Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Advanced? No, actually he has one foot still in the dark ages.
This guy twists what is written in the qu'ran just as badly as the other one...They are seeing what they want to see by changing the meanings of words and phrases.
For instance... The scientific Atomic theory has nothing to do with the Qur'anic Atom. This atom is used in the Qur'an to denote small particles. When the Arabs tried to talk about small particles they could not find a suitable word to describe them; the only appropriate word they could use was "zarah" (dharra) which means the dust particle, or a mustard seed.
Rotation of the earth.... A painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth. According to Allah, the earth is motionless--completely static.
In Sura An-Naml (27:61) it is stated clearly:
Is not He Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas?
I could refute every singe claim these people make, but it's a waste of my time....I have better things to do.
Rotation of the earth.... A painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth.
from this verse you can extract the rotation of the earth
ALLAH says that the mountains pass like the passing of the clouds
how can they pass ?
if you go up to space and look at the earth from space then you will the earth rotations and every thing on it will rotate .
do you see now the miracle in the verse.
"Thou seest the mountains and thinkest them firmly fixed, but they pass like the passing of the clouds, (such is) the artistry of God, who disposes of all things in perfect order, for he is well acquainted with all that ye do. (The Noble Quran, 27:88)"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
According to Allah, the earth is motionless--completely static.
In Sura An-Naml (27:61) it is stated clearly:
Is not He Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas?
we know that the earth rotate around axle
we know the earth rotate around the sun
and the sun rotate around the galaxy
but dispite all these movements and rotations we do not feel any these actions
it is like as if the earth is fixed but if we feel this earth is moving or shaking then it would be difficult for us to live on it.
and this is the real meaning for the verse.
and here is another translation for the verse
Or, Who made the earth a resting place, and made in it rivers, and raised on it mountains and placed between the two seas a barrier. Is there a god with Allah? Nay! most of them do not know! The Noble Quran.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur
I could refute every singe claim these people make, but it's a waste of my time....I have better things to do.
Advanced? No, actually he has one foot still in the dark ages.
This guy twists what is written in the qu'ran just as badly as the other one...They are seeing what they want to see by changing the meanings of words and phrases.
For instance... The scientific Atomic theory has nothing to do with the Qur'anic Atom. This atom is used in the Qur'an to denote small particles. When the Arabs tried to talk about small particles they could not find a suitable word to describe them; the only appropriate word they could use was "zarah" (dharra) which means the dust particle, or a mustard seed.
Rotation of the earth.... A painstaking search of the entire Qur’an does not show a single verse anywhere in it that supports the scientific reality of the rotation of earth. According to Allah, the earth is motionless--completely static.
In Sura An-Naml (27:61) it is stated clearly:
Is not He Who made the earth a fixed abode, and placed rivers in the folds thereof, and placed firm hills therein, and hath set a barrier between the two seas?
I could refute every singe claim these people make, but it's a waste of my time....I have better things to do.
Nicely done. But we see that it just bounces off the skull of the believer who insists that reference to passing through clouds proves some divinely advanced astronomical knowledge. And refusing to listen is held up as a point scored. Giving up in despair is interpreted as a Win.
Thankfully those who are not already indoctrinated will see the intellectual poverty and dishonesty of such arguments.
Believe in the Christian Jesus, it is a matter of fact. It does not convince everyone. Their testimony carries weight with Billions of people. But people disagree, that's a Fact. So What! It has always been that way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescityleon
............a different point of view at least the Muslim point of view is based on a tradition and a thought process to support their FAITH.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bluescityleon
.....in a court witnesses, many kinds or their writings would be offered, the Judge would decide what she considered admissible...........I have considered what some people believe is valid evidence, so what is that to make you squeal so shrilly?
Oh, blue.
I don't know how to communicate with you. I have asked you to show me evidence of what you believe because it is not a matter of fact that Jesus was who you believe he was. Many people believing the same story doesn't make it fact. Billions of Hindus over the years have believed in Shiva. That doesn't make it true. They believe it because of the Vedic texts, which are just as old as the Old Testament, by the way. This is their tradition and a thought process to support their FAITH. That doesn't make it true either.
You, I can only assume, are holding up the twenty-six books of the New Testament as proof. They and the gnostic texts are the reasons most scholars believe that an apocalyptic prophet named Jesus existed. However, none of those books were written during the lifetime of Jesus. They are not the eyewitness accounts you are holding them up to be.
The most information in one spot can be found here on wiki.
This Christian site (http://bibleresources.bible.com/afacts.php - broken link) has James as the oldest book at 45 AD (what they don't mention is that scholars disagree about this number).
It's irrelevant in any case. I can use 45 AD (those most scholars believe Paul's writings came first in the 50's). That's more than ten years after the death of Jesus. The first gospel, Mark, wasn't written until the 50's. Matthew and Luke base their accounts on Mark and the "Q" (but I'm not getting into all that). Ten years is a long time. People exaggerate things over time or forget. This is true in your own life, if you're honest enough to admit it. It's why scholars weigh memoirs and biographies carefully. Besides, the book of James and the writings of Paul aren't accounts of the life of Jesus. Mark is our first look at that, and scholars agree that the book has been altered in several places, probably by Scribes. The whole ending was added. (See wiki again or pick up a copy of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman).
