Shad
Veteran Member
Please mention it.
Regards
Read the thread again, this time pay attention to what people have posted.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Please mention it.
Regards
that's OK, I have yet to see any clear or brilliant signs.I find no "uncontroversial historical" view and evidence.
Regards
That's OK with me also.that's OK, I have yet to see any clear or brilliant signs.
I find no "uncontroversial historical" view and evidence.
Regards
That is why we don't depend on history, it only covers the events partially and most of the times fails to bring out the truth.The dating of the Talmud is not controversial. Besides history does not provide the absolutes you want. So either you follow historical methods and it's standards or you admit you hold expectation beyond reason in context.
That is why we don't depend on history, it only covers the events partially and most of the times fails to bring out the truth.
Regards
Does History claim to record all the events happened in the past in the world since inception or just happening now? It does not, and cannot.If you want to ignore history that is fine. Although doing so does nothing to help you since you also must ignore all your posts about the spread of Islam since those rely on history as well. However you will just cherry pick and use double standards since you defend a religious ideology, nothing more. Anything that contradicts your ideology is dismissed even when it is within one of your own sources referenced. You only position is one of faith that fails when faces with historical records.
Does History claim to record all the events happened in the past in the world since inception or just happening now? It does not, and cannot.
So, in relative terms to Revelation, which is 100% correct, the history cannot and must not be trusted. As to purpose of thing , it (history) has no sources to ascertain and hence is most untrustworthy.
Regards
Did one read the following?:Which is still irrelevant that history shows that the Talmud was created before the Quran. You are arguing that the evidence in support is completely wrong solely based on your religious ideology. You believe something contrary to the evidence we have thus are irrational.
Religious presupposition which only you and your co-religionist believe in. Here is your flawed argument right back at you. It was reveled to me that your beliefs are wrong. You shouldn't believe in your religion since my current revelation shows your past one wrong. As I said you argue a religious presupposition which has no evidence at all thus your argument is not just moot but nonsense. Anyone can do it, no one has yet to prove their god-speak is right.
You are not reading the whole wiki article. Read the whole article because you are cherry picking what you are quoting.Did one read the following?:
The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg 1520–23. In addition to the Mishnah and Gemara, Bomberg's edition contained the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot. Almost all printings since Bomberg have followed the same pagination. Bomberg's edition was considered relatively free of censorship.[16]So, one's contention is wrong. Please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Regards
Did one read the following?:
The first complete edition of the Babylonian Talmud was printed in Venice by Daniel Bomberg 1520–23. In addition to the Mishnah and Gemara, Bomberg's edition contained the commentaries of Rashi and Tosafot. Almost all printings since Bomberg have followed the same pagination. Bomberg's edition was considered relatively free of censorship.[16]So, one's contention is wrong. Please
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talmud
Regards
What is funny about it? PleaseSo he quoted out of the Talmud without knowing the quote from the Talmud.
Funny.