Muslims: The testimony of a man who said he heard an angel while alone in a cave

[-Peacemaker-]

If you didn't realize something so basic from your own scripture, what are you doing blaming some other scripture ? And that is precisely what my point is. You don't even know the basics of what is in your Bible(eyewitness account or not and many other things such as major contradictions, inconsistencies) and you come here point fingers at Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) and the Qur'anic revelation ? That just shows the intention behind starting this thread.



And your point is ? So is a collection of smaller books/works with full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and written by many authors centuries after the actual events is supposed to be better than One book without any contradictions/errors which is preserved in pristine condition since the time of the revelation ? What an argument.



.

I can only assume from this quote that English is your third or fourth language. The statement you were refering to in the bolded was an example of what is in English called "irony". Even atheists know that the story of Adam and Eve is in Genesis.




i·ro·ny

1    /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.



3. Socratic irony.

4. dramatic irony.

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

 

[loverOfTruth]

I can only assume from this quote that English is your third or fourth language. The statement you were refering to in the bolded was an example of what is in English called "irony". Even atheists know that the story of Adam and Eve is in Genesis.

i·ro·ny

1    /ˈaɪrəni, ˈaɪər-/ Show Spelled[ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-] Show IPA
noun, plural -nies. 1. the use of words to convey a meaning that is the opposite of its literal meaning: the irony of her reply, “How nice!” when I said I had to work all weekend.

2. Literature . a. a technique of indicating, as through character or plot development, an intention or attitude opposite to that which is actually or ostensibly stated.

b. (especially in contemporary writing) a manner of organizing a work so as to give full expression to contradictory or complementary impulses, attitudes, etc., especially as a means of indicating detachment from a subject, theme, or emotion.



3. Socratic irony.

4. dramatic irony.

5. an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

Please note that I was talking about the entire Bible as I stated : "If you are saying that everything in the Bible is eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life - you are wrong. Where is the eyewitness account of the Story of Adam and Eve's creation, Noah's flood and so many more similar events ? " And since you switched from 'gospel' to 'bible' in your statement : "I didn't realize that the stories of Adam and Eve as well as Noah are found in the Gospels. This comes back to my statement that the Bible really is ..." I misunderstood you thinking you are using the words 'bible' and 'gospel' interchangeably. My mistake on that.

But anyway, nice try to cover up. Rather than responding to all the valid arguments I have provided with evidence, you resort to this word play ?

 

[gnostic]

Actually i think the scholars consider that hadith which mentions 124,000 prophets to be weak, but here's a link on the matter.

I think the number is highly exaggerated.

According to the Jewish calendar, the Jewish Era will be 5772 AM this year. Which would mean that Adam was created in 3760 BCE.

I know that the Qur'an don't put any date to who's who, and when Adam was created, but let me use your Hadith's number (124,000 prophets) and the timeline of Adam to the time of Muhammad as example, I will show you how ridiculous this number is.

Since Muhammad is the last Messenger and Prophet, according to Islam, we will use his year of death in 632 CE. So to calculate the Jewish Era of Muhammad's death:

3760 + 632 = 4392 AM
​

That's 4392 years. And then using it against 124000, you will get this:

124,000 / 4392 = 28
​

This would mean EACH YEAR there would be 28 prophets, from the creation of Adam to the death of Muhammad. 28 prophets would receive their callings each year, and that's a lot of prophets. You wouldn't think that prophets were that common.

That not all.

Gabriel first visited Muhammad in 610 CE, right?

So roughly Muhammad was a prophet for 22 years. Not including Muhammad in this number, there should be 615 prophets at this time (22 x 28 = 616).

In Moses' time, there are 4 named prophets: Moses, Aaron, their sister Miriam, and Joshua.

So yes, I wouldn't take this number seriously, and I don't think you or anyone else should take it seriously.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Please note that I was talking about the entire Bible as I stated : "If you are saying that everything in the Bible is eyewitness accounts of Jesus's life - you are wrong. Where is the eyewitness account of the Story of Adam and Eve's creation, Noah's flood and so many more similar events ? " And since you switched from 'gospel' to 'bible' in your statement : "I didn't realize that the stories of Adam and Eve as well as Noah are found in the Gospels. This comes back to my statement that the Bible really is ..." I misunderstood you thinking you are using the words 'bible' and 'gospel' interchangeably. My mistake on that.

