Which Book is the true word of God, Quran, or Bible?

[Link]

Being a Christian I decided a few years back that I should read the Quran if I would like Moslems to read the New Testament.
So a got one. And I started to read through it cover to cover.

I'll tell you, I found it hard. Somthing about the "taste" of it was not at all pleasant to me.
I have to give it another try because I ceased. But I did try.

I just moved to another state and my library is still in storage. So I cannot give you the translation or examples at this time.

You say it is more clean, more eloquent and logical?

I use to read it in a way that Satan blocked me from it's benefit. The Quran wonders open up really when one is able to take refuge into God and take asylum in the name of God against the dark forces and their magic.

 

[JameScott]

IF you had added:
4) Both
5) Neither

THEN I could have answered the Poll

My answer: Both Religions are Granted by God

Thanks for that feedback. I'm interested in your thoughts about why you think both are granted by God. Which if true, poses serious disputes about God that cannot be thrown under the rug. For example, If you read the Quran, you would learn that the narrative differs significantly from that of the Bible when it comes to Abrahamic covenant and promise among other things. A critical analysis of the two books would make it seem there are two different Gods being referred to. Therefore, to say Both are granted by God seems too simple, even then, I respect your view on the matter. I would like to know where you come from to see it this way.

 

[Dimi95]

Oh Dear!
Dimi95, allow me to refer you the comment I was responding to.
I was responding to soulsurvivor who asked, "Is this a trick question? Neither book is the 'true' word of God. Both have been written by men"
I appreciate your comment, I think you what you mentioned is well said. I admire the enthusiasm. What's better is to keep it with in context so we understand each other better. For example, Do you believe the Quran represents the truth as opposed to The bible?

I cannot answer this question the way you want it.
I have to be honest with you.

I believe that Jesus represents the truth in both of them.

For example , we know that in the Quran God is the Holy One.
We know that when we read Surah 59 , verse 24.

But , when we read Surah 19 verse 19 we can see also how the messenger of the Lord announced the gift of a Holy son.

So.. I don't think in the way that - if one is true , the other has to be false.

That is why i did not vote.

 

[firedragon]

But , when we read Surah 19 verse 19 we can see also how the messenger of the Lord announced the gift of a Holy son.

It doesn't say "holy son". It says "son".

 

[stvdv]

Thanks for that feedback. I'm interested in your thoughts about why you think both are granted by God.

Well, both have verses that are too good to have been created without Divine inspiration, especially knowing we live in Kali Yuga (era where human mind is not pure, to say the least)

Which if true, poses serious disputes about God that cannot be thrown under the rug. For example, If you read the Quran, you would learn that the narrative differs significantly from that of the Bible when it comes to Abrahamic covenant and promise among other things.

Both are inspired by Divinity
Both are written by humans
Hence the seemingly discrepancy

A critical analysis of the two books would make it seem there are two different Gods being referred to.

Only God knows why God does what God does

 

[stvdv]

Therefore, to say Both are granted by God seems too simple, even then, I respect your view on the matter. I would like to know where you come from to see it this way.

God is said to be pure unsullied, unselfish Love
God is said to be the Father of us, His children

If children cry for help their father comes
If Saints cry for God, The Father comes

If earth is God's Creation
Then it's God's responsibility

I'm not surprised God gave both Scriptures
As there was dire need at that time

 

[Dimi95]

It doesn't say "holy son". It says "son".

Surah Maryam Ayat 19 (19:19 Quran) With Tafsir - My Islam

Read Surah Maryam Ayat 19 (19:19) with translation. Included verse by verse commentary with tafsir for those looking to learn about this ayah in detail.

myislam.org

Here it says otherwise.

We can do the explenation in Arabic , np.

زكيا In English - Translation and Meaning in English Arabic Dictionary of All terms Page 1

Meaning of زكيا, Definition of Word زكيا in Almaany Online Dictionary, searched domain is All category, in the dictionary of English Arabic. A comprehensive Dictionary contains the meanings and translation of Arabic words and meanings of Arabic sentences. page 1

www.almaany.com

 

[firedragon]

Surah Maryam Ayat 19 (19:19 Quran) With Tafsir - My Islam

Read Surah Maryam Ayat 19 (19:19) with translation. Included verse by verse commentary with tafsir for those looking to learn about this ayah in detail.

myislam.org

Here it says otherwise.

We can do the explenation in Arabic , np.

