• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What proof do you have of God?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
 Muhammad died in 632AD.
 Every single revelation at this time was memorized in sections by different companions and a small portion recorded on bits and pieces of anything at hand.
 In 633AD approx. 700 of these people who had memorized the Quran were killed in battle.
 This was so obviously devastating to retention of the revelation that they quickly in 634AD recorded everything that anyone who was left and reliable could remember. This is the Hafsah codex.
 I will add that what they had was probably accurate given their methods of confirmation, it is what was lost that is the issue.
This alone begs the question, how much was lost? To do backflips attempting to claim nothing was seems desperate and intellectually dishonest. This alone makes the issue an indecipherable one. There is simply no way to know and the issue could be stopped here. However it gets far far worse.
 This original Codex was destroyed by Muslim leaders in 667AD when she died.
 It appears that different reading had developed based on that original codex and a solution was adopted by Uthman.
 Supposedly he copied Hafsah's original and then burned everything else he could find and hers was destroyed as well.
 This was only necessary if at that time there were in fact divergent and contradictory versions of the Quran in use even at this early date.
 That means that what Uthman produced can't be checked against the original.
 This is not a problem if you have vast numbers of copies, early copies, and widely dispersed parallel lines of transmission. However this is not the case so the original is somewhat of a mystery and the original itself would be a mystery even if we had it because of the early deaths of so many that had individually memorized sections.
 These types of problems associated with the transmission of the Quran just keep piling up but I want to change gears a little and post something different.
There are vast numbers of issues concerning the Quran that are found in many places when it is researched. I will list some of the ones I have seen in more than one place. Some are just plain facts, some are likely, and some are not as concrete. However when the totality is considered there is no escape from the conclusion the Quran has many textual problems that render it less reliable than the Bible.
1. The Quran has only one witness to its revelation. The Bible has over 40. The most important event has over 4 independent testimonies that meet every standard of modern law and the historical method as said by Simon Green leaf and Lord Lyndhurst two of the greatest if not the greatest experts on evidence in human history.
2. Portions of what was revealed to Muhammad is said to have been recorded on scraps of paper, bone, bark, leather, and parch fragments. It seems desperate to claim all these were accounted for. In fact at least one of his wives stated that an animal ate some of the papers and she knew some had been lost over time.
3. The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic, yet it contains foreign words from other cultures. Even Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti a respected Muslim language expert agrees there are 107 non Arabic words and most western scholars say 270 plus.
4. The Quran claims to be perfect yet contains many spelling errors, meanings of words are misused, and rhyme dictated certain word use over more accurate words.
5. Many respected linguistic scholars claim it is a literary train wreck. I will admit that others disagree. However the way it is arranged is not conducive to understanding but to recitation only.
6. It contains stories virtually word for word in many cases out of much earlier gnostic texts including misspellings of place names that are well known. These Gnostics are known to have lived in Arabia during Muhammad’s time.
7. Many of its Biblical stories are just plain incorrect. All things being equal the earlier and especially contemporary sources are always deemed more accurate than later ones. Some of its Biblical stories are simply impossible.
8. It makes scientific claims that do not agree with any known scientific knowledge.
9. It makes historical claims that do not match archeological discovery.
10. It claims theological doctrine that contradicts the far earlier and contemporary claims made by eye witnesses to Jesus.
11. It contains earlier Arabian myth that preexisted Muhammad.
12. Even today Qurans can be found that differ extensively in certain areas. Even the four early reciters recited differing versions:

Muslim source materials reveal some of these select people who are known to have created their unique version of the Qur'an. (Sahih Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, Number 150). [Search on the referenced site to find the number "150" if you want to verify the written literature].
I heard the Prophet saying, "Learn the recitation of Qur'an from four persons: (1)Abdullah Ibn Mas'ud, (2)Salim (who was killed in the 633 CE battle), the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa, (3)Ubayy B. Ka'ab and (4)Muadh bin Jabal."
So a few select people close to Muhammad thought they knew the Qur’an and collected their personal version. These versions of the Qur’an became widely distributed and used. This is why Muslim soldiers were arguing and calling one another heretics.
Is the Qur'an Pure? Book Burning in Early Islam
I can keep going indefinitely but there is no point. When both the Quran and the Bible have a certain percentage of error it is far more honorable and honest to admit the issue than irrationally cling to a false claim of perfection that results in a loss of credability when the issue is researched. .

Here is a site I thought interesting. It even has pictures of sections of the Quran that were recently discovered buried in a Mosque. It has pictures showing different reading of the Quran.
PROBLEMS WITH THE RELIABILITY OF THE KORAN
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
That's a fine opinion but I don't share it. I've thought too deeply about historical truth.
I have seen no evidence of that. See post #772.

