The struggle to replace the Bible

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
You dont understand the definition of "fable"

Yes, I do. I also understand how denigrating it is to call something a 'children's fable.'

There is evidence the Hebrews interacted with Assyrians well ahead of their captivity.

I assume you mean the Neo-Assyrian Empire which existed between 900-600 B.C. Obviously the Hebrews interacted with it since the Assyrians carried the elites of the Northern Kingdom off into captivity.
However, the story of the Ark and Flood goes at least as far back as 2100 B.C. in the Epic of Gilgamesh. That is the same city as Abraham is said to have come from so maybe he got the story from them. Abraham presumably lived about four hundred years later.
Bottom line: there were no Hebrews when the story of the Great Flood and the construction of an Ark were first told.

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

Niblo said:
As you know, the majority of Muslims believe that the Qur’an is uncreated (not the physical work that we hold in our hands, of course, but the very words that make up the Book).

In both the Qur’an and the Bible Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) uses myth and legend to convey sacred truths. Why would this be a problem?

So you say the quran borrowed myths and legends. However, they are not myths but non-biblical writings written by smart Jewish rabbi; they are called Midrash, Talmud and Targum. They are non-biblical writings meant to accompany the Bible. Oftentimes they contain imaginary beings, birds, animals and imaginary objects and places... something the literate world today term as "fables".

I invite you to read more of Rabbi Huna's material and tell me if you have seen this material before:

"Kayin (Cain) went out from the Presence of Hashem (LORD)" (Bereishit 4:16). How can it be said that a man went out from the Presence of Hashem?
However, according to Rabbi Yudan, citing Rabbi Aibu, the verse signifies that Kayin left [his consciousness of] Hashem's Presence by tossing off the words ["My sin is greater than can be forgiven"], as if by mouthing them he could blunt the Almighty's awareness of his sin. "

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Niblo said:
It might then be argued that those truths we now call ‘borrowings’ were given to people in the Creator’s own time and manner - by way of inspiration - to prepare people for the coming of the Prophets. The Babylonian creation myths that underpin Genesis might be an example of this process.

That is quite possible because as you know the Qur'an states that there is no people to whom a Prophet has not been sent. I personally believe there is some historicity to the Adam and Eve story and I think it had something to do with the Agricultural Revolution. For Baha'is Adam is the first prophet of this cycle but we don't imagine him to be the first Homo Sapien.

As for the debate over whether the Qur'an is 'created' or 'uncreated', I believe the Word of God to be uncreated and the Qur'an participates in that.

‘ The Qur'an often employs such legends as a vehicle for allegories expressing certain universal ethical truths; and it employs them for the simple reason that even before the advent of Islam they had become so firmly embedded in the poetic memories of the Arabs - the people in whose language the Qur'an was expressed and to whom it was addressed in the first instance - that most of these legends had acquired, as it were, a cultural reality of their own, which made a denial or a confirmation of their mythical origin utterly irrelevant. Within the context of the Qur'an, the only thing that is relevant in this respect is the spiritual truth underlying each one of these legends: a many-sided, many-layered truth which the Qur'an invariably brings out,

Click to expand...

Exactly my point!

In both the Qur’an and the Bible Allāh (Subḥānahu ūta'āla) uses myth and legend to convey sacred truths. Why would this be a problem?

Click to expand...

It is only a problem to the literalists who largely miss the sacred truths being conveyed anyhow.

Click to expand...

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

smaneck said:
I assume you mean the Neo-Assyrian Empire which existed between 900-600 B.C. Obviously the Hebrews interacted with it since the Assyrians carried the elites of the Northern Kingdom off into captivity.
However, the story of the Ark and Flood goes at least as far back as 2100 B.C. in the Epic of Gilgamesh. That is the same city as Abraham is said to have come from so maybe he got the story from them. Abraham presumably lived about four hundred years later.
Bottom line: there were no Hebrews when the story of the Great Flood and the construction of an Ark were first told.

I never called the flood story a myth, you did.
All descendents of Noah new of the flood, Shem and the Hebrews and Ashur. I don't care that Babylonians knew of it as well as the Hebrews, it was common knowledge.
I consider it historical and so no myth is found in the Bible.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
So you say the quran borrowed myths and legends. However, they are not myths but non-biblical writings written by smart Jewish rabbi; they are called Midrash, Talmud and Targum.

And how does that make them not myths?

