"...And your Lord is never forgetful..."

[dcalling]

Yes but you know God trough a text. We are talking about an interpretation. Scholars with knowledge of the religion, text, language, history would come to better conclusion than a layman viewing the text for himself. The catholics understood this. Once the Bible was free for use Heretics started popping up (not that they didnt exist before Luther times).

So do you believe in a central authority that control how the Bible should be interpreted?

Yes scholars might be able to understand the text better on details, but God has made his message clear, love your neighbor as yourself, any layman can understand that. Also it is not up to us to judge who are the heretics, it is all between each man and God.

This is one of my favorite argument against Protestants. They cannot account for their use of the 66 books, as they were selected by the Catholic Church. Meaning the protestants use a bible collected by Idol worshipping Catholics in their own words.

The books are good, as I said their message are consistent. Also the Catholics are not worshiping idols, they just build them which contradict God's teachings.

No. Refusing to view the world around them and taking the bible literally refusing to see God in the natur around them is the same as worshiping the Bible.

What do you mean by fake?

This is what I meant, do you take the miracles recorded in the Bible literally? Without empirical evidence, do you believe Jesus is born of a virgin?

 

[smaneck]

This is what I meant, do you take the miracles recorded in the Bible literally? Without empirical evidence, do you believe Jesus is born of a virgin?

Muslims do indeed believe Jesus was born of a virgin, but this is because that is what the Qur'an says.

 

[Aristocles X]

Greetings my new christian friend dcall

So do you believe in a central authority that control how the Bible should be interpreted?

I believe authority should be in any religion. I also believe freethinkig is good but not to the extremes.

The books are good, as I said their message are consistent.

They are not consistent, something that is troubling scholars who do have knowledge about the books. Second you could make any pair of books seem consistent in one way or the other. However i am in no position to tell you how to view the books, and if you find them consistent and they satisfy than who im i to tell you what to believe.

This is what I meant, do you take the miracles recorded in the Bible literally?

I view most of the Bible as fiction.

Without empirical evidence

The New testament forexample makes several historical mistakes. We can compare it with secular history and see what the unknown authors of NT (excluding the authentic pauline epistles, however on a side note i do not believe Paul of Tarsus existed) got wrong and what they got right.

As for miracles one believes that based on faith.

 

[Aristocles X]

Haven't been paying attention. I said this line begins with the 'ulama who opposed the Emperor Akbar.

Yeah you did capture that was a rhetorical question right?

Anyhow I did find John Voll's article on this. I'd gotten this from him orally and was not aware of his article on this topic.

Hadith Scholars and Tariqahs: An Ulama Group in the 18th Century Haramayn and their Impact in the Islamic World
Journal of Asian and African Studies July 1980 15: 264-273,

Is it available on the Internet?

 

[smaneck]

Yeah you did capture that was a rhetorical question right?


Is it available on the Internet?

Yeah, but I think you have to pay for it.

 

[Aristocles X]

Yeah, but I think you have to pay for it.

How much?

 

[dcalling]

Greetings my new christian friend dcall

Greetings to you too Aristocles

I believe authority should be in any religion. I also believe freethinkig is good but not to the extremes.

A bit different here, I think no authority should be in any religion except God alone, because all man are sinners and when they are in power they corrupt.

They are not consistent, something that is troubling scholars who do have knowledge about the books. Second you could make any pair of books seem consistent in one way or the other. However i am in no position to tell you how to view the books, and if you find them consistent and they satisfy than who im i to tell you what to believe.

Will leave that to God

I view most of the Bible as fiction.
.....
As for miracles one believes that based on faith.

Now I know at least you view Bible as fiction, that is why you think people are worshiping the Bible as they take it literally.

So my other question is based on your view of nature, the world, do you think Quran is also fiction (i.e. virgin birth and make clay birds alive)?

 

[dcalling]

Also I think Woodrow would agree with me on #2

 

[Aristocles X]

Now I know at least you view Bible as fiction, that is why you think people are worshiping the Bible as they take it literally.

So my other question is based on your view of nature, the world, do you think Quran is also fiction (i.e. virgin birth and make clay birds alive)?

I think i went to extremes when i said fiction. I take the view Richard Carrier has that the Gospels are myth and were intended to be written as myth rather than actual history. As for the epistles i view them as works written to define theology and beliefs. If you have read my posts in other thread you would have seen that i have argued with smaneck that Paul of Tarsus most likely never existed and that the epistles most likely came from Marcion. Also we spoke about the other epistles of figures like Ignatius and Polycarp and i laid out a case why they are forgeries in my view.

As for the Old Testament. There are clear historical mistakes and a huge amount of contradiction but i think it has some historial truth in it.

When i said Bible earlier i was referring to the Gospels NT.

As for the Quran. I believe in it based on faith and the reason i do is because out of many things i could not explain the language any other way. I do read works of critics against the Quran however most of what i presented in my view is easily refuted. Viewing the Quran as revelation the best view of it i found was that of ahlu sunnah.

