Why the bible?

[juvenissun]

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....

Then you WILL change your mind.

 

[juvenissun]

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!!!

That is why to choose the Bible. It's message is not given by man.

 

[juvenissun]

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"

This WILL work if you are not a rocket scientist. I don't think this recognition will interfere anything on your daily life. But if it builds up your faith, then it is good.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Everything you think it might be true NOW.

You have a strange definition of the word "truth".

Apparantly, to you "truth" is whatever you happen to believe (or "like").

What a load...

That is why to choose the Bible. It's message is not given by man.

Was I too subtle in my sarcasm?

This WILL work if you are not a rocket scientist. I don't think this recognition will interfere anything on your daily life. But if it builds up your faith, then it is good.

Wauw. Just.... wauw.

The irrationality is strong in this one.

This is just one more piece of evidence that you absolutely don't care wheter or not you are justified in your beliefs. You just care about holding them. Because you "like" them.

It's sickening, really.

PS: faith is bad thing. A very bad thing. Faith = gullibility. It only leads to poor decision making.

 

[juvenissun]

This not sense does make.

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?

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

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

It is a personal demand. I want to know the answer of these questions in order to build up faith to that doctrine. It applies to ME.

Obviously, Muslims and Buddhists and many other Christians do not agree. But I do not care about them. It is MY concern.

 

[juvenissun]

You have a strange definition of the word "truth".

Apparantly, to you "truth" is whatever you happen to believe (or "like").

What a load...



Was I too subtle in my sarcasm?



Wauw. Just.... wauw.

The irrationality is strong in this one.

This is just one more piece of evidence that you absolutely don't care wheter or not you are justified in your beliefs. You just care about holding them. Because you "like" them.

It's sickening, really.

PS: faith is bad thing. A very bad thing. Faith = gullibility. It only leads to poor decision making.

Since you are not arguing any more, then suit yourself.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a personal demand.

And that which is actually true (really true) is subject to your "personal demands"?

I want to know the answer of these questions in order to build up faith to that doctrine. It applies to ME.

And you consider this a reliable methodology to differentiate truth from fiction?

Obviously, Muslims and Buddhists and many other Christians do not agree. But I do not care about them. It is MY concern.

Indeed. You only care about your own emotional state. You don't care about what others believe. You don't care about what is actually true. You don't care about holding rational beliefs.

You only care about believing whatever you happen to like at that particular time.

Great. You'll achieve great things living that irrationally. (that's sarcasm again)

Since you are not arguing any more, then suit yourself.

There's nothing to argue about. Discussion with you is futile. When someone flat out states that he doesn't care about what is true and only cares about what he "likes", then there is no point in discussing any subject.

 

[PsychoSarah]

That is why to choose the Bible. It's message is not given by man.

Prove it.

 

[bhsmte]

And that which is actually true (really true) is subject to your "personal demands"?



And you consider this a reliable methodology to differentiate truth from fiction?



Indeed. You only care about your own emotional state. You don't care about what others believe. You don't care about what is actually true. You don't care about holding rational beliefs.

You only care about believing whatever you happen to like at that particular time.

Great. You'll achieve great things living that irrationally. (that's sarcasm again)





There's nothing to argue about. Discussion with you is futile. When someone flat out states that he doesn't care about what is true and only cares about what he "likes", then there is no point in discussing any subject.

Here is what we are dealing with; some are motivated to find the truth, even if the truth is hard to take. Others are motivated to find comfort, even if it means ignoring the truth.

 

[juvenissun]

Here is what we are dealing with; some are motivated to find the truth, even if the truth is hard to take. Others are motivated to find comfort, even if it means ignoring the truth.

I know much more truth than you do.

 

[Syd the Human]

I know much more truth than you do.

I really doubt that, and even if you were right, you would be until your emotions change and your "truth" changes, again.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is a personal demand. I want to know the answer of these questions in order to build up faith to that doctrine. It applies to ME.

Obviously, Muslims and Buddhists and many other Christians do not agree. But I do not care about them. It is MY concern.

So... you just WANT to have a religion. You don't care if it's accurate. You just want to believe something that makes you feel special.



I laugh, but it's quite depressing to hear in the 21st century.

 

[bhsmte]

I know much more truth than you do.

Congrats.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I know much more truth than you do.

truth being defined as whatever you happen to "like" at present.
Good luck with that

 

[Loudmouth]

I know much more truth than you do.

Says the guy who thinks we can use U/Pb ratios to date trees and water.

 

[Smidlee]

It's not Bible vs Qur'an as much as Jesus Christ vs Mohammed. The Bible seems to answer this itself in Ecclesiastes. AFAIK the Qur'an doesn't address "death". Mohammed is just a prophet while Jesus is the Great "I AM" , Son of God, Christ which conquered our worst enemy, death. If Jesus didn't conquer death then as written in Ecclesiastes there is nothing more to life then eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you die.

 

[Senator Cheese]

Whe does a Holy Text have to have more than one author? I mean I understand with science, but why religion? Does the number of people who follow it matter? If there were only thirty Christians total during the time of Jesus, would you stop being a Christian? If the Qur'an is Allah inspired, why does it matter that there is only one person?

The question in the OP was a meta-based analysis as to why individuals choose one religion over another. I assume that from an anthropological view, cultural upbringing will play an important factor. However, the OP asked for personal testimony - I have outlined the reasons that lead me to accept considerable parts of the Bible as true.
One of those reasons is that I believe that the documentation of events by a single author will be more prone to subjective misinterpretations than a documentation by various individuals. Kind of like how soccer games have more than one referee to improve objectivity.

The absolute number of followers matters only to the extent of evangelisation (that is to say: I cannot judge a 30-man religion in Papa New Guinea). Christianity started out with very few (70) individuals but quickly spread across nations peacefully by proactively demonstrating the love of the LORD within few decades. It was no less "correct" when it had little numbers.

That actually supports the fact that morality is something that all people, regardless of religion, have through observing others and through instruction from others.

The supposed observation is that most individuals have an intuitive moral compass, that is to say they "know right from wrong".
The hypothesis that this morality merely boils down to "observing others" and through "instruction" is not supported by this observation; I would argue the observation would tangentially rather contradict than support your notion.

Why does that even matter? Didn't the Christian god help people when they went to kill others? If anything it would show that Allah is correct and the Christian god is not. Jesus died a gruesome death while Mohammad gained personal gain and military power. I mean, wouldn't a god reward those that did him good service?

From experience, I know that the good are not necessarily rewarded with earthly wealth and that the bad are not necessarily punished by being poor.
This experience is congruent with the teachings of Jesus Christ, who broke the exact paradigm you described.

As you said, there are people who have not had any contact with Christianity, so how would they have faith in the Christian god? They would follow the religion that they were raised with, which in the Christian religion would be a false god sending them to hell.

The Bible documents that Jesus Christ said he has written himself into our hearts - which I believe to be a documentation of the moral compass instilled in every human. Even an Eskimo that has never heard of any world religion can experience the moral compass and thus can experience Jesus Christ.
It doesn't matter what he calls his God - ultimately, he will be praying to the same one.

A just God would never send anyone to hell for something he could not change. As such, the Eskimo would surely be saved as well.

Why not?

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

Thank you for what I assume to be a compliment.
As for the Old Testament - I believe that there are some reasons to why I have doubts about the inerrancy of some parts due to: contradictory scientific models; documentation being subject to change during time; wacky stories (swallowed by a whale comes to mind).
I don't see why large chunks of the OT couldn't be parables with a deeper meaning - after all, we see from the NT that Jesus had a knack for good parables.

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.

I have not read the Quoran, I will admit that much.
I was not aware that it was written by Muhammads companions - as far as I thought, it was supposedly authored "directly by God" and written down by Mohammad who was supposedly analphabetic.

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.

On a meta-based argumentation, I would say that the objectivity of a documentation increases with the amount of individuals making the observation. If you're investigating a bar brawl, you'll probably trust 30 witnesses more than 1 guy. (Of course, that doesn't automatically mean that the one dude is a liar).

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.

You specifically asked to refrain from circular reasoning. "The Quoran says it was written by God so it is obviously written by God".

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.

I believe that God has instilled morality among all of us, yes.
I don't see how the "I like the Bible better" argument applies?

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.

I am judging both by the information that I have. If you want to, please feel free to provide further historical scholarly infos.
All I got is this: Historical Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (and I haven't even read it >_> sorriez)

I'm also not trying to "judge" anyone. It's historical fact that Mohammad was a military commander and that his alleged revelations ultimately allowed him to gain more power and wealth.
I also consider it historical fact that Jesus teachings led to his crucifixion.

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.

I don't see it necessary for the LORD to spread his message by brute force. The LORDs ways are peaceful and of love (I know you'll cringe at this but) because that is the way I experience him.

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

Yeah, but there's a difference if you die because you preach, or if you preach to get rich and then die under different circumstances.

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"?

Okay, sorry if this sounds confusing:

1.) Someone who's never heard of Abrahamic religions will still, intuitively, know to love his neighbor. (I think we agree on this part)
2.) Someone who's never heard of Abrahamic religions but still experiences God in prayer will pray to that Lord. And I don't the LORD will care what name you call him - nor does it matter to him if you go to church once a day or never in a lifetime. You show love for him by showing love to your fellow human being and by making yourself aware that all of your blessings are not your "own deserved earnings" but from his hands.

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.