They are non-biblical writings meant to accompany the Bible.

And how does that make it children's literature?

Oftentimes they contain imaginary beings, birds, animals and imaginary objects and places...

As do myths.

something the literate world today term as "fables".

They are only called 'children's fables' if
1) They are actually meant for children
2) The term is meant to denigrate the stories.

The Midrash literature was not meant for children. Therefore to refer to it as "children's fable' is to deliberately denigrate it.

I invite you to read more of Rabbi Huna's material and tell me if you have seen this material before:

Why?

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
I consider it historical and so no myth is found in the Bible.

Your wishing it, won't make it so.

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

Niblo,
Please tell me whether this seems familiar:

"For so we find it in the case of Cain, who slew his brother,... FOR THIS REASON MAN WAS CREATED ONE AND ALONE IN THE WORLD: to teach that whosoever destroys a single soul is regarded as though he destroyed a complete world, and whosoever saves a single soul is regarded as though he saved a complete world;" (Mishnah, IV.5a-b)

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

smaneck said:
And how does that make them not myths?

Myth and fable are essentially identical terms. Now you contradict yourself. Congratulations.

As do myths.

So you call the Midrash myths but not fables? Congratulations, you just contradicted yourself.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
Niblo,
Please tell me whether this seems familiar:

"For so we find it in the case of Cain, who slew his brother,... FOR THIS REASON MAN WAS CREATED ONE AND ALONE IN THE WORLD: to teach that whosoever destroys a single soul is regarded as though he destroyed a complete world, and whosoever saves a single soul is regarded as though he saved a complete world;" (Mishnah, IV.5a-b)

I can answer for Niblo, in this case the Qur'an even names its source:

"On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person - unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land - it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if any one saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. Then although there came to them Our messengers with clear signs, yet, even after that, many of them continued to commit excesses in the land."
5:32

Just like Jesus quoting the Golden Rule from Hillel.

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

I know I've seen a semblance of these words somewhere in the quran, can you place the sura?

"For so we find it in the case of Cain, who slew his brother,... FOR THIS REASON MAN WAS CREATED ONE AND ALONE IN THE WORLD: to teach that whosoever destroys a single soul is regarded as though he destroyed a complete world, and whosoever saves a single soul is regarded as though he saved a complete world;" (Mishnah, IV.5a-b) Jewish author, 200AD

Sura 5.32, yes. I'll continue this tomorrow since I see Niblo has left.

Niblo · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
Niblo,
Please tell me whether this seems familiar:

"For so we find it in the case of Cain, who slew his brother,... FOR THIS REASON MAN WAS CREATED ONE AND ALONE IN THE WORLD: to teach that whosoever destroys a single soul is regarded as though he destroyed a complete world, and whosoever saves a single soul is regarded as though he saved a complete world;" (Mishnah, IV.5a-b)

Masihi,

‘On account of (his deed), We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land - it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.’

(Al-Ma’ida: 32).

The Exalted taught the Arabs the same truth that He taught the Jews; and I know of no Jew who would contest this truth.

Who are we to say that the Exalted cannot impart His truths in any manner He chooses?

If you disagree with Him, then I invited you to take it up with Him.

Have a good day.

DevinF · Jun 19, 2015

smaneck said:
All I am asking is that one interprets the Qur'an using the same methodology that one uses to interpret the Bible. Masihi, on the other hand, wants to look at the Qur'an one way and the Bible another. To me that is hypocrisy.

Hello,
Thank you for responding.
Could you please explain your context of 'methodology?'
Respectfully,
Devin

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

DevinF said:
Hello,
Thank you for responding.
Could you please explain your context of 'methodology?'
Respectfully,
Devin

All I'm saying is that all the contradictions which Masihi claims to find in the Qur'an can be found in the Bible as well. Whatever means he uses to explain these biblical contradictions should be likewise applied to the Qur'an.

DevinF · Jun 19, 2015

smaneck said:
All I'm saying is that all the contradictions which Masihi claims to find in the Qur'an can be found in the Bible as well. Whatever means he uses to explain these biblical contradictions should be likewise applied to the Qur'an.