But anyway, nice try to cover up. Rather than responding to all the valid arguments I have provided with evidence, you resort to this word play ?

All I really heard from you was that Koran is the infallible word of God and is the greatest, most preserved book in the world. I didn't see any evidence to support it though you did provide some arguments that it was preserved pristinely. Who cares if a book is well preserved if it was unreliable to begin with? The reality is that it is a book with no structure at all. It's a book that would receive a failing grade if it was turned in as an assignment in a writing class. It's one of the reasons that alot of Westerners don't view it with the same respect as Muslims. How can we respect something so poorly written? Yes, I've read Muslim apologetics regarding this criticism and the only answers I've seen are almost as convoluted as the text which they are defending. Often the explanation for it's bizarre form revolve around the fact that it's supposedly an "alien" book not from this earth basically attributing its chaotic nature to profoundness. And who came up with the idea to arrange the Surahs in order from longest to shortest? You might as well just number each one, put the numbers in a hat and randomly draw them if you're going to do that. I'm sure it sounds "musical" in the original arabic but the reality is that it needs to be able to communicate IDEAS effectively if it's going to have any worth as something other than music.




Here's an example of the apologetics I'm talking about

http://courses.meoc.org.uk/2011/06/why-does-quran-seem-incoherent.html

Why Does The Qur'an Seem Incoherent?



"Many people must have bought a translation of the Qur'an in the hope of gaining a better understanding of Islam, only to abandon it in desperation after reading at most a few dozen pages. It is for them that this book has been written. It is in three parts. ... The third is about the structure and coherence of the Qur'an, showing how there is in fact structure to material which often seems random and arbitrary..." - Professor Neal Robinson, Author of Discovering The Qur'an, 1996

Qur'an is no ordinary book and therefore it does not conform to the style, format or the structure of any ordinary book. When people start reading The Qur'an (especially a translation) with the framework of an ordinary book in mind (which often has a sequential structure) they may be confused by this non-conformance and stop reading. This is the case with even Muslims although many would not admit it. That is one major reason why the vast majority of Muslims remain ignorant of the meanings of the Qur'an except for a few short surahs.

The Qur'an has its own divine arrangement - unique style, format and structure. The arrangement is not chronological in order. Sometimes latter surahs come before earlier surahs and even the ayahs within a surah are not chronological. Also the Qur'an seems to jump from one theme to another and one story to another within the same surah. This is very puzzling for many people.

Knowing the style, format and structure of the Qur'an is the key to understanding the Qur'an. There is no better way to study this than with The Opening (Al-Fatiha) itself. It is as if Surah Al-Fatiha has been placed in the beginning of The Qur'an for us to acquire the key skills necessary to understand the rest of the Qur'an. Perhaps it is another reason why Al-Fatiha is called Umm-al-Qur'an or The Mother of The Qur'an. But can these skills be acquired by reading a translation or referring to a particular Tafsir or reading any other book? Sadly not because this requires a competent teacher to explain the details in a way which books by themselves will not be able to do justice.



another similar apologetic:

http://www.call-to-monotheism.com/t..._main_theme__by_dr__abu_ameenah_bilal_philips_

The following four principles should be kept in mind by the new reader of the Qur'aan if he or she is to avoid unnecessary confusion and disorientation:

• The book is the only one of its type in the world.
• Its literary style is quite different from all other books.
• Its theme is unique.
• Preconceived notions of a book are only a hindrance to the understanding of the Qur'aan. (These four statements are quoted from Abu'l A'la Maududi in The Meaning of the Qur'aan, vol. 1, p. 7.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Here's another apologetic that i've often seen.:

