Origins of the Quran/Islam - various academic perspectives

[outhouse]

So in the end it seems like you know nothing about Christianity nor Islam

It is typical of the desperate to attack the poster when they cannot refute the message.

Your no judge, and you dont have the authority or credibility to make that claim, just because you cannot refute anything I post.

The above is a better example of making an argument for your claims.

You should not assume you have been caught doing quite a bit of it.

You have spent most of your energy debating against the obvious plagiarism.

And you have not succeeded.

 

[use_your_brain]

You didn't understand what I am talking about. The various texts still contain knowledge of the area. Dan was a city, Jerusalem was a city, Jericho was a city. It is the story that is false not that these places never existed.

And what does The Quran have to do with those areas?

 

[morphesium]

Wrong again on your assertion that there is "no such thing as credible Muslim academics"

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

They were muslims who got non-mulsim education.

 

[muhammad_isa]

No it boils down to evidence supports a view that these stories are false.

Maybe some of the details are false, but you can't say that Moses didn't exist. Nobody living in this world, that I know of, has authority to say what happened 1000's of years ago. You may think that they have, but my intelligence tells me otherwise.

It has nothing to do with God. Your argument is nonsense. It would be like says Bob murders Jim only if you believe in God regardless that there is evidence Ted murdered Jim.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Almighty God. It's impossible to provide categorical evidence .. your saying you can 'with your mouth' does not make it so.

I am satisfied That the Bible and Qur'an are based on truth .. I'm not offering any categorical proof, but just "what is apparent" .. you can and have made your mind up what you think .. I'm entitled to the same.
..and no .. I'm not ignoring 'what historians think' .. I'm obviously interpreting what they say in a different way to you

 

[outhouse]

Maybe some of the details are false, but you can't say that Moses didn't exist.

Well by all credible accounts he did not exist.

Nobody living in this world, that I know of, has authority to say what happened 1000's of years ago

Factually false.

We have great knowledge in many areas. If you find religion fun to study and debate, you should seek a higher education.

Not an apologetic class, a historical one, and find out how much we know and why.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Almighty God.

Factually a faith based statement that carries no credibility and remains unsubstantiated

 

[muhammad_isa]

Well by all credible accounts he did not exist.

That's your opinion .. what you find credible, along with a few others. While numbers of people doesn't prove anything, billions of others find it credible that he DID exist.

..and don't give me that "they're all ignorant, uneducated nonsense" .. they can't ALL be .. partcularly the well educated amongst them.
..also don't give me that "their religion is superstition, and their education is separate" , because that is nonsense as well! They simply don't believe your blinkered "credible accounts"

 

[outhouse]

That's your opinion

No that is the academic opinion based on factual evidence and knowledge.

NO ONE with credibility thinks that character existed, because there flat was no exodus from Egypt. Israelites formed from displaced Canaanites after the bronze age collapse.

And that is not up for debate.

 

[muhammad_isa]

NO ONE with credibility thinks that character existed..

And that is not up for debate.

Your entitled to your opinion .. but you are NOT entitled to say that it is a fact.
If you do, then how can you blame religious folk for mistrusting ALL facts that spew from you and your associates?

We are getting nowhere. You carry on with your "facts", and I'll carry on with MY way of life which is based on the Qur'an.

Bye bye, now

 

[outhouse]

but you are NOT entitled to say that it is a fact.

I'm not claiming it a fact.

It is a certainty that is taught in every credible university without question.

We are getting nowhere

Because you base your belief on faith and faith alone. No amount of evidence would ever change you mind no matter how credible.

 

[Unification]

I don't know the human writer(s) of the initial Q. I do believe that Muhammed and Waraka were never historical figures and that many of mankind has gradually accepted false history based upon fictional characters and mythological and allegorical writing.

I believe that fictional and allegorical characters have been made into historical characters and that fictional and allegorical wars and events have been made into and accepted as historical happenings.

Claims that Muhammed and/or Waraka did it are similar to saying, "legend has it they did" and are based more upon theological bias, imagination, and the need to place an author(s) on texts.

I'm still waiting on evidence that they were historical figures without theological, legend has its, religious, or biased second hand knowledge passed down and blown out of proportion by mankind's deceived minds.

 

[Shad]

It is typical of the desperate to attack the poster when they cannot refute the message.

Considering you can not even link your conclusion with any position besides citing a wiki conclusion my claim is reasonable.

Your no judge, and you dont have the authority or credibility to make that claim, just because you cannot refute anything I post.

You made no argument, you made a claim you can not even support.

You should not assume you have been caught doing quite a bit of it.

