Why the bible?

[juvenissun]

Which apparently gets to exist before the light source.

Source of light? Do we know it? The best we can say is the Big Bang. And the Big Bang is described in Gen 1: 1-3

 

[Syd the Human]

"Light". (Please read Genesis 1:1-5. It only take a few seconds.)

Not just light in general, photons specifically. What is the specific nature of photons? How are photons structured (how they are formed, not just the word 'light') but their structure.

In detail.

 

[juvenissun]

Not just light in general, photons specifically. What is the specific nature of photons? How are photons structured (how they are formed, not just the word 'light') but their structure.

In detail.

No details. That is good enough.

Try to find the similar in other scriptures. I have tried it. There is no answer anywhere else.

There is a little bit more detail: Gen 1: 4-5. And this detail is amazing.

 

[Syd the Human]

No details. That is good enough.

Try to find the similar in other scriptures. I have tried it. There is no answer anywhere else.

Why is vague good enough? So you aren't really looking for answers to life, just things to make you feel good.

You have not tried it, you said you checked the Qur'an for answers and said that it did not contain how it thinks the world was created when it does. You are either bad at researching or you were lying. To be honest I hope you were lying, if your ability to find answers is really that bad then it is no wonder you can't give a good response to this other than it makes you feel good so therefor it is true.

 

[Syd the Human]

No details. That is good enough.

Try to find the similar in other scriptures. I have tried it. There is no answer anywhere else.

There is a little bit more detail: Gen 1: 4-5. And this detail is amazing.

I don't even consider that a detail. Even before I read the Bible as a kid I knew what night and day was.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Source of light? Do we know it? The best we can say is the Big Bang. And the Big Bang is described in Gen 1: 1-3

Light comes from the sun -_- as far as earth is concerned. In usable amounts, anyways. Also, no expanding happens, remember the Big Bang wasn't actually an explosion, just expansion.

 

[Syd the Human]

@juvenissun

I have to ask is English your first language? I am not saying this to be mean, but your writing is kind of off.

I remember in Spanish class that my early writing (and probably my current writing too I haven't practiced in awhile) was kind of like this.

If we are hard to understand, which may answer as to why your responses don't make much sense to us, just say so.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't even consider that a detail. Even before I read the Bible as a kid I knew what night and day was.

The more you understand, the more you will consider. That is not a surprise.
The term "dark" is not that easy to understand. Isn't it?

 

[juvenissun]

@juvenissun

I have to ask is English your first language? I am not saying this to be mean, but your writing is kind of off.

I remember in Spanish class that my early writing (and probably my current writing too I haven't practiced in awhile) was kind of like this.

If we are hard to understand, which may answer as to why your responses don't make much sense to us, just say so.

"Let there be light". Is it a good English sentence? Do you understand it? Or, is it an awkward translation?

 

[Syd the Human]

"Let there be light". Is it a good English sentence? Do you understand it? Or, is it an awkward translation?

No, that is the English translation.

 

[juvenissun]

Why is vague good enough? So you aren't really looking for answers to life, just things to make you feel good.

You have not tried it, you said you checked the Qur'an for answers and said that it did not contain how it thinks the world was created when it does. You are either bad at researching or you were lying. To be honest I hope you were lying, if your ability to find answers is really that bad then it is no wonder you can't give a good response to this other than it makes you feel good so therefor it is true.

Vague is not good enough. But it provides hints. Sometimes, that is good enough.

Important answers given in the Bible are not vague, but are very very clear.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I do not believe that the old testament is inerrant, however!

Why not?

Anyhow, I like your attempt at answering. I think it's the best one yet. Still not satisfied though.

- The Bible (specifically the NT) is a summary of the experiences of various different people, which gives it more credibility than, for example, the Quoran

This is a misunderstanding imo.
The NT is all centered around Jesus and was written by his followers (well, most likely followers of his followers... of his followers). The quran actually isn't any different. It's centered around Muhammed and was written by his companions.

So, if you are going to use this as a criteria for how credible each book is, the quran would actually win imo...

Here's why...
If Jesus is really a prophet (or god or whatever), then the NT is "just" a record of the interpretation of his teachings by the authors of the NT, most of which (if not all of them) didn't meet the guy.

However, if Muhammed is really a prophet, then the Quran is actually a record dictated by the guy himself. Not a record of the interpretation of his teachings by his companions. But literally a word for word account dictated by the prophet himself.

