Why the bible?

[Syd the Human]

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.

So you have read the Qur'an cover to cover and have a deep understanding of its laws and teachings? I think that is the only way to make a good choice between the two.

 

[juvenissun]

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

I do not have to read the whole Quran to see if it gives an answer to a particular question. For my particular question, I KNOW that Quran does not even try to talk about it.

 

[juvenissun]

So you have read the Qur'an cover to cover and have a deep understanding of its laws and teachings? I think that is the only way to make a good choice between the two.

No. I did not. I only look for any possible answer to my questions.
I do not have to read the whole chemistry textbook to know what is a covenant bond.
For example, I can search: "what does Quran say about sin?"

 

[Syd the Human]

No. I did not. I only look for any possible answer to my questions.
I do not have to read the whole chemistry textbook to know what is a covenant bond.
For example, I can search: "what does Quran say about sin?"

And get an accurate response? If it is anything like the Bible there are multiple interpretations of its teachings, and what if the source is not credible? Do you think Dawkins would give those unfamiliar with Christianity a very accurate view of its teachings (from a Christian viewpoint)? Is that how you read the Bible too, through Google? If you take your faith seriously you would read the Bible yourself and come to your own conclusions.

 

[juvenissun]

And get an accurate response? If it is anything like the Bible there are multiple interpretations of its teachings, and what if the source is not credible? Do you think Dawkins would give those unfamiliar with Christianity a very accurate view of its teachings (from a Christian viewpoint)? Is that how you read the Bible too, through Google? If you take your faith seriously you would read the Bible yourself and come to your own conclusions.

First, look at if there is an answer.
Second, ask another question, see if there is also an answer.
etc.

Accurate answer? Multiple interpretation? Those are second line questions. And the key is again: Do YOU like the answer or not. Any other criteria does not matter.

 

[Syd the Human]

First, look at if there is an answer.
Second, ask another question, see if there is also an answer.
etc.

Accurate answer? Multiple interpretation? Those are second line questions. And the key is again: Do YOU like the answer or not. Any other criteria does not matter.

You are using a middle man to determine your beliefs in something that you can do yourself. For something that you are going to base your entire beliefs around, that is not the wisest decision. For things such as science, it is understandable why a person has to rely on scientists for information. But a Bible or Qur'an is easily accessible and with a little hard work you can understand its meaning.

So you follow the Bible because you like it? Because it makes you feel good? Should you not base your beliefs on truth and accuracy, not feelings?

 

[juvenissun]

You are using a middle man to determine your beliefs in something that you can do yourself. For something that you are going to base your entire beliefs around, that is not the wisest decision. For things such as science, it is understandable why a person has to rely on scientists for information. But a Bible or Qur'an is easily accessible and with a little hard work you can understand its meaning.

So you follow the Bible because you like it? Because it makes you feel good? Should you not base your beliefs on truth and accuracy, not feelings?

It answers my questions.
And I like the answers.

What else do you want? Science prove? You will never have it.

 

[Syd the Human]

It answers my questions.
And I like the answers.

What else do you want? Science prove? You will never have it.

Not scientific proof, because a person can neither prove nor disprove whether a god exists or not.

But, you are basing your whole life on a text that gives you answers you want, you can just Google for answers if that is what you want.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

This is nonsense.
One does not require any knowledge of set theory or whatever to understand why 2+2 equals 4 and not 5. If you know what 2, 4, 5 and "+" means, you know all you need to know.

I actually did the experiment yesterday. I was babysitting my 7-year old nephew and decided to ask him. Honestly, I was not expecting success, but the little bugger has a habbit of blowing me away with his wit.
I asked him how much 2+2 is. He answered "4" very confidently (and very proud, haha). I asked him why he is so sure about that and if it isn't 5 instead.

His first reaction was being a bit baffled as to why I asked that quesiton... he was all like "well, because it's 4? it's just so?".
I then asked him to try and explain to me why it is 4, how he knows it is 4.

He had to think about it for a bit. He then came up with the idea of place 2 of the cars he was playing with on the table. He said "these are 2 cars". He then added 2 more cars to it and told me "now count them".