زكيا In English - Translation and Meaning in English Arabic Dictionary of All terms Page 1

Meaning of زكيا, Definition of Word زكيا in Almaany Online Dictionary, searched domain is All category, in the dictionary of English Arabic. A comprehensive Dictionary contains the meanings and translation of Arabic words and meanings of Arabic sentences. page 1

www.almaany.com

Okay. So in Arabic, how do you say "Holy Son"?

 

[JameScott]

Ah, in my terms that would involve abandoning my natural skepticism and believing that supernatural destinies are abroad in human affairs, so that's one reason I don't think that will happen. The other is that while I suspect the stories of Jesus are more likely than not to have a real human at their center, the orthodox accounts of Jesus ─ starting with Mark ─ are a mix of hearsay traditions and a structured Greek manner of storytelling, with many parts designed to show Jesus "fulfilling prophecy" from the Tanakh ─ as distinct from an objective and well-researched biography. The miracles, for instance, are plainly untrue, though in that age the actions of gods in the human world were taken for granted.

And, given a historical Jesus, none of the authors of the NT ever met him, so various oral traditions are involved in the writing. I had to do some homework on oral histories and shennachies when I was writing some Scottish history last century, and if you need a word for the results, 'unreliable' would be a very modest start.

It seems clear to me that only for a few decades was Jesus seen as a follower of the Jewish god. Paul, for example, abandons the covenant of circumcision on his behalf, and by the 4th century it's made official that (despite his constant denials in Paul and all four gospels) Jesus is God, albeit as part of the triune God. (And what kind of God sends [his] 'son' to create a new religion remarkable for its many many centuries of marauding and murderous anti-Semitism?)

Interesting thoughts. thanks for sharing your findings. We are a bit off the forum topic but I am interested in your thoughts, so I'll bite.
If I get you correctly, by saying, "....I don't think that will happen" you mean reading the books in question? It appears you have some knowledge about the contents of the bible. Perhaps it is the Quran you find challenging to read. Either way, you seem adamant about abandoning your natural Scepticism which would be a kind of distrust in the narrative that God controls human affairs. This was your first reason. I must be quick to mention it is perfectly normal to doubt narratives of supernatural interventions, to the extend that you do not entirely disregard the possibility that there is a God. For one, it is not possible, the evidence is overwhelming. to completely disregard the existence of God is to play ostrich hoping God would go away. But if you have some belief that there is a God. Then your doubt might have led you to investigate. but this investigation must be with an open mind.

Which leads me to your second reason, the real human at the center of the stories of Jesus. It seems to me your reasoning is not entirely fair to the NT narrative. you have to be objective and honest with this scepticism. Can the Tanak be more true than the NT as to who wrote what? Just because some authors did not meet Jesus does not mean what they wrote was fabricated to promote an agenda. Consider Luke's Gospel for example, Chapter 1 verses 1-4 shades light on why he wrote it, clearly stating that he Had "...carefully investigated all these things..." I would think this very helpful. but More so, it is important to consider Paul's writings and why he preaches a different circumcision from that in the Torah. He labours to clearly explain why. I refer you to What is circumcision of the heart? | GotQuestions.org for more information on that. This can best be understood along with the message of Jesus and his mission. As I mentioned the story is from the OT to the NT.
You are on the right track but you have limited yourself far to much. I would compare it to playing chess but focusing on the position of only one or two pieces as opposed to considering the whole board. There are many moving parts. If it too much to comprehend, then God himself invites you to get His help to understand, if you are willing to get it. Just by asking. He explains these things best.

 

[JameScott]

Why does either need to be the word of God? And why not also list the Book of Mormon, or the Vedas?

Religious texts are written by men, not God. These men do the very best they can to record what they think God wants. But ultimately they make mistakes. Who cares. If a book brings us closer to God and helps us become better people, isn't that all that matters?

I vote for the Lord of the Rings.

I like the Lord of the ring too. I take it you side with the Bible in that case, seeing as the undertones in the Lord of the rings are Christian based.
This narrow topic left out other books from other religions on purpose. the topic highlights two books that talk about similar things and yet contradict. Each religion affirms a clear position against the beliefs of the other. It is therefore worth considering, because two contradicting facts cannot both be true. this is the rationale for keeping the Question to these two books. I hope this helps.

