy a field to bury strangers (Matthew 27:5)


61.How did Judas die?


(a) After he threw the money into the temple he went away and hanged himself (Matthew 27:5)
(b) After he bought the field with the price of his evil deed he fell headlong and burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out (Acts 1:18)


62.Why is the field called “Field of Blood”?


(a) Because the priests bought it with the blood money (Matthew 27:8)
(b) Because of the bloody death of Judas therein (Acts 1:19)


63.Who is a ransom for whom?


(a) “The Son of Man came...to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:45). “Christ Jesus who gave himself as a ransom for all... “(I Timothy 2:5-6)
(b) “The wicked is a ransom for the righteous, and the faithless for the upright” (Proverbs 21:18)


64.Is the Law of Moses useful?


(a) Yes. “All scripture is... profitable...” (2 Timothy 3:16)
(b) No. “ . . . A former commandment is set aside because of its weakness and uselessness... “(Hebrews 7:18)


65.What was the exact wording on the cross?


(a) “This is Jesus the King of the Jews” (Matthew 27:37)
(b) “The King of the Jews” (Mark 15:26)
(c) “This is the King of the Jews” (Luke 23:38)
(d) “Jesus of Nazareth, the King of the Jews” (John 19:19)


66.Did Herod want to kill John the Baptist?


(a) Yes(Matthew 14:5)
(b) No. It was Herodias, the wife of Herod who wanted to kill him. But Herod knew that he was a righteous man and kept him safe (Mark 6:20)


67.Who was the tenth disciple of Jesus in the list of twelve?


(a) Thaddaeus (Matthew 10: 1-4; Mark 3:13 -19)
(b) Judas son of James is the corresponding name in Luke’s gospel (Luke 6:12-16)


68.Jesus saw a man sit at the tax collector’s office and called him to be his disciple. What was his name?


(a) Matthew (Matthew 9:9)
(b) Levi (Mark 2:14; Luke 5:27)


69.Was Jesus crucified on the daytime before the Passover meal or the daytime after?



(a) After (Mark 14:12-17)
(b) Before. Before the feast of the Passover (John 1) Judas went out at night (John 13:30). The other disciples thought he was going out to buy supplies to prepare for the Passover meal (John 13:29). When Jesus was arrested, the Jews did not enter Pilate’s judgment hail because they wanted to stay clean to eat the Passover (John 18:28). When the judgment was pronounced against Jesus, it was about the sixth hour on the day of Preparation for the Passover (John 19:14)


70.Did Jesus pray to The Father to prevent the crucifixion?


(a) Yes. (Matthew 26:39; Mark 14:36; Luke 22:42)
(b) No. (John 12:27)


71.In the gospels which say that Jesus prayed to avoid the cross, how many times did ‘he move away from his disciples to pray?


(a) Three (Matthew 26:36-46 and Mark 14:32-42)
(b) One. No opening is left for another two times. (Luke 22:39-46)


72.Matthew and Mark agree that Jesus went away and prayed three times. What were the words of the second prayer?


(a) Mark does not give the words but he says that the words were the same as the first prayer (Mark 14:3 9)
(b) Matthew gives us the words, and we can see that they are not the same as in the first (Matthew 26:42)


73.What did the centurion say when Jesus dies?


(a) “Certainly this man was innocent” (Luke 23:47)
(b) “Truly this man was the Son of God” (Mark 15:39)


74.When Jesus said “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken Me? ” in what language did he speak?


(a) Hebrew: the words are “Eloi, Eloi…“(Matthew 27:46)
(b) Aramaic: the words are “Eloi, Eloi... “(Mark 15:34)


75.According to the gospels, what were the last words of Jesus before he died?


(a) “Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!” (Luke 23:46)
(b) "It is finished" (John 19:30).


76.When Jesus entered Capernaum he healed the slave of a centurion. Did the centurion come personally to request Jesus for this?

(a) Yes (Matthew 8:5)
(b) No. He sent some elders of the Jews and his friends (Luke 7:3,6)

77.

(a) Adam was told that if and when he eats the forbidden fruit he would die the same day (Genesis 2:17)
(b) Adam ate the fruit and went on to live to a ripe old age of 930 years (Genesis 5:5)

78.

(a) God decided that the life span of humans will be limited to 120 years (Genesis 6:3)
(b) Many people born after that lived longer than 120. Arpachshad lived 438 years. His son Shelah lived 433 years. His son Eber lived 464 years, etc. (Genesis 11:12-16)

79.Apart from Jesus did anyone else ascend to heaven?

(a) No (John 3:13)
(b) Yes. “And Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven” (2 Kings 2:11)

80.Who was high priest when David went into the house of God and ate the consecrated bread?

(a) Abiathar (Mark 2:26)
(b) Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)

81.Was Jesus’ body wrapped in spices before burial in accordance with Jewish burial customs?

(a) Yes and his female disciples witnessed his burial (John 19:39-40)
(b) No. Jesus was simply wrapped in a linen shroud. Then the women bought and prepared spices “so that they may go and anoint him [Jesus)” (Mark 16: 1)

82.When did the women buy the spices?

(a) After “the Sabbath was past” (Mark 16:1)
(b) Before the Sabbath. The women “prepared spices and ointments.” Then, “on the Sabbath they rested according to the commandment” (Luke 23:55 to 24:1)

83.At what time of day did the women visit the tomb?

(a) “Toward the dawn” (Matthew 28: 1)
(b) “When the sun had risen” (Mark 16:2)

84.What was the purpose for which the women went to the tomb?

(a) To anoint Jesus’ body with spices (Mark 16: 1; Luke 23:55 to 24: 1)
(b) To see the tomb. Nothing about spices here (Matthew 28: 1)
(c) For no specified reason. In this gospel the wrapping with spices had been done before the Sabbath (John 20: 1)

85.A large stone was placed at the entrance of the tomb. Where was the stone when the women arrived? (a) They saw that the stone was “Rolled back” (Mark 16:4) They found the stone “rolled away from the tomb” (Luke 24:2) They saw that “the stone had been taken away from the tomb” (John 20:1)

(b) As the women approached, an angel descended from heaven, rolled away the stone, and conversed with the women. Matthew made the women witness the spectacular rolling away of the stone (Matthew 28:1-6)

86.Did anyone tell the women what happened to Jesus’ body?

(a) Yes. “A young man in a white robe” (Mark 16:5). “Two men ... in dazzling apparel” later described as angels (Luke 24:4 and 24:23). An angel - the one who rolled back the stone (Matthew 16:2). In each case the women were told that Jesus had risen from the dead (Matthew 28:7; Mark 16:6; Luke 24:5 footnote)
(b) No. Mary met no one and returned saying, “They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we do not know where they have laid him” (John 20:2)

87.When did Mary Magdelene first meet the resurrected Jesus? And how did she react?

(a) Mary and the other women met Jesus on their way back from their first and only visit to the tomb. They took hold of his feet and worshipped him (Matthew 28:9)
(b) On her second visit to the tomb Mary met Jesus just outside the tomb. When she saw Jesus she did not recognize him. She mistook him for the gardener. She still thinks that Jesus’ body is laid to rest somewhere and she demands to know where. But when Jesus said her name she at once recognized him and called him “Teacher.” Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me...” (John 20:11 to 17)

88.What was Jesus’ instruction for his disciples?

(a) “Tell my brethren to go to Galilee, and there they will see me” (Matthew 2 8: 10)
(b) “Go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (John 20:17)

89.When did the disciples return to Galilee?

(a) Immediately, because when they saw Jesus in Galilee “some doubted” (Matthew 28:17). This period of uncertainty should not persist
(b) After at least 40 days. That evening the disciples were still in Jerusalem (Luke 24:3 3). Jesus appeared to them there and told them, stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). He was appearing to them “during forty days” (Acts 1:3), and “charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the promise ... “(Acts 1:4)

90.To whom did the Midianites sell Joseph?

(a) “To the Ishmaelites” (Genesis 37:28)
(b) “To Potiphar, an officer of Pharaoh” (Genesis 37:36)

91.Who brought Joseph to Egypt?

(a) The Ishmaelites bought Joseph and then “took Joseph to Egypt” (Genesis 37:28)
(b) “The Midianites had sold him in Egypt” (Genesis 37:36)
(c) Joseph said to his brothers “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt” (Genesis 45:4)

92.Does God change his mind?

(a) Yes. “The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “I repent that I have made Saul King...” (I Samuel 15:10 to 11)
(b) No. God “will not lie or repent; for he is not a man, that he should repent” (I Samuel 15:29)
(c) Yes. “And the Lord repented that he had made Saul King over Israel” (I Samuel 15:35).
Notice that the above three quotes are all from the same chapter of the same book! In addition, the Bible shows that God repented on several other occasions:
i. “The Lord was sorry that he made man” (Genesis 6:6)
“I am sorry that I have made them” (Genesis 6:7)
ii. “And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do to his people” (Exodus 32:14).
iii. (Lots of other such references).

93.The Bible says that for each miracle Moses and Aaron demonstrated the magicians did the same by their secret arts. Then comes the following feat:

(a) Moses and Aaron converted all the available water into blood (Exodus 7:20-21)
(b) The magicians did the same (Exodus 7:22). This is impossible, since there would have been no water left to convert into blood.

94.Who killed Goliath?

(a) David (I Samuel 17:23, 50)
(b) Elhanan (2 Samuel 21:19) 95.Who killed Saul? (a) “Saul took his own sword and fell upon it.... Thus Saul died... (I Samuel 31:4-6)
(b) An Amalekite slew him (2 Samuel 1:1- 16)

96.Does every man sin?

(a) Yes. “There is no man who does not sin” (I Kings 8:46; see also 2 Chronicles 6:36; Proverbs 20:9; Ecclesiastes 7:20; and I John 1:810)
(b) No. True Christians cannot possibly sin, because they are the children of God. “Every one who believes that Jesus is the Christ is a child of God. (I John 5:1). “We should be called children of God; and so we are” (I John 3: 1). “He who loves is born of God” (I John 4:7). “No one born of God commits sin; for God’s nature abides in him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God” (I John 3:9). But, then again, Yes! “If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (I John 1:8)

97.Who will bear whose burden?

(a) “Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ” (Galatians 6:2)
(b) “Each man will have to bear his own load” (Galatians 6:5)

98.How many disciples did Jesus appear to after his resurrection?

(a) Twelve (I Corinthians 15:5)
(b) Eleven (Matthew 27:3-5 and Acts 1:9-26, see also Matthew 28:16; Mark 16:14 footnote; Luke 24:9; Luke 24:3 3)

99.Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

(a) After his baptism, “the spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he was in the wilderness forty days ... (Mark 1:12-13)
(b) Next day after the baptism, Jesus selected two disciples. Second day: Jesus went to Galilee - two more disciples. Third day: Jesus was at a wedding feast in Cana in Galilee (see John 1:35; 1:43; 2:1-11)

100.Was baby Jesus’ life threatened in Jerusalem?

(a) Yes, so Joseph fled with him to Egypt and stayed there until Herod died (Matthew 2:13 23)
(b) No. The family fled nowhere. They calmly presented the child at the Jerusalem temple according to the Jewish customs and returned to Galilee (Luke 2:21-40)

101.When Jesus walked on water how did the disciples respond?

(a) They worshipped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:33)
(b) “They were utterly astounded, for they did not understand about the loaves, but their hearts were hardened” (Mark 6:51-52)
:w:

and I leave you in peace with your talk with Br. Eesa
Reply

YusufNoor
03-19-2007, 04:20 PM
A`udhu Billahi mina Shaytanir Rajeem,

Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem

Assalamu alaykum wa'rahma-tullahi, wa'barakatahu,

I have been reading much here lately. Thank you to those that have been patiently answering my questions. One thing I have read is that there are 101 contradictions in the Bible. I have seen websites that list some, but I would really like to learn what they are and the Muslim perspective thereon. Thank you.
My perspective, shared by some, is that the New Testament is NOT the Gospel of Jesus/Isa(as), but rather contains the gospels of 4 persons not completely identified written decades after his ascension into heaven and the majority of the "books" are letters by Paul, who never knew Jesus/Isa(as). so as i don't belive them to be "source" documents, inconsistencies and contradictions are irrelevant.

the Old Testament appears to be compiled first by Jeremiah and or his scribe Baruch and later by Ezra and or his fellow Nehemiah. as we no longer have access to the original documents in the original scripts, i expect there to be inconsistencies and contradictions.

as we believe the Qur'an that we have today is the exact same as that delivered to the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) by Jibreel(as) from Allah(SWT), there are no inconsistencies and contradictions!

simple enough? :)

:w:
Reply

Umar001
03-19-2007, 05:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I have been reading much here lately. Thank you to those that have been patiently answering my questions. One thing I have read is that there are 101 contradictions in the Bible. I have seen websites that list some, but I would really like to learn what they are and the Muslim perspective thereon. Thank you.
Ok, well what I'd thought of doing was to give you my understanding of what I had seen and heard and spoke to people about, mainly people who called themselves Christians.

I will say people who call themselves Christian because I know that their views might be or might not be shared by others who call themselves Christian.

I will just say that the contradictions based on language, i.e. someone says something happend whilst someone else says something else happend, are contradictions that are either, false and people out of zeal have claimed it to be a contradiction, or contradictions which are true but are hard to prove specially since the meaning can be changed by a person if they wish, since the Bible in it's totality has not got a standard explanation book (Tafsir). Numerical contradictions are hardly disproved, although some use some twisted logic to try to get out of them, but thats life, and some just claim that those are copiest errors.

When one says there are 101 Contradictions in the Bible, what does this mean to a Christian? To someone who believes in the Bible. The reactions can be catagorised into various groups, mainly depending on what the person believes the Bible to be.

One group might believe the Bible is the total word of God, in it's totality, word for word, such people when shows the passages of Paul saying 'I say this not the Lord' will then say 'It's the word of God except where mentioned' so, apart from those instances, they will say the Bible is word for word God dictated.
To such people, is where the contradictions hit hardest, if they believe each word is the word of God, and they believe God does not contradict Himself, then they have a problem.

Another group is the group that belives that the Bible is the word of God, but in a slightly different sense, they hold that the Bible is what God inspired people to do, for example, God didn't say 'Write this word and this word and then this one' but rather, they wrote while being inspired in meaning but not in words, so they wrote the Word of God in their words. Phrases like:


Those books [some books of the bible] have passed through the minds of men, are written in the language of men, were penned by the hands of men and bear in their style the characteristics of men
The bit inbetween the brackets is mine.

Whilst some do then say, yes, the Bible is God's Word inspired to men who wrote it down in their way, others whilst in this group, will say, No no, it is God's word totally, but, throughout time some might have made changes mainly by accident as copiest errors, so they mean the first writers, wrote exactly what God said, but the copiest might have made errors.

This later group does not suffer as much from the thought of contradictions. Because they acknowledge the possability of mistakes being in the Bible, and this would not affect their faith as much if looked at it by itself.

So it depends on you, which position you hold, as to how much it'd effect your faith, but both positions are damaging depeding on whether one persues the topic.
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
Keltoi
03-19-2007, 05:14 PM
Speaking for myself, and most Christians I know, I do not think of the Bible as being a book "written" by God. It is the writings of men inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Contradictions in the Bible will exist, and it doesn't disturb me at all. I don't really care if one writer says there were 10,000 people in an army and another says a million. As a student of history I can promise you that is not unusual. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of the Bible, i.e. the Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc, I don't see a blatant contradiction.
Reply

Umar001
03-19-2007, 05:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Speaking for myself, and most Christians I know, I do not think of the Bible as being a book "written" by God. It is the writings of men inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Contradictions in the Bible will exist, and it doesn't disturb me at all. I don't really care if one writer says there were 10,000 people in an army and another says a million. As a student of history I can promise you that is not unusual. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of the Bible, i.e. the Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc, I don't see a blatant contradiction.

Yes, just like my mother. I mean she holds this same view.
Reply

don532
03-19-2007, 05:33 PM
Thank you Eesa.

I do not know yet which category I belong to. I want to study the contradictions and think and pray on this. There is a lot here to read and Scriptures to look up. Peace.
Reply

Umar001
03-19-2007, 06:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Thank you Eesa.

I do not know yet which category I belong to. I want to study the contradictions and think and pray on this. There is a lot here to read and Scriptures to look up. Peace.

Well, ok, alot of them can be kind of reconciled, though, how logically I dont know. But the numerical ones are admitted to be copiest errors by many.
Reply

Woodrow
03-19-2007, 06:59 PM
We can spend a lifetime searching through all of the various religious writings in search for contradictions.

Perhaps a better route is to look for truths that have been verified and where they can be found.

I have found the Qur'an to be verifiable and there is no need for me to search for errors or contradictions in any other scriptures. I only need to be satisfied that I know I am reading the truth. The outcome of anything else is a very moot point and of no consequence.
Reply

wilberhum
03-19-2007, 07:23 PM
Woodrow,
So much better than the "You are wrong, therefore I'm right" concept.
Reply

don532
03-19-2007, 07:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
We can spend a lifetime searching through all of the various religious writings in search for contradictions.

Perhaps a better route is to look for truths that have been verified and where they can be found.

I have found the Qur'an to be verifiable and there is no need for me to search for errors or contradictions in any other scriptures. I only need to be satisfied that I know I am reading the truth. The outcome of anything else is a very moot point and of no consequence.
Greetings Woodrow. I think I see your point, though I will continue to examine the contradictions provided above. I hope this question does not try your patience. Can you summarize, list, or point me to a listing of the truths you refer to that have been verified and where they can be found?
Reply

Woodrow
03-19-2007, 07:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Greetings Woodrow. I think I see your point, though I will continue to examine the contradictions provided above. I hope this question does not try your patience. Can you summarize, list, or point me to a listing of the truths you refer to that have been verified and where they can be found?
Strange that you should ask that. i am in the process of compiling a whole list of stuff that does a better job than I can. The list is far from complete. But give me a day or to to arrange them better and I will post what I have.

You have probably already seen some of the videos that are well distributed such as " The Scientific Miracles of the Qur'an" etc.

EDIT NOTE: There have also been a number of threads in this forum posted about various Qur'anic events that have been very well documented and verified.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-19-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally Posted by Alhabeshi
Well, ok, alot of them can be kind of reconciled, though, how logically I dont know. But the numerical ones are admitted to be copiest errors by many.


How do they know it was copied wrong?If the conflict exists in the copies, then it is logical to assume it is present in the originals as well, absent evidence to the contrary /
Why on earth anybody would assume the originals have no mistakes, when all of the copies reek with errors and contradictions is beyond me. That's a leap in logic that only the irrational can fathom.
Apologists constantly talk about the autographa, which admittedly do not exist, and no living person has ever seen. Modern versions of the Bible such as the King James, the New American standard, the Revised Standard, and the New International are nothing more than compilations, put together by a team of scholars who, after viewing a wide variety of Biblical manuscripts and codices (e.g., Codex Siniaticus, Codex Vatianus), attempted to reconstruct the alleged original writings. The fatal flaw in the entire process, even if there had been original writings, lies in the fact that hundreds of manuscripts disagree on hundreds of verses. Consequently, any version of the Bible is nothing more than the outcome of a popularity contest, in which conflicting manuscripts were reconciled with conflicting scholarly opinion. Votes, not God, gave man the Bibles of today.
the fact that the manuscripts contradict one another, and until the original is produced, the contradiction stands. Biblicists are asking us to ignore a contradiction staring us in the face, in favor of a theory that can in no way be substantiated.
The fact is that the contradiction stands, and will continue standing until evidence is produced to the contrary. The burden of proof lies on he who alleges.

As Peter Ruckman, founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute alleges, 'it is nothing but cowardice and desertion in combat'."
Reply

Hemoo
03-19-2007, 08:59 PM
i would like to add

as i know that christians say that the four writers of the bible where having some sort of a revelation from GOD or holy spirit

and this is basicly wrong because revelation only comes to prophets (peace and blessings be upon them all) and they are the only trusted persons to deliver GOD's messages to the people

the prophets are infallible in what they report and transmit from thier GOD's revelation and no one else is like the prophets that GOD has chose them to handle these responsibilities.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-19-2007, 09:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Speaking for myself, and most Christians I know, I do not think of the Bible as being a book "written" by God. It is the writings of men inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Contradictions in the Bible will exist, and it doesn't disturb me at all. I don't really care if one writer says there were 10,000 people in an army and another says a million. As a student of history I can promise you that is not unusual. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of the Bible, i.e. the Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc, I don't see a blatant contradiction.
How do you know what is true when you begin to admit certain parts are false? one of the most well-known founders of protestantism, John Wesley, said, "If there be any mistakes in the Bible there may as well be a thousand. If there be one falsehood in that book it did not come from the God of truth."
Once inerrancy goes, once the Bible is shown to be fallible, then it's no more reliable or divine than any other book on the shelf(Just as the non inspired, Historical books you study).
It is well known that most if not all human documents contain errors of one sort or another. It is unusual for a writing, particularly a writing as long as the Bible to contain absolutely no errors whatsoever. That would be an unusual or extraordinary condition. The ONUS OF PROOF IS ON THE PERSON CLAIMING THE EXTRAORDINARY. Yet, you have zero evidence for your position.