Hello again Smaneck,
I am a little puzzled at your statement of "..contradictions...can be found in the Bible as well." Could you possibly give an example or two? And also, remember that there is a difference between 'contradiction' and 'out of context.'
Best wishes,
Devin

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

DevinF said:
Hello again Smaneck,
I am a little puzzled at your statement of "..contradictions...can be found in the Bible as well." Could you possibly give an example or two? And also, remember that there is a difference between 'contradiction' and 'out of context.'
Best wishes,
Devin

Devin, if what your looking to do is resolve these things you're missing the point. I want to see the same methods that you use with your own scripture applied to the Qur'an, that's all. Otherwise it is pointless as far as I'm concerned. I'm not really interested in pointing out the possible contradictions in the Bible, for their own sake I will only bring them up to demonstrate how the same criticisms that are being made against the Qur'an can easily be brought against the Bible as well. If you look back in the archives you'll see plenty of examples of this.

ViaCrucis · Jun 19, 2015

DevinF said:
Hello again Smaneck,
I am a little puzzled at your statement of "..contradictions...can be found in the Bible as well." Could you possibly give an example or two? And also, remember that there is a difference between 'contradiction' and 'out of context.'
Best wishes,
Devin

2 Samuel 8:3-4:

"David also struck down King Hadadezer son of Rehob of Zobah, as he went to restore his monument at the river Euphrates. David took from him one thousand seven hundred horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left enough for a hundred chariots."

1 Chronicles 18:3-4:

"David also struck down King Hadadezer of Zobah, toward Hamath, as he went to set up a monument at the river Euphrates. David took from him one thousand chariots, seven thousand cavalry, and twenty thousand foot soldiers. David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but left one hundred of them."

-CryptoLutheran

Masihi · Jun 19, 2015

Niblo said:
Masihi,
‘On account of (his deed), We decreed to the Children of Israel that if anyone kills a person - unless in retribution for murder or spreading corruption in the land - it is as if he kills all mankind, while if any saves a life it is as if he saves the lives of all mankind. Our messengers came to them with clear signs, but many of them continued to commit excesses in the land.’

(Al-Ma’ida: 32).
The Exalted taught the Arabs the same truth that He taught the Jews; and I know of no Jew who would contest this truth.
Who are we to say that the Exalted cannot impart His truths in any manner He chooses?
If you disagree with Him, then I invited you to take it up with Him.
Have a good day.

You call it the "same truth".... but lets take a closer look if you don't mind.

for this reason man was created one and alone in the world: to teach that whosoever destroys a single soul is regarded as though he destroyed a complete world, and whosoever saves a single soul is regarded as though he saved a complete world;" (Mishnah, IV.5a-b)

First, sura 5.27-31 started by mentioning Cain and Abel but the subject changes in 5.32. The Mishnah written 500 yrs before the quran, carries the topic of Cain, Abel and Adam all the way thru. There is no doubt that the Mishnah is the source material for those quranic ayat (verses).

Second, and perhaps of greater importance is the changed opening line. The idea given in the sura by “allah” (the WE) differs from that of the original writer, the Jewish Rabbi. The idea given by the Rabbi is that since Adam was created one and alone in the world, whosoever destroys one soul would be as though he destroyed a complete world.

By complete contrast, the version in the quran stipulates killing anyone who murders or causes disorder. This stipulation nullifies the remainder of the aya (verse).

The original idea as given by the Rabbi in Mishnah is perfectly understandable because the story stays on the character of Adam and therefore coherent.
The Rabbi’s idea is concise because the value of life is never diminished for any reason.

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

Masihi said:
The Rabbi’s idea is concise because the value of life is never diminished for any reason.

So you oppose the death penalty under all circumstances and you believe the Bible was wrong in calling for stoning people to death?

Just so we are clear.

James Is Back · Jun 19, 2015

Mod Hat On

Thread has undergone a cleanup due to off topic posts so if your post is gone that is the reason. Stick to the topic at hand folks and don't go off topic.

Mod Hat Off

smaneck · Jun 19, 2015

DevinF said:
Hello again Smaneck,
I am a little puzzled at your statement of "..contradictions...can be found in the Bible as well." Could you possibly give an example or two? And also, remember that there is a difference between 'contradiction' and 'out of context.'
Best wishes,
Devin

Go back and look at post no. 15 in this thread. This is the sort of thing I'm talking about.

The struggle to replace the Bible

Baha'i

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

Baha'i

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Muslim

Member

Baha'i

Member

Baha'i

Confessional Lutheran

love based faith is truer than fear based faith

Baha'i

CF's Official Locksmith

Baha'i

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency