Disproving the Bible

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed.

Everything was centered around the Pater Familias, not any church. Just like your work showing the importance of women early on, buried in the text, but still visible for the trained eye.

Interesting that you should put it that way.

The pater families does not exist in a vacuum, either. I will point out here that literary patrons were far more tolerant of their client authors producing works of art than dictating to them -- which was frowned upon by other patrons.

 

[Marllo111]

Welcome to the forum.

Your not really being a part of the discussion, your simply proselytizing your faith which has no historical credibility at all.

Your book is not historical or valuable in any way to the discussion of disproving the bible.

Not a single credible historian or scholar in the whole world uses the Koran as a credible historical source when dealing with biblical history, and most view it simply as plagiarizing the earlier biblical text you denounce as not credible. "wiki"

If you would like to start a thread of your own on the historical value of the Koran please do so in your own thread.

Hello sir.. How would you know if it is authentic or copying something else? You have never read it or even completed reading my post so that you might understand something new about how it superceeds all other holly scriptures? Anyway apologies for the intrussion and have a nice day. [emoji4]

 

[outhouse]

The pater families does not exist in a vacuum, either.

Agreed, whole hearted. I would not classify any the same or even known similarities for that matter, beyond gatherings from what we can tell around a "possible" dinner table/floor.

. I will point out here that literary patrons were far more tolerant of their client authors producing works of art than dictating to them -- which was frowned upon by other patrons.

Agree. We see plenty of artistic freedom in rhetorical prose and different skill levels. We look at the unknown author's/community of marks lack of skill, and the unknown author/s community of lukes extreme use of rhetoric on the other end of the scale.

But to make sure im following you correctly, if you are stating oral traditions did not change as much as these literary compilations, I would agree. I read work on this topic that agreed whole hearted and went into details.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Agreed, whole hearted. I would not classify any the same or even known similarities for that matter, beyond gatherings from what we can tell around a "possible" dinner table/floor.



Agree. We see plenty of artistic freedom in rhetorical prose and different skill levels. We look at the unknown author's/community of marks lack of skill, and the unknown author/s community of lukes extreme use of rhetoric on the other end of the scale.

But to make sure im following you correctly, if you are stating oral traditions did not change as much as these literary compilations, I would agree. I read work on this topic that agreed whole hearted and went into details.

I can also add that it's entirely possible that the patron wasn't even a part of the community.

I'm not saying that. I do think that the literary compilations reflect changes in the oral traditions. The oral traditions were still in a state of development when they were written... the literary changes are simply easier to track.

 

[outhouse]

How would you know if it is authentic or copying something else?

We see exactly how the Koran plagiarized the pre existing text. Much of the mythology has been changed to meet new cultural needs. These traditions were spreading all over the lands on what you call a prophet, would have had access to this previous theology and mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.

You have never read it or even completed reading my post so that you might understand something new about how it superceeds all other holly scriptures?

I have read all your words. It shows no knowledge of credible history as taught in universities world wide. It is theological in nature.

It factually does not hold any historical credibility over text written decades after the events. And it has no credibility after plagiarizing the religion of Israel hundreds of years after the fact.

Not a single credible historian or scholar in the whole world uses the Koran as a credible historical source when dealing with biblical history, and most view it simply as plagiarizing the earlier biblical text you denounce as not credible.


Can you answer why no credible historians use your book for real history, regarding Jesus or the bible??????????????????????????????

 

[outhouse]

The oral traditions were still in a state of development when they were written

I don't think much stayed the same or even slowed down until canonization. Even then dogma and different views still evolved into different directions.

Im glad you have a handle on how extremely diverse this movement was, and that we only have a fraction of what was going on during these time.

I can also add that it's entirely possible that the patron wasn't even a part of the community.

Agreed. We have no idea or clue.

 

[leibowde84]

John 3:16
16. For God loved the world so much that he gave his only Son so that anyone who believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
17. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn it, but to save it.

How can He do the salvation of our sins if Jesus will not be in the form of man? Now, if you will ask me why He should do this? The answer is still in John 3:16, Gos so loved the world (people-sinners).

God has a wonderful plan and that is to save the Jew and Gentiles (non-Jews) to be with Him forever in eternal life.

Thanks

But, why was the death of an innocent person necessary if God is not limited in any way?

 

[Marllo111]

Is this your reference?? Have you read it for yourself?? Isn't it normal for the next prophet to remention the past events but the rest is what you need to see for yourself to make sure what you read is correct.. I am really trying to be open minded about it as possible.. and I will accept this opinion from you only after you check for yourself.. I believe we are civilized grown ups. Also here is a you tube link on some few of the miracle in Quran. What do you have to loose? Try to see the first 20 minutes.. it is totally scientific.. and I really respect yopinion on all this.

 

[Marllo111]

Watch "The Scientific Precision of the Qur'an" on YouTube -

 

[Marllo111]

We see exactly how the Koran plagiarized the pre existing text. Much of the mythology has been changed to meet new cultural needs. These traditions were spreading all over the lands on what you call a prophet, would have had access to this previous theology and mythology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.




I have read all your words. It shows no knowledge of credible history as taught in universities world wide. It is theological in nature.

It factually does not hold any historical credibility over text written decades after the events. And it has no credibility after plagiarizing the religion of Israel hundreds of years after the fact.

Not a single credible historian or scholar in the whole world uses the Koran as a credible historical source when dealing with biblical history, and most view it simply as plagiarizing the earlier biblical text you denounce as not credible.


Can you answer why no credible historians use your book for real history, regarding Jesus or the bible??????????????????????????????

These are Christian historian .. why would they use it??? I would not.. besides it is not a history book.. it is much more..

 

[outhouse]

These are Christian historian

No they are not.

These are all historians of all religions that refuse your book.

why would they use it???

They don't because it doesn't have any credible history to offer any knowledge of Jesus or Israelite history.

.. besides it is not a history book

Then please stop using it as credible history in a discussion about the bible.

 

[outhouse]

Watch "The Scientific Precision of the Qur'an"

The Koran if it has any scientific knowledge it is by sheer luck, and many areas are not "precision" or scientific.


You just pop in here and use biased sources with no credibility what s so ever.

Start your own thread please on topics of the koran. This thread is about the bible, not the koran

 

[outhouse]

Isn't it normal for the next prophet to remention the past events

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.


This means someone plagiarized or changed the mythology. Do you understand this concept ?

Do you understand what mythology means?


Remember your beliefs are no one else's, and because you hold personal beliefs, that does not mean they are correct or historical or scientific.

 

[AlchemicalSoul]

He allows evil to exist on earth, but only within limits. These limits become very obvious and easy to appreciate by souls in hell, where God is absent and evil is unrestrained. On the other hand, there is no evil whatever in heaven because nothing unclean can enter it.

But what is the point? Why would he allow evil? And if he truly loved humanity then why would he allow them to go to Hell/Sheol/Oblivion?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I don't think that the original readers of the NT were Aramaic readers/speakers.

Clearly. Otherwise we wouldn't find transliterated Aramaic followed by translations of said Aramaic. Even more importantly (and contra to some (IMO) nutty theories that have been proposed on this site before) the NT was originally written in Greek. I realize that to someone like you this is just blatantly obvious, but apparently it is not sufficiently well-known such that it can be assumed everyone is aware.

Otherwise it would have been written in Aramaic -- to me that's not a difficult argument to make.

Right. Or at least we would have some indication that the Greek NT was translated from Aramaic (and I mean more than just the possibility that an Aramaic Jesus tradition is contained within certain passages of certain NT texts), rather than that middle Aramaic NT manuscripts (i.e., the Pe****ta and other Syriac NT textual traditions) translated Greek BACK into a Semitic language.