The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is certainly applicable to the errors under discussion. This rule of evidence recognizes that testimony found to be false in one matter should be considered unreliable in other matters. If you insist the claim of inerrancy is true, then please come up with a truly inerrant Bible. As far as I know, no such item has ever been published.
Reply

wilberhum
03-19-2007, 10:00 PM
How do you know what is true when you begin to admit certain parts are false?
What a distortion of what was said. False and insignificant are not the same. It is insignificant whether there were 10,000 people in an army or a million. It was a big army. You hold that the Quran is the exact word of god. That is not what Christians say about the Bible. So your conclusions are based on erroneous assumptions.
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-19-2007, 10:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Speaking for myself, and most Christians I know, I do not think of the Bible as being a book "written" by God. It is the writings of men inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Contradictions in the Bible will exist, and it doesn't disturb me at all. I don't really care if one writer says there were 10,000 people in an army and another says a million. As a student of history I can promise you that is not unusual. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of the Bible, i.e. the Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc, I don't see a blatant contradiction.
Being the "word of God" and being "inspired from God" are two different things. Caesar Augustus and numerous other tyrants also believed they were "Sons of God."
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-19-2007, 10:05 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What a distortion of what was said. False and insignificant are not the same. It is insignificant whether there were 10,000 people in an army or a million. It was a big army. You hold that the Quran is the exact word of god. That is not what Christians say about the Bible. So your conclusions are based on erroneous assumptions.
Christians used to think that the Bible was the literal word of God until science toppled them over and caused paradigm shifts. It is no reason why nobody takes the Bible seriously anymore and ALL countries with a Christian majority have SECULAR, no Biblical, governments/laws.
Reply

wilberhum
03-19-2007, 10:11 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
Christians used to think that the Bible was the literal word of God until science toppled them over and caused paradigm shifts. It is no reason why nobody takes the Bible seriously anymore and ALL countries with a Christian majority have SECULAR, no Biblical, governments/laws.
There is some truth to that. Christians should have done what some others did. Organizer thousands scholars to bend what was written to make it look like it all fit together. Or made up rules that states in any contradiction, what was stated last overturns what was stated first.
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-19-2007, 10:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
There is some truth to that. Christians should have done what some others did. Organizer thousands scholars to bend what was written to make it look like it all fit together. Or made up rules that states in any contradiction, what was stated last overturns what was stated first.
You are assuming that Christianity was intentionally fabricated.
Reply

wilberhum
03-19-2007, 10:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
You are assuming that Christianity was intentionally fabricated.
I think all religions were "intentionally fabricated".
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-19-2007, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
I think all religions were "intentionally fabricated".
Yes, and unfounded assumption.
Reply

wilberhum
03-19-2007, 10:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
Yes, and unfounded assumption.
And it is an unfounded assumption that they arn't.
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-19-2007, 10:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
And it is an unfounded assumption that they arn't.
That is why they are known as "belief systems."
Reply

don532
03-19-2007, 11:43 PM
still reading.....
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-19-2007, 11:47 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Speaking for myself, and most Christians I know, I do not think of the Bible as being a book "written" by God. It is the writings of men inspired by the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Word of God. Contradictions in the Bible will exist, and it doesn't disturb me at all. I don't really care if one writer says there were 10,000 people in an army and another says a million. As a student of history I can promise you that is not unusual. When it comes to the meat and potatoes of the Bible, i.e. the Word of God, the teachings of Jesus Christ, etc, I don't see a blatant contradiction.
Assalam Alaikam

As a former Catholic, i would not like the fact to know that a Perfect Creator would inspire men with a book containing contradictions, that just induces one as myself to feel that this book is nothing that i can follow, that even Contradicts today's modern science.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 12:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by wilberhum
What a distortion of what was said. False and insignificant are not the same. It is insignificant whether there were 10,000 people in an army or a million. It was a big army. You hold that the Quran is the exact word of god. That is not what Christians say about the Bible. So your conclusions are based on erroneous assumptions.
What a muddle!!

You assumed Minor errors do not change the meaning of the text, or the spiritual message behind it

how can we go to the Bible for spiritual truth if there are errors in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, who is going to decide which words are true, and which are not?
If God can work through a sinful woman to give us the sinless, incarnate Word, he can surely work through fallible men to give us the inerrant, written Word.
You still believe christians claiming that the Bible is not the Exact word of God?
The Bible claims that it is 100% (including the so called insignificant parts)true and inspired,
Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 that the Holy Spirit (1) searched out the deep things of God, (2) revealed them to the prophets and apostles, (3) motivated these men to write them down, and (4) guided them as they wrote.
It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit should go to such trouble and then abandon his work to the ravages of time and the vagaries of men.

2 Timothy 3:16 ... "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

you believe christians but ignore What the Bible claims about itself!!

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)


The Biblical problems are not minor in nature dear ,the current Bible is contradicting in every manner...Aside the minor contradictions with your words, the teachings of New and Old testaments are contradicting.
If you wish we can talk about "major" errors, contradictions, and fallacies in the Bible that strikes at the root of the Christian faith either .
let's ignore your insignificant Bible copiests errors and talk about a fatal flaw in the most significant part of the Gospel (the resurrection of the savior of Humanity) ,the four inspired writers contradict each others in almost all narratives of the resurrection . my question to those who think that there are no inconsistencies in the important parts like the resurrection
narratives is a simple one:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, Matthew 28:1.10
why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1


Compare Matthew narrative with John:

Matthew 28:1-10
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."


John 20:1.3

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

wish someone here try to clear up such gross contradiction.
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 12:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Assalam Alaikam

As a former Catholic, i would not like the fact to know that a Perfect Creator would inspire men with a book containing contradictions, that just induces one as myself to feel that this book is nothing that i can follow, that even Contradicts today's modern science.
This seems to stem from the belief of Muslims that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if everything in the book came from God's "mouth", so to speak. Christians do not believe this in relation to the Bible. It is a collection of writings by men. The majority of contradictions are limited to numerical figures and some place names and so forth. This will occur when writings are translated and copied for two thousand years. As I stated earlier, what is important for me are the teachings of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation within. What does it matter to me and my relationship with God whether an army had 10,000 or a million soldiers? It does not.
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 01:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
What a muddle!!

You assumed Minor errors do not change the meaning of the text, or the spiritual message behind it

how can we go to the Bible for spiritual truth if there are errors in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, who is going to decide which words are true, and which are not?
If God can work through a sinful woman to give us the sinless, incarnate Word, he can surely work through fallible men to give us the inerrant, written Word.
You still believe christians claiming that the Bible is not the Exact word of God?
The Bible claims that it is 100% (including the so called insignificant parts)true and inspired,
Paul notes in 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 that the Holy Spirit (1) searched out the deep things of God, (2) revealed them to the prophets and apostles, (3) motivated these men to write them down, and (4) guided them as they wrote.
It is inconceivable that the Holy Spirit should go to such trouble and then abandon his work to the ravages of time and the vagaries of men.

2 Timothy 3:16 ... "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness.

you believe christians but ignore What the Bible claims about itself!!

Once conceding there are errors in the Bible, you have opened a Pandora's Box. How do you know which parts are true if you admit some parts are false. As ICBI said: "... But this position (claiming truthfulness for those parts of the Bible where God, as opposed to men has spoken-ed). is unsound. People who think like this speak of Biblical authority, but at best they have partial Biblical authority since the parts containing errors obviously cannot be authoritative. What is worse, they cannot even tell us precisely what parts are from God and are therefore truthful and what parts are not from God and are in error. Usually they say that the "salvation parts" are from God, but they do not tell us how to separate these from the non-salvation parts." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 8)


The Biblical problems are not minor in nature dear ,the current Bible is contradicting in every manner...Aside the minor contradictions with your words, the teachings of New and Old testaments are contradicting.
If you wish we can talk about "major" errors, contradictions, and fallacies in the Bible that strikes at the root of the Christian faith either .
let's ignore your insignificant Bible copiests errors and talk about a fatal flaw in the most significant part of the Gospel (the resurrection of the savior of Humanity) ,the four inspired writers contradict each others in almost all narratives of the resurrection . my question to those who think that there are no inconsistencies in the important parts like the resurrection
narratives is a simple one:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, Matthew 28:1.10
why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1


Compare Matthew narrative with John:

Matthew 28:1-10
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.' Now I have told you."
8So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9Suddenly Jesus met them. "Greetings," he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10Then Jesus said to them, "Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me."


John 20:1.3

1Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"

wish someone here try to clear up such gross contradiction.


Each of the gospels adds details that help complete the STORY OF THE RESURRECTION. The order appears to be as follows: A large group of women had observed the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:55), followed the process of His burial (Luke 23:55) and then went to prepare spices and ointments for Him. They rest on the Sabbath and then return in two groups on Sunday (Luke 24:1). Mary Magdalene, Mary (supposed to be the mother of James and Joses), and Salome start out ahead while it is still dark (John 20:1), looking for someone to roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). They are amazed to see the stone taken away and the tomb appearing empty. Without going inside, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell the disciples that someone stole the body (John 20:2). The other two women proceed to go into the tomb and see an angel (Mark 16:5). This same angel who had earlier appeared to the guards and rolled the stone away now speaks to them (Matthew 28:5-7), instructing them to go tell the disciples. They flee out of the tomb in great fear, too frightened to go tell the disciples (Mark 16:8). Meanwhile Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene and runs to see the empty tomb for himself (Luke 24:12), followed by John (John 20:3). Mary Magdalene also returns behind them and remains weeping after they leave (John 20:11). Two angels appear to comfort her and Jesus Himself comes to her (John 20:12-14 and Mark 16:9). Afterward, She returns to the disciples to share the further news (John 20:18). Meanwhile the frightened Salome and Mary regroup with the rest of the women carrying the spices and go to the tomb. Finding it empty, they stand perplexed (Luke 24:4). Then two angels appear to the full group and explain in greater detail the news of the resurrection (Luke 24:4-9). Afterwards, they ALL go back to the disciples (Luke 24:10 and Matthew 28:8). On the way, Jesus himself meets them and comforts them further (Matthew 28:9-10).



Given the fact that each gospel writer focuses on a different piece of the story (ie John ignores the other women and just records the Mary Magdalene experience), one can not blame people for being puzzled. However, this is the reason that this vital pinnacle of all history is recorded from four different perspectives. It gives us a much more complete picture of the Messiah.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-20-2007, 01:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Thank you Eesa.

I do not know yet which category I belong to. I want to study the contradictions and think and pray on this. There is a lot here to read and Scriptures to look up. Peace.
Learn hebrew. The Jews seem to laugh at these.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 01:49 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
Each of the gospels adds details that help complete the STORY OF THE RESURRECTION. The order appears to be as follows: A large group of women had observed the crucifixion of Jesus (Matthew 27:55), followed the process of His burial (Luke 23:55) and then went to prepare spices and ointments for Him. They rest on the Sabbath and then return in two groups on Sunday (Luke 24:1). Mary Magdalene, Mary (supposed to be the mother of James and Joses), and Salome start out ahead while it is still dark (John 20:1), looking for someone to roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). They are amazed to see the stone taken away and the tomb appearing empty. Without going inside, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell the disciples that someone stole the body (John 20:2). The other two women proceed to go into the tomb and see an angel (Mark 16:5). This same angel who had earlier appeared to the guards and rolled the stone away now speaks to them (Matthew 28:5-7), instructing them to go tell the disciples. They flee out of the tomb in great fear, too frightened to go tell the disciples (Mark 16:8). Meanwhile Peter was informed by Mary Magdalene and runs to see the empty tomb for himself (Luke 24:12), followed by John (John 20:3). Mary Magdalene also returns behind them and remains weeping after they leave (John 20:11). Two angels appear to comfort her and Jesus Himself comes to her (John 20:12-14 and Mark 16:9). Afterward, She returns to the disciples to share the further news (John 20:18). Meanwhile the frightened Salome and Mary regroup with the rest of the women carrying the spices and go to the tomb. Finding it empty, they stand perplexed (Luke 24:4). Then two angels appear to the full group and explain in greater detail the news of the resurrection (Luke 24:4-9). Afterwards, they ALL go back to the disciples (Luke 24:10 and Matthew 28:8). On the way, Jesus himself meets them and comforts them further (Matthew 28:9-10).



Given the fact that each gospel writer focuses on a different piece of the story (ie John ignores the other women and just records the Mary Magdalene experience), one can not blame people for being puzzled. However, this is the reason that this vital pinnacle of all history is recorded from four different perspectives. It gives us a much more complete picture of the Messiah.



Greetings Don ,that is great!! here we gonna deal with the serious points in the Bible narratives .

I will comment only on the part that relates to my Question, Do you remember my question? again i repeat it

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb, Matthew 28:1.10 why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1.3

I didn,t want to see a harmonization to all the resurrection narratives .at least now ..only one point..
your post was:
Mary Magdalene, Mary (supposed to be the mother of James and Joses), and Salome start out ahead while it is still dark (John 20:1), looking for someone to roll away the stone (Mark 16:3). They are amazed to see the stone taken away and the tomb appearing empty. Without going inside, Mary Magdalene runs off to tell the disciples that someone stole the body (John 20:2).

that is a pure conjecture !!! Mary Magdalena according to Matthew 28:5

not only heard an angel announce that Jesus had risen and that she ran from the tomb with great joy after hearing this ,but also she met Jesus and touched him after she had run from the tomb on her way to tell the disciples that to go to Galilee; there they will see the resurrected Jesus.
so claiming that Mary Magdalena ran off to tell the disciples that someone stole the body without going inside the tomb is wholly without merit in the light of Matthew's narrative 28:5.10

Hope it is clear for you dear Don ..and try to find another logical solution in order to go on fruitful discussion.
take care

sorry Keltoi thought your post is don's pardon me
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 02:17 AM
The principle of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one thing, false in everything) is certainly applicable to the errors under discussion.
How about I consider this statement itself to be false? Truly, there are errors in the present copy of the Bible that we have today. But that does not make it false. I understand that there are many, both Christians and non-Christians who expect something called the word of God to be inerrant. But I do not, and I have no problem with that. Some of the errors are simple scribal or copist errors. How are these dealt with, well just as Islam has a science for ascertaining the veracity of hadiths, so too does Christianity have a science -- it's called textual criticism -- by which is evaluates variant readings to ascertain the most likely original manuscript. Can we be 100% certain they have it right? No, we cannot. Can we be certain enough to know that we have the basic message that was intended? Yes we can. Also, as a rule of interpretation and application of scripture, I always caution people never to come up with some criticial point of theology on the basis of one isolated text. The Bible repeats the same message regarding God over and over again throughout its pages. So, when we hear the same basic message given that often from that many different source writers, we develop a great deal of confidence in it. Great indeed I would say, than I would have in the ability of one man to be given a message from God, and remember it to recite to others later and not have perhaps left something out. How would anyone who didn't hear the message themselves know whether what was recited was what was originally given? They have no way to know that a mistake wasn't made, perhaps a whole section forgotten, and never recorded.
Reply

don532
03-20-2007, 03:32 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith

Hope it is clear for you dear Don ..and try to find another logical solution in order to go on fruitful discussion.
take care
I think this discussion is rather fruitful....for me. I apologize if my questions seem repetitive or annoying. I am only asking so I may understand Islam, and my questions do get rather specific, I know. I apologize if this causes offense. I do not intend to offend.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-20-2007, 04:00 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
This seems to stem from the belief of Muslims that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if everything in the book came from God's "mouth", so to speak. Christians do not believe this in relation to the Bible. It is a collection of writings by men. The majority of contradictions are limited to numerical figures and some place names and so forth. This will occur when writings are translated and copied for two thousand years. As I stated earlier, what is important for me are the teachings of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation within. What does it matter to me and my relationship with God whether an army had 10,000 or a million soldiers? It does not.
I am not talking about that, i am talking about the scientific Aspects of the Bible, they do not even admit to Present day Established Science.
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 04:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
I am not talking about that, i am talking about the scientific Aspects of the Bible, they do not even admit to Present day Established Science.
It might help if you gave an example of what you're referring to.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-20-2007, 04:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
It might help if you gave an example of what you're referring to.

I suggest you watch the William Campbell- Zakir Naik Debate

If after that whole debate your not convinced, Then i do not know what to tell you.
Reply

Trumble
03-20-2007, 08:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith

You assumed Minor errors do not change the meaning of the text, or the spiritual message behind it

how can we go to the Bible for spiritual truth if there are errors in the Bible. If the Bible has errors, who is going to decide which words are true, and which are not?
They don't change the meaning of the spiritual message. The perception that they might is a purely muslim one, based on the falacy that the Bible is supposed to be the literal, unchanged word of God in the same way the Qur'an is supposed to be. But it is not, or at least very few Christians now believe it is. Wesley is dead, and the rest can defend their own corner. It is a series of separate works written by different people, some of which reflect previous oral traditions, across a very long period of time. Of course such 'errors' and 'contradictions' will occur.

But how big an army was, or what the centurion might have said, or even the precise words Jesus might have used simply do not matter. Nobody has to decide which is 'true' and which is not. Even to this non-Christian, the message of the New Testament (I am much less familiar with the old) is clear. It's yet another argument that is a 'killer' for muslims but irrelevant to the intended target. It only works if you already believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of God. Christians do not; if they did they would be muslims!
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 08:27 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
Learn hebrew. The Jews seem to laugh at these.
You mean to tell me that you think its worth studying hebrew to then only come up with illogical explanations that one text says something which it doesn't in order to reconcile contradictions then boy some are really out to extert themselves.
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 08:42 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
This seems to stem from the belief of Muslims that the Quran is the literal word of God, as if everything in the book came from God's "mouth", so to speak. Christians do not believe this in relation to the Bible. It is a collection of writings by men. The majority of contradictions are limited to numerical figures and some place names and so forth. This will occur when writings are translated and copied for two thousand years. As I stated earlier, what is important for me are the teachings of Jesus Christ and the message of salvation within. What does it matter to me and my relationship with God whether an army had 10,000 or a million soldiers? It does not.
Ok, so let me ask, if mistakes have found their way into the Bible, as I understand you to have said, what gives you certainty, or reliability that the true picture of Jesus has been produced within the Biblical Scripture?

format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
They don't change the meaning of the spiritual message. The perception that they might is a purely muslim one, based on the falacy that the Bible is supposed to be the literal, unchanged word of God in the same way the Qur'an is supposed to be. But it is not, or at least very few Christians now believe it is. Wesley is dead, and the rest can defend their own corner. It is a series of separate works written by different people, some of which reflect previous oral traditions, across a very long period of time. Of course such 'errors' and 'contradictions' will occur.

But how big an army was, or what the centurion might have said, or even the precise words Jesus might have used simply do not matter. Nobody has to decide which is 'true' and which is not. Even to this non-Christian, the message of the New Testament (I am much less familiar with the old) is clear. It's yet another argument that is a 'killer' for muslims but irrelevant to the intended target. It only works if you already believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of God. Christians do not; if they did they would be muslims!
First I'd just like to focous on something, the part 'or even the precise words Jesus mighth ave used simply do not matter' well, I know alot of Christians who would disagree, why? Because they take words or phrases and expound on them themselfs, they ask 'why did Jesus use these exact words?...I'll tell you why' and how many a sermons have I heard like this!

As for whether mistakes can change the message, even if I agree that they cannot, it would at least show that there is error, and how would a man then have pure certainty that the message has been preserved? If they were working from Oral Tradition how would we be sure that they picked the truth from it and left the falsehood from such traditions?
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 12:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Trumble
They don't change the meaning of the spiritual message. The perception that they might is a purely muslim one, based on the falacy that the Bible is supposed to be the literal, unchanged word of God in the same way the Qur'an is supposed to be. But it is not, or at least very few Christians now believe it is. Wesley is dead, and the rest can defend their own corner. It is a series of separate works written by different people, some of which reflect previous oral traditions, across a very long period of time. Of course such 'errors' and 'contradictions' will occur.

But how big an army was, or what the centurion might have said, or even the precise words Jesus might have used simply do not matter. Nobody has to decide which is 'true' and which is not. Even to this non-Christian, the message of the New Testament (I am much less familiar with the old) is clear. It's yet another argument that is a 'killer' for muslims but irrelevant to the intended target. It only works if you already believe that the Qur'an is the direct word of God. Christians do not; if they did they would be muslims!


there we go again !!
My friend, all you know about Jesus comes from Scripture. The validity of Jesus depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.
how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination." (Does Errancy Matter by James Boice, page 24)

It is crystal clear for me that the posts of non muslims in such topic (Bible contradictions)are negative, and they repeat themselves with the straw ('errors' and 'contradictions' doesn't matter)!!!
so from now and on I will reply only to the positive,direct posts that relate only to the topic(clearing up Bible contradictions).
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 12:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
I think this discussion is rather fruitful....for me. I apologize if my questions seem repetitive or annoying. I am only asking so I may understand Islam, and my questions do get rather specific, I know. I apologize if this causes offense. I do not intend to offend.
Greetings Dear Don,
sorry actually the post you read and I mentioned your name was for keltoi .your questions not annoying for us and it seems that you are a descent person....
the post you read with your name was a comment on the reply Keltoi as He tried to clear up the contradiction between Matthew 28:1.10 and John 20:1.3
I showed him that his scenario of harmonization the resurrection narratives was a pure conjecture based on nothing in the text.
Hope you join us in such discussion.! and hope all the friends here join us .just letting the straw (contradictions doesn't matter) and try to be more serious and positive.

look for the contradiction in my previous posts.
Reply

Woodrow
03-20-2007, 01:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Greetings Woodrow. I think I see your point, though I will continue to examine the contradictions provided above. I hope this question does not try your patience. Can you summarize, list, or point me to a listing of the truths you refer to that have been verified and where they can be found?
Hello again Don, Slowly hunting down the various proofs I have saved in different places.

Here is a starter. Some early Prophecies that were very clear and known to have come to pass.

1 - The prophecy about the victory of the Romans:

The Almighty Allah, subhanahu wa ta`ala, says:

"The Romans have been defeated. In the nearest land [Syria, Iraq, Jordan and Palestine], and they, after their defeat, will be victorious. Within three to nine years. The decision of the matter, before and after [these events] is only Allah's [before the defeat of the Romans by the Persians, and after the defeat of the Persians by the Romans]..." [Qur'an, 30:2-4]

Seven years later this prophecy became true, and the Romans defeated the Persians.

2 - Prophecy that both al Waleed ibn al Mugheerah and Abu Lahab would die as disbelievers

The Almighty Allah, subhanahu wa ta`ala, says about al Waleed:

"Leave Me alone [to deal] with whom I created lonely [without any wealth or children, i.e. Al Walid ibn Al Mughirah al Makhzumi]. And then granted him resources in abundance. And children to be by his side. And made life smooth and comfortable for him. After all that he desires that I should give more; Nay! Verily, he has been opposing Our Ayat [proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations]. I shall oblige him to [climb a slippery mountain in the Hell-fire called As-Sa`ud, or] face a severe torment! Verily, he thought and plotted. So let him be cursed: how he plotted! And once more let him be cursed: how he plotted! Then he thought. Then he frowned and he looked in a bad tempered way; then he turned back, and was proud. Then he said: "This is nothing but magic from that of old. This is nothing but the word of a human being!" I will cast him into Hell-fire. And what will make you know [exactly] what Hell-fire is? It spares not [any sinner], nor does it leave [anything unburned]!" [Qur'an 74:11-18]

And about Abu Lahab, He, subhanahu wa ta`ala, says:

"Perish the two hands of Abu Lahab [an uncle of the Prophet] and perish he! His wealth and his children will not benefit him! He will be burnt in a Fire of blazing flames!" [Qur'an, 111:1-3]

3 - His prophecy of coming back to Makkah which he left for Madinah. The Almighty Allah, `azza wa jall, says:

"Verily, He Who has given you [O Muhammad] the Qur'an [i.e. ordered you to act on its laws and to preach it to others] will surely bring you back to Ma`ad [place of return, either to Makkah or to Paradise after your death]..." [Qur'an 28:85]

And the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam returned to Makkah in the year of the conquest.

