Richard Dawkins: Answer My Questions Please.

[Hugo]

Grace seeker, you seem to believe your own lies. Is your faith that weak? The New Testament (modern Christian Bible) was written in the 4th century by Emperor Constantine and his council in his own words. This fact is confirmed in the Roman Catholic Encyclopedia, which also states that any original text was altered, apparently in order to create some form of consistency across all documents. Unfortunately, the copying of earlier texts, leaving some out, making some up, introduced many errors and inconsistencies in the modern Christian bible. For example in Genesis alone there are dozens. And example of these are as follows: GE 1:3-5 On the first day, God created light, then separated light and darkness. GE 1:14-19 The sun (which separates night and day) wasn't created until the fourth day. There were originally 252 commandments in the Old Testament, in Judaism there are 613 commands found in the Pentateuch (the first five books of Moses, a.k.a. The Torah.), and in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs. So in summary man created the Bible. Many men writing earlier documents, and later copied, altered and modernized through the ages. And if you are strong with your faith, you should be comfortable with this fact, no need to make up lies.

Muslim are so keen to tell us about Hadith sciences and how accurate everything is but when it comes to propping up your faith anything will do, is Islam so fragile and the Bible so fearful to you? What you have written can be found in Wiki.answers.com and it is so absurd that its a joke. There 6,000 Biblical manuscripts and many virtually complete (99%) copies that date before the 4th century (Arabic was not even a written language then) .

In the Hebrew Bible or as we might call it the Old Testament it is plain that what you have copied is a total muddle. The great orthodox scholar, Solomon Schechter, pointed out, the 613 commandments in the Torah are for all practical purposes, now reduced to about 100, if we exclude 'conventional' prohibitions against murder, theft, adultery etc and those commandments specifically connected to the land of Israel and the Temple. A Jew and Christian will differentiate between the sublime and timeless legislation such as the 'holiness code' in Leviticus 19, and the cruder injunctions about treatment of lepers or women suspected of adultery, which betray attitudes prevalent at the time of composition but are no longer acceptable to day.

You cannot have read any of what you wrote for then you could not possibly have written ".. in the modern day Christian Bible a mere 10 commandments, not including Psalms and Proverbs" or you show embarrassing ignorance since clearly you cannot make a distinction between a Biblical book and a Biblical command.

Why don't you try reading "The Jewish People" by Goldberg and Rayner, Penguin Books.

 

[Zafran]

Well who wrote the Qu'ran - does your chain of narrators take us back to him - can we check it out with God?

Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .

 

[جوري]

Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .

You are asking him to read a book before he argues against it? That seems a little too much-- check out his misquotes of Azami's book on the previous thread or in fact on every thread.. I think you should lower your standards and extremely so when addressing this guy!

 

[Hugo]

Quran tells you whos speech it is - open it up and check it .

Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.

 

[جوري]

Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.

The criteria of testing what is divine has been afforded you numerous times before and it follows a very logical, concise fashion.. the same fashion was followed by many that lead a former christian like Dr. Gary Miller, or the former atheist Dr. Jeffrey lang amongst millions of others to Islam.. you ought to try it sometimes.. you know reading, comprehending and then posing questions!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

Is this an example of the famed Islamic logic (usually circular)? So I presume you mean the speech was God's. so any book that say it is from God is automatically from God.

I find it odd coming from you a man who believes that Newtons laws worked in the past - so they will do in the future as a certainty. Circular reasoning, But you have no problem with Newtons laws, so why have it here?

 

[Pygoscelis]

That isn't circular logic... that isn't logic at all.

 

[Grace Seeker]

for being so many years here and you dont even know what a sahabi is or a hadith is?

How long did it take the NT to actaully develop into the NT - a few hundred years. Wheres the chain of narrations? that go back to christ or even better where is the "good news" or The Gospel - instead we have a gospels according to - and even biblical scholars have become sceptic over the bible and who wrote it.

We also have people saying Jesus pbuh wasnt God.

I know what a hadith is. I don't know what a sahabi is. I don't see how either is relevant. It seems that after all this time you don't understand what either the NT or the Gospel is.

For your information, the NT is a collection of writings regarding the New Covenant that God made with mankind in and through Jesus Christ. That they weren't collected into a codex and canonized for a few hundred years doesn't matter one whit with regard to their authenticity. That God chose to make this new covenant, and also to make it not just with the Jews but with all of humanity, is the good news. Jesus himself is the Gospel message. There is no Gospel "according to Jesus" in the sense that Muslims speak of it, and there never was one. No such Gospel is even needed.