 

[JameScott]

Revering and exalting is fine as long as we don't go beyond the limit of exalting into that of worship. The highest type of exalting is worship, which is meant for God. A big theme in the Quran is we don't obey the Messenger for sake of Mohammad (s) but rather we obey him (Mohammad (s)) to obey God.

This is why 42:23 says that the reward disbelievers accuse Mohammad (s) of seeking from viewpoint he is false, what does that amount to really, but love, afflection and recognition of the true station of Mohammad (s) and his family (a), and that it terms it earning goodness that God would increase in the beauty of. Really obedience is towards God while what is owed to them is simply loving their exalted nature and affection for them. We obey them to obey God. If we begin to believe in God for the sake of obeying them, and create an authority of God for the sake of following the religion of Mohammad (s), then we have priority backwards.

But The religion is based on what Mohammed said. He Said God Told him to say the Quran. Including 66:1-5, & 66:9 & 12. When you read these words, would you say they come from God? The first is a favour for the prophet towards self indulgence and not aligned with the law of Moses. the second insights a striving against non-Muslims, that includes Christians. And 12 narrates of Jesus' birth, His scriptures that the Christians follow, and obedience to God. As well as an error, as to the Father of Mary. If this was God, then as Muslims, we have to reconsider carefully what we believe about God, Do you agree?

 

[JameScott]

I cannot answer this question the way you want it.
I have to be honest with you.

I believe that Jesus represents the truth in both of them.

For example , we know that in the Quran God is the Holy One.
We know that when we read Surah 59 , verse 24.

But , when we read Surah 19 verse 19 we can see also how the messenger of the Lord announced the gift of a Holy son.

So.. I don't think in the way that - if one is true , the other has to be false.

That is why i did not vote.

Thanks for your honesty, Let's have a discussion about it.

You said, "Jesus represents the truth in both", are you certain about that?

I agree with you on those verses. In the Quran God is the creator. Jesus' Birth was announced to Mary.

However. the account in the Quran is Different from that in the Bible. The Quran is said to be God's word, with no errors and perfectly preserved. but reading closely, It seems Mohammed borrowed some information from the early Christian writings with some major adjustments or mixed up details like where Jesus was born.

Quran 19:12 Mentions John(The Baptist) given the scripture. A detailed account can be found in the bible, Luke Chapter one. There the mission of John is mentioned.
The Angel Gabriel appears before Mary and announces the birth of Jesus as the son of the Most High, who will receive the throne of David, and His Kingdom(Jesus) Will have no end. There is a clear mention that the child who will be born to Mary will be called the son of God. The Quran does not agree with these finer details. In fact, it is said in 23:91 that God has no son. And in another place God has no partner, it is Blasphemy to ascribe a partner to God.

While we agree Both Bible and Quran have God and Jesus. it is important to consider the message in both, Christianity is based on the birth, Life, death and resurrection of Jesus. Islam denies the very essence of what makes up the Christian religion.

Both assert to be the word from God, Hence my question. can both be true yet contradict ?

You are free to think as you do, However, it is not possible to hold both as true once you examine each one. I understand the need for harmony but these are not matters of peace but truth. For example, would you, for the sake of peace, say that 1+1=2 & 1+1=11 are both true?
Pacificity is not the solution.
I hope you find this helpful.

 

[blü 2]

If I get you correctly, by saying, "....I don't think that will happen" you mean reading the books in question? It appears you have some knowledge about the contents of the bible. Perhaps it is the Quran you find challenging to read. Either way, you seem adamant about abandoning your natural Scepticism which would be a kind of distrust in the narrative that God controls human affairs.

Well, adamant about not abandoning my skepticism, but essentially, yes. For instance, what god controls human affairs? The bible god only appears in history around 1500 BCE, by which time the gods of Mesopotamia and Egypt were already thousands of years old. Yet none of them had been heard of in any effective sense outside of the trade routes across to India and around the Mediterranean.

This was your first reason. I must be quick to mention it is perfectly normal to doubt narratives of supernatural interventions, to the extend that you do not entirely disregard the possibility that there is a God. For one, it is not possible, the evidence is overwhelming. to completely disregard the existence of God is to play ostrich hoping God would go away. But if you have some belief that there is a God. Then your doubt might have led you to investigate. but this investigation must be with an open mind.

