answer my claims

[Troublemane]

Better yet go talk to God and ask what He meant. Better to get it from the source directly.

 

[doppelganger]

Better yet go talk to God and ask what He meant. Better to get it from the source directly.

That would require taking one's eye off the pages of the written code. While the sign is mistaken for the thing signified, this isn't possible.

 

[McBell]

no every cleric will say that quraan has no errors becuase the quraan says if we didnt create the quraan with care then there would of been many contradictions there isnt a single unbiased person
who can point out a error in the quraan

And the merry-go=round is brought out into the open....

 

[McBell]

if i hurt i any Christians feelings i apologize i didnt do this so i could cause a commotion i wanted to see what reply i would get becos i have quite a few christians friends we discuss islam and christianity so i ask them to explain but i dont get a appropriate answer so i was wondering if ic ould get one on here

"appropriate" answer?
Please define "appropriate" answer.

And you did not address the question in post #9

 

[Popeyesays]

At least he isn't claiming other people's words as his own on this thread.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-similarities-between-islam-christianity.html

He rather freely ripped off Dr. Zakir Naik, a noted international Islamic scholar. (see above thread)

Regards,
Scott

 

[credance]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

2 kings ch.8 v. 26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;

2chronicles ch.22 v.2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign

if we take it that he was 42 when he began to reign then another contradiction appears

2 chronicles ch.21 v. 20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years

his son becomes king at age of 42 , how can a son be 2 years older than the father

Life is full of contradictions. Everything is constantly changing. Life can't be recorded in stone before it happens.
The basic fundamentals of Christianity, Islam, and Judeaism state there is but one God.
How can there be so many "my book is right, if your book says different it is a lie" contradictions?

 

[kai]

Life is full of contradictions. Everything is constantly changing. Life can't be recorded in stone before it happens.
The basic fundamentals of Christianity, Islam, and Judeaism state there is but one God.
How can there be so many "my book is right, if your book says different it is a lie" contradictions?

because they all have inconsistancies they are books, the Quran has a lead on the bible because only Qurans in Arabic are considered to be true Qurans, so there are less translations. but all religious people think they are right and have devine revelation, its kind of like the geneis wish thats given but tainted in some way. they are either all wrong or ones right, personal revelation is one thing but to just beleive in an ancient "truth" because of a book is crazy in my mundane mind

 

[gnostic]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

Serious Jewish and Christians never claimed that the Bible was written by God. It was written by people of their relationship to God. They have never claimed that it was perfect.

As to the inconsistencies of Kings and Chronicles.

The kings and chronicles were written in two different periods, and therefore by different groups of people. The perspectives are different. Inconsistency is to be expected with different people writing different things.

What I am getting at is that Chronicles were written later, whereas there are 4 books of Kings, beginning with 1 Samuel and then 2 Samuel. The same group that wrote Kings also wrote Samuel. The Samuel/Kings books were written during the exile and shortly after their return, while the Chronicles were written during 4th-3rd century in the 2nd Temple Period.

I would expect some inconsistency because of who wrote them and when. I don't have any problem with this.

I do however, have problem with the inconsistencies occur in the same book.

And I do have problem with Muhammad's version (or the Qur'an) of the Genesis. Jewish literature have expanded the Genesis, which included the Fall of Satan. The Genesis have no such thing, but during the late 2nd Temple Period, when the writing of Haggada was happening, this literature had added Fall of Satan. Most Jews never took this Fall of Satan seriously, because it was exaggeration in folkloric fashion, and was never canonical, but Muhammad added this appendix and enshrined in the Qur'an.

So basically Muhammad added something that was never written by Hebrew prophets.

Other exaggeration/folklore that the Qur'an added in the biblical narrative is that Solomon could talk to animals. Solomon in Kings never spoke to animals or there was no controlling or exorcising demons, etc. Again this was found in the Haggada, in which Jews never took seriously, but Muhammad took it seriously enough to add this Solomon's skills.

That's the sort of inconsistencies that I find the Qur'an have. There are enough exaggeration in the bible, but the Qur'an added more that were downright silly.

 

[logician]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

2 kings ch.8 v. 26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;

2chronicles ch.22 v.2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign

if we take it that he was 42 when he began to reign then another contradiction appears

2 chronicles ch.21 v. 20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years

his son becomes king at age of 42 , how can a son be 2 years older than the father

The gospels are full of contradictons, which means they must be made up stories that were written according to the bias of the unknown authors.

 

[R W Blu]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

2 kings ch.8 v. 26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;

2chronicles ch.22 v.2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign

if we take it that he was 42 when he began to reign then another contradiction appears

2 chronicles ch.21 v. 20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years

his son becomes king at age of 42 , how can a son be 2 years older than the father

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel -- ll Kings 8:26.

Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omni. -- ll Chronicles 22:2.

Obviously these two texts are speaking of the same person and the "only" difference is indeed the age listed, all the other text is clearly in agreement, thus it can easily be proven to be an "error" when the original scripts were "transcribed" or copied. There are other examples of textual "errors", this does not amount to any contradiction, but and error in coping by some scribe. The cannoized scriptures were vetted and examined for errors, and found to be .5% accurate in totality to the original "copy". One can expect a few copy errors.

This is a case where it appears a scribe made a mistake in copying ll Chronicles 22:2. Scholars are confident of the this because ll Chronicles 21:20 and ll Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father died at the age of 40. If Ahaziah was indeed 42 at the time of his father's death, he would have been two years older than his father -- an impossibility. In older Hebrew, numbers were represented by single letters. The letter for forty was "mem" and letter for twenty was "kaph". It is therefore possible that these two similar letters in the ancient Hebrew were confused in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. When the letters were expanded to words, the error was carried over. This is further supported in that some Septuangint translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Arabic manuscript, and Syriac manuscript have twenty two in ll Chronicles 22:2 instead of forty two as found in the Massoretic family of manuscripts.

Many attempt to make both texts "right" by asserting that Ahaziah did not immediately start his reign, but was under the thumb of his regent mother. This does not work as we look at the reign of Jehoram, Ahaziah's uncle. In ll Kings 3:1 we learn that Jehoram ruled twelve years, starting at the 18th year of Jehoshaphat's reign in Israel. During Jehoram of Israel's fifth year of reign, Jehorman of Judah began to reign ( ll Kings 8:16). Azahiah began his reign during Jehoram of Israel's final year and died with him at the hand of Jehu. There is no room to slip in an extra 20 years.

As I said, all ancient manuscripts contain "man made errors" of reproduction, there is not one example of any ancient writing being "error free". However, this obvious fact of what we today would call a "TYPO" does not a contradiction prove, that is unless one is trying to claim that man is "infallible" and not capable of making mistakes. If one were to make deliberate misstatements, surely they would not have been "stupid" enough to believe that anyone would accept the fact of a son being two years older than his father. RW Blu

 

[whereismynotecard]

My holy book can beat up your holy book.

My holy book is The Hobbit. It is a very fun little book. I read it to my younger sister sometimes.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Here's a list of contradictions in the Quran that I know of;

1. In Sura 3:42, 45 SEVERAL angels appear to Mary in the annunciation of the birth of Jesus.
In Sura 19:17-21 only ONE angel appears to the virgin Mary.
2. In Sura 22:47 and 32:5 Allah's day is equal to 1,000 human years.
In Sura 70:4, Allah's day is equal to 50,000 human years.
3. In Sura 41:30 and 57:21 there is said to be only one garden in Paradise.
In Sura 18:31, 22:23, 25:33, and 78:32 there are many gardens in Paradise.
4. Sura 56:7 says there will be three distinct groups of people at the Last Judgment.
Sura 90:18-19 and 99:6-8 say there will be two distinct groups at the Last Judgment.
5. Sura 32:11 The angel of death, Sura 47:27 The angels (plural)
Sura 39:42 "It is Allah that takes the souls at death"
6. Sura 35:1 Angels have 2, 3, or 4 pairs of wings
The angel Gabriel had 600 wings. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 455)
7. Sura 54:19 - One day
Sura 41:16 & 69:6,7 - several days
8. Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 all clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in six days.
Sura 41:9-12, the detailed description of the creation procedure, add up to eight days.
9. Sura 2:29 says the earth was created first and then heaven.
Sura 49:27-30 says the heaven was created first and then the earth was created.
10. Sura 41:11 states that in the process of creation heaven and earth were first apart and are called to come together.
Sura 21:30 states that they were originally one piece and then ripped apart.
11. Surah 18:89-98 says Alexander the Great was a devout Muslim and lived to a ripe old age.
Historical records show that Alexander the Great died young at 33 years of age. He believed he was divine and forced others to recognize him as such. In India on the Hyphasis River Alexander erected twelve altars to twelve Olympian gods.
I don't see why you have the need to point out contradictions in the Bible, you should be pointing out the ones in the Quran the supposed "perfect and holy book" God Bless.

that's a non sequitor.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

2 kings ch.8 v. 26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;

2chronicles ch.22 v.2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign

if we take it that he was 42 when he began to reign then another contradiction appears

2 chronicles ch.21 v. 20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years

his son becomes king at age of 42 , how can a son be 2 years older than the father

Is There a Bible Contradiction Regarding Ahaziah’s Age? : ChristianCourier.com

 

[sojourner]

the bible has many contradictions even if it has one it is disproved to the word of god
so please answer my claims

2 kings ch.8 v. 26: Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign;

2chronicles ch.22 v.2: Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign

if we take it that he was 42 when he began to reign then another contradiction appears

2 chronicles ch.21 v. 20 Thirty and two years old was he when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years

his son becomes king at age of 42 , how can a son be 2 years older than the father

We acknowledge that the word of God is found within the words of human beings. And human beings are fallible. Of course there are discrepancies in the Bible. It's not a history text, but a theological treatise. The theology is sound, even if the history doesn't jive. The writers thought that the stories were important enought to include them, as they had been passed down through several traditions, without jockeying them to make them "coincide." Agreement is not the definition of authenticity.
Claim answered sufficiently. Problem solved.