 

[Grace Seeker]

as I have demonstrated in previous posts, the new testaments that you have today was not written when Jesus was still alive nor when his disciples were still alive.

Maybe you have something that the rest of the word do not?

You've never demonstrated any such thing. None of it was written in Jesus' lifetime. But John was the last of the Gospels written, and it was written by a disciple of Jesus, so your second statement fails on that ground alone. I've provided substantiation for that many times in the past. That you choose to ignore it and continue on presenting error as truth tells me that you are simply not an honest investigator in search of truth. You want to play the "gotcha game" that you tried with Hugo earlier. I'm not interested in that. And you don't appear to be interested in the facts, learning, or the truth. Why should I bother to continue to address your questions if you aren't really serious in the asking?

That's a serious question to which I expect a serious, reasoned, and non-flippant response -- not a retort. At least, not if you expect me to continue to engage you in any future attempts at meaningful conversation.

 

[Ramadhan]

But John was the last of the Gospels written, and it was written by a disciple of Jesus,

what was the name of the disciple again?

and evidence, please

 

[CosmicPathos]

atheists and the their reasoning, or lack thereof. Pathetic. I am angry at evolution for giving them a cortex.

 

[Grace Seeker]

what was the name of the disciple again?

and evidence, please

History and tradition:
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case named as the author of this Gospel. The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees. Even those who doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypse agreed that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the authenticity of John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century.



The internal evidence:
Its author can be discerned from the contents. Judging by the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who knew the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the Savior and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate friends. The Gospel shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events. He speaks of John nine times without giving him the title of "the Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish him from the Apostle. All these indications point to the conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the Fourth Gospel.
And, The Gospel of John never mentions John by name, referring to him as "the disciple that Jesus loved". This is understandable if John is the author, but would be hard to explain otherwise.



The testimony of those who personally knew the author:
Irenæus (d. about 202) is directly linked with Apostle John through his teacher Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of all four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.

Papias, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great writings an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.

 

[Ramadhan]

So the lengthy essay below amounts to:
we don't know for sure who wrote gospel of john, let alone the other three older gospels.

I am still fascinated how christians base their whole life and salvation of hereafter based on books whose authors were unknown.

History and tradition:
The ancient manuscripts and translations of the Gospel constitute the first group of evidence. In the titles, tables of contents, signatures, which are usually added to the text of the separate Gospels, John is in every case named as the author of this Gospel. The evidence given by the early ecclesiastical authors, whose reference to questions of authorship is but incidental, agrees. Even those who doubted the authenticity of the Apocalypse agreed that John was the author of the Fourth Gospel. If we except the heretics mentioned by Irenaeus and Epiphanius, the authenticity of John's authorship of the Fourth Gospel was scarcely ever seriously questioned until the end of the eighteenth century.



The internal evidence:
Its author can be discerned from the contents. Judging by the language, the author was a Palestinian Jew, who knew the Hellenic Greek of the upper classes. He displays an accurate knowledge of the geographical and social conditions of Palestine. He must have enjoyed personal intercourse with the Savior and must even have belonged to the circle of his intimate friends. The Gospel shows the writer to have been an eyewitness of most of the events. He speaks of John nine times without giving him the title of "the Baptist", as the other Evangelists invariably do to distinguish him from the Apostle. All these indications point to the conclusion that the Apostle John must have been the author of the Fourth Gospel.
And, The Gospel of John never mentions John by name, referring to him as "the disciple that Jesus loved". This is understandable if John is the author, but would be hard to explain otherwise.



The testimony of those who personally knew the author:
Irenæus (d. about 202) is directly linked with Apostle John through his teacher Polycarp, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus cites in his writings at least one hundred verses from the Fourth Gospel, often with the remark, "as John, the disciple of the Lord, says". In speaking of the composition of all four Gospels, he says of the last: "Later John, the disciple of the Lord who rested on His breast, also wrote a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia" (Adv. Haer., III, i, n. 2). As here, so also in the other texts it is clear that by "John, the disciple of the Lord," he means none other than the Apostle John.

Papias, an immediate disciple of the Apostle John, included in his great writings an account of the composition of the Gospel by St. John during which he had been employed as scribe by the Apostle.

 

[Grace Seeker]

So the lengthy essay below amounts to:
we don't know for sure who wrote gospel of john, let alone the other three older gospels.