As for 'what Jesus did', I have no idea what you mean. I don't even believe that the founder of Christianity lived in first-century Judea; much less do I believe that he did miracles as described in the gospel stories.
Then you must reject the existence of Caesar, Plato, Socrates, Xerxes, and Homer as all are vastly less attested to that Jesus. Jesus or his very early followers are mentioned by over 20 eyewitness authors within the first hundred years. His disciples lived lives of poverty, and lost their lives in some cases to spread the word of Christ. He fulfilled over 350 prophecies. There were Churches from Rome to Turkey within just a short period of his death. That is a lot of work for someone you say didn't exist. Perhaps you should think a little deeper about history.
That's another fine personal opinion. Everyone has opinions.
There is no opinion in the fact that 2000 years after the fact 1 out of every 3 people on Earth think he was divine and love him. It is not opinion to claim that he is the climax of the human race's most cherished book.
For myself, I believe that any ancient figure who is claimed to have done magic is necessarily suspect. It means he lived so long ago that there's been plenty of time to tell tall tales about him without fear of being exposed by actual historical evidence. It's true that primitive folk and political toadies heaped magical powers on the Caesars and other political leaders, but in those cases we often have physical evidence, a reasonable explanation for the magic claims, and no theological reasons for the leaders to have been concocted. Of course, that doesn't mean that Alexander the Great was absolutely and positively 'a real man.' It just means we have better evidence for Alexander than for Jesus.
When the greatest experts on testimony and history say the texts are reliable, to stick your fingers in your ears is done at your own peril.

Professor Thomas Arnold, cited by Wilbur Smith, was for 14 years the famous headmaster of Rugby, author of a famous three-volume History of Rome, appointed to the char of Modern History at Oxford, and certainly a man well acquainted with the value of evidence in determining historical facts. This great scholar said: I have been used for many years to study the histories of other times, and to examine and weigh the evidence of those who have written about them, and I know of no one fact in the history of mankind which is proved by better and fuller evidence of every sort, to the understanding of a fair inquirer, than the great sign which GOD hath given us that Christ died and rose again from the dead."

Clifford Herschel Moore, professor at Harvard University, well said, "Christianity knew its Savior and Redeemer not as some god whose history was contained in a mythical faith, with rude, primitive, and even offensive elements...Jesus was a historical not a mythical being. No remote or foul myth obtruded itself of the Christian believer; his faith was founded on positive, historical, and acceptable facts."

The noted scholar, Professor Edwin Gordon Selwyn, says: "The fact that Christ rose from the dead on the third day in full continuity of body and soul - that fact seems as secure as historical evidence can make it."

http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html
So we seem to see things differently.
Yep you let your pre concieved conclusion determine the facts. I let the facts determine my conclusion.
Imagine if we all interacted with each other as gently as we might address our own favorite prophet. Would you speak to Jesus as you speak to me?
Jesus wouldn't make such spurious arguments and certainly would not treat the most profound subject in human history with trivial banality.
How do you think Jesus would behave if he were in this place? More like me... or like you?
Would you cut out the woe is me appeals to sympathy and victum hood. Jesus spoke far more scorching words to his own priests than I have to you and for the same reason. Those evil priests did not know God almighty and yet acted knowledgeable and used silly word games to try and trip Christ up.
I don't think Jesus would come here at all, but if he did, I just can't imagine him insulting the other debaters. I think of him as a gentle and spiritual man -- at least as he is portrayed in the gospels. I think he'd more likely address the other debaters with careful courtesy and respect rather than raw insult.
This is a debate not a pic-nick. I am not here to coddle bad arguments. I am here to point out false hood and defend truth.
Goodbye, old friend. As you sit in your garden and muse on the RF Wars, I hope you'll think of me in a special way.
I'm the guy who proved the impossibility of proving God, after all. That's a big lesson.
As I have said I like you to some extent but your arguments have lost their amusement and that is all they had so I am out. Perhaps you will provide a challenging discussion at some point in the future. God bless.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
You can love someone and still pity them....:slap:

Yeah, I pity everyone. Even me. Even the dogs and the worms. We're all up the same creek. Or tree. Or whatever. And it makes me cry.

About the worms, I should explain:

A few days ago I found a mole in my garden. The little ------- was tunneling through everything -- up one row and down the next. Just having his happy way with my produce plans. Well, I decided to track him and it worked. Right at the end of his trail, I could see him push, push, pushing the dirt upward as he moved forward.

And then I witnessed a horror.

Just ahead of his tunneling, the earthworms were casting themselves out of the ground and fleeing across my bare furrows, perpedicular to the advancing mole, in a frantic wriggle for life!

But one of them only got halfway out of the ground. Yep. Halfway out and he began to be tugged backward, his long body eventually disappearing back down into that subterranean darkness, toward that unseen, horrible maw which we all know is waiting there just below the surface.

And I thought, "Yeah, don't that about sum it up for most all of us."

Pity the earthworms. Pity us all. There can be no proof of God in such a world as this one.
 
Top