The Qur’an’s Challenge: A Literary & Linguistic Miracle

Why is the Qur’an a Miracle?
What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it is impossible for a human being to compose something like it, as it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall with-in the known Arabic literary forms of prose and poetry. All of the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet its literary form has not been matched linguistically. The Arabs, who were known to have been Arabic linguists par excellence, failed to successfully challenge the Qur’an. Forster Fitzgerald Arbuthnot, who was a notable British Orientalist and translator, states:
“…and that though several attempts have been made to produce a work equal to it as far as elegant writing is concerned, none has as yet succeeded.”[11]
The implication of this is that there is no link between the Qur’an and the Arabic language; however this seems impossible because the Qur’an is made up of the Arabic language. On the other hand, every combination of Arabic words and letters have been used to try and imitate the Qur’an. Therefore, this leaves only one conclusion; a Divine explanation is the only coherent explanation for this impossible Arabic literary form – the Qur’an. Hence, it logically follows that if the Qur’an is a literary event that lies outside the productive capacity of the Arabic language, i.e. an impossibility, then by definition, it is a miracle.


Translation: " it's never been done before so it must be the work of God." This is what we call a logical fallacy in English not to mention the fact that a book's eloquence is quite subjective.

 

[loverOfTruth]

All I really heard from you was that Koran is the infallible word of God and is the greatest, most preserved book in the world. I didn't see any evidence to support it though you did provide some arguments that it was preserved pristinely. Who cares if a book is well preserved if it was unreliable to begin with?

Really ? You are saying that the Qur'an is unreliable because it was dictated to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) by an Angel while he was alone without eyewitnesses even though it is free of errors and contradictions and at the same time you are claiming the Bible is reliable even though it is full of contradictions and inconsistencies and the stuff in it is nowhere near eyewitness accounts. And all that while you choose not to respond to any of the arguments I have brought forth as follows :

Regarding Jesus’ Testimony : what did Jesus(pbuh) say about bearing his own witness?
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.(John 5:31)
Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid (John 8:14)

Reference : John 5 NIV - The Healing at the Pool - Some time - Bible Gateway
John 8 NIV - but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. - Bible Gateway

repetition in the same Gospel(John) and they are inconsistent
.

This is an important issue (not minor). Should you take Jesus(pbuh)'s testimony or not ? And you call that reliable ? Wow. On to the next ....

Encyclopedia Britannica notes that none of the sources of Jesus's life and work can be traced to Jesus himself. What can be established about the historical Jesus depends almost without exception on Christian traditions, especially on the material used in the composition of the Gospels which are essentially copies of copies of copies of copies of ... from few centuries after Jesus(pbuh) left the world. So you see, you cannot really call that 'eyewitness account'.

You call that reliable ?

There are inconsistencies related to some of the major doctrinal concept. I will give you one example here. This is related to how the translations have been manipulated and how they are inconsistent in different versions. The scenario(Matthew 27) occurs before the crucifixion and most of the Bible translations read as follows :

17 So when they had gathered, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you: Barabbas, or Jesus who is called Christ?”
...
20 Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and destroy Jesus. 21 The governor again said to them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas.” 22 Pilate said to them, “Then what shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” They all said, “Let him be crucified!”

However, in NIV translation, it reads as follows :
17 So when the crowd had gathered, Pilate asked them, “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?”
...
20 But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus executed. 21 “Which of the two do you want me to release to you?” asked the governor. “Barabbas,” they answered. 22 “What shall I do, then, with Jesus who is called the Messiah?” Pilate asked.They all answered, “Crucify him!”

From :
From Jesus to Muhammad: A History of Early Christianity - YouTube (min 19)

Points to note:
1. 'Barabbas' in the first translation and 'Jesus Barabbas' in 2nd translation
2. Jesus who is called 'the Christ' in the first translation and the Jesus who is called 'the Messiah' in the 2nd translation.

So what's the difference ? Huge difference. See the NIV translation : “Which one do you want me to release to you: Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus who is called the Messiah?” So there were actually two people named Jesus ?

Jesus Barabbas means - Jesus "son of the father". Barabbas in hebrew is not a name but means 'son of father'. On the other hand, Jesus the Messiah simply means ' Jesus' the anointed one and that word is used for others in the Bible (notice it didn't say Christ) also.
So read the verses from the 2nd translation again and you'll find out that they released 'Jesus the son of the Father' and crucified 'Jesus the anointed one'.

That raises major questions about one of the major doctrinal concept of Crucifixion. You call that reliable ?

“‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?" (Jeremiah 8:8)
Jeremiah 8 NIV -

Finally, your own scripture is saying it is not reliable. And I guess that's why you have not provided any argument as to why a collection of smaller books/works full of contradictions and inconsistencies, and written by many authors centuries after the actual events is supposed to be more reliable ?

The reality is that it is a book with no structure at all. It's a book that would receive a failing grade if it was turned in as an assignment in a writing class. It's one of the reasons that alot of Westerners don't view it with the same respect as Muslims. How can we respect something so poorly written? Yes, I've read Muslim apologetics regarding this criticism and the only answers I've seen are almost as convoluted as the text which they are defending. Often the explanation for it's bizarre form revolve around the fact that it's supposedly an "alien" book not from this earth basically attributing its chaotic nature to profoundness. And who came up with the idea to arrange the Surahs in order from longest to shortest? You might as well just number each one, put the numbers in a hat and randomly draw them if you're going to do that. I'm sure it sounds "musical" in the original arabic but the reality is that it needs to be able to communicate IDEAS effectively if it's going to have any worth as something other than music.

How conveniently you are changing the topic to a subjective matter of 'Structure/style of the Qur'an' which I have already discussed in an earlier post of mine while ignoring to discuss the objective arguments I have provided as shown by my statements above.

Moreover, you haven't responded to the argument most relevant to the OP as stated below :

And if you have no objection to the fact that Angel Gabriel can come with the revelation - then congratulation, you just agreed with me as I have shown you that the Story of Adam and Eve's creation, Noah's flood and so many more similar events as well as story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth announcement to Mary and the story of Zechariah (just to name a few of the so many) were all revealed to the messengers of God exactly the same way as was the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). And no, the angel didn't show up in front of a crowd full of people even in those stories.

...you see how similar it is to the story of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ? So in order for you to reject Prophet Muhammad's story, you have to reject all those other stories in the Bible as well.

Again there goes your argument of Qur'an being unreliable.

Peace to you.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7125-muslims-testimony-man-who-said-he-5.html

I addressed the historical reliability of the NT on page 5 of this thread. I'm sure it addresses whatever issues you have with the NT

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Originally Posted by loverOfTruth
"And if you have no objection to the fact that Angel Gabriel can come with the revelation - then congratulation, you just agreed with me as I have shown you that the Story of Adam and Eve's creation, Noah's flood and so many more similar events as well as story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth announcement to Mary and the story of Zechariah (just to name a few of the so many) were all revealed to the messengers of God exactly the same way as was the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). And no, the angel didn't show up in front of a crowd full of people even in those stories.

...you see how similar it is to the story of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ? So in order for you to reject Prophet Muhammad's story, you have to reject all those other stories in the Bible as well."



I Got a kick out of the bolded statement. Let me teach you another English word

pla·gia·rize

verb \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
pla·gia·rizedpla·gia·riz·ing




Definition of PLAGIARIZE

transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

 

[arthra]

Gnostic wrote above:

I know that the Qur'an don't put any date to who's who, and when Adam was created, but let me use your Hadith's number (124,000 prophets) and the timeline of Adam to the time of Muhammad as example, I will show you how ridiculous this number is.

The Quran doesn't assign a date for Adam but you might consider the following:

Likewise, strive thou to comprehend the meaning of the melody of that eternal beauty, Husayn, son of Ali, who, addressing Salman, spoke words such as these:

"I was with a thousand Adams, the interval between each and the next Adam was fifty thousand years, and to each one of these I declared the Successorship conferred upon my father."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 167

So if there were a thousand Adams with an interval of fifty thousand years between each..that would be ohh about fifty million years or so..and how many prophets do you suppose would that add up to?

 

[loverOfTruth]

Originally Posted by loverOfTruth
"And if you have no objection to the fact that Angel Gabriel can come with the revelation - then congratulation, you just agreed with me as I have shown you that the Story of Adam and Eve's creation, Noah's flood and so many more similar events as well as story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth announcement to Mary and the story of Zechariah (just to name a few of the so many) were all revealed to the messengers of God exactly the same way as was the Qur'an to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh). And no, the angel didn't show up in front of a crowd full of people even in those stories.