4 - The prophecy telling that the Prophet, sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam, and the Muslims would enter Makkah in security:

"...Certainly, you shall enter Al Masjid al Haram, if Allah wills, secure, [some] having your heads shaved, and [some] having your head hair cut short, having no fear..." [Qur'an, 48:27]

This prophecy became true and the Muslims conquered Makkah and entered al Masjid al Haram in complete security.

Rather then risk running this thread off topic I would like to add this question/answer dialog here. I found this to be quite convincing.


[/QUOTQ543 :Would you kindly explain Verse 45 of Surah 24 and Verse 30 of Surah 21 and Verse 54 of Surah 25. In the translation of all these verses the translator, Mr. Yousuf Ali, suggests that Allah is telling us that He has created all living things from water. The phrase "from water" has left me confused. Why does not the Qur'an uses a phrase such as "made of water" or "contains mostly water," which are more scientifically accurate.
A543 : This is simply a linguistic question, Mr. Yusuf Ali's translation has many virtues, though at times he can be too literal, as in this case. He uses the preposition "from" simply because it is the one used in the Arabic text. I admit that I have never found the Arabic text confusing because the preposition used in all these verses simply implies a reference to the original substance used in the creation of the animal kingdom. In English, perhaps, the preposition "from" is not particularly useful in this context. I have looked these verses up in other translations I use. Before I explain how they render these verses, I would like to say that although there are about 20 different English translations of the Qur'an, none of them is free of defects. Each has its own merit, but there is hardly one which can be recommended without reservations. In Mr. Pickthall's translation, we find the first of these verses (21:30) rendered as "We made every living thing of water." The same phrase, "of water", is used in the verse in Surah 24, while the verse in Surah 25 is rendered as: "He it is who hath created man from water". In Mr. N.J. Dawood's translation, published by Penguin, the phrase "of water" is used in the first of the three verses while, "from water" is used in the other two. This is a little surprising because Mr. Dawood's translation is far from literal. In Mr. Muhammad Asad's translation, the second of these verses (24:25) is rendered as follows: "It is God who has created all animals out of water." The phrase, "out of water", is retained in the other two verses. The same phrase "out of water" is used in the rendering of all three verses by Dr. Thomas Irving, whose translation is the first by an American. Mr. Asad's and Dr. Irving's are two of the most recent translations. Mr. Asad's was published in 1980, while Dr. Irving's in 1985. I hope that what I have mentioned about the different translations is sufficient to clear the confusion which you have felt to arise from the rendering of these verses in English. As you see, it is the translator's preference in each case which influences his rendering. Perhaps a few additional words are needed here to explain the meaning of these verses. From the first of these verses, we understand that "Allah has made every living thing out of water". This is a very important truism which tells us that water is the origin of all life. The Qur'an has revealed 14 centuries ago, when no human being even remotely linked the origin of life with water. Today, we accept this fact easily because we know that water is the predominant element in all living creatures. Moreover, it is the environment in which life originated. Scientists did not discover that until recently. But the fact that this is now admitted by science is no reason to make us more convinced of the truth of the Qur'an. Because even if science did not have anything to say on the subject, we would still accept Allah's statement as absolutely true and irrefutable. When the Qur'an refers to something on which scientists hold specific views, we do not look for an endorsement of the Qur'anic statement by human science. The truthfulness of the Qur'an is not subject to proof by science or scientists. If we hear today of a scientific discovery which confirm what is mentioned in the Qur'an, we are not overjoyed. The point is that we must not look for a scientific proof for the validity of the Qur'anic statements. Everything mentioned in the Qur'an is true, although it may contradict the findings of human knowledge. This is due to the fact that scientific findings are never final. Scientists disprove today what they held to be true for a long period of time. Moreover, the Qur'anic statement may have to be interpreted in a particular way to bring it in line with the scientific discovery. If scientists disprove tomorrow what they have discovered today, we would need to change our interpretation of that Qur'anic verse in order to bring it in line with the new discovery. Such an approach to the Qur'an is demeaning. The Qur'an is not a book of science, but it has some references to certain scientific aspects in order to endorse the thrust of its argument in support of the Oneness of Allah and of His being the Supreme Lord in the universe. The Qur'an is a book of faith and it is in support of the principles of faith that it refers to some aspects of Allah's creation. That should be our approach to the Qur'an.


Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 01:35 PM
Ok, so let me ask, if mistakes have found their way into the Bible, as I understand you to have said, what gives you certainty, or reliability that the true picture of Jesus has been produced within the Biblical Scripture?
The short answer is faith, the same as your belief that the Quran is the literal Word of God.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 02:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
The short answer is faith, the same as your belief that the Quran is the literal Word of God.
My friend .you rather mean Blind faith.....

1- Accepting historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained in the Bible by Faith is a blind faith....
Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable. I provided just one evidence the Bible fails this test(the gross contradiction in the resurrection narrative). Instead of proving my evidence to be false or invalid, instead of proving the Book to be true, valid and inerrant, you merely assume as much and proceeded to quote at will. Don't you believe the Bible when it says, "Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12) or "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then...open to reason,..." (James 3:17). What have you proved? Where is your reasoning? The Bible says, "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you;..." (1 Peter 3:15). Where is your defense? Mere assertions prove nothing.

2-Muslims don't accept the Quran only by faith .Islam is a religion based on observation, contemplation and analysis as well as logic and reason. Observation does not mean seeing an object only. It also means, “look and see and understand.”

The Qur'an states about those who do not use their intellect: "They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattles--nay, they are in worse error: for they are heedless." [7:179].

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs [ayath] for people of understanding and intellect." [3:190].

"Here is a book which We have sent down to you, full of blessings, that you may meditate and reflect on its signs (ayaths), and that people of understanding may receive admonition." [38:29.


Still waiting for your defense regarding the question of the Resurrection.
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 02:12 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
My friend .you rather mean Blind faith.....

1- Accepting historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties contained in the Bible by Faith is a blind faith....
Quoting from a work is fruitless unless you first prove the book is valid, truthful and reliable. I provided just one evidence the Bible fails this test(the gross contradiction in the resurrection narrative). Instead of proving my evidence to be false or invalid, instead of proving the Book to be true, valid and inerrant, you merely assume as much and proceeded to quote at will. Don't you believe the Bible when it says, "Prove all things..." (1 Thess. 5:12) or "But the wisdom from above is first pure, then...open to reason,..." (James 3:17). What have you proved? Where is your reasoning? The Bible says, "Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you;..." (1 Peter 3:15). Where is your defense? Mere assertions prove nothing.

2-Muslims don't accept the Quran only by faith .Islam is a religion based on observation, contemplation and analysis as well as logic and reason. Observation does not mean seeing an object only. It also means, “look and see and understand.”

The Qur'an states about those who do not use their intellect: "They have hearts wherewith they understand not, eyes wherewith they see not, and ears wherewith they hear not. They are like cattles--nay, they are in worse error: for they are heedless." [7:179].

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and earth, and in the alternation of night and day, there are signs [ayath] for people of understanding and intellect." [3:190].

"Here is a book which We have sent down to you, full of blessings, that you may meditate and reflect on its signs (ayaths), and that people of understanding may receive admonition." [38:29.


Still waiting for your defense regarding the question of the Resurrection.
I've already posted my understanding of the Resurrection narrative, which is that the event was explored by different authors coming from different perspectives. There is no contradiction there.

As for all the supposed contradictions in geography and science and whatever else you stated, that is hard to reply to unless I have actual examples of these supposed contradictions.

Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal Word of God, that their Holy Book must be free from contradiction because it is perfect, like God. Christians make no such claim in regards to the Bible, as it is obviously written by the hand and mind of man, divinely inspired, but still the work of man. Unless we can come to that agreement in terms, we won't get anywhere. That is why minor errors and contradictions aren't that important to Christians, as long as the Message and the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is preserved, which it is. We as Christians know what is expected of us, and how we are to achieve eternal salvation with God.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 02:42 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Woodrow
Perhaps a few additional words are needed here to explain the meaning of these verses. From the first of these verses, we understand that "Allah has made every living thing out of water". This is a very important truism which tells us that water is the origin of all life. The Qur'an has revealed 14 centuries ago, when no human being even remotely linked the origin of life with water. Today, we accept this fact easily because we know that water is the predominant element in all living creatures. Moreover, it is the environment in which life originated. Scientists did not discover that until recently.

If this is the sort of science that "proves" the Qur'an, I think you better stay away from science.

All life on this earth is carbon based. Water is a compound of hydrogen and water. It is one thing to say that all life needs water (which by the way it doesn't, there is life living in sulfur springs that live in pure acid), but quite another to say that water is the origin of all life. So I think your understanding of the science (or at least the way I understood you to express it here) is a just a tad off the mark. If these verses in the Qur'an are to be understood as indicating knowledge of something that is not true, then be careful what you imply it says about the Qur'an, you may not want to go there.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 02:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi

Muslims believe that the Quran is the literal Word of God, that their Holy Book must be free from contradiction because it is perfect, like God. Christians make no such claim in regards to the Bible, as it is obviously written by the hand and mind of man, divinely inspired, but still the work of man. Unless we can come to that agreement in terms, we won't get anywhere. That is why minor errors and contradictions aren't that important to Christians, as long as the Message and the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is preserved, which it is. We as Christians know what is expected of us, and how we are to achieve eternal salvation with God.

My friend, with all due respect, if there is any verse in the Bible you and those of like mind should commit to memory it is Proverb 14:15, which says, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."


As for all the supposed contradictions in geography and science and whatever else you stated, that is hard to reply to unless I have actual examples of these supposed contradictions.

I'm not supposed to provide you with other biblical flaws till you react with my first question regarding Matthew 28:1.10 and John 20:1.3.

I've already posted my understanding of the Resurrection narrative, which is that the event was explored by different authors coming from different perspectives. There is no contradiction there.

for your benefit I will repeat my Question:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb Matthew 28:1.10,
why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1.3.

you claimed that the Message and the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is preserved and my question highlights the most important narrative in the whole New testament .
since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God)(I Corinthians 15:14-15)

the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is wholly without merit till you try to to clear up such gross contradiction that proves the Gospel writers to be untrusworthy and decievers.
Either to answer such specific question or I will let you enjoy one sided conversation
Reply

جوري
03-20-2007, 02:52 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If this is the sort of science that "proves" the Qur'an, I think you better stay away from science.

All life on this earth is carbon based. Water is a compound of hydrogen and water. It is one thing to say that all life needs water (which by the way it doesn't, there is life living in sulfur springs that live in pure acid), but quite another to say that water is the origin of all life. So I think your understanding of the science (or at least the way I understood you to express it here) is a just a tad off the mark. If these verses in the Qur'an are to be understood as indicating knowledge of something that is not true, then be careful what you imply it says about the Qur'an, you may not want to go there.
In order for such creatures to "survive" in an acidic environment the "acid" has to give up its proton in a solution of water... so yes-- in order for such life to survive in an acid environment it would still be very much contingent on the presence of water... "An acid (often represented by the generic formula AH) is typically a water-soluble, sour-tasting chemical compound. In common usage an acid is any substance that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a pH of less than 7. In general scientific usage an acid is a molecule or ion that is able to give up a proton (H+ ion) to a base, or accept an unshared pair of electrons from a base. An acid reacts with a base in a neutralization reaction to form a salt."--- so what can I say at the bottom of all life is in fact water......
peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 03:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
First I'd just like to focous on something, the part 'or even the precise words Jesus might have used simply do not matter' well, I know alot of Christians who would disagree, why? Because they take words or phrases and expound on them themselfs, they ask 'why did Jesus use these exact words?...I'll tell you why' and how many a sermons have I heard like this!
Yes, this is true. There are many sermons so based. There are also preachers who have used the Bible to justify slavery and all sorts of other ills. The foolishness of the expositor should reflect only on that one giving the sermon, not the source of it.

Of course, there are appropriate times to do a word study, but when doing so, one doesn't take a word in isolation, but in the context of the whole of scripture.




As for whether mistakes can change the message, even if I agree that they cannot, it would at least show that there is error, and how would a man then have pure certainty that the message has been preserved?
I agree wholeheartedly. That is why my Greek New Testament lists all of the variant readings for every passage where they occur. It tells the sources of each of those variant readings and gives the degree of reliability which can be resonably be assigned to any given reading.

So, would a man have pure certainty? No.
And those who understand textual criticism not only know this but readily admit it and are able in a very scientific way to compensate for it. You have this same thing in Islam with respect to confidence levels you place in the various hadiths of the prophet.

Pure certainty doesn't exist once you leave the person who first shared the message. There is no way of knowing with pure certainty, even when you have the right word, if the audience is receiving it in the same way that the speaker/writer intended it to be received without a feedback loop, and none is available in scripture (whether Christian or Islamic), except that Christians do also believe we are led in our understanding of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit as to how to interpret it and apply it to our lives.



If they were working from Oral Tradition how would we be sure that they picked the truth from it and left the falsehood from such traditions?
Careful. I want to suggest to you that Islam also has an oral tradition, though I am sure you do not recognize it.

Consider this. What makes something an oral tradition? An oral tradition is wnen one hears a message and then passes it on to another before the message is written down. Now is this not exactly what occured with the Qur'an? Now, I know that you will say that it was checked and verified, but by whom was it checked and verified? Unless the original author of the message verified it, it isn't truly verified. And as I have been told many times, the author of the Qur'an is not Muhammad (pbuh), but Allah (swt). Did
Allah (swt) read and verify the Qur'an? Maybe so, but I have not heard that part of the story in the accounts I have read regarding the origin of the Qur'an. Verification woudl be Allah (swt) directly telling those who wrote it down on paper that it was true, to have it verified through some other source it becomes hearsay, not verification.


Ok, so let me ask, if mistakes have found their way into the Bible, as I understand you to have said, what gives you certainty, or reliability that the true picture of Jesus has been produced within the Biblical Scripture?
I saved this for last, for it is the part I really wanted to respond to the most.

If all we had was one person's story and that was it, with no ability to cross check it, then the confidence level would go down significantly. But that is not the case. We have 4 gospel accounts. We have the testimony of Peter, James, John, and Paul in various letters. We have the existence of the early church in which all of this message was shared and their ability to testify to its veracity or lack thereof. And, scant though it may be, we have some testimony from non-Christians as to a couple of details of Jesus' life and significantly more about the beliefs and practices of the earliest of those who were followers of Christ. This comes from Jews, Greeks and Romans. When all these are taken together, it presents a very coherent picture of Jesus and his message -- one I believe we can take great confidence in.

Now, another consideration, should one accept a message that has any element in it that is not 100% true? Well, first, I know of no message that is not open to more than one interpretation. I hold that to be true of the message of Islam also, if it were not so, there would not be both Sunni and Shi'a. And there would not be all of the various schools of Hannabi and others within Sunni Islam. But of course difference of interpretation and differences in telling what actually occurred are not the same thing, and I don't mean to say that they are.

Yet, different stories do not mean that one is lying. Indeed, I would suggest that even the truth is relative. I think today, post Einstein, we all understand the concepts of relativity. If one was to board a beam of light on the surface of the sun at noon exactly and take it to the earth, it would take 4 minutes for it to reach the Earth. If one then asked what time it was of an Earth based observer, that individual would say it was noon exactly, and the individual on the beam of light would also say the same thing, even though 4 minutes had passed. If the individual rode the beam of light from Earth to Mars, it would take another 8 minutes. Again the individual on the beam of light and the Mars based observer would say that it was noon exactly when the light arrived at Mars. But the earth based observer would say it was 8 minutes after noon. And yet one standing apart from it all would know that 12 minutes had past since that light was boarded at exactly 12 noon. Which one is telling the truth? Answer-- they all are. The difference is their relative points of observation. So the question has to be asked, relative to what point of reference is this statement true.

In the same way, context is important to understanding scripture. Often we think of context only as regards how we understand a passage. But context may also impact what the writers of scripture understood regarding the revelation of God relative to their limited abilty to perceive God.

I think of small children. While we all know that children have a tendancy to exaggerate and one has to be very careful with children's stories in searching for the truth. It happens to also be the case that very young children rarely just out and out lie. They are terrible liars because they don't have enough experience to make up a story. (Let them become teenagers first. :-[ ) But young children are also prone to magical thinking. So if a group of young children observed something, you may have a whole collection of very interesting stories, none of whom have it exactly right if we had been there to observe the event. Yet, listen to their stories and you will find the truth admist all the fanciful tales.

I think of the Israelite children in much the same vein. They were immature in their knowledge of God. But as God revealed God's self to them they related to it and recorded their experience from their perspective. If they went to battle and failed, and they knew that they still had some altars to Baal that had not been torn down, in their magical thinking they made the connection between these two events. If they then tore down the altars and went with more confidence into the next battle and won, this confirmed their way of thinking. Was it true? From their position, Yes it was. Would it have been true from some other vantage point? I don't think we can say today. From my vantage point with a faith that is also informed (in my opinion) more fully by the message of Jesus Christ, I think that perhaps some of the views of God expressed in the story of Israel are not quite fully formed. That does not make it false or wrong any more than the stories told by a group of children would be wrong. I for one let the revelation of God in Jesus Christ inform my reading of the Old Testament.

And I must also admit that even the stories regarding Jesus as found in the New Testament are subject to this possibility. Though I believe a complete revelation of God to have occured in the life and person of Jesus, those who recorded it were still imperfect human beings. And though inspired, they were not dictated to and thus they also bring their own particular bents to the writing process. I accept this and rather than being thrown off by the diverse ways in which the story is told, I embrace it and find in the whole something much richer than if we had one telling alone.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 04:04 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
In order for such creatures to "survive" in an acidic environment the "acid" has to give up its proton in a solution of water... so yes-- in order for such life to survive in an acid environment it would still be very much contingent on the presence of water... "An acid (often represented by the generic formula AH) is typically a water-soluble, sour-tasting chemical compound. In common usage an acid is any substance that, when dissolved in water, gives a solution with a pH of less than 7. In general scientific usage an acid is a molecule or ion that is able to give up a proton (H+ ion) to a base, or accept an unshared pair of electrons from a base. An acid reacts with a base in a neutralization reaction to form a salt."--- so what can I say at the bottom of all life is in fact water......
peace
Fine, you passed chemistry, and not just 101, but even 201. Chemistry was my worst class in school. Nonetheless those comments were directed toward something that was only a parenthical statement. The larger point of my post being that life is carbon based.

If all you mean is that creatures need water to survive, it didn't take modern science to tell desert dwellers that obvious bit of information.
Reply

جوري
03-20-2007, 04:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Fine, you passed chemistry, and not just 101, but even 201. Chemistry was my worst class in school. Nonetheless those comments were directed toward something that was only a parenthical statement. The larger point of my post being that life is carbon based.
In no way are my comments made to make you feel deficient in your knowledge... and if it makes you feel any better in my under-grad organic chemistry was the death of me... However, and I really have to bring this up what do you think it means that life is carbon based? can carbon exist independent of other elements? can you have carbon attached to carbon with no hydrogen or oxygen or nitrogen? what I mean is can you have this (ccccc)? of course not... so yes Carbon can loan itself to attachment from four sites.. but it isn't by itself the (basis of life)-- we are going to encroach upon philosophical from here on forward and I prefer not to get into this--- and will end by quoting this from the Quran..
هُوَ الَّذِيَ أَنزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُّحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ في قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاء الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاء تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلاَّ اللّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِّنْ عِندِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلاَّ أُوْلُواْ الألْبَابِ {7}

[Pickthal 3:7] He it is Who hath revealed unto thee the Scripture wherein are clear revelations - they are the substance of the Book - and others (which are) allegorical. But those in whose hearts is doubt pursue, forsooth, that which is allegorical seeking (to cause) dissension by seeking to explain it. None knoweth its explanation save Allah. And those who are of sound instruction say: We believe therein; the whole is from our Lord; but only men of understanding really heed.

peace :w:
Reply

don532
03-20-2007, 04:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Greetings Dear Don,
sorry actually the post you read and I mentioned your name was for keltoi .your questions not annoying for us and it seems that you are a descent person....
the post you read with your name was a comment on the reply Keltoi as He tried to clear up the contradiction between Matthew 28:1.10 and John 20:1.3
I showed him that his scenario of harmonization the resurrection narratives was a pure conjecture based on nothing in the text.
Hope you join us in such discussion.! and hope all the friends here join us .just letting the straw (contradictions doesn't matter) and try to be more serious and positive.

look for the contradiction in my previous posts.
Thank you. I did go back and read your posts.
I have learned here that I should not take one or two verses from the Qur'an and try to use them to show a contradiction until I first search the Qur'an because some verses are explained by other verses in other parts of the Qur'an. I think I have learned respect for the Qur'an, and some patience with that lesson. I think I was speaking too soon and seeming foolish.

Respectfully, I thought the approach Keltoi took with his explanation of the apparently conflicting events of the resurrection was the same as the lesson I learned here about the Qur'an. One verse in each of two gospels seem to conflict. The meaning and timeline was were fully explained by examining the whole story as represented by the examination of all four gospels.

I know from the Muslim perspective the whole tale of the resurrection is false, and I respect that position, but was not Keltoi's logic the same as I should apply when studying the Qur'an?

Do I make some sense, or am I once again down the wrong path?
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532

I know from the Muslim perspective the whole tale of the resurrection is false, and I respect that position, but was not Keltoi's logic the same as I should apply when studying the Qur'an?
The method used is I think exactly what should be used for Quran or Hadith.

Whether That method worked for the scripture Keltoi used it for, thats a different discussion.
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 04:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yes, this is true. There are many sermons so based. There are also preachers who have used the Bible to justify slavery and all sorts of other ills. The foolishness of the expositor should reflect only on that one giving the sermon, not the source of it.
So are you saying it would be wrong then for someone to take a passage and base and expound a sermon on that passage alone?

