• 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!

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

Which book is the word of God?


  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Link

Veteran Member
Premium Member
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?
I don't really get the point you are making. Perhaps rephrase.
 

JameScott

Member
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.
Interestingly, Most people who assert there is no god or that the bible is just a composition of men, have spent little or no time informing themselves of what is written therein. Hence, they say what is apparent or what others say. You have given not substantiated you assertion that either book is word of man. If you actually read the bible, you might change your mind. But you are free to do as you please. Except, the person who searches for gold, is the one that finds it. you want Gold, you gotta go search it out. At least you know where it is.
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
Interestingly, Most people who assert there is no god or that the bible is just a composition of men, have spent little or no time informing themselves of what is written therein. Hence, they say what is apparent or what others say. You have given not substantiated you assertion that either book is word of man. If you actually read the bible, you might change your mind. But you are free to do as you please. Except, the person who searches for gold, is the one that finds it. you want Gold, you gotta go search it out. At least you know where it is.
As it happens, I have a KJV and a NIV, and I am a very well-read person. I have read every word of the Bible, in both English versions (sorry, I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic, and Greek only at an elementary level).

There is much that is horrific, much that is simply error, and some nice poetry with a little elementary wisdom. There is absolutely nothing that could not have been written by unaided human authors.
 

JameScott

Member
I don't really get the point you are making. Perhaps rephrase.
Spoken like a true believer. I like that. :clapping:
Anyway, Jokes aside, That's a response to your comment, it is in plain English. It's simple to understand. I don't see what is difficult to understand. Perhaps Chatgpt can help simplify it further for you, if you are genuinely lost as to what I am talking about.
 

JameScott

Member
As it happens, I have a KJV and a NIV, and I am a very well-read person. I have read every word of the Bible, in both English versions (sorry, I don't read Hebrew or Aramaic, and Greek only at an elementary level).

There is much that is horrific, much that is simply error, and some nice poetry with a little elementary wisdom. There is absolutely nothing that could not have been written by unaided human authors.
It's impressive that you have read every word of the Bible. I haven't. I could possibly learn a thing or two from you. Please share your thoughts on the communication of Peter in Acts Chapter 2, verses (For context) starting from 5 to 40. What is he talking about?
 

JameScott

Member
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.

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.
Besides what people believe and do not believe, does what is true change?
If we have varying perspectives of the same thing, what is the truth?
 

Evangelicalhumanist

"Truth" isn't a thing...
Premium Member
It's impressive that you have read every word of the Bible. I haven't. I could possibly learn a thing or two from you. Please share your thoughts on the communication of Peter in Acts Chapter 2, verses (For context) starting from 5 to 40. What is he talking about?
Acts 2:1-40 is foundational for understanding the birth, mission, and theology of the early Church, emphasizing the Spirit’s role in empowering believers to fulfill the Great Commission. I could say a great deal more about it, but you must understand that I'm not a Christian -- nor even a believer in gods of any sort -- and therefore I read all such texts as religious seekers looking for meaning of things that they don't understand.

As to Peter's meaning in his sermon, that's somewhat complex -- but it is still all Paul's theology, and certainly not that of Jesus, who Paul never quotes. (And by the way, since Acts was almost certainly written by Luke, Peter's sermon is certainly at second-hand.)

Peter’s Sermon (Acts 2:14-36)

Introduction (vv. 14-21): Peter claims to be inspired by the Holy Spirit, and addresses the crowd, first by denying the accusation of drunkenness. He cites Joel 2:28-32 to explain that the events signify the fulfillment of prophecy about the outpouring of God’s Spirit in the last days.

Christ-Centered Message (vv. 22-36): Peter hightlights Jesus’ miraculous works as evidence of His divine mission (v. 22). Then he declares that Jesus’ death was both part of God’s foreordained plan and the result of human sin (v. 23). This is a theological novelty, and it is therefore likely that Luke is accurately reflecting what he (or someone) heard Peter say. This suggests that the meeting described in this chapter actually happened. No reason not to accept that. Peter emphasizes the resurrection as the ultimate proof of Jesus’ Messiahship, quoting Psalm 16 to demonstrate that David prophesied the resurrection (v. 24-32). Again, this is complete theological novelty. Finally, he asserts that Jesus has been exalted to God’s right hand and has poured out the Holy Spirit, confirming His status as both Lord and Messiah. This is complete invention (in my view, although believers will certainly think that it is God-inspired.)