...you see how similar it is to the story of Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) ? So in order for you to reject Prophet Muhammad's story, you have to reject all those other stories in the Bible as well."



I Got a kick out of the bolded statement. Let me teach you another English word

pla·gia·rize

verb \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
pla·gia·rizedpla·gia·riz·ing




Definition of PLAGIARIZE

transitive verb
: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source

intransitive verb
: to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

Since you have no skill in debating in the subject of comparative religion, you should probably start a thread for teaching English.

And by the way, the bolded part is about the 'method of revelation' (via angel Gabriel to Prohphet Muhammad(pbuh)) of those stories and not about the actual stories. Because if you compare those stories there are significant differences. For example, Qur'an doesn't just blame Eve for eating the fruit - it blames them both equally. But I don't think there is a word in the English language to describe how you copy the inaccurate and inconsistent material that doesn't make sense from one source and then present the consistent, accurate and reasonable one. Man, I need to rethink about my comment about you teaching English now.

 

[loverOfTruth]

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...7125-muslims-testimony-man-who-said-he-5.html

I addressed the historical reliability of the NT on page 5 of this thread. I'm sure it addresses whatever issues you have with the NT

Cheap shot at evading dealing with valid arguments.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Cheap shot at evading dealing with valid arguments.

You challenged the reliability of the NT. I'd already addressed toward the beginning of the thread. Why should I post the same thing twice?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

This is laughable coming from you. You run to a bunch of Muslim apologetic websites to support accusations of a book you've probably never even opened and certainly haven't looked over thoroughly. I'm talking to you out of my own experience reading the Koran. There were three things that stuck out to me in my time reading this book.

1. That these "revelations" are completely unverifiable as opposed to the life of Jesus which had thousands of witnesses. Yes I addressed this very issue in the apologetic I wrote on page 5.

2. That the book has no real structure. Despite several iman's attempts to explain the allegedly otherworldly structure of it I still find this criticism to be unsuccessfully challenged.

3. The repetitive nature of it. It's well documented that the Koran tells the story of Noah 39 times. That seems a little excessive to me.


It's also worth noting that I'd literally never read any criticism of the Koran before reading it. I went into it with a reasonably open mind. I thought if I didn't agree with its theology that it would be at least written competently considering how revered it is among Muslims. I couldn't believe what I saw when I started reading it. I thought perhaps that my confusion was the result of some deficiency in my reading only to learn that the entire Western world and in fact many Muslims (though they usually won't admit it) saw the book in the same way.

Since you have no skill in debating in the subject of comparative religion, you should probably start a thread for teaching English.

And by the way, the bolded part is about the 'method of revelation' (via angel Gabriel to Prohphet Muhammad(pbuh)) of those stories and not about the actual stories. Because if you compare those stories there are significant differences. For example, Qur'an doesn't just blame Eve for eating the fruit - it blames them both equally. But I don't think there is a word in the English language to describe how you copy the inaccurate and inconsistent material that doesn't make sense from one source and then present the consistent, accurate and reasonable one. Man, I need to rethink about my comment about you teaching English now.

 

[loverOfTruth]

You challenged the reliability of the NT. I'd already addressed toward the beginning of the thread. Why should I post the same thing twice?

All that link does is provide some statements to prove that the story of Jesus wasn't a legend and that he actually existed and that some of the manuscripts are from earlier times. I never denied that Jesus(pbuh) existed. But that doesn't in anyway disprove the clear inconsistencies and contradictions and translation errors that make the 'complete Bible as a whole' unreliable.

I gave you individual arguments/inconsistencies to address. You didn't address any of those and tried to cover it up by coming up with English lessons instead:cover:.

 

[1robin]

The point is, its not the same 'judgement'. According to Islam only the adulterer gets the severe punishment - the one who sins and not anyone else. But according to Revelation 2:21-23 in the Bible, even the innocent children of the adulterer gets the death penalty - and that even from a supposedly All Loving God. These 'judgements' are in sharp contrast of each other and in no way the same 'judgement'.



Just listen to Dr. Jerald Dirks [youtube]2m4KW-dysKk[/youtube]

and you'll know how divided even the early christians were on major doctrinal concepts and how inaccurate the translations are. Dr. Dirks has a Master of Divinity from Harvard Divinity School.