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Of course, there are appropriate times to do a word study, but when doing so, one doesn't take a word in isolation, but in the context of the whole of scripture.

Well, the effectiveness of such a study would be interesting.



format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I agree wholeheartedly. That is why my Greek New Testament lists all of the variant readings for every passage where they occur. It tells the sources of each of those variant readings and gives the degree of reliability which can be resonably be assigned to any given reading.
Yes, but that will only identify the variants that have been found, the later the variant the easier to identify, but I was referring to the time when the message was first written, how would we know that the writer had himself recieved a perserved message and that he himself had preserved it.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, would a man have pure certainty? No.
And those who understand textual criticism not only know this but readily admit it and are able in a very scientific way to compensate for it. You have this same thing in Islam with respect to confidence levels you place in the various hadiths of the prophet.

Pure certainty doesn't exist once you leave the person who first shared the message. There is no way of knowing with pure certainty, even when you have the right word, if the audience is receiving it in the same way that the speaker/writer intended it to be received without a feedback loop, and none is available in scripture (whether Christian or Islamic), except that Christians do also believe we are led in our understanding of scripture by the power of the Holy Spirit as to how to interpret it and apply it to our lives.
Maybe my use of 'pure certainty' was misused or misunderstood. I do not refer to pure certainty like having a video of Jesus or Muhammad, peace be upon them both, but what I mean, was, given the circumstances, logical and not only that but probable and a likely hood that the text is what it is itself claiming to be or what others have claimed it to be.


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Careful. I want to suggest to you that Islam also has an oral tradition, though I am sure you do not recognize it.

I am not quite sure why you feel I wouldn't recognise it, I recognise it quite, well. I have nothing against Oral Tradition.


format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Consider this. What makes something an oral tradition? An oral tradition is wnen one hears a message and then passes it on to another before the message is written down. Now is this not exactly what occured with the Qur'an?
Actually, in short, no. The key point which is different is the '..before the message is written down', the Qu'ran was written down.

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Now, I know that you will say that it was checked and verified, but by whom was it checked and verified? Unless the original author of the message verified it, it isn't truly verified. And as I have been told many times, the author of the Qur'an is not Muhammad (pbuh), but Allah (swt). Did
Allah (swt) read and verify the Qur'an? Maybe so, but I have not heard that part of the story in the accounts I have read regarding the origin of the Qur'an. Verification woudl be Allah (swt) directly telling those who wrote it down on paper that it was true, to have it verified through some other source it becomes hearsay, not verification.

Well, firstly, if we agree that Allah is author, then if Allah gives someone authority then we should be happy with that authority. In the Qu'ran authority was given to Muhammad, peace be upon him. Did Muhammad check the Qu'ran, yes.



format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I saved this for last, for it is the part I really wanted to respond to the most.

If all we had was one person's story and that was it, with no ability to cross check it, then the confidence level would go down significantly. But that is not the case. We have 4 gospel accounts. We have the testimony of Peter, James, John, and Paul in various letters. We have the existence of the early church in which all of this message was shared and their ability to testify to its veracity or lack thereof. And, scant though it may be, we have some testimony from non-Christians as to a couple of details of Jesus' life and significantly more about the beliefs and practices of the earliest of those who were followers of Christ. This comes from Jews, Greeks and Romans. When all these are taken together, it presents a very coherent picture of Jesus and his message -- one I believe we can take great confidence in.
Well, the 4 Gospels alone are interesting. Let us ask, why do we have these four Gospels? How many else were there? And what did they contain, why were these chosen to be canonised? It could be that the people thought they were good, or maybe the people had their own idea of what Jesus should be like and these Gospels showed him like this the most. But even so, we have four Gospels, 3 of them, are similar, some say 2 copied from 1 in most cases, and then added other things on, noone of those say I saw this or I heard this, to my knowledge, more about these later. THen we have the Gospel of John, which is abit different according to others, later Gospel, records key things that others didnt, shows Jesus is a different way, could this be just someone writing what they have heard, or someone over zealous and eager to promote his faith?

format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Yet, different stories do not mean that one is lying. Indeed, I would suggest that even the truth is relative.
Of course, contradictory stories would mean someone is lying, different stories do not neccesitate a lie. But when the differences are found to emphesise something and are consistant then lying is more than being indicated.

To recapp, I do not ask for a video of Jesus, I ask, is it probable, that out of the confusion of Oral Tradition, the vast stories and tales, the zeal of writers and scribes the evidence of changes without thinking twice that Jesus' image was changed?
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 05:23 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I understand that there are many, both Christians and non-Christians who expect something called the word of God to be inerrant. But I do not, and I have no problem with that. Some of the errors are simple scribal or copist errors. How are these dealt with, well just as Islam has a science for ascertaining the veracity of hadiths, so too does Christianity have a science -- it's called textual criticism -- by which is evaluates variant readings to ascertain the most likely original manuscript. Can we be 100% certain they have it right? No, we cannot. Can we be certain enough to know that we have the basic message that was intended? Yes we can. Also, as a rule of interpretation and application of scripture, I always caution people never to come up with some criticial point of theology on the basis of one isolated text. The Bible repeats the same message regarding God over and over again throughout its pages. So, when we hear the same basic message given that often from that many different source writers, we develop a great deal of confidence in it. Great indeed I would say, than I would have in the ability of one man to be given a message from God, and remember it to recite to others later and not have perhaps left something out. How would anyone who didn't hear the message themselves know whether what was recited was what was originally given? They have no way to know that a mistake wasn't made, perhaps a whole section forgotten, and never recorded.


Away from the old straw(copiest errors)which i exposed and refuted in my previous posts , your claim that Biblical textual criticism is just as the same as Hadiths science ,shows your total ignorance of such Islamic branch of study.
1-Muslims consider hadiths as clarifications of the Qur'an, Hadiths can by no mean be considered as sacred or inspired as the Bible(the word of God) is supposed to be.only the Quran that considered to be inspired and 100% error free.
2- Your claim that (The Bible repeats the same message regarding God over and over again throughout its pages) is utterly without merit in the light of the great deal of basic concepts and issues that both the old and new testament disagree for example:
they totally clash in the concepts of:
The Trinity,incarnation,nature and role of the promised messiah,keeping the law ,The Devil,Original Sin etc.......

Just one concept to show you:

the promised messiah according to the old testament,what he will do, and what will be done during his reign:

The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)

The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)
Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot

according to the New testament Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.

After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

The Gospel writers instead of showing How could Jesus fulfilled the old testament Messianic Predictions , they invented imaginary prophecies, In their never-ending quest for religious legitimacy and status, they have not hesitated to twist, distort, pervert, and concoct OT verses as expediency dictated for purposes of indoctrination.

so claiming that the Bible(old and new testmants) repeats the same message is a pure christian propagandestic deception.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 05:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb Matthew 28:1.10,
why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1.3.

you claimed that the Message and the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is preserved and my question highlights the most important narrative in the whole New testament .
since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God)(I Corinthians 15:14-15)

the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is wholly without merit till you try to to clear up such gross contradiction that proves the Gospel writers to be untrusworthy and decievers.
Either to answer such specific question or I will let you enjoy one sided conversation

Mary did NOT see and touch Jesus before leaving the tomb and going to get the disciples. She left the tomb afraid, and probably not fully understanding, and so went to the disciples still thinking the worst. It wasn't till she returned with them and met Jesus at the tomb that she understood that Jesus wasn't just not there, but actually risen.

But I have to appreciate that you have focused on the core of Christian teaching. Actually, of bigger concern to me is Mark's account (16:8) "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Even this I think can be harmonized with the other accounts:


1) Mary goes the tomb with the other women and discovers it empty. (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-3, John 20:1-2)

2) An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8, not in John)

3) They leave with some of the women scared to say anything, but Mary goes and tells the disciples (Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9-11, not in John; also implied in Luke 24:23)

4) Mary returns with the disciples Peter and John to the tomb (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:3-9)

5) Peter and John leave the tomb and return to the other disciples (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:10)

6) Jesus appears to Mary (not in Matthew, Mark 16:9, not in Luke, John 20:11-17)

7) Mary returns to tell the disciples that she has seen the risen Lord (not in Matthew, Mark 16:10-11, not in Luke, John 20:18)

8) Jesus appears to the other women who had run from the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10, not in Mark, not in Luke, not in John)

9) Jesus appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (not in Matthew, Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-35, not in John)

10) Jesus appears to the disicples in the Upper Room (not in Matthew, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23)
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 05:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
My friend, with all due respect, if there is any verse in the Bible you and those of like mind should commit to memory it is Proverb 14:15, which says, "The simple believeth every word: but the prudent man looketh well to his going."


As for all the supposed contradictions in geography and science and whatever else you stated, that is hard to reply to unless I have actual examples of these supposed contradictions.

I'm not supposed to provide you with other biblical flaws till you react with my first question regarding Matthew 28:1.10 and John 20:1.3.

I've already posted my understanding of the Resurrection narrative, which is that the event was explored by different authors coming from different perspectives. There is no contradiction there.

for your benefit I will repeat my Question:

If Mary Magdalene had been told by an angel that Jesus had risen and if she had even seen Jesus and touched him after leaving the tomb Matthew 28:1.10,
why did she go tell Peter that the body of Jesus had been stolen?John 20:1.3.

you claimed that the Message and the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is preserved and my question highlights the most important narrative in the whole New testament .
since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God)(I Corinthians 15:14-15)

the promise of salvation delivered by Jesus Christ is wholly without merit till you try to to clear up such gross contradiction that proves the Gospel writers to be untrusworthy and decievers.
Either to answer such specific question or I will let you enjoy one sided conversation
As I stated in the prior post, Mary Magdalene ran back to the apostles as soon as she saw the stone had been rolled away. Therefore, when Matthew 28:9 records Jesus meeting them, she was not there. In fact, we understand from Mark 16:9 that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, which was after she, Peter and John had returned to the tomb the first time (John 20:1-18). Here, we see that Peter and John saw the tomb and went home, leaving Mary weeping by the entrance. From here, she saw the two angels inside the tomb and then met Jesus himself.

As all this happened before Jesus appeared to the other women, it appears that there was some delay in them reaching the apostles. We may understand what happened by comparing the complementary accounts. Matthew 28:8 tells us that the women (Mary the mother of James and Salome) ran away 'afraid yet filled with joy...to tell his disciples'. It appears that their fear initially got the better of them, for they 'said nothing to anyone' (Mark 16:8). It was at this time that Jesus suddenly met them (Matthew 28:9,10). Here, he calmed their fears and told them once more to go and tell the apostles

We are dealing with 4 accounts of the same event. All 4 accounts point to Christ's resurrection. Your point that Mary Magdalene believed the body to be stolen is correct, but that dismisses the full account of the resurrection as described by the apostles. Mary Magdalene believed the body to be stolen when the stone was rolled away, and she ran to tell the disciples. The others continued into the tomb and were met by an angel. Mary Magdalene returned to the tomb and that is when she see speaks to Jesus Christ. You are taking one element of the story without putting it into the context of the Resurrection narrative as a whole.
Reply

Woodrow
03-20-2007, 05:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
If this is the sort of science that "proves" the Qur'an, I think you better stay away from science.

All life on this earth is carbon based. Water is a compound of hydrogen and water. It is one thing to say that all life needs water (which by the way it doesn't, there is life living in sulfur springs that live in pure acid), but quite another to say that water is the origin of all life. So I think your understanding of the science (or at least the way I understood you to express it here) is a just a tad off the mark. If these verses in the Qur'an are to be understood as indicating knowledge of something that is not true, then be careful what you imply it says about the Qur'an, you may not want to go there.
Peace Gene,

You have made a very good and logical assumption. There are many life forms that require very little water and some animals, it would appear have no dependency at all upon water.

It is because that assumption is the logical finding and is very easily shown that until a person gets fairly deep into micro-biology does it become apparant that water is the main ingrediant of all life forms as we define life.

All Earthly living creatures as defined as life forms are cellular either multi or uni cellular, All cells have three things in common:

cell wall/membrane
Cytoplasm
nucleous


The cytoplasm forms the largest portion of the cell and cytoplasm is water, with some salts and various organic molecules either floating or dissolved in it.
Pure cytoplasm is nearly indistinguishable from Sea Water in chemical composistion

Even more interesting in all creatures that have sexual reproduction in all known cases of fertilization be it plant or animal water is the carrier media for the transportation of gametes. Even in plants where you have the transfer of dry air borne pollen. Once the pollen comes in contact with the stigma it is water that transfers it through the stylus to the ovary for contact with the ovule.

At the time of Muhammad(pbuh) and the fact that there had yet to be any microscopes, people would have no way to understand that all living creatures on earth are composed to a very large degree of water. Without knowledge of cellular structure the statement that animals are made out of water is rediculous. Yet every living creature is made of more water than any other substance.

So to me that is a very profound statement and is a scientific fact that could not have been known to the people of that era.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 05:40 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Away from the old straw(copiest errors)which i exposed and refuted in my previous posts , your claim that Biblical textual criticism is just as the same as Hadiths science ,shows your total ignorance of such Islamic branch of study.
1-Muslims consider hadiths as clarifications of the Qur'an, Hadiths can by no mean be considered as sacred or inspired as the Bible(the word of God) is supposed to be.only the Quran that considered to be inspired and 100% error free.
2- Your claim that (The Bible repeats the same message regarding God over and over again throughout its pages) is utterly without merit in the light of the great deal of basic concepts and issues that both the old and new testament disagree for example:
they totally clash in the concepts of:
The Trinity,incarnation,nature and role of the promised messiah,keeping the law ,The Devil,Original Sin etc.......

Just one concept to show you:

the promised messiah according to the old testament,what he will do, and what will be done during his reign:

The Sanhedrin will be re-established (Isaiah 1:26)

The whole world will worship the One God of Israel (Isaiah 2:17)
He will be descended from King David (Isaiah 11:1) via King Solomon (1 Chron. 22:8-10)
The Moshiach will be a man of this world, an observant Jew with "fear of God" (Isaiah 11:2)
Evil and tyranny will not be able to stand before his leadership (Isaiah 11:4)
All Israelites will be returned to their homeland (Isaiah 11:12)
Death will be swallowed up forever (Isaiah 25:8)
There will be no more hunger or illness, and death will cease (Isaiah 25:8)
All of the dead will rise again (Isaiah 26:19)
The Jewish people will experience eternal joy and gladness (Isaiah 51:11)
The ruined cities of Israel will be restored (Ezekiel 16:55)
Weapons of war will be destroyed (Ezekiel 39:9)
The Temple will be rebuilt (Ezekiel 40) resuming many of the suspended mitzvot

according to the New testament Jesus did not fulfill the qualifications for Jewish Messiah.

After Jesus' appearance, the Temple was destroyed, the Jews were exiled all over the world and we have not even had one day of peace in the past 2,000 years. (Many of the wars in fact were started and fought by followers of Jesus) These events are enough to show that he was not the messiah.

The Gospel writers instead of showing How could Jesus fulfilled the old testament Messianic Predictions , they invented imaginary prophecies, In their never-ending quest for religious legitimacy and status, they have not hesitated to twist, distort, pervert, and concoct OT verses as expediency dictated for purposes of indoctrination.

so claiming that the Bible(old and new testmants) repeats the same message is a pure christian propagandestic deception.
I thank you for the clarification regarding the authority of the hadiths. I indeed thought that they were taken at the same level of authority with the Qur'an. One of the reasons is a recent discussion I had with respect to the belief that music is haraam in Islam. As I understood it, that view came out of the hadith, not the Qur'an.

So, I am ignorant. I am also trying to learn. As to your ability to expose and refute others arguments, what does the Qur'an have to say about false pride? The Bible does repeat the same themes over and over again. To not see that is, in the words of Jesus, to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

And in saying that Jesus did not fulfill the the role of Messiah shows that you simply do not accept Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah. Whether it is because of ignorance or unbelief I do not know.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 05:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
So are you saying it would be wrong then for someone to take a passage and base and expound a sermon on that passage alone?
Sorry, I thought you were talking about people who preach a whole sermon around a simple little word. Preaching on one larger passage alone is indeed the standard way that most sermons are developed, mine included. I think the process of textual criticism I outlined above gives me the level of confidence you speak of short of having an actual video of the event. (Even then, we know how people we different things in video replays of sporting events.)


how would we know that the writer had himself recieved a perserved message and that he himself had preserved it.
Personally, I trust the integrity of the church more than you do. During the first generation, there were always others present who had been witnesses to Jesus' ministry. It is when that generation starts to die out that we find the gospels written -- I believe with the express purpose of preserving a record that they know no one will be around to not only share, but to correct if the story is change. In my opinion the transfer from communicating the gospel orally to having a written record occured before the loss of those who could cooberate or testify against what was written. I simply do not concur with those who hold for late dates for the writing of the gospels.

To recapp, I do not ask for a video of Jesus, I ask, is it probable, that out of the confusion of Oral Tradition, the vast stories and tales, the zeal of writers and scribes the evidence of changes without thinking twice that Jesus' image was changed?
And my answer is that it is admittedly possible, but I suspect it highly improbable.
Reply

Woodrow
03-20-2007, 05:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I thank you for the clarification regarding the authority of the hadiths. I indeed thought that they were taken at the same level of authority with the Qur'an. One of the reasons is a recent discussion I had with respect to the belief that music is haraam in Islam. As I understood it, that view came out of the hadith, not the Qur'an.

So, I am ignorant. I am also trying to learn. As to your ability to expose and refute others arguments, what does the Qur'an have to say about false pride? The Bible does repeat the same themes over and over again. To not see that is, in the words of Jesus, to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

And in saying that Jesus did not fulfill the the role of Messiah shows that you simply do not accept Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah. Whether it is because of ignorance or unbelief I do not know.
Peace,

Before you or others get mislead the highest level hadith do have a very similar level of authority as the Qur'an. The Hadith do have different levels of authority. The Authentic and highest level of Ahadith have no discrepancies with the Qur'an. A quick rule is at any time there seem to be a difference between hadith or Qur'an the Qur'an over rides the hadith.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 06:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Respectfully, I thought the approach Keltoi took with his explanation of the apparently conflicting events of the resurrection was the same as the lesson I learned here about the Qur'an. One verse in each of two gospels seem to conflict. The meaning and timeline was were fully explained by examining the whole story as represented by the examination of all four gospels.

I know from the Muslim perspective the whole tale of the resurrection is false, and I respect that position, but was not Keltoi's logic the same as I should apply when studying the Qur'an?

Do I make some sense, or am I once again down the wrong path?

Greetings Don,

"...but if the witnesses are inspired of God then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything, and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were not inspired...." Ingersoll's Works, Vol. 11, p. 295


Once inerrancy goes, once the Bible is shown to be fallible, then it's no more reliable or divine than any other book on the shelf.

If Matthew 28 :1.10 speaks truth(Mary Magdalena was told that Jesus came back to life and she met and touched him too), John 20:1.3(Mary M said that his body was stolen and know nothing about where is He) speaks falsehood; and if John speaks truth, Matthew speaks falsehood: and as there is no authority for believing one more than the other, there is no authority for believing either

What was the reason for John to totally contradicts Mathew Regarding Mary Magdalena ,if both of them were inspired by the same holy spirit?!!!!!
It is not a copiest error or numerical contradiction, it is a contradiction in The narratives describe events surrounding the most crucial episode in Christology

Did Mary Magdalena knew that Jesus was resurrected and touched him?
Matthew 28:1.10 (YES)
John,20:1 (NO)
If that is not a contradiction ,so what a contradiction is!!!

The narratives describe events surrounding the most crucial episode in Christology, the alleged resurrection, but they do not describe the event itself. The evangelists could not see the resurrection event from different perspectives since they did not personally witness the resurrection.

Truth is an uniform thing; and as to inspiration and revelation, were we to admit it, it is impossible to suppose it can be contradictory. Either then the men called apostles were imposters, or the books ascribed to them have been written by other persons, (USING A FALSE HEARSAY AS THEIR SOURCE) and fathered upon them.


Again anyone care to discuss it he is welcomed ...
thanx Don for your good intentions and for your care to seek the truth.
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 06:53 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Sorry, I thought you were talking about people who preach a whole sermon around a simple little word. Preaching on one larger passage alone is indeed the standard way that most sermons are developed, mine included. I think the process of textual criticism I outlined above gives me the level of confidence you speak of short of having an actual video of the event. (Even then, we know how people we different things in video replays of sporting events.)
With regards to the latter part of the statement, I don't know how you can conclude as such. You have pieces of writing of which the authors are not sure whom they are and also there is a history of adding and taking away from those scripture, the amount added and taken away cannot be known.

Your video could be of an edited, cut and pasted Jesus, or could be of a cut and pasted, edited interpretation of stories of Jesus, handed over by an unknown camera man.



format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Personally, I trust the integrity of the church more than you do. During the first generation, there were always others present who had been witnesses to Jesus' ministry. It is when that generation starts to die out that we find the gospels written -- I believe with the express purpose of preserving a record that they know no one will be around to not only share, but to correct if the story is change. In my opinion the transfer from communicating the gospel orally to having a written record occured before the loss of those who could cooberate or testify against what was written. I simply do not concur with those who hold for late dates for the writing of the gospels.

But even if the disciples passed on traditions, we still would have to wonder if the Gospels now are the ones that have recorded the right traditions. There were different views, different Gospels. Even if the Disciples did state the right case, how can you know that that statement was captured in the four now and not others?
Reply

Trumble
03-20-2007, 07:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
there we go again !!
My friend, all you know about Jesus comes from Scripture. The validity of Jesus depends upon the validity, reliability and accuracy of Scripture.
how do you know Jesus except as he is presented to you in the Bible? If the Bible is not God's Word and does not present a picture of Jesus Christ that can be trusted, how do you know it is the true Christ you are following? You may be worshipping a Christ of your own imagination."
Of course! Well, applied to Christians, anyway. Just as you worship an Allah of your own imagination. That doesn't change even when the words haven't.