And idd, this is actually a big source of the confidence muslims have. This is exactly the argument given by muslims as to why the quran is more credible.

- Jesus teachings are very intuitive and his notion of "having written himself into our hearts" is something I believe we notice today when we experience our (guilty) conscience

You feel like god owes you an intuitive teaching? If not, then this is not really interesting. In either case though, this point is bordering the "I like the bible better" argument I have heared several times in this thread.

- Contemporary witnesses from the time of the manifestation of the Quoran said that Mohammad frequently visited and was taught by Jewish and Christian scholars, then spread his message (adding in a personal twist for personal gain in terms of securing his authority as a military leader) to the Arabs. Jesus, on the other hand, had no personal gain - he even died for it! Jesus, on the other hand, had no personal gain - he even died for it!

Hmm. Seems to me you are judging muhammed by non-quranic sources while judging jezus by biblical sources.
How about the contemporary witnesses of jesus? Well, there aren't any.

This doesn't seem fair to me. Either you judge both by non-scriptural standards or you judge both by scriptural standards.
Also, jesus "died"? Think about this for a second... The dude is supposed to be god. The human body he inhabited is just one body. He could create a trillion billion more bodies. And he didn't even stay dead. He stood up again and turned out to be immortal. So saying that "he even died!" doesn't seem to hold any weight. Even the "personal gain" thing doesn't hold any weight.
In christian doctrine, this guys is god himself. What personal gain would he need? He is already immortal, he is all powerfull, he is all knowing.... Seems kind of logical that he wouldn't need any earthly power or military. Muhammed is another story. He's just a man. He didn't have superhero powers. So to amass followers, he couldn't perform magic tricks. It seems logical that some earthly power would be bestowed upon him so that he would have the means to spread his message. So this is not an argument imo.

Having said that, in all religions people die for their faith.

I see the Bible as guidance and do not believe it is necessary to have read the book in order to receive salvation. This wouldn't make much sense to me, because a lot of individuals don't even have any contact to Christianity at all and thus would have no chance at being saved. If you have faith in the LORD and act with a good conscience, then you will automatically fulfil both laws (loving God and loving your neighbor), I would assume.
The Bible is also not "complete", as it contains very little notions in regards to the reason for our existence among other things. As such, I would not be 100% sure that there are no other prophets besides Jesus that have played their role. Alas, I would not condemn other religions or beliefs, so long as the fruits of their belief are peace and love for one another and for the LORD.

We are now leaving the topic of this thread. But your last sentence contradicts the rest of your paragraph. Why would anyone who's never heared of abrahamic religions have love for "the lord"?


Anyhow... to conclude...
Eventhough it was more subtle then certain other answers, I feel that your reasoning is guilty of double standards and indeed, judging the quran/muhammed through bible-believing goggles.


But again, best attempt yet.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I was making a tangential observation. If you want to know how I know the Bible is full of profound truths, discovering them has sincerely helped my life, inspired me, and given me hope.

Muslims say the exact same thing. Star Trek fans even say such things.
Your emotional response is not the same as actual knowledge.

Yes, I'm sure the Koran could do the same for a Muslim, but that wasn't my point.

I know it wasn't your point. But this little fact renders your point rather meaningless.

I personally believe most of the ancient flood myths of the world are based on records/memories of a very large and devastating, but local, flood.

1. your "personal beliefs" are not really relevant here.
2. a "local" flood ha? you mean like the one in Fukishima, Japan? or the one from Sumatra a couple years ago? So... just another flood like there have been so many?
3. what you believe about floods is besides the point. You made a claim about being "closer to the actual events". Following that logic, the epic of gilgamesh clearly is more credible then the Noah story, since it is "closer to the actual events". Point being that your own argument goes against your own claims.

Muslims have said that to me. There is a part in the Hadith when Muhammed visits some Jews, I think, and they show him their scripture, and he declares that it's good.

This thread is not about what muslims say or about what christians say. It's about an objective assessment of both the bible and the quran.
Where in the quran does it say anything about this? And what exactly does it say?

True, but not to the extent or in the way the Koran claims.

You still fail to think it through. As I told SenatorCheese, the books of the bible were not written by the "prophets" themselves. They are not dictated by the "prophets" themselves. Rather, they are the result of the interpretation of the teachings of the "prophets" by the followers of said prophets, the vast majority of which (if not ALL of them) never met any of these "prophets".