 

[Father Heathen]

Since we're talking about contradictions in holy books, I'm going to toss this link out here: Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Ahaziah was twenty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omri, king of Israel -- ll Kings 8:26.

Ahaziah was forty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Athaliah the granddaughter of Omni. -- ll Chronicles 22:2.

Obviously these two texts are speaking of the same person and the "only" difference is indeed the age listed, all the other text is clearly in agreement, thus it can easily be proven to be an "error" when the original scripts were "transcribed" or copied. There are other examples of textual "errors", this does not amount to any contradiction, but and error in coping by some scribe. The cannoized scriptures were vetted and examined for errors, and found to be .5% accurate in totality to the original "copy". One can expect a few copy errors.

This is a case where it appears a scribe made a mistake in copying ll Chronicles 22:2. Scholars are confident of the this because ll Chronicles 21:20 and ll Kings 8:17 tells us that Ahaziah's father died at the age of 40. If Ahaziah was indeed 42 at the time of his father's death, he would have been two years older than his father -- an impossibility. In older Hebrew, numbers were represented by single letters. The letter for forty was "mem" and letter for twenty was "kaph". It is therefore possible that these two similar letters in the ancient Hebrew were confused in the ancient Hebrew manuscripts. When the letters were expanded to words, the error was carried over. This is further supported in that some Septuangint translations of the Hebrew Bible, the Arabic manuscript, and Syriac manuscript have twenty two in ll Chronicles 22:2 instead of forty two as found in the Massoretic family of manuscripts.

Many attempt to make both texts "right" by asserting that Ahaziah did not immediately start his reign, but was under the thumb of his regent mother. This does not work as we look at the reign of Jehoram, Ahaziah's uncle. In ll Kings 3:1 we learn that Jehoram ruled twelve years, starting at the 18th year of Jehoshaphat's reign in Israel. During Jehoram of Israel's fifth year of reign, Jehorman of Judah began to reign ( ll Kings 8:16). Azahiah began his reign during Jehoram of Israel's final year and died with him at the hand of Jehu. There is no room to slip in an extra 20 years.

As I said, all ancient manuscripts contain "man made errors" of reproduction, there is not one example of any ancient writing being "error free". However, this obvious fact of what we today would call a "TYPO" does not a contradiction prove, that is unless one is trying to claim that man is "infallible" and not capable of making mistakes. If one were to make deliberate misstatements, surely they would not have been "stupid" enough to believe that anyone would accept the fact of a son being two years older than his father. RW Blu

Have you read 2 Chronicles 22:2?

 

[crystalonyx]

There are so many contradictions between the gospels concerning the crucifixion and ressurection that it is laughably and obviously a poorly made-up story by each author involved (couldn't have happened historically, people and events completely different).

 

[Popeyesays]

There are so many contradictions between the gospels concerning the crucifixion and ressurection that it is laughably and obviously a poorly made-up story by each author involved (couldn't have happened historically, people and events completely different).

This is why prosecutors hate "eye witnesses" and rarely present more than one and NEVER ask a question to which they do not already know the answer.

Witness accounts vary from one another, each and everytime. IF they agreed completely most critics would snatch upon that as proof of forgery.

It's hard to have your cake after you have eaten it, crystal.

Regards,
Scott

 

[crystalonyx]

This is why prosecutors hate "eye witnesses" and rarely present more than one and NEVER ask a question to which they do not already know the answer.

Witness accounts vary from one another, each and everytime. IF they agreed completely most critics would snatch upon that as proof of forgery.

It's hard to have your cake after you have eaten it, crystal.

Regards,
Scott

None of the unknown authors were "witnesses" to this mythical event, as the texts were written long after the suppsed fact.

Nuff said.

 

[Popeyesays]

None of the unknown authors were "witnesses" to this mythical event, as the texts were written long after the suppsed fact.

Nuff said.

The supposed authors were indeed alive at the time. In any event the interviewed those who were present at the events and therefore are relying on eye witness accounts.

You are asking leading questions which elicit an answer you can argue against whether they are answered, "Yes", "No" or "Maybe".

That's not a tactic which promotes a search for truth.

Regards,
Scott