 

[dcalling]

I think i went to extremes when i said fiction. I take the view Richard Carrier has that the Gospels are myth and were intended to be written as myth rather than actual history. As for the epistles i view them as works written to define theology and beliefs. If you have read my posts in other thread you would have seen that i have argued with smaneck that Paul of Tarsus most likely never existed and that the epistles most likely came from Marcion. Also we spoke about the other epistles of figures like Ignatius and Polycarp and i laid out a case why they are forgeries in my view.

As for the Old Testament. There are clear historical mistakes and a huge amount of contradiction but i think it has some historial truth in it.

When i said Bible earlier i was referring to the Gospels NT.

As for the Quran. I believe in it based on faith and the reason i do is because out of many things i could not explain the language any other way. I do read works of critics against the Quran however most of what i presented in my view is easily refuted. Viewing the Quran as revelation the best view of it i found was that of ahlu sunnah.

thanks, 3 questions:
1. Could you give a couple clear historical mistake and contradiction in the Torah?
2. Do you believe in the miracles stated in Quran?
3. Do you think there are more Muslims worshiping the Quran than Christians worshiping the Bible?

 

[Aristocles X]

Greetings my friend.

1. Could you give a couple clear historical mistake and contradiction in the Torah?

Using Luke in light of the Torah we would get that the earth today is about 6000years. Other problems is that genesis puts the existance of philisteens at the time of Isaac. I mean we can have a field day with this i do not have the energy to start a 10page long debate about historical mistakes in the Torah.

As for contradictions. From Genesis 3 we know that before eating from the tree, Adam and Eva had no knowledge of Good and evil however the very next verse it says that Eve saw that the tree was good. This is one out many. The order of creation is one. Contradictions related to the flood story and so on. Just like with the history i do not have the energy to have a 10 page long debate about the contradiction in the Torah.

2. Do you believe in the miracles stated in Quran?

I do so by faith.

Do you think there are more Muslims worshiping the Quran than Christians worshiping the Bible?

The protestants who worship the Bible i compare to the Quranists.

 

[dcalling]

Greetings my friend.
Using Luke in light of the Torah we would get that the earth today is about 6000years. Other problems is that genesis puts the existance of philisteens at the time of Isaac. I mean we can have a field day with this i do not have the energy to start a 10page long debate about historical mistakes in the Torah.

As for contradictions. From Genesis 3 we know that before eating from the tree, Adam and Eva had no knowledge of Good and evil however the very next verse it says that Eve saw that the tree was good. This is one out many. The order of creation is one. Contradictions related to the flood story and so on. Just like with the history i do not have the energy to have a 10 page long debate about the contradiction in the Torah.

Why you think using Luke put the earth today at 6000 years? there can be many years before that when God did the other things.

Also do you have evidence that the philisteens does not exist at the time of Isaac (assuming the Torah did put Philisteens at the time of Issac)?

The protestants who worship the Bible i compare to the Quranists.

What do you mean? Do you mean only the quranist Muslims worship Quran?

 

[Aristocles X]

I did point out in m reply i had no interest in going into a long debate about anachronism and so forth.

However something that i did not understand was this.

there can be many years before that when God did the other things.

Please do clarify

Also do you have evidence that the philisteens does not exist at the time of Isaac (assuming the Torah did put Philisteens at the time of Issac)?

The simply fact that they do not make it into history untill around 1200-1190 BC. Some christian have tried to solve the problem by saying a later copyist was using a term familiar to readers then on purpose. Such an explanation in my view is weak.

What do you mean? Do you mean only the quranist Muslims worship Quran?

There is no such thing as a Quranist Muslims. However not as extreme as the protestants i do believe the quranist sometimes fall into worship of the Quran.

 

[dcalling]

I did point out in m reply i had no interest in going into a long debate about anachronism and so forth.

However something that i did not understand was this.

Please do clarify

I am assuming 6000 years old earth theory is the generations (from adam to Jesus) from one of the NT chapters. however this is if you take 6 day creation, which is specified in both Torah and Quran. If you assume the 6 day creation is not literal then the earth can be very old as humans are created several days later in the step.

The simply fact that they do not make it into history untill around 1200-1190 BC. Some christian have tried to solve the problem by saying a later copyist was using a term familiar to readers then on purpose. Such an explanation in my view is weak.

History at that early age is hard to track, I believe the Quran also mentioned Samaritan during the time of Moses. Just because someone is not in the history book doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I doubt you can find Adam, Moses in any history records.

There is no such thing as a Quranist Muslims. However not as extreme as the protestants i do believe the quranist sometimes fall into worship of the Quran.

It is very strange that you thought protestants worship the Bible. If you burn the Bible nothing will happen, but if you burn a Quran .......

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

They did on there 'about us' section of their old website. It has been replaced and since they had a falling out with another Salafi group last fall, they may now be avoiding the term.

Which website?

Wahabi merely signifies that the theology goes back to Ibn Wahab. To call someone a deserter (rafida) is an entirely different matter.

No one uses the term "wahabi" unless it's in a derogatory fashion (or to rebel against those using the word). Again, generally the only people who use that term are Shi'aas, barelwis, non-Muslims, or "progressive" Muslims and they use it as an insult.

If you can call people wahabi (without it being even remotely accurate even according to the usage of that in the West), khariji, or takfiri why can people not call others rawafidh?