Let me put it another way. Everything we know about the classical world is from sources with identical weaknesses (as is pretty much all we know about early Islamic history, come to that) Yet nobody disputes that Socrates took poison to end his life. Or that Alexander conquered the Persian Empire. Or Hannibal won at Cannae. But does it matter if Caesar ever said "veni, vidi, vice" or not? Nothing in Jesus' teachings as they are recorded seems to indicate a need to nit-pick regarding the precise words. As I said, the concern is a muslim one; nobody else is bothered.

It is crystal clear for me that the posts of non muslims in such topic (Bible contradictions)are negative, and they repeat themselves with the straw ('errors' and 'contradictions' doesn't matter)!!!
so from now and on I will reply only to the positive,direct posts that relate only to the topic(clearing up Bible contradictions).
That's up to you. I think it would be rather ridiculous to ignore people, or assume their contributions are 'negative', just because you disagree with them. I would have thought whether such Biblical 'contradictions' actually mattered or not was an essential consideration if the question is to be considered in terms of comparative religion rather than within a purely Islamic context. What may seem obvious to you may not, on occasion be obvious to others - and one reason for that just might be you who are wrong, or at least that you are unwilling to consider other perspectives on the same issue.

Look at it purely empirically, if you like. It's not as if these 'contradictions' are exactly new discoveries. Some, as has been said, are easily explained. Others are genuine differences, the accounts coming from different people. Yet, despite that, a quarter of the world's population are Christian. It is 'crystal clear' that what may such a 'killer' point to you is of little relevance to them; but you need to make some effort to understand their perspective before you will understand why.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
Mary did NOT see and touch Jesus before leaving the tomb and going to get the disciples. She left the tomb afraid, and probably not fully understanding, and so went to the disciples still thinking the worst. It wasn't till she returned with them and met Jesus at the tomb that she understood that Jesus wasn't just not there, but actually risen.
Actually, of bigger concern to me is Mark's account (16:8) "Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." Even this I think can be harmonized with the other accounts:


1) Mary goes the tomb with the other women and discovers it empty. (Matthew 28:1, Mark 16:1-4, Luke 24:1-3, John 20:1-2)

2) An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8, not in John)

3) They leave with some of the women scared to say anything, but Mary goes and tells the disciples (Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9-11, not in John; also implied in Luke 24:23)

4) Mary returns with the disciples Peter and John to the tomb (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:3-9)

5) Peter and John leave the tomb and return to the other disciples (not in Matthew, not in Mark, Luke 24:12, John 20:10)

6) Jesus appears to Mary (not in Matthew, Mark 16:9, not in Luke, John 20:11-17)

7) Mary returns to tell the disciples that she has seen the risen Lord (not in Matthew, Mark 16:10-11, not in Luke, John 20:18)

8) Jesus appears to the other women who had run from the tomb (Matthew 28:9-10, not in Mark, not in Luke, not in John)

9) Jesus appears to the disciples on the road to Emmaus (not in Matthew, Mark 16:12-13, Luke 24:13-35, not in John)

10) Jesus appears to the disicples in the Upper Room (not in Matthew, Mark 16:14, Luke 24:36-49, John 20:19-23)



Your try to harmonize the Resurrection narratives is filled with holes:

You claim (Mary did NOT see and touch Jesus before leaving the tomb and going to get the disciples. She left the tomb afraid, and probably not fully understanding)

Well, thank you very much for that quibble . Now would you care to answer the argument? Let's begin by getting your answers to some simple questions. They are all based on what Matthew's narrative said.

1. Did Mary M encounter an angel at the tomb?

2. Did the angel tell Mary M that Jesus had risen?

3. Did the angel tell Mary M to tell the disciples that Jesus would go before the disciples to Galilee?

4. Did Mary Magdalene run from the tomb with great joy?

5. Did Mary Magdalene meet Jesus as she was running to find the disciples?

6. Did Mary Magdalene touch Jesus?

If your answers are not yes to all of these questions, then you must have a reading comprehension problem.


You said in point 2 and 3 of you try to harmonize
:(2) An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7, Luke 24:4-8, not in John)

3) They leave with some of the women scared to say anything, but Mary goes and tells the disciples (Matthew 28:8, Mark 16:8, Luke 24:9-11, not in John; also implied in Luke 24:23)


with all due respect,that is absured !!! You ask why?

in number (2) you claim that :An angel tells them what happened (Matthew 28:5)The angel said to the women, "Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7Then go quickly and tell his disciples: 'He has risen from the dead.


in number (3) you claim that Mary goes alone and tells the disciples .

Question 1: What is she supposed to tell the disciples?
answer: What the angel tells them(Mary and the other women) what happened (is not here; he has risen, just as he said)..

Question 2:what did she tell the disciples?

Answer : John (20:1)Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance. 2So she came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one Jesus loved, and said, "They have taken the Lord out of the tomb, and we don't know where they have put him!"


Nice try my friend
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 07:08 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
The method used is I think exactly what should be used for Quran or Hadith.

Whether That method worked for the scripture Keltoi used it for, thats a different discussion.
The above is wrong. I dont think the above Method is neccesarily the same for the Quran as it is for the Bible.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 07:36 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I thank you for the clarification regarding the authority of the hadiths. I indeed thought that they were taken at the same level of authority with the Qur'an. One of the reasons is a recent discussion I had with respect to the belief that music is haraam in Islam. As I understood it, that view came out of the hadith, not the Qur'an.

So, I am ignorant. I am also trying to learn. As to your ability to expose and refute others arguments, what does the Qur'an have to say about false pride? The Bible does repeat the same themes over and over again. To not see that is, in the words of Jesus, to strain out gnats and swallow camels.

And in saying that Jesus did not fulfill the the role of Messiah shows that you simply do not accept Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah. Whether it is because of ignorance or unbelief I do not know.



What matters is not accepting Jesus' teaching regarding the role of the Messiah, it is What the old testament teaches about the promised messiah.
If the writers of the new testament taught ideas of the Messiah that did not fulfill the qualifications for the old testament Jewish Messiah,then their propaganda is without merit.

they intentionaly distoted and took some old testaments out of context and tried to convince the reader that these passages are Messianic prophecies.
for example: Have you ever read the so called (Virgin birth prophecy) in Isaiah? I don't think so !! christians always read what is written in the NT .. and rare to take a look at the OT.
to begin with ,Just take a look at Isaiah 7:1.18 ,and see If the context suggests a messianic prophecy......
If you think it is so ,then explain for us How such passage could be rendered as messianic prophecy and How Jesus fulfilled it as it was written.

Note: I never treat others with arrogance ,and regarding the matter of Hadiths .i blamed you because i don't like if discussing a matter and read a reply with off topic contents like yours.....here the topic Bible contradictions....not Islamic topic.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-20-2007, 07:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
You mean to tell me that you think its worth studying hebrew to then only come up with illogical explanations that one text says something which it doesn't in order to reconcile contradictions then boy some are really out to extert themselves.
No, it is nessesary to learn Hebrew if you do not wish to make a fool out of yourself, when pointing out contradictions in the text when in reality, it is your misunderstaidng of the text and the sayings in hebrew.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 08:01 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
With regards to the latter part of the statement, I don't know how you can conclude as such. You have pieces of writing of which the authors are not sure whom they are and also there is a history of adding and taking away from those scripture, the amount added and taken away cannot be known.

Your video could be of an edited, cut and pasted Jesus, or could be of a cut and pasted, edited interpretation of stories of Jesus, handed over by an unknown camera man.





But even if the disciples passed on traditions, we still would have to wonder if the Gospels now are the ones that have recorded the right traditions. There were different views, different Gospels. Even if the Disciples did state the right case, how can you know that that statement was captured in the four now and not others?

Don't know what to tell you. I've read enough of your posts to know that you are a logical thinker. I know that you are even willing to grow in your knowledge and be corrected if you find enough evidence to suggest a different conclusion than that which you have heretofore believed was true. So, I know that you are not just being argumentative. I'm not trying to be either. As to the elements of textual criticism I would love to simply walk you through the documents, but can't think of how to do that in this setting. I think then you would understand why I don't have many of the concerns you express. I don't mean to suggest that you wouldn't still have some of your own doubts, but I think you would understand why I am not fazed by your objections and have few doubts of my own.

As to my like of credence in the other writings that were not accepted as gospels. They simply did not conform to the standards of the early church. It is the "rejected" ones -- though I hate to use such a heavily loaded term, because it isn't like they were voted on and then rejected, they just weren't accepted by the church as a whole as being as trustworthy as those that were -- that were written in the 2nd century and later. They were the writings of dubious authorship and lack of any discernable connection to the actual apostles who were companions of Jesus.

But in essence it comes down to my trust of the work and integrity of the early church of the first 100 or so years of its existence to desire to preserve not some theology of human creation, but that which they received regarding the good news of Jesus.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 08:18 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Your try to harmonize the Resurrection narratives is filled with holes:

You know I admit to some of the irregularities in the story. I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events precisely the same. If they had, disbelievers would say that they copied from one another. Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source? I think it highly reasonable that they may not have all of their facts straight, but I don't think that means they created the story as an invention.

In my attempt to provide a harmonization, I wasn't saying that I had THE answer, but a possible way of fitting the pieces together. Surely you will admit the possibiltiy that some of the apparent contradictions may not be so obvious to others as they seem to be to you.



Nice try my friend
Why do I think you don't really see me as your friend? I think that Woodrow and Al Habeshi, though we disagree on many points, perhaps do perceive me that way as I do them. I always take what they have to say seriously because I know them to be sincere. I must say, there is something in what you have written that just comes across as desiring to be contentious. Now, that probably isn't your true nature, and maybe it has appeared only as a response to something that I have said. Please forgive me if I have some how egged you on to respond thusly.
Reply

don532
03-20-2007, 09:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
The above is wrong. I dont think the above Method is neccesarily the same for the Quran as it is for the Bible.
Eesa can you explain? Why would the Qur'an be understood as a whole, with verses in one place further explaining verses in another, but not the Bible to be read as a whole? I thought multiple accounts should be complimenting and clarifying a lesson or story being taught. Your insight would be much appreciated.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 09:40 PM
[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;690241]You know I admit to some of the irregularities in the story. I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events precisely the same. If they had, disbelievers would say that they copied from one another.

In fact ,without any reasonable doubt ,Yes they copied from one another
91% of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and 53% of Mark is found in Luke
Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g. both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible.

You Ask: Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source?

No,the major complaints are:

1-The authors of the Gospels are anonymous .
2- the Dating of any of them is mere speculation without strong basis.
3-even the place where they were written is unknown.
4-some Gospels were discovered almost as old as the 4 Gospels ,if not older .reveals other points of view regarding the nature,teachings,message ,death of Jesus christ.that the church considered as non-canonical gospels without any basis to discard them.

"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts. It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes. I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon unless you understand what was excluded from it. When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels, both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light." — John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.


"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon." Ibid., p. 365
Reply

Joe98
03-20-2007, 09:46 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
…..I think it was an exciting time, and that no two people were going to remember the events

This is the very point that Muslims don’t understand.

After the events, the disciples went out to preach. The preaching was based on their memories of the events.

Most people those days were illiterate. The preaching was verbal. The gospels of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John, were most likely written by their followers. In some cases, Mathew, Mark, Luke and John may even have died before the gospels were written!

So if there is a discrepancy between them this makes it more likely to be true. If they were all exactly the same this makes it more likely to be false.

So, when Muslims point to differences, Christians stand up and cheer!

-
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 09:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
In fact ,without any reasonable doubt ,Yes they copied from one another
91% of Mark's content is found in Matthew, and 53% of Mark is found in Luke
Agreement in the order of the content is the strongest indication of a documentary dependence, especially when the agreement touches topical arrangements instead of chronological (e.g. both Matthew and Mark relate the death of John the Baptist in a flash-back). Therefore most scholars have not found purely oral theories plausible.

You Ask: Isn't that the major complaint about Matthew, Mark, and Luke, that they all used the same source?

No,the major complaints are:

1-The authors of the Gospels are anonymous .
2- the Dating of any of them is mere speculation without strong basis.
3-even the place where they were written is unknown.
4-some Gospels were discovered almost as old as the 4 Gospels ,if not older .reveals other points of view regarding the nature,teachings,message ,death of Jesus christ.that the church considered as non-canonical gospels without any basis to discard them.

Well, I am glad to see that you are educated in these matters. Truly, I hear the other complaint most frequently here.
"The canon is neither a total nor a random collection of early Christian texts. It is both deliberate and selective and it excludes just as surely as it includes. I would even say that you cannot understand what is included in the canon unless you understand what was excluded from it. When the [extracanonical] gospels are played over against the four canonical gospels, both the products and the processes of those latter texts appear in a radically different light." — John Dominic Crossan, Prof. Religious Studies, DePaul Univ.
I would concur with the majority of this statement.


"None of those books have the appearance of being written by the persons whose names they bear, neither do we know who the authors were. They come to us on no other authority than the church of Rome, which the Protestant Priests...call the ***** of Babylon." Ibid., p. 365
I do not concur with this statement other than that they are not signed by their authors and the authorship was ascribed to them by the church. *Note: When giving "Ibid" as a reference, usually there is a source work previously cited. I assume you are referring to some work written by John Crossan who either is or was a professor at DePaul University, but you don't actually name the source work. Page 365 of what?



Though I am not sure how any of this related to the thread's theme of biblical contradictios, I will continue to respond here as this is where the questions have been raised. And then perhaps we can start a new thread to further discuss any magnifcations on these ideas....

Yes, I tend to believe the prevailing view that you have alluded to with respect to what are called the synoptic gospels. Namely, that Mark wrote his gospel account. And then Matthew and Luke borrowed both from it and from some other unknown source document, in addtion to including their own original material. Some people call this other source Q. I have seen more than a few Muslims suggest that there was an original Aramaic gospel of Matthew. I find that unlikely, though not out of the realm of possibility. And John wrote completely independently.

I think all of this was completed before the end of the first century. The other non-canonical gospels that people refer to are all later than the first century. I think it worth noting that we speak of the canon or non-canonical writings. This tells us something about how the church perceived these writings. Canon is a Greek word for denoting a straight rod; it came to be used for a bar or ruler and was variously applied to special objects. Certain metaphorical applications eventually developed out of the literal meaning, such as standard. The Patristic writers of the early church apply it to the rule of faith or the standard of apostolic teaching handed down within the Church. That teaching, when put forth in the earliest creeds and the Didache was known as the canon of truth. By a natural development the apostolic writings were designated as canonical to indicate their authoritative character and to distinguish them from other (non-standard, non-authoritative) Christian writings. Ultimately the noun was employed for the body of writings that gained general recognition in the Church. This body of literature was collected in one place. Being in one place it became known as the Bible (meaning library).

As to the principles by which some writings were considered to be worthy of the title of canon (i.e. standard of faith) and some where not, though there was no formalized process, the following appear to be keys:
1) apostolic origin -- though not necessarily having to have been penned by one of the twelve, apostle was a term sometimes used with a narrow and sometimes used with a broader meaning, thus Paul of Tarsus and Clement of Rome were also referred to as apostles.
2) reception of the writing by the original churches with the continued knowledge and use of these writings by later generations (as per the testimony of Origen)
3) consistency of doctrine with the standards already in practice by the church thus allowing the church to expose and repudiate heretical writings such as those of the gnostics
Reply

Joe98
03-20-2007, 09:58 PM
One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.
Reply

Muezzin
03-20-2007, 10:06 PM
Joe, do you think all Muslims like to take potshots at other religions?
Reply

back_to_faith
03-20-2007, 10:24 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.
How absured !!
It seems that you have no idea about the problem under discussion...
it doesn't relate to a contradiction in timing ....I could have provided such kind of contradictions such as :

What time did the women visit the tomb?

just after sunrise" Mark:16:2
John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)

But I posted a serious one regarding the actions not the timing,pity if you think that the problem of non christians are due to the existence of numerical or timing contradictions,The Bible contains incredible number of false prophecies, primitive scientific concepts ,historical, mathematical, ethical, philosophical, geographical, and chronological difficulties.
Reply

NoName55
03-20-2007, 10:33 PM
rather ironic to see thread titled " Contradictions in the Bible" then being told don't mention them
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-20-2007, 10:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.

Thanks for the help Joe. I appreciate your perspective. I think I'm just going to say it before someone chimes in and says you're wrong because Jesus didn't clean the temple in the sense of getting out the Hoover vacuum, but of chasing out people he didn't think should be there. It was more like he cleared-out the temple.

But, I do appreciate what I understand as your point that Christians view the same event through different lenses and thus have a different idea as to not only what is going on, but what is important regarding the event.
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 11:52 PM
Joe's point is well taken though. It does seem that many Muslims are so caught up in what each individual sentence says, which is understandable since their perspective of the Quran is one of the literal word of God. Christians are more concerned about the spiritual message contained within the Bible and the New Testament in terms of their relationship with Jesus Christ.

There is nothing wrong with focusing on contradictions that might exist, but that is far from "proof" that Christianity got it wrong somehow. Some of the authors of the Scriptures tell a story in a different way than others, but the end result is the same and the message is the same, which as Joe mentioned, is more of a sign of the Gospel's veracity than error, at least to Christians.
Reply

Umar001
03-20-2007, 11:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Eesa can you explain? Why would the Qur'an be understood as a whole, with verses in one place further explaining verses in another, but not the Bible to be read as a whole? I thought multiple accounts should be complimenting and clarifying a lesson or story being taught. Your insight would be much appreciated.
Well, the reason I retracted my previous statement is because I felt I had made a fundamental mistake, in saying that the method would be exactly the same, it would mean that the scripture the method is being implimented on would be of the same background as the other. But thats not true.

The came to us from a man, in his life time, was dictated under his supervision, thus, if theres an apparent contradiction, then it would be logical that we are misunderstanding it since he would have been confronted with such a statement if there was a contradiction in his life.

This is also true with the individual biblical gospels, (thats if we hold that each of the Gospels had one author) for example, if theres an internal contradiction within the Gospel of Mark for example, and we believe the author of Mark was one person writing it, then it would be logical for us to try to harmonise the text.

The difference comes when we look at the 4 Gospels together, they were individual books, which went around individually. Unlike the individual Gospel or the Qu'ran. It is because of this fundamental differences that I dont think we can use one Gospel to harmonise the other, since in reality, the Gospels were not written as part of a greater book, but rather written for their own purpose. Harmonisation can take place, but not to extremes practiced like some.

That's in my view.


format_quote Originally Posted by ManchesterFolk
No, it is nessesary to learn Hebrew if you do not wish to make a fool out of yourself, when pointing out contradictions in the text when in reality, it is your misunderstaidng of the text and the sayings in hebrew.
Well, if you have hebrew speaking people, who provide you with the explanation of a believer in the scripture who spends his whole life learnng about it, and their refutation is just illogical, can you really think theres hope for others?
Reply

Keltoi
03-20-2007, 11:59 PM
There are also various "contradictions" in the Quran, but like the list of "101 Bible Contradictions" that are circulated by many Muslims, I don't find them to be substantive enough to use them as an excuse to not bother understanding the Quran as a full religious work.
Reply

Umar001
03-21-2007, 12:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are also various "contradictions" in the Quran, but like the list of "101 Bible Contradictions" that are circulated by many Muslims, I don't find them to be substantive enough to use them as an excuse to not bother understanding the Quran as a full religious work.
Yes, I think alot of the 'contradictions' can be thought through.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-21-2007, 12:15 AM
In order to refresh the original topic
here another NT Clear contradiction:

IS JOHN THE BAPTIST ELIJAH ?!!!

YES:

Matthew 17:12-13
But I say unto you, That Elias is come already.... then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.

Mark 9:13
But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed, as it is written of him.


NO:
with John 1:21 ("And they asked him (John the Baptist--Ed.), What then? Art thou Elias? And he saith, I am not. Art thou that prophet? And he answered, No").
In the former verses Jesus said John the Baptist was the Elijah who was prophesied to come, while in the latter verse John says he isn't.
Reply

Keltoi
03-21-2007, 12:35 AM
You leave out the rest.

John 1:19-23

They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."




Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "

So why did he refuse to call himself Elijah, but instead give a verbal clue? Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected. You also take the verses out of order. The second passage was the one above...the third passage is this:

Matt 17:10-13
The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-21-2007, 12:37 AM
I have deep respect for Christianity and Christians. Instead of attacking the Bible we should be defending each other (Christians and Muslims) against atheists.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-21-2007, 01:15 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
There are also various "contradictions" in the Quran, but like the list of "101 Bible Contradictions" that are circulated by many Muslims, I don't find them to be substantive enough to use them as an excuse to not bother understanding the Quran as a full religious work.
Can you find me these various contradictions?
Reply

wilberhum
03-21-2007, 01:26 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
I have deep respect for Christianity and Christians. Instead of attacking the Bible we should be defending each other (Christians and Muslims) against atheists.
Why do you need to defend yourself from atheists? :?
Do atheists physically harm you? :omg:
Or are just intolerant of a contrary belief, or lack there of? :raging:
Reply

back_to_faith
03-21-2007, 01:48 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
You leave out the rest.

John 1:19-23

They asked him, "Then who are you? Are you Elijah?"
He said, "I am not."
"Are you the Prophet?"
He answered, "No."




Finally they said, "Who are you? Give us an answer to take back to those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?" John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "

So why did he refuse to call himself Elijah, but instead give a verbal clue? Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected. You also take the verses out of order. The second passage was the one above...the third passage is this:

Matt 17:10-13
The disciples asked him, "Why then do the teachers of the law say that Elijah must come first?"
Jesus replied, "To be sure, Elijah comes and will restore all things. But I tell you, Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but have done to him everything they wished. In the same way the Son of Man is going to suffer at their hands." Then the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist.


You can't get with it my friend,even your shell game can't save you this time
1-
In order to understand the new testament passages under discussion we need to go back to the old testament original prophecy regarding Elijah:

According to the Old Testament book of II Kings, Elijah the Prophet had ascended "into heaven" in a "chariot of fire." (see: chapter 2) This spectacular event supposedly happened about 850 years before Christ. Later, in about 450 BC, Malachi prophesied that this same Elijah, who had ascended into heaven, was also going to return from heaven to herald the coming of the Messiah:

.... Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day were well aware of the 'return of Elijah' prophecy. At one time the rabbis had asked Jesus' disciples to explain how Jesus could possibly have been the Messiah when it was obvious that Elijah had not returned from heaven yet.