I applauded and gave him an ice cream.
The little dude has no clue about set theory or axioms or whatever. Math is developed to reflect reality, not the other way round.

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.

I'm asking for a rational reason. Saying "i don't consider it credible" is not an answer to the question "why don't you consider it credible?"

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.

Who was there when Moses received his 10 commandments? Or when he spoke to a burning talking bush?
Also, the quran knows many prophets. Including Abraham, Mozes, and Jesus.

All of the things I might look to to corroborate his story, directly or indirectly, are not in evidence.

Agreed. So, how is this different from the bible?

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

Islam has a lot less in common with the religions of the pre-islamic arabs then Christianity with the religions of the pagans it spread too. Christmass comes to mind.

On the other hand, the Bible was produced in an altogether different way.

So, is the way something is produced an indicator of it being right or wrong? Isn't that exactly what the genetic fallacy is all about? Judging an idea by its origins?

Unlike Islam, we don't believe that it is literally God's truth word for word

Just as a sidenote: several christians on this board would disagree with that. But in context of your answer, that off course doesn't matter here. I just thought I'ld slip that in.

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 you consider this claimed history to be supported by extra-biblical evidence?

and the NT is the witness accounts of other people.

Or so it claims. Can you support this with evidence?

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.

I know what it claims. The question is about the credibility of those claims.

That is a different sort of thing than one man alone taught be an angel

Yes, the bible and the quran are different books with different claims.
I don't see how "many unkown authors" make a story more or less credible then "one known author".

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.

Please be a little more specific. This is written so vaguely and so abstract that you could be talking about either book.

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.

Why are some more credible then others?

You didn't answer my question.

You asserted one is more credible then the other, but you didn't explain why.
You also asserted some stuff about the origin of both books, but you didn't explain why that matters in terms of credibility.

I thought you were about to explain it at one point, but all I got was a very abstract vague statement that could be applied to either book. Please elaborate on the vague and abstract statement and be specific.

Thanks for the attempt though. At this point, I'ld say yours is the best attempt till now. But still not anywhere near actually meeting my challenge.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

That's why I ask
If you say that "you know", then you must know in some way. I'm asking how you know. Refusing to answer that will only make me assume that you do NOT know and that you were just bluffing.

Those aren't referring to the same events.

Your looking through bible-believing goggles again. Who proved that the events in both books actually happened? Perhaps the flood story in the Epic of Gilgamesh (which clearly is a precursor story to the whole Noah thingy) is the actual accurate recording, and the Noah version in Abrahamic religion a distortion past down through the ages.

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.

It doesn't say anything about "over time". It doesn't say at all when the corruption actually occured.
Having said that, we actually DO have evidence that biblical texts have been edited through the ages. Don't pretend that we don't have any examples of verses being present in certain copies while those verses not being present in previous copies.

Also, what you read today are copies of copies of translations of copies of translations. Through all that copying and translating, mistakes and change of meaning are bound to happen.

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

The oldest extant sources of the new testament date to late 2nd century.

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

I wasn't talking about Nicea. More like Hippo, Carthage, etc.

Many of them were within decades (i.e. the span of a single human lifetime)

You do realise that back in those days, life expectancy wasn't some 80 years like today, right? There is no way that these things were written by the same generation. Virtually all of them were only written down 70+ years later. In those times, that's most likely 2 generations later. And that's just the new testament. The OT, we're indeed talking centuries and millenia.

But I don't see how it matters when it was written down or how or by whom.
Claims fall and stand on their own merrit. My question is about the credibility of the claims in both books.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

It's not about what I believe.
The purpose of my question is to find out if any of you who chose the bible over the quran have a rational reason to do so.

It doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I don't see how. Rather, it seems you're trying to answer my question with another question.

I'm just asking if you have rational reason to choose one over the other. That's all. There's no need to interrogate me about either book. I only ask you to give me your rationale to choose on over the other.

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.

Muslims disagree.
But anyhow, can you give a specific example? Don't try to question me about it. Just give me your BEST and MOST CONVINCING example.