 

[smaneck]

Which website?

ikhwanonline.net

Dead link now.

 

[LoveBeingAMuslimah]

More to the point of this thread, yesterday was the 3rd anniversary of the ongoing genocide in Syria.

[youtube]RBQ-IoHfimQ[/youtube]

 

[Aristocles X]

Greetings dcall

I am assuming 6000 years old earth theory is the generations (from adam to Jesus) from one of the NT chapters. however this is if you take 6 day creation, which is specified in both Torah and Quran. If you assume the 6 day creation is not literal then the earth can be very old as humans are created several days later in the step.

Several problems with that take. Also you would still remain with the problem that human being have only existed for 6000years.

The problem you get from rejecting 24hour are that according to Genesis 1 the plants and grass were created in the 3rd day that means by you'r take plants and grass and so forth existed millions of years or what ever amount of days you place into a day before the sun was created. You would also have the earth existing for millions of years before the sun, stars and other planets existed.

History at that early age is hard to track,

You see the philisteens had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until after 1200 BCE or around that time. You will not find them mentioned any were before this time for this reason. Now even if the people existed at that time the name philisteen did not however.

believe the Quran also mentioned Samaritan during the time of Moses.

Yes and? The claim that this is an anachronism comes from Tisdall who was a christian that assumed the bible is true and therfore it got the origins mentioned in 2 king 17 correct (shomronim). However the bible is book that needs to take an hike when it comes to samartians. As says A. D. Crown

This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution. A.D Crown.

The evidence he is talking about is An inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported around 27 000 prisoners from Samaria.

The Samaritans make a distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria, they claim that "Shomronim comes from the name Shomron.

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, V14,Jeru col 728.

Just because someone

Thats not what we are talking about my friend. We are not talking about a person rather the usage of a word that one of the authors of Genesis got wrong.

History at that early

Historians can get a good idea when it comes to origins of a people and usages of words. But if you like we can go to a nearer period at the time of New Testament.

It is very strange that you thought protestants worship the Bible.

Some protestants do worship the Bible as i pointed out. It seems like you are confused by what is implied. I do not mean they place the bible on a pillow and than they offer sacrifice and bow down to it

 

[smaneck]

You see the philisteens had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until after 1200 BCE or around that time. You will not find them mentioned any were before this time for this reason. Now even if the people existed at that time the name philisteen did not however.

The Philistines are thought to be among the Sea People who caused so much havoc in that part of the world in the late Bronze/Early Iron Age. The Biblical Archaeologist William Dever told me that the biblical writers often confused the Philistines with the earlier Phoenicians and that the accounts of conflicts with the Philistines during the Judges period actually occurred with the Phoenicians.

 

[dcalling]

Greetings dcall
Several problems with that take. Also you would still remain with the problem that human being have only existed for 6000years.

If God created Adam instead of evolved Adam, it is normal if humans only existed for 6000 years. The earliest record of humans is 5000 years or so

The problem you get from rejecting 24hour are that according to Genesis 1 the plants and grass were created in the 3rd day that means by you'r take plants and grass and so forth existed millions of years or what ever amount of days you place into a day before the sun was created. You would also have the earth existing for millions of years before the sun, stars and other planets existed.

I don't know why you would consider that is a problem, since Quran (which you would consider to be all true) also states God created all in 6 days (s7:54, create the sun, the moon, the stars) and the earth is created in 2 days, s41:9, and set the mountains in 4 days in the next surat, then in the next he joined heavens and earth or make them come together.

My view is, if those are impossible to prove, just let them be, the more important things are the messages to us.

You see the philisteens had not established their settlements along the coastal plain of Canaan until after 1200 BCE or around that time. You will not find them mentioned any were before this time for this reason. Now even if the people existed at that time the name philisteen did not however.


Yes and? The claim that this is an anachronism comes from Tisdall who was a christian that assumed the bible is true and therfore it got the origins mentioned in 2 king 17 correct (shomronim). However the bible is book that needs to take an hike when it comes to samartians. As says A. D. Crown

This is a prima facie evidence that the greatest concentration of people remained in the province until at least sixth century B.C.E. Clearly the story of Samaritan origins in the Bible must be viewed with caution. A.D Crown.

The evidence he is talking about is An inscription from the time of Sargon II records that he deported around 27 000 prisoners from Samaria.

The Samaritans make a distinction between their own ancestors and the inhabitants of Samaria, they claim that "Shomronim comes from the name Shomron.

Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called themselves Shamerin; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth = al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean inhabitants of the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).Encyclopaedia Judaica, 1972, V14,Jeru col 728.


Thats not what we are talking about my friend. We are not talking about a person rather the usage of a word that one of the authors of Genesis got wrong.


Historians can get a good idea when it comes to origins of a people and usages of words.

Same as above.

But if you like we can go to a nearer period at the time of New Testament.

Please do

Some protestants do worship the Bible as i pointed out. It seems like you are confused by what is implied. I do not mean they place the bible on a pillow and than they offer sacrifice and bow down to it

Maybe, but taken something based on faith is different than worshiping, or maybe you meant something totally different