"And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32 Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the LORD our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain. 36 From Aroer, which is by the brink of the river of Arnon, and from the city that is by the river, even unto Gilead, there was not one city too strong for us: the LORD our God delivered all unto us" Deuteronomy, Chapter 2 : 32-37

Lord/God (aka Christ for you) commanding the killing of babies and you call that God exhibiting good judgement ? I seriously don't know what else to tell you other than May God help you to see through the falsehood and to distinguish the truth from it.

And again, I am not attacking Jesus(pbuh) here. And note that I am not quoting stuff from anti-christian websites or any other external sources. I am quoting straight out of the Bible. In an attempt to disprove the notion that "Prophet Muhammad(pbuh) is a warlord whereas Jesus(pbuh) 'of the Bible' is a prince of peace", all I am doing is showing what some of the horrible things your own Bible attribute to Jesus(pbuh) and God. Because that is quite a contrast from what I believe about Jesus(pbuh). What I believe about Jesus(pbuh) and Mary is this :

"...O Mary, indeed Allah has chosen you and purified you and chosen you above the women of the worlds. " Al Qur'an (3:42)

"..O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, whose name will be the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary - distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near [to Allah ]. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous." Al Qur'an (3:45-46)

You are most welcome to accept what I believe if you don't believe the stuff straight from the Bible. Peace unto you as well.

I can't watch the video where I am at. I also can't post links (because I am new here)even yours so I had to delete them. As far as your killing children point above. I don't judge God, but those stories do disturb me. I don't have time to check that one specifically, but most of the old testament wars were about removeing completely corrupt societies away from the Jews (God makes it clear that he had tried to get them to repent but they were so far gone that it was pointless) so they wouldn't contaminate what he was doing with the Jews. Many times the Jews didn't do what he said and kept some of them around and God was right it lead to terrible consequences (see...Haman). Another fact about wars is that many were not ordered by God but perpetrated by Israel without permission so do not reflect God. First I had to defend Jesus now God in a thread about Muhammad, it's is too many subjects to get to the bottom of even one and we never got anywhere with biblical accuracy. Let's get somewhere with Muhammad and then we can cover violence in the bible or accuracy of the bible or any other topic if you are agreeable.
I POSTED MY PROMISED REPLY ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE THREAD YOU GAVE ME.
I think since I am new I could only post about 1/50th of what I intended but we can start with that. I hope my language sounds less harsh this time.

Peace,

 

[loverOfTruth]

This is laughable coming from you. You run to a bunch of Muslim apologetic websites to support accusations of a book you've probably never even opened and certainly haven't looked over thoroughly. I'm talking to you out of my own experience reading the Koran. There were three things that stuck out to me in my time reading this book.

I have not made my arguments by quoting from external sources - I quoted straight from the bible and I have provided references for all sources. And we shall see how much you are talking from your experience given most of the Christian apologetic websites refer to the same experiences you are having.

1. That these "revelations" are completely unverifiable as opposed to the life of Jesus which had thousands of witnesses. Yes I addressed this very issue in the apologetic I wrote on page 5.

First, I'll repeat one thing that you repeatedly ignore. That is story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth announcement to Mary and the story of Zechariah (just to name a few of the so many) in the Bible are not 'eyewitness accounts' - they are also revelations. So if you deny the Qur'anic revelation, you also deny revelation related to Jesus's (pbuh) birth because nobody saw the angel coming and talking to them.

Secondly, I don't even know how you claim the 'Gospels' as an 'eyewitness account' while nobody really knows for sure who wrote them and where and also since the originals don't exist. So how can you trust an anonymous author to write an accurate account of events that happened centuries before ? Again, I'll show you that from plain old wikipedia not any Islamic apologetic sites.

From : Gospel of Mark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel According to Mark does not name its author.[2] A 2nd century tradition ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist (also known as John Mark), the companion of Peter,[7] on whose memories it is supposedly based.[1][8][9][10] but the author's use of varied sources tells against the traditional account and according to the majority view the author is unknown.