To conclude
1.) I think we're twisting Sarah's nipples again when she sees yet another wall of text. So, feel free to delete/skip/ignore any part of my post in order to keep things as short as possible. Unfortunately, I'm not the best at keeping my posts very short.
2.) Yes, I've got the Bible-Goggles on. I'd say that everyone has some kind of goggles on, and that goes for atheists as well. I'd love to take them off for the course of this discussion, but it's close to impossible.
3.) Since you're probably looking at point (2) and saying "that's not true, I have no goggles on!" - you will not find an answer that suits your needs. This is because:

This topic can be adressed on two levels:

(1) The meta-based approach of let's assume we have no idea what this God fellow wants. That includes analyzing which holy texts seem to have the highest degree of validity. It presupposes having "no" experience with God whatsoever and thus, by definition cannot have any "right" answer. The arguments pertaining to Bible vs. Quoran (outlined above) demonstrate this very well. The origination of both texts can be interpreted to demonstrate each text's supposed superiority.
(2) The personal approach of I have experienced God in one way or another. That's obviously an approach you won't enjoy because it cannot be objectified and there is no guarantee that personal experiences in God won't differ - as such this is totally unscientific and the answers you will get are going to drive you nuts.

 

[Strathos]

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

Never said it was.

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

Maybe to you.

1. your "personal beliefs" are not really relevant here.

On the contrary, they are completely relevant.

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?

A bit bigger than that, I'd say.

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.

Not quite. The vessel described in the story of Utnapishtim is a very inefficient shape for seaworthiness, whereas the one described in the story of Noah makes more sense as something that would actually float.

Of course I am not a Biblical literalist, so while I believe there was a Noah, a flood, and an ark, I don't believe the flood was global, or that every animal was aboard, etc. It is likely that both stories diverge significantly from the actual events they were based on.

Either way, it's a complete red herring, as I'm not using the story of Noah as an example of why the Bible is more trustworthy than the Koran.

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?

It's ironic that all of you atheists start these kinds of threads and continue with the mindset of "oh, those foolish Christians only know about their own religion, and are too biased to even research other religions", yet from this statement it seems obvious to me that I know a lot more about Islam than you do.

Do you even know what Hadith is? To most Muslims, it is considered just as important as the Koran. If we're discussing the Koran, then of course I can cite the Hadith for my arguments. No Muslim would fault me on that.

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".

That's up for dispute in many cases.

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.

The Koran wasn't written by Muhammad, it was collected and compiled by his followers after his death. I'm not seeing much difference here.

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

Says the person who seems rather ignorant of Islam and Islamic history...

Do you even know any Muslims or have any Muslim friends? I do. We have discussed the Bible and Koran many times. Although it is pretty clear that we are not going to convert each other so we mostly don't try anymore.

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.

And you think they changed so much in that time? Despite the fact that the extant sources are word-for-word copies of earlier versions?

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

Book of Ezekiel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Book of Ezekiel describes itself as the words of the Ezekiel ben-Buzi, a priest living in exile in the city of Babylon between 593 and 571. Most scholars today accept the basic authenticity of the book, but see in it significant additions by a "school" of later followers of the original prophet.[6] While the book exhibits considerable unity and probably reflects much of the historic Ezekiel, it is the product of a long and complex history and does not necessarily preserve the very words of the prophet.[7]

Like I said, I'm not a strict literalist. But Ezekiel is one of the many books that originates from the time of its author.

Yes. Including scripture that is not included in the bible today.

Which doesn't match the Koran claims either.

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.

Even if you include all the apocrypha it doesn't really help the Koran's case.

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.

Due primarily to infant mortality. A lot more babies died before reaching their first year back then. It was not uncommon for adults to reach 50 or 60 back then.

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

Yeah, after Muhammad died.

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

Proof again you know nothing of Islam. If we're talking about the life of Muhammad, sure, but most of that is in the Hadith. The claims from the Koran we're talking about are the ones about the prophets of the OT and about Christ, all of which occurred hundreds or thousands of years before Muhammad was even born.

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

I already explained this.

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

Sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

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.

Mormons say the same thing. Their story is just as fishy.

 

[SkyWriting]

What is it about the bible that gives it more credibility then the quran?
Why do you believe the Bible and not the quran?

The Bible starts correctly with background information and details about the formation of our cosmos and touches on the mindset of God who looks at all He has created and deems it "good".

The Quran is completely man-mindset and immediately separates itself into "us" and "them" as would any human inspired group former.

That covers the first 15 sentences of each.

At this point I will stop reading the Quaran, not having any further interest in it's inherent hostility. Unless you find my analysis at fault.

 

[driewerf]

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



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.



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?

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?

Not necesserally;
In a situation where neutrality is very difficult, or where all partie have very much to win AND the means of controlling what is printed, later studies might be more reliable.
I mean, in your example of the WW II books, both the NAZIs and the Allied Forces had to keep the moral high, while not releasing information usefull for the enemy. When the fights are over, and when there is nothing to win in distorting the truth, a more accurate version is possible (and this indeed might be decades after the facts).
Now, I'm not saying thet the quran is more reliable than the bible (or the other way round). I'm just pointing out that your argument doesn't apply to all situations.