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

[-Peacemaker-]

That way you can claim him as a source without actually listing a scholar at all. And I'm supposed to take this seriously? And how do you explain all the misdirection in the article that Geisler wrote? The NT is 100% accurate because he feels that what is in it means the same thing as what was originally written while admiting that it has indeed been altered? That's your proof that the NT is 100% accurate? If you wish to take the NT on faith that is your right but you can't hold your faith up and demand we accept it as proof.

You're telling me names like R. Shimeon ben' Azzi, Donald J. Wiseman, and Sir Fredric Kenyon mean anything to you? How about William F. Albright or Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White? I didn't think think so

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

You're telling me names like R. Shimeon ben' Azzi, Donald J. Wiseman, and Sir Fredric Kenyon mean anything to you? How about William F. Albright or Roman historian A.N. Sherwin-White? I didn't think think so

You're avoiding the question. All biblical scholars, even the non-scholar you pointed out, have admited that the New Testament has been altered. The best your sources can say is that those changes don't count because, in their opinion, the meaning of the text did not change. And we are supposed to find such opinions compelling?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

You're avoiding the question. All biblical scholars, even the non-scholar you pointed out, have admited that the New Testament has been altered. The best your sources can say is that those changes don't count because, in their opinion, the meaning of the text did not change. And we are supposed to find such opinions compelling?

I can't believe it's even a question. How do you think language works? What is the Bible? A set of magic words that must be repeated verbatim? Isn't language about conveying a message to the reader? I've seen 100 different translations of the Bible just in English and they all manage to get the point across each in a slightly different style. Hell, Christians don't even believe that the Bible was dictated by God to mankind. They believe he INSPIRED it, meaning that he gave the author a paticular concept and required the writer to put it in his own words. For Christians, the Bible, from the very start, has been a message conveyed by God in a style and language chosen by a human author.

 

[Shermana]

Okay, so about changes like the ending of Mark? Can believers drink poison and be bitten by cobras or not? How about the major differences presented by Jerome and others between their version of "Matthew" and what they considered the proto-Matthew, "Gospel to the Hebrews"?

How about the fact that many consider "(Thus he made all foods clean)" in Mark 7 to be a later interpolation? How about the fact that Paul's quote in 1 Cor 9:20 "(Though I myself am not under the Law") doesn't show up in many manuscripts and is considered an interpolation? How about the differences between the Sinaiticus and the Receptus? The meaning doesn't change in any of those parts?

Also, I wouldn't use Sherwin-White as a source for such reliability. WLC is a bit shady in this regard.

http://youcallthisculture.blogspot.com/2007/11/apologists-abuse-of-sherwin-white.html

The argument seems to have been developed by William Lane Craig who relies on the work of an Oxford historian named A.N. Sherwin-White. Craig writes, "When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states that for the gospels to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be "unbelievable." More generations would be needed." The Evidence for Jesus. However, the popularity of the argument seems to stem from Lee Strobel who interviewed Craig in The Case for Christ. In an effort to understand this argument better, I obtained the Oxford Professor’s book Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament (Oxford 1963) and read the passages that Craig cites.

The first thing I noticed is that the book has nothing to do with the historical reliability of the resurrection accounts or any of the miracle stories. As the book’s title suggests, Sherwin-White’s interest was Roman law and society. The book addresses the procedural and jurisdictional issues that arise in the gospel accounts of Jesus’ trial and the issues of Paul's Roman citizenship that arise in the book of Acts. "[O]ne may show how the various historical and social and legal problems raised by the Gospels and Acts now look to a Roman historian. That, and only that, is the intention of these lectures." (emphasis added) (RSRLNT p. iv)

 

[Desert Snake]

Why is this whole thread about Christianity when the OP is about Islam?

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

I can't believe it's even a question.

So, to avoid the question you simple choose to disbelieve it. I feel like I'm in high school again and playing Dungeons and Dragons.

6th Level Barbarian: I choose to disbelieve that there is a dragon in front of me.

Dungeon Master: He eats you anyway.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

Why is this whole thread about Christianity when the OP is about Islam?