You have another problem as well - the books don't jive. They give different accounts of the death (different days, different hours), different versions of the resurrection, and different versions of the events after the resurrection. Your supposed eye witnesses can't even tell the same story! Even though Matthew, Luke and John could have consulted the book of Mark, since it was the first to be written.
Seriously, blue, if you were really interested in understanding why many people don't believe Jesus to be the divine god that you believe him to be, you would be open to reading and learning outside your comfort zone. I don't get the impression that you are, which is fine, but you need to be aware that your personal beliefs and experiences are not evidence to others.
As for you final "sentence": "I have considered what some people believe is valid evidence, so what is that to make you squeal so shrilly?" I'm not sure I can parse it. I think it's an insult but who cares?
Last edited by peppermint; 07-31-2011 at 06:30 AM..
The dating of the Gospels could be even older than first thought based on the fact that the first epistle of Clement of Rome, which is reasonably dated to 95 C.E. makes no mention of any of the Gospels although it does mention the epistles of Paul. A strange omission methinks. Had the Gospels been circulating at that time one would have thought that Clem would have mentioned them.
Luke borrows heavily from material in Josephus’ later works. implying that the Gospel of Luke was not composed (much less published) until after 100 C.E., since Josephus’ later works weren’t published before 95 C.E.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch doesn't mention any gospels in his letters either, which can be dated from 110 C.E.
The earliest we hear of any of the Gospels is from about 130 C.E. in the works of Papias, who refers to a collection of Jesus’ sayings/oracles in a Hebrew book.
They are not the eyewitness accounts you are holding them up to be.
Yep!
Your man Luke even admits he is going by earlier stories. He doesn't say where he is getting his info but he is taking it from others that's for sure. That demonstrates right there that he is not an eyewitness.
Matthew is largely believed to be based on Mark. An eye witness would not need to use Mark as a source, and therefore this removes Matthew as being an eye witness.
According to Papias, Mark was written by a disciple of Peter, after Peter and John had died. This demonstrates that Mark was getting his information second hand from someone who claimed to be a disciple and didn't even write things down until after his supposed source was deceased. That is not to say that the stories were totally from Peter, but it is merely showing that Mark depended on Peter for part of his information, and therefore was not an eyewitness. Hearsay at best.. with loads of theological bias and motivation thrown in.
I know you'll agree peppermint when I say that we currently have no writing by anybody who actually claims to have known Jesus in the flesh.
Quote:
Mark is our first look at that, and scholars agree that the book has been altered in several places, probably by Scribes. The whole ending was added.
Yep again! The last twelve verses of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses and also, Jerome and that old rascal and celebrated Christian forger Eusebius say that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.
Yep!
Your man Luke even admits he is going by earlier stories. He doesn't say where he is getting his info but he is taking it from others that's for sure. That demonstrates right there that he is not an eyewitness.
Matthew is largely believed to be based on Mark. An eye witness would not need to use Mark as a source, and therefore this removes Matthew as being an eye witness.
According to Papias, Mark was written by a disciple of Peter, after Peter and John had died. This demonstrates that Mark was getting his information second hand from someone who claimed to be a disciple and didn't even write things down until after his supposed source was deceased. That is not to say that the stories were totally from Peter, but it is merely showing that Mark depended on Peter for part of his information, and therefore was not an eyewitness. Hearsay at best.. with loads of theological bias and motivation thrown in.
I know you'll agree peppermint when I say that we currently have no writing by anybody who actually claims to have known Jesus in the flesh.
Yep again! The last twelve verses of Mark are absent from the two oldest Greek manuscripts, from the Old Latin codex Bobiensis, the Sinaitic Syriac manuscript, about one hundred Armenian manuscripts, and the two oldest Georgian manuscripts. Both Clement of Alexandria and Origen show no knowledge of the existence of these verses and also, Jerome and that old rascal and celebrated Christian forger Eusebius say that the passage was absent from almost all Greek copies of Mark known to them.
Thanks, Rafius. It seems like you are more up on this than I am. I started reading about this last year because I spent over ten years believing the Bible was true because everyone around me believed it was true. When my heathen friends in NYC acted more generous, accepting, and loving than any Christian I had known, I started to question. It took me 3-4 years to be willing to learn the truth about the Bible because I just couldn't accept that so many people were duped. I mean, someone has to be keeping this from people, right? I've learned it's an internal denial and willful blindness because the truth is very hard to accept when you bank your life on errors and misinterpretations (at best).
Do you have any authors or books to recommend for further reading? I have a list a mile long, but I'm always open to learning more. So far, I think Ehrman is my favorite - very readable and immensely fascinating.
Do you have any authors or books to recommend for further reading? I have a list a mile long, but I'm always open to learning more. So far, I think Ehrman is my favorite - very readable and immensely fascinating.
Yes, Ehrman is good. You might try Richard Carrier or something by Bruce Metzger who was one of, if not THE world's leading expert on the Gospels. It was a long time ago that I read it but I found his book "A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament" most informative.
Yes, Ehrman is good. You might try Richard Carrier.
Oh, yes, I saw him a youtube video someone posted in another thread! His books were already on my to-read list, but I bumped them up the list. Thank you.
Oh, yes, I saw him a youtube video someone posted in another thread! His books were already on my to-read list, but I bumped them up the list. Thank you.
See edit to my post.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
