Why the bible?

[Strathos]

Let's just suppose that it does. Changing a story is not evidence that one is right and the other is wrong. It's just evidence that the story was changed.

No, but it does prove that the Muslim claim that the pre-Koran scriptures were all distorted/corrupted is false.

Well, who can decide that the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient Hebrew texts are correct? I am sure that you know about how there were many forgeries written in that time. A group of people decided which ones were right and wrong, but unless those people were perfect they could easily make mistakes in this regard. So, if some of the texts within the Bible are wrong and we search for texts that match up with those texts, then the texts that match up are also probably wrong.

For all you know, the Muslims have it right. They corrected what was wrong with the Bible.

The point was that the Koran and Muslims claim something (the texts had changed significantly since they were first written, in certain specific ways) which we know to not be true.

From my opening post:

Let's say we have a historical event, for example, World War II.

Now there are several books about World War II, which all basically agree on the events and details, and were written during or shortly after the events in question.

Then you have another book, which was written several hundred years after World War II, when no one living remembers it, and no direct records survive. This book states several things that are in complete contradiction to the previously known facts (for example, it might say something like the Americans and Germans were allied against the Russians and Japanese). The authors and supporters of this book say that all of those previous books are wrong, and their version tells what really happened.

Which one would you find to be more reliable?

 

[Syd the Human]

No, but it does prove that the Muslim claim that the pre-Koran scriptures were all distorted/corrupted is false.

I suppose it depends on the passages, if we are talking historical and we have historical writings outside of the Bible that support it, then yes that part of the Qur'an is incorrect. However, if the Qur'an is talking about supernatural events and claim that their prophet says that the Christians got it wrong, it's open game.

The point was that the Koran and Muslims claim something (the texts had changed significantly since they were first written, in certain specific ways) which we know to not be true.

How do you know that they are not true, without saying "The Bible says so."

Let's say we have a historical event, for example, World War II.

Now there are several books about World War II, which all basically agree on the events and details, and were written during or shortly after the events in question.

Then you have another book, which was written several hundred years after World War II, when no one living remembers it, and no direct records survive. This book states several things that are in complete contradiction to the previously known facts (for example, it might say something like the Americans and Germans were allied against the Russians and Japanese). The authors and supporters of this book say that all of those previous books are wrong, and their version tells what really happened.

Which one would you find to be more reliable?

You know what, we would not know which would be the most reliable (given that we for some reason did not have the technology we do today to record all of this information with photos, journals, videos, other recordings etc). If we truly had zero evidence to support one over the other it would be up for debate. Since we do know this, since it is close enough in our time for us to be knowledgeable about it, this will create some bias towards this question.

Also, do you base your faith upon the age of the religion itself? Polytheistic religions have existed way before Judaism, which led to Christianity. You should be a pagan if you are going by that argument.

 

[Strathos]

I'm just saying that, from a historical perspective, isn't it more likely that the source written the closest to the actual events in question is more likely to be correct?

 

[Syd the Human]

I'm just saying that, from a historical perspective, isn't it more likely that the source written the closest to the actual events in question is more likely to be correct?

To be honest, at least to me, no.

The people who wrote the Bible and Qur'an are human so they are going to make mistakes, no question about it. The more I read into the history of the creation of the Bible itself, the more problems I see arise from it (if you ever get the chance read some stuff by Bart. D Ehrman, it will blow your mind). But to by honest that never bothered me as a Christian, if anything it made me feel better. It made up for all of the horrible stuff within the Bible. The people who wrote it got it wrong, not God. But, as you can see from my icon, that did not last too long. Other factors just became too much for me to ignore.


If one has more historical inaccuracies than the other, it does not make it more likely that their god is the correct god. It simply means that the people who worship that god have received a bad education.

 

[biggles53]

I'm not talking about that kind of science.

I'm talking about Egyptian science.

The kind you guys prefer, but don't understand.

Yes...like dad, you cherry-pick. When it suits your own selfish needs, it's 'good' science.....when its knowledge produces something that challenges your fantasies, it becomes the 'tool of Satan' or some such poppycock...

Hypocrite....

 

[biggles53]

Let's try a question: What is the origin of the world?

What does the Quran say?
What does the Bible say?

Have you compared them yet?

So, which one do you believe.....and why...?