Empty statement devoid of evidence.

You have spent most of your energy debating against the obvious plagiarism.

No debating against someone that states conclusion but no argument which shows their conclusion has merot

And you have not succeeded.

Empty statement.

 

[Shad]

Maybe some of the details are false, but you can't say that Moses didn't exist. Nobody living in this world, that I know of, has authority to say what happened 1000's of years ago. You may think that they have, but my intelligence tells me otherwise.

Yes I can as it is a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence against the claim and lack of evidence for the claim.

It has EVERYTHING to do with Almighty God. It's impossible to provide categorical evidence .. your saying you can 'with your mouth' does not make it so.

It only does since you demand that your religious views be considered as fact. History does not accept your God claims as fact. You standard is not considered in this thread. Move along.

I am satisfied That the Bible and Qur'an are based on truth .. I'm not offering any categorical proof, but just "what is apparent" .. you can and have made your mind up what you think .. I'm entitled to the same.
..and no .. I'm not ignoring 'what historians think' .. I'm obviously interpreting what they say in a different way to you

Your satisfactions is irrelevant to historical methods.

 

[Shad]

That's your opinion .. what you find credible, along with a few others. While numbers of people doesn't prove anything, billions of others find it credible that he DID exist.

Ad populim fallacy. Those people are not experts in archaeology. They are average people like yourself that are completely uneducated in this field.

..and don't give me that "they're all ignorant, uneducated nonsense" .. they can't ALL be .. partcularly the well educated amongst them.

They lack an education is the field that matters. Hence their views are arguments from authority. Their opinions as non-experts is irrelevant

Both your arguments are fallacious.

 

[outhouse]

You made no argument, you made a claim you can not even support.

Non sequitur.

Attack the message not the messenger.

 

[outhouse]

no argument which shows their conclusion has merot

Merot, is like merlot?

The book by all academic knowledge was plagiarized.

There are only two basic options here. Either it was plagiarized or there was revelation. Revelation is not academic.

If you understood that modern scholars have many different credible opinions on historical topics where limited information and evidence exist. You would realize mine falls right into the proper context.

Most scholars wont touch this religion with a ten foot pole because their afraid of getting murdered by the many zealoted fundamentalist.

many are very careful in the words they chose to describe this history for that exact reason. My words while different and to the point, mean the same exact thing.

 

[Shad]

Non sequitur.

Attack the message not the messenger.

No, attacking the person that hasn't present an argument is valid. You presented no argument beyond a wiki quote made by someone from the 19th century. I just pointing this out. I already dealt with your horrible argument many posts ago.

 

[Shad]

Merot, is like merlot?

No. It is called a type. I guess it is beyond you to consider the sentence in order to figure out the o should have been an i.

The book by all academic knowledge was plagiarized.

Yet Augustus sources make no such claims. You argument is refuted as you ignore opinion which refute it. Double-standards.

There are only two basic options here. Either it was plagiarized or there was revelation. Revelation is not academic.

3. It was part of his tradition prior to the Quran.

If you understood that modern scholars have many different credible opinions on historical topics where limited information and evidence exist. You would realize mine falls right into the proper context.

Selection bias. You ignore the opinions against your view and rely on views from the 19th century. Welcome to the 21st century in which various scholar disagree with you view. You have yet to present even a single piece of modern work.

Most scholars wont touch this religion with a ten foot pole because their afraid of getting murdered by the many zealoted fundamentalist.

I see a number as per Augustus' references

many are very careful in the words they chose to describe this history for that exact reason. My words while different and to the point, mean the same exact thing.

Or they do not hold a conclusion you do thus never state a view they do not agree with.

 

[outhouse]

Yet Augustus sources make no such claims

Actually he provided one source that stated such using another word, which it labeled the same.


Academia also does not say Judaism plagiarized the Mesopotamian flood mythology, LIKE this, they use other words meaning the same thing.

No scholar doubts the influence of Mesopotamian mythology on Israelite text.

All one has to do is take previous ideas and rewrite them as their own, and that is plagiarizing.

 

[outhouse]

3. It was part of his tradition prior to the Quran.

Non sequitur

They, who ever they are, took previous traditions and rewrote them as the true divine tradition.

Your simply moving goal post, and the sad thing is the post are still in the field of Plagiarism.

 

[outhouse]

You ignore the opinions against your view

No I have not. Nothing has been posted by any scholar that goes against my general opinion here.

Most of them said we cannot know. We no kidding, its the same for historical Jesus research.

In case you did not know 20 different scholars can have 20 different opinion on Jesus, and all be credible.


Have a nice day.