I am still fascinated how christians base their whole life and salvation of hereafter based on books whose authors were unknown.

Are you unable to read? We do know. History, tradition, internal evidence, and those who knew the author all agree: the evidence is that John wrote the Gospel of John.

What we don't know is who was whispering in Muhammad's ear. No wait, Muhammad told us. That's all the evidence we need.

 

[Ramadhan]

Are you unable to read? We do know. History, tradition, internal evidence, and those who knew the author all agree: the evidence is that John wrote the Gospel of John.

What we don't know is who was whispering in Muhammad's ear. No wait, Muhammad told us. That's all the evidence we need.

The difference between these two is:

Did John actually say (or at least write) that he wrote the gospel of john?

We want proof, mister.

chain of transmissions..

records.

even bible scholars are not sure who wrote john, let alone other gospels.

the best they can do is guessing that it was john himself.

 

[Hugo]

The criteria of testing what is divine has been afforded you numerous times before and it follows a very logical, concise fashion.. the same fashion was followed by many that lead a former christian like Dr. Gary Miller, or the former atheist Dr. Jeffrey lang amongst millions of others to Islam.. you ought to try it sometimes.. you know reading, comprehending and then posing questions!

You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved. Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.

So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.

 

[جوري]

You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved.

You are not equipped to understand the science of that as we have demonstrated on multiple threads, ironically on ones you desired willingly to participate in the very matter of statistics!

Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.

'Observation' and 'physical experiment' aren't the only means by which to falsify or 'fail to falsify' a consistent possibility. You tighten the methodology in hopes everyone is equally under-educated and shares only in the premises you bring to the table..
or else how do you prove someone has a headache by 'observation' or 'experiment' and for once in your life you should be honest enough to come with a response that doesn't deflect away from the topic. I notice when the tough questions are asked you come up empty!

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.

Reasonable tests have been supplied, you had no desire to expend the time applying said methodology, you're confined to the two means you proposed as a possibility to provide proof!

So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.

see above responses, and quit wasting everyone's time on B.S!

all the best

 

[Muhaba]

You simply show ignorance here of how or what can be proved. Falsifiability is the logical possibility that an assertion could be shown false by observation or physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that if the statement were false, then its falsehood could be demonstrated. For example, "no human lives forever" is not falsifiable since it does not seem possible to prove wrong. A Hypothesis is a reasonable proposal of an explanation for observations or a reasonable proposal of a solution to a problem. So my hypothesis is that the last word of God to mankind only contains new truths. I can do this test on the Qu'ran and since it does not contain new things ipso facto it is not from God. I can do this with any number of hypotheses and get the same conclusions.

The WHOLE point is that something is only amenable to proof IF we can find a way to reasonable test and that test can be applied to any similar artefact anywhere and everywhere.

So if my hypothesis is invalid then show it to be so but I can apply to ANY book and if it is a valid hypothesis it will show which books are from God and which are not.

Why should the last Book of God contain new facts? It's a book of guidance, not a science book.

Your hypothesis should be: the last Word of God is unchangeable, because being the last word, it should be impossible to alter it or else it would be useless and another book would be necessary. Since the Quraan hasn't been changed over 1400 years, and can not be changed ever, it proves that it is the last Word of God. And God says: We have, without doubt, sent down the Message, and We will assuredly guard it. The Quraan, Chapter 15 (Al-Hijr) Verse 9.

Other hypothoses can be: the book of God will guide people to the correct way, The book of God will contain a practical law system, the book of God will not contain any contradictions, the book of God will not contain errors, the Book of God will not contain any cruel or unjust laws, the Book of God will be for all people, the Last Book of God can be equally applicable in all places and times - it will not go out of date. all these are true regarding the Quraan.

 

[جوري]

The last book of God, contains many things that aren't in the previous scriptures, the fact of the matter is, there is no pleasing a kaffir.
1- if things confirm what is in their books, they are copied
2- if things aren't in their book, they are imagined or untrue.

contrast also with atheists,

1- if it is a scientific phenomenon that wasn't readily known to the folks millenniums ago, then there is a logical explanation 'detail of the natural world' that muslims copied or learned by observation even if the microscope wasn't invented until a couple of centuries ago.
2- if something that can't be proven by any current scientific method, then it is fairy tales you know akin to pink elephants or whatever inane crap amuses them for a moment.

There is no point to cast pearls before swine in my opinion..

 

[Muhaba]

That is soo true. That's why I usually don't get into discussion with them. You can't make a person listen if he doesn't want to.