The Apostles couldn't answer this question, so they asked Jesus:

"Why do the Jewish leaders insist Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"
Jesus answered by first affirming that this question was valid and that this prophecy indeed was true. He said:
"They are right. Elijah must come and set everything in order..."
But then, to everyone's surprise, Jesus explained:
"In fact, he [Elijah] already has come, but he wasn't recognized, and was badly mistreated by many... Then the disciples realized he was speaking of John the Baptist."-Matthew 17:10-13 (LIVING BIBLE-CATHOLIC EDITION) (this account can also be found in: Mark 9:11-13)
Clearly, Jesus taught that this was a true prophecy. Jesus agreed that Elijah indeed "must return before the Messiah comes." But then, to the surprise to everyone there, Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

How, could John possibly have been the return of Elijah? Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah. Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

One of the strongest testimonies that John is not Elijah is on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this. In II Kings 2:1, we find Elijah taken bodily into Heaven. For one to enter Heaven they must be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-54), changed to an immortal body, a body which is no longer subject to death since corruptible flesh cannot enter into Heaven. If Elijah came back as John the Baptist, and was killed, this would be impossible according to Scripture. For one who has had a changed body to be equipped for Heaven, does not turn back to mortality. If we look at it more carefully in II Kings 2:11 Elijah never experienced physical death so for him to come back in another body means he reincarnated not only in Spirit but in body too, and the Bible never teaches either one of these. Elijah did not die, so the Scripture is not talking about his reincarnation as John the Baptist (2 Kings 2:1,11).The Bible teaches resurrection, a totally different concept.

2-
OT Misquotations -- (1) MATT. 3:3 ("For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah--Ed.), saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight") is an inaccurate translation of Isa. 40:3 RSV ("A voice cries: In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God"). Nothing is said in Isaiah about one crying in the wilderness.

3-

Malachi 4:5-6.Behold, I will asend you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the of fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

it very interesting that John the Baptist, who apparently was standing in for a preoccupied Elijah, was supposed to have been trying to reconcile families as stipulated in Malachi 4:5-6. Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.
. To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families.
So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them. A more absurd set of mission parameters for two men living at the same time, allegedly directed by the same God, I can't imagine. This is the type of nonsense that occurs when writers attempt to concoct and retrofit an agenda or storyline into an existing prophecy as the New Testament authors did.


4-

There is yet a final falsehood to notice in this wonderful NT passage

"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

first: the death of John is ascribed directly to Herod Antipas,Not the jews as Mark 9:13 claims
(Matthew 14:10). "He [Herod Antipas] sent and had John beheaded in the prison"

second: Mark 9:13 Bless us with imaginary prophecy :

they have done unto him(John the baptist or Elijah ,whatever you wish to call him) whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him."

Question: where is it written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims (mark 9:13 they have done unto him as it is written of him) ???????

Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this Book a remarkable example of divine word. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.
Reply

don532
03-21-2007, 02:24 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Al Habeshi
Well, the reason I retracted my previous statement is because I felt I had made a fundamental mistake, in saying that the method would be exactly the same, it would mean that the scripture the method is being implimented on would be of the same background as the other. But thats not true.

The came to us from a man, in his life time, was dictated under his supervision, thus, if theres an apparent contradiction, then it would be logical that we are misunderstanding it since he would have been confronted with such a statement if there was a contradiction in his life.

This is also true with the individual biblical gospels, (thats if we hold that each of the Gospels had one author) for example, if theres an internal contradiction within the Gospel of Mark for example, and we believe the author of Mark was one person writing it, then it would be logical for us to try to harmonise the text.

The difference comes when we look at the 4 Gospels together, they were individual books, which went around individually. Unlike the individual Gospel or the Qu'ran. It is because of this fundamental differences that I dont think we can use one Gospel to harmonise the other, since in reality, the Gospels were not written as part of a greater book, but rather written for their own purpose. Harmonisation can take place, but not to extremes practiced like some.

That's in my view.




Well, if you have hebrew speaking people, who provide you with the explanation of a believer in the scripture who spends his whole life learnng about it, and their refutation is just illogical, can you really think theres hope for others?
Thank you Eesa for clarifying. I see this reasoning now.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-21-2007, 02:25 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Tiger_Stripes
I have deep respect for Christianity and Christians. Instead of attacking the Bible we should be defending each other (Christians and Muslims) against atheists.
I have respect for christian people, but i will never align myself with those who believe Isa Alayhi Salam is Allah swt or that Isa Alayhi salam is the Son of Allah swt.
Reply

Keltoi
03-21-2007, 02:35 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by mahdisoldier19
Can you find me these various contradictions?
This thread isn't about Quranic contradictions, but if you want to start a thread based on that then I will contribute, although I don't find it particulary necessary or desired. I have no interest in that form of debate.
Reply

Keltoi
03-21-2007, 02:47 AM
In regards to back_to-faith,

I'm not sure what "shell game" you are referring to, but perhaps I should elaborate on my explanation as you obviously didn't get the point I was trying to convey.


John said he was not Elijah. And, as you pointed out, this seems odd because in Matt. 11:14 Jesus says of John, "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come." So what's going on here? According to most respected Biblical scholars, Jesus is saying that if the Jews had recieved Him, they would also have understood that John fulfilled the O.T. prediction of the coming of Elijah before the day of the Lord. But of course the Jews did not receive Jesus at His first coming. Afterward, Jesus began to veil His message in parables.

And later still, after the Transfiguration when the disciples ask Jesus why the scribes say that Elijah must come first, Jesus responds by saying, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished." Then the text goes on to say, "Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist" (Matt. 17:10-13).

In other words, John the Baptist would have served as the fulfillment of God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord if the Jews had recieved Jesus as their Messiah. They did not, however, as so, as Jesus makes clear in Matt 17:11, Elijah is still to come.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-21-2007, 03:43 AM
Well, if you have hebrew speaking people, who provide you with the explanation of a believer in the scripture who spends his whole life learnng about it, and their refutation is just illogical, can you really think theres hope for others?
The only problem with your logic, is that your naive view that is because you do not understand Hebrew culture, or the language the response is "illogical" is the only illogical response.

That is why the Jewish sages compare the day the Torah was translated from Hebrew into another language to the day the golden calf was built. These guys thousands of years ago predicted naive people like you, who would not be able to grasp the difference of languages, and therefore, with no knowledge would attack their scriptures.

Not a bad predictions, but pretty obvious.

I guess I did learn a lot from my comparative religion classes.
Reply

YusufNoor
03-21-2007, 03:44 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Joe98
One afternoon, Jesus and his disciples arrived at a town and stayed the night. According to the bible, Jesus went in and cleaned the temple.


The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.


The Muslim view: One gospel says he cleaned the temple in the evening and another that he cleaned the temple the next morning. Due to this discrepancy, the event never happened. There is nothing to learn here.
:sl:

actually that, while funny and might tend to sound like posts here, is an incorrect comparison.

the better Muslim point of view would be:

The Christian view: Jesus did not place himself above the cleaning woman. He was happy to clean the temple. People should not place themselves above other people. All people are equal.

The Muslim view: this is a week hadith, there is no source that can be authenticated...

i'm just saying!

:w:
Reply

back_to_faith
03-21-2007, 04:12 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
In regards to back_to-faith,

I'm not sure what "shell game" you are referring to, but perhaps I should elaborate on my explanation as you obviously didn't get the point I was trying to convey.


John said he was not Elijah. And, as you pointed out, this seems odd because in Matt. 11:14 Jesus says of John, "And if you care to accept it, he himself is Elijah, who was to come." So what's going on here? According to most respected Biblical scholars, Jesus is saying that if the Jews had recieved Him, they would also have understood that John fulfilled the O.T. prediction of the coming of Elijah before the day of the Lord. But of course the Jews did not receive Jesus at His first coming. Afterward, Jesus began to veil His message in parables.

And later still, after the Transfiguration when the disciples ask Jesus why the scribes say that Elijah must come first, Jesus responds by saying, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you, that Elijah already came, and they did not recognize him, but did to him whatever they wished." Then the text goes on to say, "Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist" (Matt. 17:10-13).

In other words, John the Baptist would have served as the fulfillment of God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord if the Jews had recieved Jesus as their Messiah. They did not, however, as so, as Jesus makes clear in Matt 17:11, Elijah is still to come.




Not only the gospel writers contradict themselves but you as well Keltoi !!

in your first try to answe me you said :

(John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "So why did he refuse to call himself Elijah, but instead give a verbal clue? Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected. )

in other words John thought that he is the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, but refused to call himself Elijah ,Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected,

in your second post you said :(Jesus makes clear in Matt 17:11, Elijah is still to come.)
Look How the contradiction got you confused !!!

You said: (According to most respected Biblical scholars, Jesus is saying that if the Jews had recieved Him, they would also have understood that John fulfilled the O.T. prediction of the coming of Elijah before the day of the Lord. But of course the Jews did not receive Jesus at His first coming.)

Again your muddle is exposed ,your most respected Biblical scholars ignored the fact that :
1-John the baptist can by no mean fulfill the OT (read my previous post well)
2-The original prophecy in Malachi is crystal clear that (Elijah the prophet will come back from heaven physically before the first appearance of the messiah)

3- The jews didn't recieve Jesus nor John the baptist as a fulfillment of both the prophecy of Elijah return and the promised messiah simply because
neither Jesus fulfilled the old messianic prophecies nor John the baptist was Elijah the prophet (read my previous post).

You said:
(In other words, John the Baptist would have served as the fulfillment of God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord if the Jews had recieved Jesus as their Messiah. They did not)

In other words that means John the Baptist never fulfilled God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord
Do you realize what that means?
not only gives the lie to the words of Jesus (claiming that the prophecy of Malachi regarding Elijah is fulfilled in John) but also destroy the claim of Jesus as being the promised messiah...If John the baptist was not Elijah logically Jesus is not the Messiah.
If you still waiting the real Elijah to be sent and turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers Malachi (4:5, 6), I will be waiting for the real Messiah too.
plainly put it If John the baptist was not the fulfillment of Malachi whatever reasons were ,Jesus couln't be the promised messiah.
as the arrival of the real Elijah and his supposed role as turning the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers is one of the most important textual requirements concerning the messiah.

This is the type of nonsense that occurs when writers attempt to concoct and retrofit an agenda or storyline into an existing prophecy as the New Testament authors did.
Reply

mahdisoldier19
03-21-2007, 04:43 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
This thread isn't about Quranic contradictions, but if you want to start a thread based on that then I will contribute, although I don't find it particulary necessary or desired. I have no interest in that form of debate.
So if i open up a thread about IF there are Contradictions in the Quran you would state them?
Reply

*Hana*
03-21-2007, 04:44 AM
Salam Alaikum:

I think there is already a thread about that under "Refutations".

Wasalam,
Hana
Reply

Joe98
03-21-2007, 05:41 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
It seems that you have no idea about the problem under discussion...
But I do understand. I am trying to help you understand.

Every story about Christ has something important in it that you should remember because ultimately it will make you a better person.



format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
..it doesn't relate to a contradiction in timing ....

If you look through this forum and read threads you learn that Muslims find numerous mistakes in the bible. But most relate to trivial things. Begin by reading the second post in this thread.
Reply

Keltoi
03-21-2007, 07:39 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Not only the gospel writers contradict themselves but you as well Keltoi !!

in your first try to answe me you said :

(John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' "So why did he refuse to call himself Elijah, but instead give a verbal clue? Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected. )

in other words John thought that he is the fulfillment of Malachi 4:5, but refused to call himself Elijah ,Because John knew, like the Messiah, that his ministry would be rejected,

in your second post you said :(Jesus makes clear in Matt 17:11, Elijah is still to come.)
Look How the contradiction got you confused !!!

You said: (According to most respected Biblical scholars, Jesus is saying that if the Jews had recieved Him, they would also have understood that John fulfilled the O.T. prediction of the coming of Elijah before the day of the Lord. But of course the Jews did not receive Jesus at His first coming.)

Again your muddle is exposed ,your most respected Biblical scholars ignored the fact that :
1-John the baptist can by no mean fulfill the OT (read my previous post well)
2-The original prophecy in Malachi is crystal clear that (Elijah the prophet will come back from heaven physically before the first appearance of the messiah)

3- The jews didn't recieve Jesus nor John the baptist as a fulfillment of both the prophecy of Elijah return and the promised messiah simply because
neither Jesus fulfilled the old messianic prophecies nor John the baptist was Elijah the prophet (read my previous post).

You said:
(In other words, John the Baptist would have served as the fulfillment of God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord if the Jews had recieved Jesus as their Messiah. They did not)

In other words that means John the Baptist never fulfilled God's promise to send Elijah before the day of the Lord
Do you realize what that means?
not only gives the lie to the words of Jesus (claiming that the prophecy of Malachi regarding Elijah is fulfilled in John) but also destroy the claim of Jesus as being the promised messiah...If John the baptist was not Elijah logically Jesus is not the Messiah.
If you still waiting the real Elijah to be sent and turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers Malachi (4:5, 6), I will be waiting for the real Messiah too.
plainly put it If John the baptist was not the fulfillment of Malachi whatever reasons were ,Jesus couln't be the promised messiah.
as the arrival of the real Elijah and his supposed role as turning the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers is one of the most important textual requirements concerning the messiah.

This is the type of nonsense that occurs when writers attempt to concoct and retrofit an agenda or storyline into an existing prophecy as the New Testament authors did.
I didn't contradict myself. Christians believe that Christ will return to Earth again...the same with Elijah. When the priests and Levites asked John whether he was Elijah, obviously he was not literally Elijah, the one who had ascended to Heaven physically 878 years earlier.

One must also take into account the words of the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-21-2007, 05:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
You can't get with it my friend,even your shell game can't save you this time
1-
In order to understand the new testament passages under discussion we need to go back to the old testament original prophecy regarding Elijah:

According to the Old Testament book of II Kings, Elijah the Prophet had ascended "into heaven" in a "chariot of fire." (see: chapter 2) This spectacular event supposedly happened about 850 years before Christ. Later, in about 450 BC, Malachi prophesied that this same Elijah, who had ascended into heaven, was also going to return from heaven to herald the coming of the Messiah:

.... Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

The Jewish religious leaders of Jesus' day were well aware of the 'return of Elijah' prophecy. At one time the rabbis had asked Jesus' disciples to explain how Jesus could possibly have been the Messiah when it was obvious that Elijah had not returned from heaven yet.

The Apostles couldn't answer this question, so they asked Jesus:

"Why do the Jewish leaders insist Elijah must return before the Messiah comes?"
Jesus answered by first affirming that this question was valid and that this prophecy indeed was true. He said:
"They are right. Elijah must come and set everything in order..."
But then, to everyone's surprise, Jesus explained:
"In fact, he [Elijah] already has come, but he wasn't recognized, and was badly mistreated by many... Then the disciples realized he was speaking of John the Baptist."-Matthew 17:10-13 (LIVING BIBLE-CATHOLIC EDITION) (this account can also be found in: Mark 9:11-13)
Clearly, Jesus taught that this was a true prophecy. Jesus agreed that Elijah indeed "must return before the Messiah comes." But then, to the surprise to everyone there, Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy.

How, could John possibly have been the return of Elijah? Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah. Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

One of the strongest testimonies that John is not Elijah is on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt. 17:3; Luke 9:30; Mark 9:4-5). Elijah and Moses appear and Jesus talks to Elijah. The disciples recognize him as Elijah in his original form, not as John the Baptist. One must either concede that they are 2 different people or that John the Baptist turned back into Elijah. To claim that Elijah is John the Baptist is to teach reincarnation. The premise is that a spirit in a former body comes back to be born in another body. At the very least, it is transmigration. The Bible has never taught this. In II Kings 2:1, we find Elijah taken bodily into Heaven. For one to enter Heaven they must be transformed (1 Cor. 15:50-54), changed to an immortal body, a body which is no longer subject to death since corruptible flesh cannot enter into Heaven. If Elijah came back as John the Baptist, and was killed, this would be impossible according to Scripture. For one who has had a changed body to be equipped for Heaven, does not turn back to mortality. If we look at it more carefully in II Kings 2:11 Elijah never experienced physical death so for him to come back in another body means he reincarnated not only in Spirit but in body too, and the Bible never teaches either one of these. Elijah did not die, so the Scripture is not talking about his reincarnation as John the Baptist (2 Kings 2:1,11).The Bible teaches resurrection, a totally different concept.

2-
OT Misquotations -- (1) MATT. 3:3 ("For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias (Isaiah--Ed.), saying, 'The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight") is an inaccurate translation of Isa. 40:3 RSV ("A voice cries: In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God"). Nothing is said in Isaiah about one crying in the wilderness.

3-

Malachi 4:5-6.Behold, I will asend you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD:
6 And he shall turn the heart of the of fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

it very interesting that John the Baptist, who apparently was standing in for a preoccupied Elijah, was supposed to have been trying to reconcile families as stipulated in Malachi 4:5-6. Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.
. To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families.
So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them. A more absurd set of mission parameters for two men living at the same time, allegedly directed by the same God, I can't imagine. This is the type of nonsense that occurs when writers attempt to concoct and retrofit an agenda or storyline into an existing prophecy as the New Testament authors did.


4-

There is yet a final falsehood to notice in this wonderful NT passage

"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

first: the death of John is ascribed directly to Herod Antipas,Not the jews as Mark 9:13 claims
(Matthew 14:10). "He [Herod Antipas] sent and had John beheaded in the prison"

second: Mark 9:13 Bless us with imaginary prophecy :

they have done unto him(John the baptist or Elijah ,whatever you wish to call him) whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him."

Question: where is it written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims (mark 9:13 they have done unto him as it is written of him) ???????

Yet, despite this flaw and the many others noted, millions of people consider this Book a remarkable example of divine word. In reality, the only remarkable thing about it is that so many intelligent people could have been duped into believing that it was remarkable.

You seem to be fond of the Jewish interpretations of the Tanach with regard to Elijah and the Messiah. Do you accept their teachings in other things as well, particularly their understanding regarding who is and who is not a prophet of God?
Reply

back_to_faith
03-21-2007, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
I didn't contradict myself. Christians believe that Christ will return to Earth again...the same with Elijah. When the priests and Levites asked John whether he was Elijah, obviously he was not literally Elijah, the one who had ascended to Heaven physically 878 years earlier.

One must also take into account the words of the angel Gabriel in Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord." (Luke 1:17)

The Angel refers to two prophecies, Isaiah 40:3-5 (see Luke 3:4-6 to see this applied again to John the Baptist) and Malachi 4:5-6 mentioned above, which says "See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers". Gabriel unmistakably says that John is the "Elijah" whom God foretold through Malachi the prophet.

So, was John Elijah? No. But had the priests and Levites asked him, "Are you the one the prophet Malachi speaks of as 'Elijah'?" John would have responded affirmatively.

Jesus in Matthew 17:11-13 says that the prophecy of Malachi is true, but Elijah had already come. He says that this "Elijah" suffered, like he, Jesus will suffer; "the disciples understood that he was talking to them about John the Baptist". Therefore, once we understand the context it is clear; John was not the literal Elijah, but he was the Elijah that the prophecy spoke of, the one who was to (and did) prepare the way for the Messiah, Jesus, "the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world", John 1:29.

Keltoi Being factual Has never been one of your strong points !!
finally you blessed us with the official response to The issue of John the baptist......
yes, Any christian would provides a solution to the Elijah-John problem away from the straw (John came with the spirit of Elijah) would be naive and never got a look at Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

But as I explained before :

1- Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah.

2-Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

3- If the new testament Affirms that some hundreds of social reformers and prophets that came with the spirit and power of Elijah ,that will never, ever fulfill Malachi ....
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

4- Anyone Reads Malachi 4:1-5 , and claims that the text indicates even remotely that Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way,or other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah , then (He.She) must have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually you have come full circle . either John the baptist is Elijah the prophet or he is not ,there is no in between .....

well, apart from that John is Elijah or not the passage is still riddled with errors that you wish you care to defend if you like:

1-John the baptist (or Elijah whatever you like to call him) in order to fulfill the Malachi prophecy was supposed to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and vice versa Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.

2- To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families. So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them.
Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I(Jesus) came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

3-The Imaginary prophecy of Mark 9:13 should drive the final nail into the coffin of this marvelous NT passage
"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

A- Where in the new testament the proof that The jews killed John the baptist as Mark claims?

B- Most important ,Where it is written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims .

I advise you to let the (John the baptist came in the spirit of EliJah Dodge) and try to answer my questions and most important the last one, Where is it written in the old testament that (John the Baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims ?
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-21-2007, 10:25 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Keltoi Being factual Has never been one of your strong points !!
finally you blessed us with the official response to The issue of John the baptist......
yes, Any christian would provides a solution to the Elijah-John problem away from the straw (John came with the spirit of Elijah) would be naive and never got a look at Luke 1:17 where the Angel speaks to Zechariah, the father of John who was not yet born, "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous - to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

But as I explained before :

1- Malachi didn't say anything about Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way. Neither does he say that some other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah.

2-Instead, Malachi clearly says that Elijah himself was going to return. That's not a difficult concept to visualize. Elijah ascended into heaven in a chariot of fire. And he's going to come back. Visibly. Physically. In the flesh.

3- If the new testament Affirms that some hundreds of social reformers and prophets that came with the spirit and power of Elijah ,that will never, ever fulfill Malachi ....
Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD" -Malachi 4:1-5

4- Anyone Reads Malachi 4:1-5 , and claims that the text indicates even remotely that Elijah's return being in some mysterious, unrecognizable way,or other man is going to be born hundreds of years later and that this man somehow was going to be the return of Elijah , then (He.She) must have a reading comprehension problem.

Actually you have come full circle . either John the baptist is Elijah the prophet or he is not ,there is no in between .....

well, apart from that John is Elijah or not the passage is still riddled with errors that you wish you care to defend if you like:

1-John the baptist (or Elijah whatever you like to call him) in order to fulfill the Malachi prophecy was supposed to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and vice versa Yet, there is not one reference to John the Baptist ever attempting to perform that required function.

2- To make matters worse, Jesus claimed in Luke 12:49-53 that his mission was to divide families. So we have John the Baptist portrayed as Elijah by the New Testament writers who is supposed to have a mission to reconcile families and Jesus having a mission to divide them.
Luke 12:51-53 Do you think I(Jesus) came to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but division. 52From now on there will be five in one family divided against each other, three against two and two against three. 53They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law."