 

[Strathos]

To be honest, at least to me, no.

The people who wrote the Bible and Qur'an are human so they are going to make mistakes, no question about it. The more I read into the history of the creation of the Bible itself, the more problems I see arise from it (if you ever get the chance read some stuff by Bart. D Ehrman, it will blow your mind). But to by honest that never bothered me as a Christian, if anything it made me feel better. It made up for all of the horrible stuff within the Bible. The people who wrote it got it wrong, not God. But, as you can see from my icon, that did not last too long. Other factors just became too much for me to ignore.


If one has more historical inaccuracies than the other, it does not make it more likely that their god is the correct god. It simply means that the people who worship that god have received a bad education.

Well I know it was written by men, but inspired by God. That doesn't make it infallible of course, just containing profound truths.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you are interested in science, then do not read the Bible nor the Quran. Read your text book.

When you ask question, the question should be a proper one, so that at least one of the Book can provide you some kind of answer.

Asking people for a rational exlanation of why one book has more credibility then another is not a proper question?

Really?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Let's try a question: What is the origin of the world?

What does the Quran say?
What does the Bible say?

Have you compared them yet?

Yes. Both are equally ridiculous imo.

But I'm asking you people, who actually do believe one over the other.
Why don't you even try to give a rational explanation for your choice?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well I know it was written by men, but inspired by God. That doesn't make it infallible of course, just containing profound truths.

How do you know?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I'm just saying that, from a historical perspective, isn't it more likely that the source written the closest to the actual events in question is more likely to be correct?

You are not doing your religion any favors here.
In your logic, you sjould follow oèe of the many religions that predate judaism.

You also might want to read the epic of gilgamesh for example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, but it does prove that the Muslim claim that the pre-Koran scriptures were all distorted/corrupted is false.

Or.... it supports the claim of islam that the old and new testament were corrupted and contained mistakes, which god then corrected in the dictated quran.

You're guilty of one of the fallacies in my opening post btw: viewing islam through bible-believing goggles. In other words: you pick the bible not because of a valid reason, but because you already believe in it.

The point was that the Koran and Muslims claim something (the texts had changed significantly since they were first written, in certain specific ways) which we know to not be true.

Do we really? Or do you merely believe that?
I say, the latter.

We have no originals, but we do know how the bible have today was compiled in quite arbitrary ways by a councel in what was the date agan? 341 AD or something?

Let's say we have a historical event, for example, World War II.

Now there are several books about World War II, which all basically agree on the events and details, and were written during or shortly after the events in question.

Then you have another book, which was written several hundred years after World War II, when no one living remembers it, and no direct records survive. This book states several things that are in complete contradiction to the previously known facts (for example, it might say something like the Americans and Germans were allied against the Russians and Japanese). The authors and supporters of this book say that all of those previous books are wrong, and their version tells what really happened.

Which one would you find to be more reliable?

False analogy. Not a single story from the bible has been written at a time contemporary with the events that it claims.

Meanwhile, page 10... and still not a single christian who manages to give a rational answer that isn't infested with logical fallacies.

 

[Phred]

I'm just saying that, from a historical perspective, isn't it more likely that the source written the closest to the actual events in question is more likely to be correct?

Closest? So a baseball player taps a ball two feet in front of himself and another player fouls one backward. The one that managed to at least hit one in the right direction has his called a home run?

I don't think so.

 

[Strathos]

How do you know?

That wasn't the part of the claim I "know".

You are not doing your religion any favors here.
In your logic, you sjould follow oèe of the many religions that predate judaism.

You also might want to read the epic of gilgamesh for example.

Those aren't referring to the same events. You might as well say we should look to the Epic of Gilgamesh for Roman history above actual Roman texts, because it's older, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with Roman history.

Or.... it supports the claim of islam that the old and new testament were corrupted and contained mistakes, which god then corrected in the dictated quran.

They say they were corrupted over time, as in by the time of Muhammad. Yet the scriptures we have predate Muhammad and are not significantly different in the way the Koran says.

If someone said England used to be called Funkyland back in the year 1950, and we have documents from 1950 and shortly afterwards saying it was always called England, doesn't that provide evidence against the claim?

Do we really? Or do you merely believe that?
I say, the latter.