From: Gospel of Matthew - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The Gospel of Matthew does not name its author. The Christian bishop, Papias of Hierapolis, about 100–140 AD, in a passage with several ambiguous phrases, wrote: "Matthew collected the oracles (logia—sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language (Hebraïdi dialektōi—perhaps alternatively "Hebrew style") and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen—or "translated") them as best he could."[4] On the surface this implies that Matthew was written in Hebrew and translated into Greek, but Matthew's Greek "reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation."
They don't even know for sure which language Matthew was written in.

From: Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Although the Gospel survives in anonymous form, it is considered that the name was known to the addressee, Theophilus.[38] The author was probably a Gentile Christian.[13] "

"Most modern scholars agree that Luke used the Gospel of Mark as one of his sources.[29] The understanding that Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels and that it served as a source for Matthew and Luke is foundational to modern critical scholarship."

Again the supposed Gospel of Luke is also a copy of a material with unknown source(Mark).

From: Gospel of John - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." The text does not actually name this disciple, but by the beginning of the 2nd century a tradition began to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus's innermost circle). Today the majority of scholars do not believe that John or any other eyewitness wrote it,[12][13][14][15][16][17] and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John; the gospel itself shows signs of having been composed in three "layers", reaching its final form about 90-100 AD."

And these are your thousands of eyewitness accounts ? Now compare that to the real 'eyewitness account' of the scriptures of Islam.
Qur'an - the eyewitnesses (companions of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)) wrote and memorized it as the Qur'an was being revealed over 23 years of Prophet's(pbuh) life and then passed down in the original language generations after generations.
Hadith - eyewitness account of events with unbroken chain of reporters going all the way back to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
That's what you call verifiable eyewitness account.

2. That the book has no real structure. Despite several iman's attempts to explain the allegedly otherworldly structure of it I still find this criticism to be unsuccessfully challenged.

Again, as I have mentioned that it is a highly subjective matter and I have already discussed it.

3. The repetitive nature of it. It's well documented that the Koran tells the story of Noah 39 times. That seems a little excessive to me.

This is futile attempt to prove I don't know what given "The Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark (known as the Synoptic Gospels) include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording." [From : ]Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not to mention with contradictions and inconsistencies.

Whereas Qur'anic repitions serve quite a different purpose with difference in the detail as I have mentioned before and not to mention that just because the name Moses is mentioned in multiple places, it is not necessary that they are being used in the same context or to tell the same story.

But now, please decide which story is repeated in the Qur'an 39 times - story of Noah or story of Moses (as you have mentioned earlier here : http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2870297-post235.html)

Which EXPOSES were you get your information from .... that is the Christian apologetic websites such as Political Islam // Articles // Understanding The Koran
and many other sites if you google it. I would be really surprised if you all had the similar experience of 39 repetitions of story of Moses in the Qur'an and yet it is wrong.

If I were you, I would just shut up and never return to this thread. The more fake responses you come up with, the more you are getting exposed.

 

[loverOfTruth]

As far as your killing children point above. I don't judge God, but those stories do disturb me. I don't have time to check that one specifically, but most of the old testament wars were about removeing completely corrupt societies away from the Jews (God makes it clear that he had tried to get them to repent but they were so far gone that it was pointless) so they wouldn't contaminate what he was doing with the Jews. Many times the Jews didn't do what he said and kept some of them around and God was right it lead to terrible consequences (see...Haman). Another fact about wars is that many were not ordered by God but perpetrated by Israel without permission so do not reflect God.

Nice excuses - don't have the time to check all the valid quotes and commentaries I post about the Bible but you still have time to attack Prophet Muhammad(pbuh).

Regardless, it is shameful that you are trying to justify God's commanding the killing of innocent children - notice the verse starts with "And the LORD said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess"

First I had to defend Jesus now God in a thread about Muhammad,

I thought Jesus is God (for you at least). Are they indeed different then ?

it's is too many subjects to get to the bottom of even one and we never got anywhere with biblical accuracy. Let's get somewhere with Muhammad and then we can cover violence in the bible or accuracy of the bible or any other topic if you are agreeable.

Again, excuses when you can't provide valid arguments. I have provided enough to a different poster here regarding inconsistencies and contradictions in the Bible.