Peter continues to exhort the crowd, calling them to save themselves from the “corrupt generation.” His preaching leads to the conversion of about 3,000 people, marking the dramatic growth of the early Church (v. 40).

The themes involved are: fulfillment of prophecy, empowerment by the spirit, universal scope of the gospel, the call to repentance and faith, salvation as a free gift (requiring repentance, faith, and public commitment through baptism), and the role of the church:

That last theme is an important focus of these verses, attempting to establish the church as the spirit-empowered community tasked with spreading the gospel.
 
Last edited:

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Besides what people believe and do not believe, does what is true change?
If we have varying perspectives of the same thing, what is the truth?
I doubt I can give you The Truth, but I can share my opinion.

Humans have evolved as gregarious hence cooperative beings. All over the world we appear to have formed tribes wherever we've gone, and those tribes are marked by the members having in common a territory, a language, a fund of stories (of creation and origins, beings with extraordinary powers) and so on. We've evolved a morality to go with that too ─ as experiments have shown, even pre-verbal infants make moral judgments about what they see. (If you're interested, I gave a brief description of one such experiment here >Atheists acknowledging historical Jesus' goodness<.)

Gods have served as explanations for creation, the land, the sun and moon and sky, for the existence of animals, mountains, rivers, seas, and so on. They can account for thunder and lightning, meteorites, eclipses, and so on. They can also account for good and bad luck at hunting, love, war, trade and so on. (When in my student days I drove a cab, after a time I found myself thinking, when I had some lucky break, 'Thanks TG', where I also found TG stood for 'Taxi God'. This ties in neatly with a line that may or may not have been said by DG Rossetti, 'The worst time for an atheist is when he is thankful and has no one to thank.)

So I think / hypothesize, on the basis of my reading and experiences, that Gods are expressions of the way the human brain works. We constantly but subconsciously devise (in effect require) a scenario that explains the situation we're in and anticipates the next moment, giving us fraction-of-a-second advantages when required, whether for physical danger, or socially putting our foot in it, or reffing a soccer match. These explanations, I think, not only would be comfortable with gods in some situations, but require them, since nothing the subject already knows will explain them.

This, however validly or tentatively, explains why our anthropologists report that we've never found a culture that didn't have some or other kind of supernatural beliefs. (That tribe in South America you may have read about because it doesn't have gods, nonetheless has a lore that includes beings they can 'see' but you the visitor can't.)
 

danieldemol

Veteran Member
Premium Member
When someone makes a positive claim he should provide evidence. That's epistemic responsibility.
Your suggestion would leave us without the ability to claim there are no;
Fairies, dragons, winged horses and many more.

In short it would deny us the right to claim the null hypothesis as most likely being the case in my view and that I would suggest is irresponsible as it would lead us down the path of superstition in my view.

There is nothing irresponsible about making a tentative claim to the null hypothesis and if you doubt @Evangelicalhumanist
claim is tentative and subject to change upon the presentation of evidence perhaps you should ask him in my view.
 

IndigoChild5559

Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
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.
Since I'm a religious Jew, it means my sacred texts are the Tanakh (Torah, Prophets, Writings), the Talmud, and the writings of the sages. Difference Jews have different opinions on this. My opinion is that all these texts are written by men. They contradict each other. They sometimes contradict science. They sometimes even make moral errors. But they bring me closer to God, and give me the tools I need to become a better person. Like I asked before, isn't that what really matters?

I don't think I need to be Catholic to appreciate the moral teachings in the LOTR, just as I can find wisdom in the Tao Te Ching, or the sacred myths of the Lakota.
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.
I have no argument with you here. In the really real reality (LOL) something can't be x and not x at the same time. I'm not trying to diminish the differences between any two religions.