 

[DogmaHunter]

First, look at if there is an answer.
Second, ask another question, see if there is also an answer.
etc.

And how do you validate the answer?
How do you conclude wheter or not the answer is a correct answer?
That's really what's being asked here...

Both books offer a worldview. The exercise at hand is finding out which worldview is more plausible then the other.

Accurate answer? Multiple interpretation? Those are second line questions. And the key is again: Do YOU like the answer or not.

So.... the truth of an answer is determined by how much you "like" that answer?

So if I ask 2 people if my wife is cheating on me and one says "yes" while the other says "no", then I am justified in believing the first one, because I don't "like" the answer of the second one?

Any other criteria does not matter.

Ok. Then I guess I'm justified in believing that my wife is not cheating on me because I don't like the idea that she is. Great.

It answers my questions.
And I like the answers.

Yep. Just like me when I decided to believe the one who said that my wife isn't cheating on me. I "like" it. Therefor, it must be true.

What else do you want? Science prove? You will never have it.

Why not?

 

[juvenissun]

And how do you validate the answer?
How do you conclude wheter or not the answer is a correct answer?
That's really what's being asked here...

Both books offer a worldview. The exercise at hand is finding out which worldview is more plausible then the other.




So.... the truth of an answer is determined by how much you "like" that answer?

So if I ask 2 people if my wife is cheating on me and one says "yes" while the other says "no", then I am justified in believing the first one, because I don't "like" the answer of the second one?

There are many people who made a choice on one of the scriptures and then changed to another. It is not uncommon. You may like one at the beginning but discovered the other one is better at later time.

But that is the way one makes the first choice.

Otherwise, one will not choose and remained to be an atheist. If it is OK with you, then the OP is meaningless.

 

[juvenissun]

It's not about what I believe.
The purpose of my question is to find out if any of you who chose the bible over the quran have a rational reason to do so.

It doesn't seem to be the case.

Of course I don't care what you believe.

I do care what I believe. I am telling you how and why did I make MY choice. I don't really care what you do.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't see how. Rather, it seems you're trying to answer my question with another question.

I'm just asking if you have rational reason to choose one over the other. That's all. There's no need to interrogate me about either book. I only ask you to give me your rationale to choose on over the other.



Muslims disagree.
But anyhow, can you give a specific example? Don't try to question me about it. Just give me your BEST and MOST CONVINCING example.

Many.

One I have given: The Quran does say anything about the origin of the world. That is a very important question.

 

[juvenissun]

Not scientific proof, because a person can neither prove nor disprove whether a god exists or not.

But, you are basing your whole life on a text that gives you answers you want, you can just Google for answers if that is what you want.

Well, any one or any reference may give an answer to any question. The problem is whether you like it or not.

I have not seen good answers to those questions I concerned about anywhere else but in the Bible. In particular, if you have 5 questions, those 5 answers must be consistent among themselves. That is very difficult.

I will not base my whole life on a system which provides inconsistent answers.

 

[Syd the Human]

Many.

One I have given: The Quran does say anything about the origin of the world. That is a very important question.

Creation and Evolution in Islam

Yes it does. It took me like two seconds to Google it. Of course, it could be biased and incorrect, but it shows that it does talk about it within the Qur'an.

 

[Syd the Human]

Well, any one or any reference may give an answer to any question. The problem is whether you like it or not.

I have not seen good answers to those questions I concerned about anywhere else but in the Bible. In particular, if you have 5 questions, those 5 answers must be consistent among themselves. That is very difficult.

I will not base my whole life on a system which provides inconsistent answers.

You are not even thinking, of course you would use data that has shown to be consistent. What answers are you even looking for?

 

[Syd the Human]

There are many people who made a choice on one of the scriptures and then changed to another. It is not uncommon. You may like one at the beginning but discovered the other one is better at later time.

But that is the way one makes the first choice.

Otherwise, one will not choose and remained to be an atheist. If it is OK with you, then the OP is meaningless.

I don't think that you are grasping the point of the OP.

He is asking you why you chose the Bible over other texts like the Qur'an. You are not using any consistency, just things that you happen to like at the time, not on what is actually correct or incorrect.