But gods never appear, never say, never do. The Christian god sits on [his] hands and lets the infant drown in the backyard pool. [He]'s fought on both sides at once in the myriad wars across the history of Europe, not least the second millennium, and (as is often noted) rather fancies the big battalions. Experiments in hospitals detect no improved outcome for patients who are prayed for. The evidence is totally consistent with gods being an aspect of human psychology from tribal days eg as in the bible ─ the Tanakh's god, for example, begins as only one of many gods in the Canaanite pantheon, apparently with a consort Asherah back then ─ hence 'no other gods before me' instead of 'ain't no other gods'. for instance. Not till after the Babylonian captivity (around the time Isaiah is written) does [he] become the only god. Then, when Paul abandons the covenant of circumcision, the Christian god becomes a distinct entity, and in the 4th century the Christian god becomes triune, and then the Christians become Eastern and Roman, then Roman and Protestant, then all the thousands of protestant sects, with guest-spot appearances in Mormonism and Rastafarianism, and so on and so on and so on. Gods must provide what their congregations want or lose their congregations, and a god without a congregation is a dead god.

Which leads me to your second reason, the real human at the center of the stories of Jesus. It seems to me your reasoning is not entirely fair to the NT narrative. you have to be objective and honest with this scepticism. Can the Tanak be more true than the NT as to who wrote what?

Both are ancient sets of documents, and they say what they say. I have no wish for them to say any particular thing, but it seems wrong from the historian's pov to misrepresent the texts relied on. The question whether and if so to what extent they contain actual history is for historians to answer, not theologians.

Just because some authors did not meet Jesus does not mean what they wrote was fabricated to promote an agenda.

I think there probably was a human historical Jesus, and he probably died by crucifixion, but none of the NT authors ever met him, he gets no mention in contemporary history, and each of the gospel versions plus Paul's is different (though Paul says virtually nothing about the earthly bio of his Jesus, and Galatians 1:11-12 is instructive). All we have of substance are the gospel accounts, and the earliest, Mark, was written around 75 CE, comfortably more than 40 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion, in a time and place where living to 40 was a substantial achievement.

Consider Luke's Gospel for example, Chapter 1 verses 1-4 shades light on why he wrote it, clearly stating that he Had "...carefully investigated all these things..."

It sounds good, but in fact, like Matthew, and apparently aware of Matthew, it uses Mark as its template and adds and omits as suits its author.

More so, it is important to consider Paul's writings and why he preaches a different circumcision from that in the Torah. He labours to clearly explain why. I refer you to What is circumcision of the heart? | GotQuestions.org for more information on that. This can best be understood along with the message of Jesus and his mission. As I mentioned the story is from the OT to the NT.

Why not ask your Jewish friends what they think of the notion of "circumcision of the heart"? My instinct tells me that Paul &c abandoned the covenant of circumcision because it got in the way of sales (as no doubt it would). As I said, at that point the god of Paul, and of subsequent Christianity, ceased to be the god of the Tanakh (and that's true in spades redoubled when the Trinity notion is adopted in the 4th century).

Incidentally, outside the debate boards here at RF, I don't care what people believe. I have dear relatives and close friends who are believers, with whom theology is a topic never raised. In my view what really matters is that people treat each other with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense, whatever they do or don't believe.

 

[GoodAttention]

you will have to specify what the Quran means by injeel and what it's contents are to make that assertion. And if it wasn't worth elaborating, do you care to mention some examples of what you think was "special" enough that Quran elaborated on?

Any word. One word.

Muslims says Jesus was a prophet, but cannot for the life of them state one word that makes him a prophet??

Its Muslims who need to specify what the "Injeel" is, if they even know what it is.

All they are capable of saying is, the Bible is wrong.

It is pathetic.

 

[GoodAttention]

Aww. If you feel good insulting people on the internet, it's your prerogative mate.

You insult yourself.

Now go make yourself a kebab.

 

[firedragon]

Now go make yourself a kebab.

Good idea. Cheers.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Your poll doesn't include the choice "neither," so I couldn't answer.

As there is no god, all books are the word of man. Conceived and composed by humans.

 

[firedragon]

As there is no god

This is a positive claim. Can you provide evidence to your claim?

 

[Madsaac]

This is a positive claim. Can you provide evidence to your claim?

This is funny, you are being a little facetious, imagine another 50 pages about evidence for god. Where should we start

 

[firedragon]

This is funny, you are being a little facetious, imagine another 50 pages about evidence for god. Where should we start

When someone makes a positive claim he should provide evidence. That's epistemic responsibility.