We have no originals, but we do know how the bible have today was compiled in quite arbitrary ways by a councel in what was the date agan? 341 AD or something?

We have extant sources from long before that and they don't say any of the things the Koran says they say.

Oh, and BTW: Nicea Myths: Common Fables About the Council of Nicea and Constantine

False analogy. Not a single story from the bible has been written at a time contemporary with the events that it claims.

Many of them were within decades (i.e. the span of a single human lifetime) compared to hundreds/thousands of years later.

Closest? So a baseball player taps a ball two feet in front of himself and another player fouls one backward. The one that managed to at least hit one in the right direction has his called a home run?

I don't think so.

What, is this the "close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades" fallacy now?

It's basic logic that sources closer to the original events are going to be more reliable than sources written hundreds/thousands of years after said events, especially when the latter involves a conspiracy theory saying that all the previous stuff was wrong.

 

[Strathos]

I just know I'm going to hate myself for asking but what is "Egyptian science?"

I'm guessing it has something to do with building pyramids.

 

[MKJ]

Why do I believe that 2+2=4? Because I can deduce it from the axioms of ZFC set theory.

How do I know that the axioms of ZFC set theory are true or self consistent? Because it is what I presuppose.

This.

People should think a little bit about where the rules and conventions and the reality of mathematics come from before giving it as an example of clear and uncontested truths.

There is a reason a lot of mathematicians are Platonists.

As far as the original question, I don't consider that what Islam teaches philosophically to be very credible, so that weighs against the book being real. Though there were great Islamic philosophers, so i wouldn't want to be too arrogant about my own view there.

I also think that the story of how it was delivered is pretty questionable - we have one man who apparently was told the whole thing by an angel. No one else was there. It could be true, it could be he was in the sun too long, it could be he lusted for power and made the whole thing up, it could even be that he was deceived by demons. All of the things I might look to to corroborate his story, directly or indirectly, are not in evidence. TBH, it reminds me a bit of the story of the founding of Mormonism.

If we consider what a purely historical explanation might be - that Mohammed, for some reason, combined what he had heard from Christian heretics with the religious beliefs of his people, we might expect it to look a lot like Islam. (In fact some Christians at first considered Islam to be a heretical form of Christianity rather than another religion.)

So all in all, I am inclined to not see it as a credible religious revelation.

On the other hand, the Bible was produced in an altogether different way. Unlike Islam, we don't believe that it is literally God's truth word for word in a particular language - it is understood that people wrote it down, which relieves some of the weight that is created by the other approach. It represents not just what one person says happened, but the OT is the whole experience of entire people over a long period of time, and the NT is the witness accounts of other people. It also isn't a book alone, it is the product of a community of witnesses where many claimed eyewitness and ever deeply personal experience with Christ. That is a different sort of thing than one man alone taught be an angel. Philosophically what it teaches is not only credible, it solves some of the serious problems philosophers had been struggling with for years, not only in the abstract but, if it is true, in a concrete sense.

Of course the accounts of witnesses to historical events are what they are - they can never really be proven. But some are more credible than others.

 

[juvenissun]

So, which one do you believe.....and why...?

The Bible gives an answer.
The Quran does not give any answer.

How would you choose?

 

[juvenissun]

Asking people for a rational exlanation of why one book has more credibility then another is not a proper question?

Really?

No, no. Not asking anyone else. Ask YOURSELF.
It is not anyone else's business except YOURSELF. Nobody can choose the Book for you. You need to make a choice.

Accept this one, or accept that one, or reject both. But you can not accept both. Because they are incompatible.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The Bible gives an answer.
The Quran does not give any answer.

How would you choose?

Have you actually read the Quran? If not, then you don't know if it gives an answer or not.

 

[juvenissun]

Yes. Both are equally ridiculous imo.

But I'm asking you people, who actually do believe one over the other.
Why don't you even try to give a rational explanation for your choice?

You did not ask for my choice. I AM answering your question.

OK, reason of my choice: very simple: The Bible give MUCH MORE consistent and high quality (not true or false) answers to almost ANY question you may have.

That is why I choose the Bible. What I am saying here is whether the Book gives an answer or not. It gives an answer or it gives no answer. That is it. Do not try to evaluate the answer yet, such as using the word: ridiculous.

The whole Bible presents a "systematic" information. Not just one good answer here or one bad answer there.