3-The Imaginary prophecy of Mark 9:13 should drive the final nail into the coffin of this marvelous NT passage
"But I say unto you, That Elias is indeed come, and they have done unto him whatsoever they listed], as it is written of him." Mark 9:13

A- Where in the new testament the proof that The jews killed John the baptist as Mark claims?

B- Most important ,Where it is written in the old testament that (John the baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims .

I advise you to let the (John the baptist came in the spirit of EliJah Dodge) and try to answer my questions and most important the last one, Where is it written in the old testament that (John the Baptist or Elijah) will be killed etc as Mark claims ?

I'm sorry, but you miss the whole point of the concept of the New Testament. You will note that the Christian concept of who and what the Messiah is and does is considerably different from the Jewish concept. We believe that the Jews got it wrong. They are still waiting, but the Messiah has already come. Further, we think that not only did they get it wrong, but that they misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them. You are asking for a Christians to explain to you how it is that John the Baptist doesn't fit the Jewish understanding of the prophecies regarding Elijah. The answer the interpretation accepted by the Jews of Jesus' day, of today, and that which you are trying to impose on the scriptures is simply wrong. We read the whole set of passages differently. And we aren't under any compulsion to try to make our theology fit your interpretation of the passages, I'll take Jesus' word (or that of the NT author's) over anyone else's view on this, even if it means I have to accept some apparent contradictions with prior understandings of Old Testament passages. And I'll sleep well at night doing so.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-21-2007, 11:26 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
I'm sorry, but you miss the whole point of the concept of the New Testament. You will note that the Christian concept of who and what the Messiah is and does is considerably different from the Jewish concept. We believe that the Jews got it wrong. They are still waiting, but the Messiah has already come. Further, we think that not only did they get it wrong, but that they misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them. You are asking for a Christians to explain to you how it is that John the Baptist doesn't fit the Jewish understanding of the prophecies regarding Elijah. The answer the interpretation accepted by the Jews of Jesus' day, of today, and that which you are trying to impose on the scriptures is simply wrong. We read the whole set of passages differently. And we aren't under any compulsion to try to make our theology fit your interpretation of the passages, I'll take Jesus' word (or that of the NT author's) over anyone else's view on this, even if it means I have to accept some apparent contradictions with prior understandings of Old Testament passages. And I'll sleep well at night doing so.


Grace Seeker All you are doing now is rehashing the tired old Christian refrain as if you never heard a thing I have said about the (John-Elijah problem)I posted...

you and some other Christians have learned over the centuries that if you keep it nebulous, avoid specifics, employ a lot of grandiloquent rhetoric, and rely on glittering generalities at crucial moments, you attract more and alienate less.
Anyone reads my last posts will think that the following pasage you wrote:

(The Jews misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

should have been written as follows:

(The Gosel writers misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

Anytime you post from now on, I want to see documentation, not pontification. Otherwise, don't bother.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-22-2007, 12:01 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Grace Seeker All you are doing now is rehashing the tired old Christian refrain as if you never heard a thing I have said about the (John-Elijah problem)I posted...

you and some other Christians have learned over the centuries that if you keep it nebulous, avoid specifics, employ a lot of grandiloquent rhetoric, and rely on glittering generalities at crucial moments, you attract more and alienate less.
Anyone reads my last posts will think that the following pasage you wrote:

(The Jews misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

should have been written as follows:

(The Gosel writers misinterpreted the revelation they had received. They assigned meaning to some passages that did not need to be interpreted as referring to either the prophet Elijah not the Messiah. And other passages that should have been the missed. But worst of all, those they got right they read the wrong meaning into them.)

Anytime you post from now on, I want to see documentation, not pontification. Otherwise, don't bother.
You have provided many answers to your own questions: "Jesus claimed that John the Baptist was the fulfillment of this prophecy." But you don't like that answer. You see in it a contradiction. OK. You see it as a contradiction. You refuse to accept any other way of viewing the world or the text as anything other than a pontification. If the answers are not provided in a way that suites you, then you don't wished to be bothered by them. That only means you want to be the great pontificator, and arbitrator of all truth. Then so be it. Search for truth on your own. If it is even truth that you seek?
Reply

Keltoi
03-22-2007, 04:23 PM
What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.
Reply

Woodrow
03-22-2007, 06:09 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.
Speaking as a Muslim I would like to see that also.

Disagreeing with respect does not mean we have to follow another persons beliefs or compromise our own beliefs in any manner.

Courtesy and respect do not require allegiance to another person's religious beliefs.

I believe Christians to be erroneous in their beliefs and I accept the fact the majority of them will believe I am erroneous in my beliefs. But, that does not mean we have to be hostile towards each other.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-22-2007, 11:10 PM
Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion :Does God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king
Reply

westcoast
03-22-2007, 11:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Keltoi
What's with all the "you Christians" stuff? I enjoy a friendly discussion on religious beliefs, but all too often these discussions stop being friendly and become something else. Why is that exactly? I as a Christian have no wish at all to combat Muslims over their religious beliefs. The overwhelming majority of Christians on this forum are very respectful of Islamic belief, even though they do not accept it as being true. Perhaps it stems from the fact that for Islam to be correct, Christianity must be wrong. That is fine, since the reverse is also true. I just wish these threads could remain respectful and productive and concentrate on religious understanding and not religious confrontation. Just my two cents I guess.
exactly... i've been on this website for 2 days now and already i've been called a liar, a coward, an ignorant, dumb, cursed and had my posts and topics deleted lol, while i've been nothing but respectful whenever i speak to and of muslims

and these "contradictions" threads are pointless, as there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran and nothing will ever be accomplished discussing such things.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-22-2007, 11:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by westcoast
exactly... i've been on this website for 2 days now and already i've been called a liar, a coward, an ignorant, dumb, cursed and had my posts and topics deleted lol, while i've been nothing but respectful whenever i speak to and of muslims

and these "contradictions" threads are pointless, as there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran and nothing will ever be accomplished discussing such things.
There we go again !!!!
Another one pretending to be a victim of our arrogance,rude offensive language etc !!!
As a matter of fact It is a non-muslims tactic to avoid providing straight,specific answers to our topics regarding the Bible........
If the issue of Bible contradictions is pointless for you, then you are not forced to Share us here . Just let us and our concern to discuss it.
You claim that there can be quoted contradictions in the Qu'ran ,Do you think that providing Quranic so called contradictions will clear up Bible contradictions?!
It is at best will prove that the Quran not the word of God ,and has nothing to do with Biblical contradictions ...
Don't you feel like answering my last post regarding Whether God repents or not according to the Bible?
just do it or pick any other contradiction and you are welcomed ,and we will reply without violating any rules of the forum.....
Reply

Woodrow
03-23-2007, 12:01 AM
One of the biggest problems in trying to compare the Qur'an and the Bible, it is very much like arguing about the differences between French Cuisine and Chinese cooking. Although they both have the same final goals there is little in common to discuss.

All topics of this nature tend to fall apart and become an "I am right, you are wrong fight and not a debate."

Honest debate is fine and even encouraged. However, comments about any members character or insulting remarks about any beliefs are not constructive to peaceful debate.

Please let us all remember to keep comments directed towards posts and not towards any member. We probably will never agree about all matters, but we can all be respectful of each other and avoid personal attacks.
Reply

don532
03-23-2007, 12:07 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion :Does God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king
Greetings.
What translation are you using that shows the word repent used in those verses?

Thank you.
Peace.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 02:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Greetings.
What translation are you using that shows the word repent used in those verses?

Thank you.
Peace.
Greetings Don

The Hebrew word (nacham) which is used means according to (blueletterbible)
regret,to be sorry, console oneself, repent
that is why It is translated :

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel

1 Samuel 15:35 (New International Version)
Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel


If the word repent (or grieved or felt sorry)means anything, it says, I somehow made a mistake, not that I merely regret the results of my acts. I went down the wrong road. If you regret the outcome you are also saying, I wish I had done something else.

even if repent is restricted to the very narrow sense of emotion , the fact remains that God does not repent in any sense. 1 Sam. 15:29 Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant.
Reply

جوري
03-23-2007, 02:16 AM
close to (nadam) in Arabic... fascinating!...& Astghfor Allah 3la ma yasifoon!
Reply

don532
03-23-2007, 03:30 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Greetings Don

The Hebrew word (nacham) which is used means according to (blueletterbible)
regret,to be sorry, console oneself, repent
that is why It is translated :

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version)
And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel

1 Samuel 15:35 (New International Version)
Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel


If the word repent (or grieved or felt sorry)means anything, it says, I somehow made a mistake, not that I merely regret the results of my acts. I went down the wrong road. If you regret the outcome you are also saying, I wish I had done something else.

even if repent is restricted to the very narrow sense of emotion , the fact remains that God does not repent in any sense. 1 Sam. 15:29 Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant.
Greetings. I see your point. Repent in English carries with it a connotation of turning away, or changing one's life also. For example, repent from sin. I agree it does not make sense God should repent.
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret? What do you think?
Thank you and peace.
Reply

جوري
03-23-2007, 03:36 AM
Emotions are a human quality and G-D isn't human!... if he were I really would have no need to worship a being like myself...

Just think of all the sophistication of the universe including what the smartest human minds combined are capable of... the glory and grandeur in the galaxy to the most intricate tiny snow flake of which no two share the same shape... and know that all that combined from most grand to most intricate -- is all still worth nothing to the throne and magistrate of the almighty...
peace!
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 12:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Well, It is obvious that both Grace_seeker and keltoi failed to provide us with the so called old testament prophecy regarding what happened to John the baptist as the writer of Mark claims.
as a matter of fact my request was very simple, Just to copy from the old testament such prophecy and paste it here ,May be both of them still searching the old testament? anyway I assure them ,they can search the old testament till Day of Judgment for such imaginary prophecy and never find it !!.......
well, then I feel the need to highlight another Biblical contradiction

Queastion :Does God ever repent of anything?

Answer:

NO
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent:

Ezekiel 24:14 "I the Lord have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent."

YES
Genesis 6:6,7 "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth .

Exodus 32:14 "And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

1 Samuel 15:11 It repenteth me (God) that I have set up Saul to be king

It isn't our job to convert the world. Nor do Jews even care, but here, so you do not continue to think that your foolish "contradictions" have any merit, or make you look like more than a complete fool, who cut and pastes from atheist websites and has no knowledge of hebrew, or the Torah let alone elemtry knowledge of that book you call "holy".

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.


The word translates more to reconsidering something than repent. G-d knows what happens, but He still regrets that mankind does these painful and foolish things. Rashi's commentary:
HaShem was comforted that He had made man on the earth, and He grieved in His heart.
Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. G-d can't repent.

Now look at your quote:

Exodus 32:14 "And the L-rd repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

compare it to R' Kaplan's translation:

Exodus 32:14 G-d refrained from doing the evil that He planned for His people.
Refrained from doing something is quite different from repenting of something now isn't it?

But either way, G-d has no emotions. When G-d says he is angry or loving, G-d does not get angry or loving etc.

Kind of like when you say about your compute that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

The Torah was created for man, so therefore, it was created to show us how we would percieve G-d's actions. However, I have gone to far since non-Jews are in reality not even suppose to learn deep Torah knowledge.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 02:27 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
It isn't our job to convert the world. Nor do Jews even care, but here, so you do not continue to think that your foolish "contradictions" have any merit, or make you look like more than a complete fool, who cut and pastes from atheist websites and has no knowledge of hebrew, or the Torah let alone elemtry knowledge of that book you call "holy".

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.


The word translates more to reconsidering something than repent. G-d knows what happens, but He still regrets that mankind does these painful and foolish things. Rashi's commentary:
HaShem was comforted that He had made man on the earth, and He grieved in His heart.
Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. G-d can't repent.

Now look at your quote:

Exodus 32:14 "And the L-rd repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people."

compare it to R' Kaplan's translation:

Exodus 32:14 G-d refrained from doing the evil that He planned for His people.
Refrained from doing something is quite different from repenting of something now isn't it?

But either way, G-d has no emotions. When G-d says he is angry or loving, G-d does not get angry or loving etc.

Kind of like when you say about your compute that "it doesn’t like this software" - you don’t mean the computer has emotion; you mean that the computer acted in a way that makes you feel as if it didn’t like the software.

The Torah was created for man, so therefore, it was created to show us how we would percieve G-d's actions. However, I have gone to far since non-Jews are in reality not even suppose to learn deep Torah knowledge.




Do you realize what you have done, lavikor?

To begin with, you haven't read the thread well...

1-You tried very hard to shift the focus from Why God is engaging in inconsistency , describing himself That he can never repent
Num. 23:19 and Do it in Ex. 32:14 etc ,to How God being perfect,knows the future Repents,and that is irrelevant to the topic
.
2- To make it clearer (Imagine) for example once we read the following:

Num. 23:19 (God is not a pervert that He should discover women secret parts,or orders the taking of a harlot ).
or
Num. 23:19 (God is not Nasty to order the cooking of food with human feces and spread dung upon faces)
or
Num. 23:19( God is not a barbaric That he should order the killing of infants and suckings)

And we read later that he did it

Isaiah 3:17 says, "the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts."
"...the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of *****doms and children of *****doms: for the land hath committed great *****dom, departing from the Lord" (Hosea 1:2).

Ezkiel 4:12-And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts...." (Mal. 2:3).

1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

we will accuse God that he is engaging in inconsistency ,not whether or not such acts degrades him .
that was the crux of the topic i post.



3- the "repent" in Num. 23:19 and the one in Ex. 32:14 come from the same Hebrew word "nacham." The two "repents" do not come from two separate Hebrew words which can't help but weaken dramatically any argument that they have separate meanings.

4- Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent.
5- Though your post began with hurling insults on me ,your try to prove your point using documentation (although irrelevant) encouraged me to reply. and that is what I like to see ....the person whom i discuss with any point could insult me as much as he wish but satisfy me with a documentation as well.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 02:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by don532
Greetings. I see your point. Repent in English carries with it a connotation of turning away, or changing one's life also. For example, repent from sin. I agree it does not make sense God should repent.
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret? What do you think?
Thank you and peace.
Greetings.
your question :
God's wrath is mentioned many times in the Qur'an and the Bible. Is it not then possible He is capable of what we might call emotion including regret?
You question is well answered in

Numbers 23:19 (God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should repent)
there is a possibility to see God's wrath ,but impossible to see his repentance according to Numbers 23:19.

peace
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 03:17 PM
1-You tried very hard to shift the focus from Why God is engaging in inconsistency , describing himself That he can never repent
Num. 23:19 and Do it in Ex. 32:14 etc ,to How God being perfect,knows the future Repents,and that is irrelevant to the topic
It is compeltly relevant, your like an echo gong from room to room.

Of course G-d doesn't repent of anything -- He is after all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time). So how could He be sorry (repent) for something that happened when He knows everything that happens, is happening and happened since He is outside of it all?

So what you are dealing with here is the use of the English word "repent" which is not a very good choice.

- To make it clearer (Imagine) for example once we read the following:

Num. 23:19 (God is not a pervert that He should discover women secret parts,or orders the taking of a harlot ).
or
Num. 23:19 (God is not Nasty to order the cooking of food with human feces and spread dung upon faces)
or
Num. 23:19( God is not a barbaric That he should order the killing of infants and suckings)

And we read later that he did it

Isaiah 3:17 says, "the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord will discover their secret parts."
"...the Lord said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of *****doms and children of *****doms: for the land hath committed great *****dom, departing from the Lord" (Hosea 1:2).

Ezkiel 4:12-And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight
"Behold I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, even the dung of your solemn feasts...." (Mal. 2:3).

1 Sam. 15:3 says, "...slay both man and woman, infant and suckling...."

we will accuse God that he is engaging in inconsistency ,not whether or not such acts degrades him .
that was the crux of the topic i post.

Alright so now that we are done imagining, tell me what your point is! You say I am straying away from the topic but your straying away, you have no clue at all.

The word your using has DIFFERENT MEANINGS as in, When I say "Principle" and "Principal" I am not at all refering to the same thing, one being the headmaster of a school and the other one being a belief of foundation of mine. That may be a bad example, but a hebrew word can have 20 different meanings that could form 20 different english words, but they may just use one! The translators of the christian old teatsmanet do not have a correct translation.

Now to respond to you distortions:

Mal 2:3

and I will scatter dung of the animals means: of your festive sacrifices; that is to say, you will not receive reward from Me, but [you will receive a curse] for harm and shame. And I will rebuke the seed of the field because of you.
and it shall take you to itself means: The dung of your sacrificial animals will take you to itself to [make you] cheap and despised, as it is.

This speaks about the animal sacrifices, and what happend if your use cheap ones i believe.

1 sam 15:3

Now, go, and you shall smite Amalek, and you shall utterly destroy all that is his, and you shall not have pity on him: and you shall slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.' "

Now I am not sure if you know who Amalek is but Amalek is the enemy of G-d, and now we wage the battle against amalek as he tries to destroy our faith in G-d.

I've got news for you -- I do seek out Amalekites. Between you and me, I've even killed a few. You should try it, it's not nearly as bad as it sounds. No one gets hurt, and it feels great. But first you have to learn to identify who Amalek really is.

Amalek was an ancient Middle Eastern nation that had an inborn hatred towards Israel. The Amalekites took any opportunity to attack Jews for absolutely no reason. There was no land dispute or provocation that caused this hatred - it was an intrinsic pathological need to destroy G-d's people. Such hatred cannot be combatted through diplomacy. There was no option to re-educate the Amalekites or review their school curricula. Their hatred was not taught - it was ingrained. As long as an Amalekite walked the earth, no Jew was safe. It was a clear case of kill or be killed. A Jew had to take the command to kill Amalek quite literally - his life depended on it.

In time, the Amalekite nation assimilated into the people around them. Their inborn hatred became diluted as their national identity dissolved, and the command to kill them became impossible to fulfill. This was no accident of fate. The G-d who authored the Torah is also the Author of history. He decided that the time had come that this command should no longer apply in its literal sense. It was time for the Jewish people to move on.

But this doesn't mean that Amalek has disappeared. Amalek is alive and well today, albeit in a different form. No longer a foreign nation, today's Amalek is an internal enemy. We each have an Amalekite lurking within our very self. The inner Amalek is unholy cynicism. That little voice inside each of us that derides, belittles and attacks truth and goodness; our irrational tendency to mock people who act morally, to be cynical when we see altruism, to doubt our own or other's sincerity - these are the modern day Amalekites. They wage a lethal war with our soul. If we let it, cynicism can kill our every attempt to improve ourselves and smother any move towards refining our character and expressing our soul.

There is only one effective response to Amalek's attacks: Annihilation. Don't argue back, it won't work. The power of cynicism is that it is irrational. The most inspiring, uplifting and profound moment of spiritual awakening can be dismissed in an instant by Amalek's sarcastic taunts. The most logical and sound arguments can be deflected with his quick one-liners -- "Get real!", "Who ya kidding?" or "Hey, you think you're so holy-moly?" There is no answer to such cheap pot-shots. You can't fight cynicism with reason. Just wipe it out. No dialogue. No compromise. Erase it from the face of your soul.
Next time your cynical Amalekite raises his ugly head, stomp on it. Beat him at his own game: Do good things for no good reason. Be kind without an explanation. Love your fellow irrationally. Become the hero of your own inner battle, and free your captured soul--kill an Amalekite today.


isaiah:

This is a punishemnt for people doing wrong. I have heard Muslims say that AIDS was created as a sin punishment so don't start on the Tanakh! Look athe prevoious verse:

16. And the Lord said: Because the daughters of Zion are so haughty; and they walk with neck stretched forth, and winking eyes; walking and raising themselves they walk; and with their feet they spout "venom."

And the Lord said Concerning the women who governed My people, “Since the daughters of Zion are so haughty…” and winking eyes Heb. וּמְשַׂקְּרוֹת, an expression of looking. Another explanation is: They paint their eyes with vermilion or with blue eye shade. walking and raising themselves they walk Heb. ותפוף. This is an expression of something floating on another, as (Deut. 11:4): “over whom He caused… to flow (הֵצִיף),” which the Targum renders as אַטֵיף. Thus, a tall one would walk between two short ones, in order to appear to be floating over them (Shabbath 62b). Jonathan, however, renders: and with wigs they surround themselves. They would tie wigs, braids of cut-off hair. They would twist together with their braids so that they would appear thick and broad.

and with their feet they spout venom When they would pass in the street near Jewish youths, they would stamp their feet and hint to them of the affection of the adulteresses, in order to arouse their temptation, like the venom of a serpent. עֶכֶס is the venom of a serpent.

17. And the Lord shall smite with zaraath the crown of the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the Lord shall pour out their "vessels."

And the Lord shall smite with zaaraath Heb. וְשִׂפַּח. This is an expression of zaraath [believed to be a form of leprosy, see Commentary Digest II Kings 5:1], as (in Leviticus 13:6): “It is a mispachath (מִסְפַּחַת).” But since it is written with a ‘sin,’ our Sages expounded about it that they would become enslaved maidservants (שְׁפָחוֹת), and some expounded it to mean that He smote them with many families (מִשְׁפָּחוֹת) of lice.

shall pour out their “vessels” Heb. פָּתְהֵן יְעָרֶה. Their vessels He shall pour out. This is the Aramaic language, like “a black vessel” פַּתְיָא אוּכְמָא [in] (Pesachim 88a). They would say, Let Him hurry and hasten His deed, to bring on the invaders. An officer will see me and take me. When the retribution came, Nebuchadnezzar’s officers took them for wives because of their beauty. Thereupon, the Holy One, blessed be He, signaled to their ‘fountains,’ and blood of an issue flowed from them profusely, as a person pours from one vessel to another. They became loathsome to them, and they cast them to the ground from upon their chariots (Lamentations Rabbah 4:15). Jonathan, however, rendered: He will remove their glory. פתהן means wideness or greatness.
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 03:23 PM
Now let me ask you something. Since Muslims do not believe the entire Torah is corrupt, at what risk are you going to take that you ridicule something G-d has really said. Since there is no contradictions, just a naive understanding of hebrew and the language ueed in the Torah on your part, I must say that are you risking that you may actually be attacking the word of G-d that has not been corrupted?

Of course the Jewish sages have said that the day the Torah was translated out of hebrew was a day that would be compared to the golden calf sin, because of course they were predicting the ignorant and naive people who would come along and ave the audacity to make claims when they do not understand the first element of the text.

