Contradictions in the Bible

[back_to_faith]

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.

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[back_to_faith]

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.

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.

 

[back_to_faith]

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

 

[جوري]

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

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.

 

[جوري]

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

 

[don532]

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?

 

[Umar001]

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.

 

[Umar001]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

 

[back_to_faith]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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)

 

[Keltoi]

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.

 

[Woodrow]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.

 

[Grace Seeker]

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.