Then there's the question - why were Aramaic transliterations and Semiticisms?

I'm not a biblical/NT scholar. Keeping up on Biblical/NT studies is a hobby for me. But orality, while largely also a hobby, does actually intersect with my field. So I am biased towards proposals of an Aramaic oral tradition that was at least somewhat "controlled" which was "translated" (perhaps even while Jesus was alive) into Greek before the gospels were written.

Have you considered that it was the author who employed earlier traditions from a different cultural/linguistic heritage (i.e., he knew Aramaic sayings of Jesus, etc) from the audience (who knew only Greek)?

Not just considered, but considered it to be basically undoubtedly true. I don't even agree with those like Jeremias who think Q was a specific, written document rather than an "oral text"/ "oral texts".

 

[Marllo111]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_mythology

Islam incorporates many Biblical events and heroes into its own mythology.


This means someone plagiarized or changed the mythology. Do you understand this concept ?

Do you understand what mythology means?


Remember your beliefs are no one else's, and because you hold personal beliefs, that does not mean they are correct or historical or scientific.

Dear Friend.. the same applies to you, it is your own believe but the other churches say different thing.. you are divided into protostants, catholics....etc.. but there are more than 1.5 billion muslims now on the same one faith (I am not alone) and unfortunately it is the fastest growing religion nowadays and unfortunately I do understand what mythology is and still you did not answer me.. did you read the Quran or you are quoting somebody else's opinion? I am ready to stay on until one of us proves the other wrong in a friendly and civilized way if you like and I am ready to hear you out on why you believe that Islam is not a religion but rather something else and that Christianity is the one .. only in a friendly way and with an open mind.. you might be able to convert me if you convince me and by that you take an extra tortured soul to heaven and Jesus peace be upon him will bless you.. what say you??

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Koran if it has any scientific knowledge it is by sheer luck

...which would make it unscientific. To extend your point, we can consider Greek atomists or others who have held positions that find some commonality (even far beyond that Muslim apologists assert to exist in the Koran) with position in modern science. However, the sciences are fundamentally about arriving at positions based on a combination of observations, logic, and theoretical frameworks- not happenstance.

 

[Marllo111]

...which would make it unscientific. To extend your point, we can consider Greek atomists or others who have held positions that find some commonality (even far beyond that Muslim apologists assert to exist in the Koran) with position in modern science. However, the sciences are fundamentally about arriving at positions based on a combination of observations, logic, and theoretical frameworks- not happenstance.

I will agree with you after you watch the video.. hundreds of scientific facts can not be considered as sheer luck especially if they are in many different fields my friend.. you are a logical person.. just open your eyes and your mind.. I am on agreement with you on the bible and Jesus but you do not want to take a peak at mine.. I wonder why.. all your pre-formed ideas are not correct or based on any credible facts.. have you heard of someone called Yusuf Estes? He was an American Christian minister of music but he chose to convert.. listen to him on you tube.. i do not want you to convert or anything.. i am just trying to share some information with you.. so that you become educated about my religion as I am about yours..I respect you and all my brother Christians.. You are mentioned well in our Quran.. It asks us to treat you well and if you are in our countries to treat you as we do ourselves.. Peace be upon you..

 

[Yoshua]

But, why was the death of an innocent person necessary if God is not limited in any way?

Hi Leibowde,

That is a good question. Because He should use the gravest capital punishment in His time (under Roman Empire) to show that He will die for the sake of our sins. God should need to show it--for the people to know of His love; this is His design, His mission and His fullfillment to the prophesy beforehand.

Thanks

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Not just considered, but considered it to be basically undoubtedly true. I don't even agree with those like Jeremias who think Q was a specific, written document rather than an "oral text"/ "oral texts".

In my opinion, that would be a radical argument.

Have you read the critical edition of Q - http://www.amazon.com/The-Critical-Edition-Translations-Historical/dp/0800631498

It's the gold standard of Q scholarship IMHO.