The jewish sages predicted people like you thousands of years ago, because they knew how obvious the unlearned and the naive would be when reading the text.

If I wrote in Hebrew:

"Shalom (name)! I love the way chicken tastes, because all who love chicken are smart."

and then wrote:

"Shalom?!?(means: hello), anyone there?!? you are an idiot!"

"Shalom, (means: peace) my friend! you are the wisest."

I could come up with much more complicated examples, that would represent the actual structure of the verses you have trouble understanding, but since you do not speak hebrew very well you wouldn;t get it.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-23-2007, 04:45 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Do you realize what you have done, lavikor?

To begin with, you haven't read the thread well...

1-You tried very hard to shift the focus from Why God is engaging in inconsistency , describing himself That he can never repent
Num. 23:19 and Do it in Ex. 32:14 etc ,to How God being perfect,knows the future Repents,and that is irrelevant to the topic
Are these honest questions? Because if they are, Lavikor actually address your "apparent" contradiction, and did so very directly. Were you listening? Or do you just like to hear your own voice?

In short, Lavikor's answered that the question does not apply. There is no contradiction because the word "repent" that you have focus on is not the best translation of the passage. It does not say that God does repent in one place and that he does not in another. The truth is that God does not repent in the under of repent that most people associate with that word. Yet, God does sometimes change how he relates to people. And that is the way the passages that speak of God repenting should be understood. Thus there is no contradiction in them


The other thing you have not listened to is that some of us have expressly said that we have no problem with some of the contradictions you have pointed to being labeled contradictions. You have adopted such a combative tone that you fail to realize that on some points we agree. The scripture do say one thing in one place and a different thing in another. Are these contradictions problems? I don't think so. Some of them can probably be harmonized. But some of them don't appear that they can be. Some of them are a result of misunderstanding of the author's intent, such as your references to God repenting and not repenting -- the authors were not making contradictory statements about God so much as talking about different aspects of God's relationship with human beings. And in some cases we may be dealing with copyist or scribal errors. But, alas, in other cases, I think the biblical writer may simply have got it wrong. There source was not correct, or they reported through their very human eyes what they thought was true, when it wasn't really the case at all. I know some will want to argue with that last statement, and if you want to argue with them, go right ahead, but I'm not hear to simply argue.

If you have an honest question, if you are seeking answers as to how I can see that and yet still find the Bible credible, I will gladly address those. But if you just want to go on endless rants, then I will elect to spend my time with those who are willing to listen.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 04:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Now let me ask you something. Since Muslims do not believe the entire Torah is corrupt, at what risk are you going to take that you ridicule something G-d has really said. Since there is no contradictions, just a naive understanding of hebrew and the language ueed in the Torah on your part, I must say that are you risking that you may actually be attacking the word of G-d that has not been corrupted?

Of course the Jewish sages have said that the day the Torah was translated out of hebrew was a day that would be compared to the golden calf sin, because of course they were predicting the ignorant and naive people who would come along and ave the audacity to make claims when they do not understand the first element of the text.

The jewish sages predicted people like you thousands of years ago, because they knew how obvious the unlearned and the naive would be when reading the text.

If I wrote in Hebrew:

"Shalom (name)! I love the way chicken tastes, because all who love chicken are smart."

and then wrote:

"Shalom?!? anyone there?!?(means: hello), you are an idiot!"

"Shalom, (means: peace) my friend! you are the wisest."

I could come up with much more complicated examples, that would represent the actual structure of the verses you have trouble understanding, but since you do not speak hebrew very well you wouldn;t get it.





You started your monologue with defending the claim ,God is all omniscient (he knows everything because He is outside of time
and for your benefit I will repeat what I said before:

1-the topic is not (God's attributes in the Bible) It is (Bible contradictions)
and the space you wasted in the thread is again related to the topic (God's attributes in the Bible) you can post it in a thread named (defending God's shameful attributes in the Bible)


2-If a Hebrew word can have 20 different meanings again is irrelevant to the contradiction under discussion.
for example:
1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.
Which words would you like to use instead of Repent? refrained,grieved,felt sorry

Let's try them:

1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord refrained that he had made Saul king over Israel.

Makes no sense at all.......


1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

your laughable explanation is that Hashem Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. while the text is crystal clear is that :
1-God made Saul a king.
2- Saul disobeyed Gods orders.
3-God felt sorry and repented ever making him a king.

the Question is not man's action here ,It is God's action (making Saul a king),which he (grieved,repent,feel sorry etc) for.

If the word in such specific passage( repented ,grieved , felt sorry etc)means anything, it says, God somehow made a mistake, not that He merely regret the results making Saul a king. but wish He had done something else.

again in 15:29 Num. 23:19 says, "God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent." There are no qualifiers, modifiers or restrictions applied to the word "repent." It simply says he won't repent. Why he later repents is irrelevant.
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 06:16 PM
1 Samuel 15:35
The Lord grieved that he had made Saul king over Israel.

your laughable explanation is that Hashem Grieved at man's actions, not repentent. while the text is crystal clear is that :
1-God made Saul a king.
2- Saul disobeyed Gods orders.
3-God felt sorry and repented ever making him a king.
Again you have decided to use the english language when filling in meaning that come from Hebrew. Your first mistake.

But since you want to analyze it from an English language prospective let us do so:

The definition of repent can be:

Definition of repent on the web:
  • Acknowledge one's wrong and turn away from it.

"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent."

Now the next verse you bring up in the "Christian translations you are using says:

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."

definition of Regret on the web:

To feel sorry, disappointed, or distressed about.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regretted

So in Samuel G-d is saying he felt sorry and was dispaointed in Saul.

In Numbers, G-d is saying, that G-d could never acknowledge one's wrong, necause he is a perfect being!

Not to hard.


your laughable explanation is that Hashem Grieved at man's actions
Hashem does not grieve, we explain his actions as such because we have not accomplished what he wished us to do with our free will. But I will not get into free will because you cannot even understand the basic concepts of these verses.
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 07:17 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Again you have decided to use the english language when filling in meaning that come from Hebrew. Your first mistake.

But since you want to analyze it from an English language prospective let us do so:

The definition of repent can be:

Definition of repent on the web:
  • Acknowledge one's wrong and turn away from it.

"God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of man that he should repent."

Now the next verse you bring up in the "Christian translations you are using says:

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."

definition of Regret on the web:

To feel sorry, disappointed, or distressed about.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/regretted

So in Samuel G-d is saying he felt sorry and was dispaointed in Saul.

In Numbers, G-d is saying, that G-d could never acknowledge one's wrong, necause he is a perfect being!

Not to hard.




Hashem does not grieve, we explain his actions as such because we have not accomplished what he wished us to do with our free will. But I will not get into free will because you cannot even understand the basic concepts of these verses.


You just can't get with it my friend.even your shell game can't save you this time !


you claim:

(So in Samuel G-d is saying he felt sorry and was dispaointed in Saul)

correction:the text doesn't say God felt sorry for what Saul did, It says God felt sorry and disappointed by his own act of making Saul a king.
What Saul have done is irrelevant, what matters is what God feels regarding his own act (setting Saul as a king).

What matters is not what caused him feel sorry ,it is if he really felt sorry for a decision he made (making Saul a king) and that is plainly means repentance.


such as if you once let your child home alone with a box of matches ,got back home found it all burned ,so you feel sorry and repent ever letting the child alone as you did........

In Numbers affirms that God never has experience as it. so that is where the contradiction comes.


you finished the post with this interesting statement:

(Hashem does not grieve, we explain his actions as such because we have not accomplished what he wished us to do with our free will.)

In other words the following passage and the comment of Rashi (which i respect and appreciatehim lots ,just doesn't agree with him in this matter )is a cheap propaganda of Hashem about himself:

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.



well,regarding the questions you asked If i as a muslim believe that not all the torah is fabricated ,If so may be my language is offensive ? as a matter of fact as long as I find parts of the Torah with contradictions still not cleared up ,it will be treated as man's word till I find a clear up which makes sense.

lastly,one of my favorite things is to defend the text of the Torah when I find christians twist it for their own agenda,especially regarding the promised messiah.and their deformed concept about him being born of a virgin,God,savior etc....not only that ,also I think that parts of nowadays Torah contains jewels and words of wisdom(like proverbs etc)...that is also the Quranic point of view. and It pains me in my heart to find the only two religions of monotheism all over the world and the cousins whom their father Abraham in conflict !!!!
though we disagree in this thread but I'm sure I will find you once in my part in a topic related to the new testament.


peace
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 08:10 PM
So in Samuel G-d is saying he felt sorry and was dispaointed in Saul)

correction:the text doesn't say God felt sorry for what Saul did, It says God felt sorry and disappointed by his own act of making Saul a king.
What Saul have done is irrelevant, what matters is what God feels regarding his own act (setting Saul as a king).
Untrue, you did not read my statement correctly.

"Samuel didn't see Saul again before he died, though Samuel mourned over Saul. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king of Israel."

Alright so let us see what this passage is speaking about. G-d "regretted" that he made Saul king of Israel. So now that we have established one of the definitions is "to be disappointed". G-d is disapointed because he made Saul the king. But we learn from seforim like the Zohar that you have to look into the text a bit deeper. We know that G-d does not have "regret", because he knows all, but at the same time he grants us free will which is a deep Kaballistic topic, which I will not get into. The Torah and Tanakh were written for man and not G-d, therefore, the way we understand G-d is by the way we understand anyonelse so he will make an example of what his actions are like so we can see, and say we better not get G-d angry etc.

Now to get deeper. G-d knows all, but at the same time gives Saul free choice. Saul used his free will and G-d was "disapointed" in him although this is another emotion to describe how G-d acts.

The attribute of omniscience, of knowing all things, must be clarified. Jewish belief holds that G-d is timeless. Past, present and future for G-d can be seen as a whole. This much is commonly asserted. What is sometimes not asserted as a corollary is that G-d also knows how things would turn out if differently had a different path been taken at every potential choice-making nexus. God knew you would turn left at Main Street this morning; but He also knows what would have happened had you turned right.

Gen. 6:6-7 -- This (along with another, 1 Sam 15:11, regarding G-d "repenting" over the choice of Saul) is the primary hinge point of the skeptical argument alleging contradiction. But let's look at that word "repent" more closely. Strong's gives this definition:
nacham, naw-kham'; a prim. root; prop. to sigh, i.e. breathe strongly; by impl. to be sorry, i.e. (in a favorable sense) to pity, console, or (reflex.) rue; or (unfavorably) to avenge (oneself): --comfort (self), ease [one's self], repent (-er, -ing, self).
Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to G-d, as we shall see.

So it could be "The L-rd sighed that he made Saul reign over Yisrael (because he had so much potential if he used his free will correctly, because G-d can forsee all that could have happend as well.)

It could be that the L-rd thought it was a pity that he made Saul king because if he had used his free will to do good, and not bad, the L-rd new it could have been different.

(Hashem does not grieve, we explain his actions as such because we have not accomplished what he wished us to do with our free will.)

In other words the following passage and the comment of Rashi (which i respect and appreciatehim lots ,just doesn't agree with him in this matter )is a cheap propaganda of Hashem about himself:

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
Again, when G-d says he grieves in his Torah, it is o we can understand G-d because our minds cannot compute the essence of G-d. A great explanation of this is:
"Angry" is not at all meant literally, not more than when it says "the hand of Hashem" etc. It is merely a moshol. Hashem has no emotions. He does not get angry. But just as "Yad Hashem" represents when Hashem acts in a way that we would associate with out hand, so too "af Hashem" does not mean hashem gets angry but rather His actions are similar to what we would normally associate with as coming from anger.
lastly,one of my favorite things is to defend the text of the Torah when I find christians twist it for their own agenda,especially regarding the promised messiah.and their deformed concept about him being born of a virgin,God,savior etc....
Oh, Christians will twist the Torah just as much to serve their needs of finding "proofs" that their idol/messiah is in the Tanakh.

Torah contains jewels and words of wisdom(like proverbs etc)...
The book of Proverbs or Mishlei is the Tanakh. Not written by G-d like the Torah was (5 books of Moshe).


Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 09:03 PM
[QUOTE=lavikor201;693077]Now here is a question: Is it not possible to grieve and feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen? Of course it is. And there is no reason why this cannot also apply to G-d, as we shall see.



Why don't we let the Bible answers better?

We as humans could feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen ,but to apply that to God ,then we violate:

Numbers 3:19
God is not a man that he should lie; neither the son of a man that he should repent.

and

Ezekiel 24:14
I the LORD have spoken it: it shall come to pass, and I will do it; I will not go back, neither will I spare, neither will I repent.

I think this issue took much of the thread and If you replay to me and me the same to you we will repeat ourselves....
anyway thanx for your answers and we just let the readers judge which comment makes sense more.

I will post soon a new point for discussion but this time from the New testament in order to make the discussion varied.

shalom
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 09:14 PM
[QUOTE=lavikor201;693077] The christian proof text from the tankah for the messiah is a real farce ,the reader doesn't even need to have a deep study of Hebrew in order to find out the hopless false deception made by Gospel writers especially Matthew ....
the distortion he made from the Tankah ,proved him untrustworthy and turned his gopel to be a landmark of religious deception
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 09:33 PM
Why don't we let the Bible answers better?

We as humans could feel sorry over something -- even if we know that it is going to happen, even if we cause it to happen ,but to apply that to God ,then we violate
Well the only thing I have to say to that is that the emotions we give G-d in the Torah and Tanakh are so we can understand how G-d is reacting. As I told you G-d does not "love" or get "angry", but rather His actions are similar to what we would normally associate with as coming from anger, because the Torah is a book for humanity, so it is created so we can understand it using our logic.

I think this issue took much of the thread and If you replay to me and me the same to you we will repeat ourselves....
anyway thanx for your answers and we just let the readers judge which comment makes sense more.
It is basically a matter of language. If you read the Torah and Tanakh in hebrew, then the verses you state would not be viewed as contradictions, but since we have a difficult time comprehending how different the cultures are and the languages are, it will always be tough to explain it to an english reader, a reason the sages thought of the day the Torah was translated, comparable to the day the rogue Israelites built the golden calf.

It was nice discussing this with you.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-23-2007, 10:06 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
quoting of lavikor
The christian proof text from the tankah for the messiah is a real farce ,the reader doesn't even need to have a deep study of Hebrew in order to find out the hopless false deception made by Gospel writers especially Matthew ....
the distortion he made from the Tankah ,proved him untrustworthy and turned his gopel to be a landmark of religious deception

So, Matthew is deceptive. That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Deception and contradiction are NOT the same thing. Though I've already granted you that there is certainly the appearance of contradictory statements on more than one occassion. I'm not sure that proves anything.
Reply

Tiger_Stripes
03-23-2007, 10:09 PM
[QUOTE=Grace Seeker;693222]
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith


So, Matthew is deceptive. That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Deception and contradiction are NOT the same thing. Though I've already granted you that there is certainly the appearance of contradictory statements on more than one occassion. I'm not sure that proves anything.
So now you say Mathew is deceptive? What other "deceptions" has he made in the New Testament?
Reply

back_to_faith
03-23-2007, 10:22 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
So, Matthew is deceptive. That is your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it. Deception and contradiction are NOT the same thing. Though I've already granted you that there is certainly the appearance of contradictory statements on more than one occassion. I'm not sure that proves anything.

Greetings.

contradiction is one of the clues for deception.....
contradictions for me exist in the second level of reasons to believe the NT writers to be untrustworthy. the first level for me is their gross distortion of the OT text for purposes of indoctrination.
that is why I started a threat called(new testament prophecies) If you wish to join me there I will be happy.I just can't highlight the same topic in more than a thread.
Join me there and there is a question is waiting there to be answered.
peace
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-23-2007, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by back_to_faith
Greetings.

contradiction is one of the clues for deception.....
contradictions for me exist in the second level of reasons to believe the NT writers to be untrustworthy. the first level for me is their gross distortion of the OT text for purposes of indoctrination.
that is why I started a threat called(new testament prophecies) If you wish to join me there I will be happy.I just can't highlight the same topic in more than a thread.
Join me there and there is a question is waiting there to be answered.
peace

So which is it? You want to prove deception? You want to prove contradiction? You want to prove lack of trustworthiness?

Because while contradiction may be a form of deception in your mind, deception does not necessarily imply contradiction. Though, of course, deception might substantiate untrustworthiness. But you flitter from one thing to another and frankly I have yet to figure out what your overall point is -- except that you come across as just wanting to argue for arguments sake.

Or maybe you just love Islam and the Qur'an so much that you want to build them up, and the best way you can think of to do that is to tear everything else that might be out there down?

In this thead can we stick to contradictions that you see in the Bible? If you have any you see and would honestly like to learn how those who accept the Bible deal with them, I will be glad to engage you in that form of discussion. As for any of your other agendas, I leave that for others to entertain if they so desire. I figure eventually all of these things come up a second and a third time, so no doubt in time I'll get around to the other issues as well. But that is not how I choose to spend my time today.
Reply

lavikor201
03-23-2007, 10:54 PM
Mordekhai Yehoshua ibn Yusef Halevi said: "The confident study, and speak of their beliefs, the insecure study and speak about the beliefs of others."
Reply

Keltoi
03-24-2007, 01:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Mordekhai Yehoshua ibn Yusef Halevi said: "The confident study, and speak of their beliefs, the insecure study and speak about the beliefs of others."
Great quote!
Reply

جوري
03-24-2007, 01:37 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Mordekhai Yehoshua ibn Yusef Halevi said: "The confident study, and speak of their beliefs, the insecure study and speak about the beliefs of others."
That is fresh... considering your words earlier today!-- this is comparative religion. what were you expecting?

format_quote Originally Posted by lavikor201
Most likely not, however, you will find the studying the Torah and Talmud about 21 out of the 24 hours of the day. You wouldn't want to get into religious discussions because many of them have already memorized the majority of your holiest scriptures (christians, muslims, mormans) and know how to refute missionaries quickly and accuratly. And they may become very angry if your not modestly dressed.
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-24-2007, 01:02 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
That is fresh... considering your words earlier today!-- this is comparative religion. what were you expecting?
I am pretty sure Jews do not learn others books to convert others, but to protect Jews from other missionaries, since the three religions that he named all have in common are the biggest "Dawah" or Missionizing religions.
Reply

جوري
03-24-2007, 02:22 PM
^^ thanks for your two cents... he has a keyboard that he can write with to express his beliefs. Or are you his spokes person? “there is no compulsion in religion,” (Quran 2: 256) -- you can lead a horse into the water, but you can make him drink! ---- and I do believe no one has coerced either of you to become members of an Islamic forum? If you are secure in your beliefs you'll have no reason to want to learn of others... You'll exist as a monolithic religion, and you'll hang with your own crowd agreeing eternally with one another away from troubled waters!..... end of story!

peace!
Reply

ManchesterFolk
03-24-2007, 09:57 PM
^^ thanks for your two cents... he has a keyboard that he can write with to express his beliefs. Or are you his spokes person? “there is no compulsion in religion,” (Quran 2: 256) -- you can lead a horse into the water, but you can make him drink! ---- and I do believe no one has coerced either of you to become members of an Islamic forum? If you are secure in your beliefs you'll have no reason to want to learn of others... You'll exist as a monolithic religion, and you'll hang with your own crowd agreeing eternally with one another away from troubled waters!..... end of story!
Just giving my opinion, you do so in every post you make as well.
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-24-2007, 11:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
If you are secure in your beliefs you'll have no reason to want to learn of others... You'll exist as a monolithic religion, and you'll hang with your own crowd agreeing eternally with one another away from troubled waters!..... end of story!

peace!

That doesn't even follow. I'm very secure in my own beliefs. But I also very much enjoy learning, challenging, and being challenged by others, and so it is I enjoy being here on this Muslim forum, even though I am not Muslim. And though I also believe in converting people to Christianity, you will not find one post of mine that has been an attempt at proselytizing, for I try to respect that this is not why others are on here even when they ask me questionas about Christianity. (Though of course, if anyone was interesting in learning more about and actually becoming a Christian, I would accommodate them as best I could and direct them to a local congregation.) So, it is that I am part of a Muslim online forum, because it provides me the opportunity to study many beliefs, and to speak about my own when asked.
Reply

جوري
03-25-2007, 12:10 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Grace Seeker
That doesn't even follow. I'm very secure in my own beliefs. But I also very much enjoy learning, challenging, and being challenged by others, and so it is I enjoy being here on this Muslim forum, even though I am not Muslim. And though I also believe in converting people to Christianity, you will not find one post of mine that has been an attempt at proselytizing, for I try to respect that this is not why others are on here even when they ask me questionas about Christianity. (Though of course, if anyone was interesting in learning more about and actually becoming a Christian, I would accommodate them as best I could and direct them to a local congregation.) So, it is that I am part of a Muslim online forum, because it provides me the opportunity to study many beliefs, and to speak about my own when asked.


Dear Gene:
... why do assume this post was directed at you???? why not read three four threads back and tie them with other comments also in this section to discover what does or doesn't follow?..... I am all for the opportunity to learn and grow and for interfaith relations.. what I despise and will not tolerate however, is the cruel and cutting edge and scathing undertone of some posts I find lying here and there...

peace!
Reply

Grace Seeker
03-25-2007, 12:20 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by PurestAmbrosia
Dear Gene:
... why do assume this post was directed at you???? why not read three four threads back and tie them with other comments also in this section to discover what does or doesn't follow?..... I am all for the opportunity to learn and grow and for interfaith relations.. what I despise and will not tolerate however, is the cruel and cutting edge and scathing undertone of some posts I find lying here and there...

peace!

I didn't think it was intended for me. But I guess I'm an equal opporutnity critiquer. I just didn't think that that one sentence was logically consistent with itself. As I see it, if it was, then it would apply not only to whom ever you intended it for, but to anyone else who read it as well. And I don't think it does apply to me. That's why I said it didn't follow, even if the point you were trying to make with regard to whomever might be true.



Oh, and btw, the reason I didn't refer back several posts, is because I understand most posts as either referring to the immediately preceeding post, or being designed to stand on their own in reference to the whole of the thread rather than targeting any one individual, unless that person is specifically quoted.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 101
    Last Post: 01-14-2008, 10:05 PM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!