It's about Islam claiming the Bible has been altered. The OP asks why we should listen to a religion that claims to have come from an Angel in a cave. My point is why look to Islam for evidence of biblical alterations when there's plenty of Christian biblical scholars who will offer evidence?

 

[Shermana]

Why is this whole thread about Christianity when the OP is about Islam?

My original point was why should anyone believe that Paul was an apostle according to the same logic as the OP?

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Why is this whole thread about Christianity when the OP is about Islam?

The Muslims don't feel like talking I guess

 

[idav]

Why wouldn't it be possible to see an angel? Didn't Jacob wrestle an angel?

 

[Desert Snake]

My original point was why should anyone believe that Paul was an apostle according to the same logic as the OP?

Right, but people say the same thing about Moses.

 

[Desert Snake]

It's about Islam claiming the Bible has been altered. The OP asks why we should listen to a religion that claims to have come from an Angel in a cave. My point is why look to Islam for evidence of biblical alterations when there's plenty of Christian biblical scholars who will offer evidence?

Ah, yes then I agree with you.

 

[Shermana]

Right, but people say the same thing about Moses.

A bit different. The story of Moses involves hundreds of thousands of alleged witnesses.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Please tell me what is so compelling about a man who claims to have heard an angel speak to him while he was alone in a cave. Why is everybody supposed to just take his word for it? Even if he did hear an angel, there are spirits of truth and deception, that is if you believe in the Bible. Why are we to believe it was an angel of good as opposed to evil?

Probably the same thing that's so compelling about a young girl claiming to be a virgin and pregnant at the same time. Maybe she told the truth....OR may be she lied.....

 

[9Westy9]

Matthew and John were JC's disciples. They personally saw everything he did .

according to who?

As for those secular sources that according to you were written before the NT, since the NT was written from about 40 A.D.-90 A.D., the earliest some of these sources were written after the NT's earliest writings but before it was finished. The others were written at least 30 years after the NT was completed

Pliney the Younger wrote in: c. 112
Tacitus wrote in: c. 116
Suetonius lived from: c. 69-140
Josephus wrote in: A.D. 93
Mara bar Sarapion, the easliest he wrote could've been 73 A.D.
The Talmud, quote probably dates between 70-200 A.D.
Lucian wrote post 100 AD

What I meant by older is that they were written even further after. Sorry about that I'll edit my post now

edit: Seems I can't edit it :/

 

[9Westy9]

You mean Norm Geisler's scholarly view. Let's look at what he says about it.

To me, this means, yeah, the text is different now but it doesn't matter because we think the meaning is still the same. Circular logic at its best.

Sounds convincing on the examples given. Although I'd be surprised if there aren't some that contradict each other

 

[not nom]

Please tell me what is so compelling about a man who claims to have heard an angel speak to him while he was alone in a cave. Why is everybody supposed to just take his word for it?

as opposed to...

moses? the jewish people at mount sinai?

john the baptist and jesus, somewhere in the middle of nowhere, with the holy spirit descending on jesus, and a voice from heaven proclaiming him as god's son?

paul of tarsus on the road to damascus... ???

if you go for *any* of the above, you might as well go all the way ^^ but I appreciate the irony, of course.

 

[not nom]

A bit different. The story of Moses involves hundreds of thousands of alleged witnesses.

1. alleged witnesses

2. witness to what? to a cloud and a voice like thunder (thunder like a voice?), and moses saying "oops I broke the tablets", haha? I don't see the actual difference... actually, it seems to be mostly god speaking to moses, and moses then telling the people. of course there is always good reasons provided for that, heh, but good reasons for lack of evidence don't constitute evidence. we r smarter than that nao.

 

[not nom]

Why is it everyone elses problem that the methods of validating biblical events don't stand up to the same scrutiny that everything else does?

Heck, Julius Caesar died over 2000 years ago and his life stands up to scrutiny, why can't your religious works do the same?

because jesus praised god for hiding stuff from the wise.. and let the congregation smugly say "amen" to that. also, god's ways are mysterious, what more do you want? geez.

 

[connermt]

Do you realize that the NT is a compilation of all those accounts?

So, by your own definition, the NT holds ALL of those accounts? So there weren't hundreds of thousands as the one poster said?