Whereas the quran is supposed to be the result of the "prophet" himself dictating it word for word. Part of the claim of this "corruption" is exactly that: they are the understandings of the followers, not of the "prophets" themselves.

An objective assessment of both books requires looking at them from both angles, not just your biased view as a bible-believing christian.

Wrong. The Epistles of Paul and Galatians date to 49-51 AD. And a lot of Old Testament sources are contemporary with the events they describe. (Obviously not Genesis, Exodus, etc. but the later ones)

I said extant sources. As for when they were actually first written, only the letters of Paul and possible Galatians are thought to have been written around 50 AD. All the others are from 70 to 150 AD. The oldest extant sources are from 130 AD till about later 3rd or beginning 4th century.

Which OT sources are contemporary with the events? And what's your evidence for this?

And your point? We have manuscripts from before that.

Yes. Including scripture that is not included in the bible today.
My point is about when the bible as it is known today was compiled. When it was decided which scriptures are included and which aren't.

Jesus was crucified in 30 AD. The earliest extant New Testament sources date to 49-50 AD. That's like if you wrote something now about something that happened in 1994.

See above. The vast majority was written much later.
And even 50 AD... in those days "20 years later" would constitute a generation later. Remember, we are talking about a time where the average life expectency was only about a third of what it is today. But let's assume that perhaps those few were written by someone contemporary with the events. I have no problem with that.

Sidenote: the quran was written in full by the very companions of Muhammed.

So if contemporary authors adds credibility, then the quran wins hands down on that point.

Many people don't know this, but the Koran is actually almost completely based on the Bible and Torah. So when it talks about things that are also in those books, and says those books got them wrong, it makes perfect sense to compare them to show that claim is false.

Not without having a methodology that can tell the difference without using the books themselves. You're judging the quran with bible-believing goggles.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yet they say the pre-Koran scriptures changed since they were written in certain ways, but the earliest sources (many close to the initial time of authorship) disagree. And then there is the Hadith story I brought up.

You rule out the option that the simply were written down wrong in the first place. And that the original itself was already corrupt.

This is actually a point that muslims make. That the bible is merely the interpretation of the followers and not the actual teaching of the prophets themselves.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, the Bible DOES. It is said in the Genesis 1: 1-5. And it is VERY accurate.

Is that why it took another 3000 years and an Einstein to figure it out?
What a pitty Einstein wasn't aware of this. All that work, all that research, all those headaches,.... What a waste of time. He could have just read 4 verses of the OT and be done with it!!!

 

[DogmaHunter]

You are not listening. This is my last time to say this to you:

Because the Bible gives answers to all of my questions.
The second criterion is: I like the answers.

You say that I'm not listening and then simply repeat exactly what I concluded....

Your criteria / methodology to pick the bible above the quran is "I like it more".

If you can't realise the irrationality of this, then the discussion is over.

I'll illustrate with an example as a last attempt to make you understand the sheer ridiculousness of your statement:

"I pick geocentrism over heliocentrism because I like it better that everything orbits the earth"

 

[DogmaHunter]

Every human being has his life-time questions. Normally, these questions do not have definite answer to satisfy every one. If none of the answer HITS you hard, then you have to choose or not to choose.

This not sense does make.

I repeated one of them: the origin of the world?
Some others:
What is the meaning of life?
Why do we live on the earth?
Why is there good and bad?
Is there life outside the earth?
What is life?
Where do we go after death? (of course, we have to assume we still exists)

How did you come up with these questions and why must a religious text answer these questions in order to be even a candidate to be considered as credible?

etc. etc.
In fact, there are probably a few dozens of these critical ones. The Quran answered some of these questions. But I don't like the answers (with reasons).

Is the truth of a statement really dependend on your emotional response to said statement?

Not only Quran. How about Buddha or Dao or Hindu? What does Buddhism say about these questions? If you want to COMPARE religions, then there will be no end to it.

Nailed it in the bolded part.
Now, go the extra mile to reach the finish line and draw the obvious conclusion.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you like an answer, it is a temporary truth to you (until you modify it).

So, truth is relative?
What is true for me is not true for you?

So if I don't like gravity, I can jump out the window and fly?

Listen to yourself....

 

[selfinflikted]

If you like an answer, it is a temporary truth to you (until you modify it).

Huh? What is a "temporary truth"?

 

[juvenissun]

Huh? What is a "temporary truth"?

Everything you think it might be true NOW.