I POSTED MY PROMISED REPLY ABOUT MUHAMMAD IN THE THREAD YOU GAVE ME.
I think since I am new I could only post about 1/50th of what I intended but we can start with that. I hope my language sounds less harsh this time.

Peace,

I shall respond there in time. Peace to you as well.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

First, I'll repeat one thing that you repeatedly ignore. That is story of Jesus's(pbuh) birth announcement to Mary and the story of Zechariah (just to name a few of the so many) in the Bible are not 'eyewitness accounts' - they are also revelations. So if you deny the Qur'anic revelation, you also deny revelation related to Jesus's (pbuh) birth because nobody saw the angel coming and talking to them.

Do you understand that I never said it wasn't theoretically possible for someone to get a revelation from an angel? There are legitimate prophets and there are false prophets. I don't embrace every piece of alleged prophecy and declare it from the Lord.

I

And these are your thousands of eyewitness accounts ? Now compare that to the real 'eyewitness account' of the scriptures of Islam.
Qur'an - the eyewitnesses (companions of the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)) wrote and memorized it as the Qur'an was being revealed over 23 years of Prophet's(pbuh) life and then passed down in the original language generations after generations.
Hadith - eyewitness account of events with unbroken chain of reporters going all the way back to Prophet Muhammad(pbuh)
That's what you call verifiable eyewitness account.


.

I don't think the fact that eyewitnesses of Mohammed's life copied everything he claims the angel told him qualifies as an eyewitness VERIFICATION of that taking place. On the other hand, Jesus life was in plain sight for all to see. The claims of Christianity did not depend on taking one man at his word. It's really Jesus' life, death, and resurrection that the doctrines of Christianity hinge on. If these events took place the way Christians believe there would be thousands who would've witnessed them and could testify to it.

I



This is futile attempt to prove I don't know what given "The Gospels of Luke, Matthew and Mark (known as the Synoptic Gospels) include many of the same stories, often in the same sequence, and sometimes exactly the same wording." [From : ]Gospel of Luke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia and not to mention with contradictions and inconsistencies.


.

You wouldn't know because you've never read the Gospels. You've probably never even opened them. You got the Bible verses you posted from Islamic websites. In other words, you've listened to a bunch of accusations made by your clerics and you've just taken their word for it. On the other hand, I know about the structure or lack their of in the Koran. I've experienced it through actually exploring your holy book. I know that the Koran repeats itself and that its repetition isn't limited to stories about Moses. It loves to repeat that unbelievers will face the wrath of God. It seems like half the book is devoted to expressing that thought over and over and over and over and over........

 

[gnostic]

The Quran doesn't assign a date for Adam but you might consider the following:

Likewise, strive thou to comprehend the meaning of the melody of that eternal beauty, Husayn, son of Ali, who, addressing Salman, spoke words such as these:

"I was with a thousand Adams, the interval between each and the next Adam was fifty thousand years, and to each one of these I declared the Successorship conferred upon my father."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Kitab-i-Iqan, p. 167

So if there were a thousand Adams with an interval of fifty thousand years between each..that would be ohh about fifty million years or so..and how many prophets do you suppose would that add up to?

Well, The Kitab-i-Iqan don't make even sense than the Hadith of 124,000 prophets.

It is hard enough believing that that Adam living for 930 years. So 50,000 years I would considered to be even more absurd, no offence to your prophet.

Do you seriously think that Adam could live that long?

There are no evidences of humans (or Homo sapiens) living 200,000 years ago.

So I will take that the Kitab-i-Iqan was more of metaphoric or symbollic numbers than literal numbers.

 

[arthra]

I don't think you quite understand "gnostic"..

The Hadith cited is from Imam Husayn grandson of Prophet Muhammad. So what it means or implies in my view is that there was more than one Adam over the millenia of years.... and that the number of Prophets is therefore probably incalculable..See below:

Husayn, son of Ali, who, addressing Salman, spoke words such as these:

"I was with a thousand Adams, the interval between each and the next Adam was fifty thousand years, and to each one of these I declared the Successorship conferred upon my father."

Another Hadith was attributed to Imam Sadiq:

"Allah has a thousand thousand Adams and a thousand thousand earths".