My point is only to say that a text doesn't have to be divinely written in order for it to be spiritually valuable.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I like the Lord of the ring too.
You remind me of the Christian framework of the Harry Potter books. With only a slight squint required, Harry is born in sin, the murder of his parents and the element of Voldemort that gives him his scar. He grows up to be a leader and a student of magic (miracles, arcana). And at the close he has to die to rid himself of his sin element ─ and afterwards return in triumph to his friends, the world-threatening evil villain having been destroyed.

(I confess that my grandfatherly duties have taught me more about Harry than perhaps is normal.)
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
Muslims: Islam is the true faith, Quran is the word of God. Christianity is false. Bible is corrupted.

Christians: Christianity is the true faith, the Bible is the word of God, Islam is false, the Quran is not true.

Fact: Both the Bible and the Quran contradict on major points, therefore both cannot be true.
Question: Which one is the true word of God?
Depends on where you grew up.

ciao

- viole
 

Димитар

Прaвославие!
Nonsense mate. Don't make claims when you don't have a clue what you are talking about and don't pretend to know a language when you don't. It's childish.

That's the end of this conversation. Have a good day.
You asked a question about specific term, i answered.

I will report you for false accusations if you try to make yourself smart again.

Just proved my point when you reported me the last time.

The word that is before son is an adjective, and it is the only time used as such in the Quran.
That is why it is translated the best as holy.
Don't pretend that you don't know how Arabic is like.

You are still running like the last conversation.

When you pray for rain , you have to deal with the mud also.

The word is holy, because you don't like it is not my problem.

I can demonstrate why is that so.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You asked a question about specific term, i answered.
You know what your cut and paste is? It's "Ya Allahi". That means "Oh God".

NOT "Holy Son" which was your own hard claim. Anyway, since I don't wish to go on and on with this kind of bad scholarship and pretense, I am gonna lay it out.

You said "Ya Allahi" which is not only wrong, it's mindbogglingly absurd.

Holy son is "Ghulam Mukaddas".

The verse you are butchering says "Gulam Zakiyyan". Which means "Pure Son".

Your whole thesis is wrong. And your cut and paste is beyond this world.

Cheers.
 

Димитар

Прaвославие!
You know what your cut and paste is? It's "Ya Allahi". That means "Oh God".

NOT "Holy Son" which was your own hard claim. Anyway, since I don't wish to go on and on with this kind of bad scholarship and pretense, I am gonna lay it out.

You said "Ya Allahi" which is not only wrong, it's mindbogglingly absurd.

Holy son is "Ghulam Mukaddas".

The verse you are butchering says "Gulam Zakiyyan". Which means "Pure Son".

Your whole thesis is wrong. And your cut and paste is beyond this world.

Cheers.
I said 'Oh God' and i meant that.

You should ask yourself why is that.

Our last conversation you tried to make it sound like i was using some tricks.

Again , this time without trying to solve things you pretend to be a jury , judge and prosecutor at the same time.

I knew the word , i am probably one of the few who reads The quran alongside The Bible.

You can check ny other answers to check how much they stand with my knowledge in Arabic.

I don't pretend to know everything , last time i did one mistake and apologized.

You are disrespectfull and you don't want to engage in discussion.

There are certain reasons why the term can be considered as holy son and yusuf ali has given explenation about that.

I can ofc write about it , and you can answer and give your opinio, but no - you end conversations just like that
 

Димитар

Прaвославие!
Your whole thesis is wrong. And your cut and paste is beyond this world.

Cheers.
Akhi , there is one problem however.

You have not even heard my thesis yet , and just because i said 'Oh God' you rejected sharing thoughts with me.

I have reported you.

You will never get me , never.

I am different then the avarage Western Christian.

I am Orthodox , i have roots in the East.
There is high vhance that i understand language because of that.

You reject discussing just because you don't even try to develop the discussion.

Maybe some time we will talk about some terms like 'knowledge' and what is the relation between God , man and knowledge.

There is much that Sunni Islam talks about it.

But your arogance annoys me and i have reported you.

Don't try to be smart with me.
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
You have not even heard my thesis yet , and just because i said 'Oh God' you rejected sharing thoughts with me.
You claimed Ya Allahi means Holy Son mate. You cannot just make a wall of irrelevant text and escape your false claim. In fact, in my life I have never seen anything worse than this. Never in my life. And I have been in this forum for a long time. I have seen many things. But never this bad.
 
Top