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

[Madsaac]

That's a fallacious claim.

How come?

When someone claims to have found or seen something, or makes a claim that something is real, (God), the onus is on the describer to provide evidence that will persuade their audience such a claim is credible. If no such evidence can be produced, the claim cannot be sustained, and the default conclusion is that such a thing does not exist. That is evidence against the claim.

 

[viole]

Nice one.
I have a Question for you. If a colour-blind person sees a ripe banana as being grey in colour. Does their perception change the true colour of the banana?

What is the true color of the banana? Do you mean the frequency of the light reflected by the banana's surface?

In that case, no.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Eliana]

You are a religious Jew. Tell me something, do you believe the OT of the bible hold true to the contents of the Tanakh ? If so why do you think you need to exclude Jesus and the message in the new testament. The Gospel. I find it obvious that the promise to Abraham that the nations will be blessed through Him is clearly illustrated in the gospel. How is it the Jews see it differently?
I am genuinely interested in your personal view on this.

Jews don't call the Tanakh the Old Testament because we don't believe there is a new one. We don't accept Jesus because simply he didn't fulfill the requirements to be the messiah. If it were as obvious as you think we'd all be Christians.

 

[Link]

I would maybe argue some things , but this is one reasonable answer to some degree

You know ofc that we have different understanding of what and who is God.
And we differ in theology.
We differ on what is Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

It is normal that i will argue it in that sense , but i don't feel the need to do that , since i believe you already know it.

Your first sentence is enough , thank you for your answer and your honesty.

Much appriciated.

It is always cool to discuss the Quran with you.

Salam

Thanks for your kind words.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

he was absolutely passionate about it!

He didn’t seem emotionally damaged over the threat of the temple’s destruction.

 

[Trailblazer]

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

You only offered three choices:

Qur'an
Bible
I don't know.

You could have offered Other, because there are other books that people believe are the true word of God.

I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God since it was written by men, not written by any Prophet of God.

The Quran was written by scribes recording revelations made to the Prophet Muhammad, so I consider it to be the word of God through Muhammad.

I believe that the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the truest word of God since they were written by Prophets/Messengers of God.

 

[GoodAttention]

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

You only offered three choices:

Qur'an
Bible
I don't know.

You could have offered Other, because there are other books that people believe are the true word of God.

I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God since it was written by men, not written by any Prophet of God.

The Quran was written by scribes recording revelations made to the Prophet Muhammad, so I consider it to be the word of God through Muhammad.

I believe that the Writings of the Bab and Baha'u'llah are the truest word of God since they were written by Prophets/Messengers of God.

So why didn’t you say yes to Quran?

 

[Dimi95]

You have no evidence of resurrection of any kind apart from hearsay reported by anonymous sources (maybe just one who was the source of that claim for all others) of unknown character, intelligence, or agenda. I can't imagine weaker evidence for an extraordinary claim.

I don't know how i missed you

Hi from me to you on this topic.

This statement of yours has several issues.

The most important one is that you need to understand Koine Greek to talk about the evidence.
It is must , it is not optional.
Everybody knows that.

Because anyone who questions the New Testament reliability needs to confront the evidence and the facts.

I have once offered you to explain it , but you assumed it was some kind of apologetics.

And i mentioned that it will not be short , and certainly it requires many pages and explenations.

You said that you are in your comfort zone and satisfied at the moment.

So I am sorry that i am answering like this to you , but that which is asserted without evidence , will be dismissed without evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

So why didn’t you say yes to Quran?

I only saw this thread today. That poll was closed so I could no longer vote.

 

[GoodAttention]

I only saw this thread today. That poll was closed so I could no longer vote.

But you would have?

 

[Trailblazer]

But you would have?

Yes, I would have voted for the Qur'an because I believe it is more authentic than the Bible.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

www.bahai-library.com

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The most important one is that you need to understand Koine Greek to talk about the evidence.

That was a response to, "You have no evidence of resurrection of any kind apart from hearsay reported by anonymous sources"

Disagree. The original language is irrelevant. Any translation will suffice.

that which is asserted without evidence , will be dismissed without evidence.

Agreed.

 

[GoodAttention]

Yes, I would have voted for the Qur'an because I believe it is more authentic than the Bible.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

www.bahai-library.com

Fair enough.

So it is like a Morman equivalent of Islam? With an additional book and prophet?

 

[firedragon]

How come?

When someone claims to have found or seen something, or makes a claim that something is real, (God), the onus is on the describer to provide evidence that will persuade their audience such a claim is credible. If no such evidence can be produced, the claim cannot be sustained, and the default conclusion is that such a thing does not exist. That is evidence against the claim.

That's an argument from silence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence unless you have developed a lab test to test the subject.

 

[Dimi95]

Disagree. The original language is irrelevant. Any translation will suffice.

That's your own opinion.

That's not how it is done in History.

Many words cannot be propertly translated into English.

Many words changed through time.
That's why there are so many different translations.

That's why there are footnotes in the Bible.

That you are interested in translations that came into existence much , much later and not with the original writings tells that you have no interest in finding out the reliability of the NT.

To find the proper interpretation , you need to be able to understand the original writings.

This is not under your terms.

You are a thinker , not a Historian.

 

[Trailblazer]

Fair enough.

So it is like a Morman equivalent of Islam? With an additional book and prophet?

No, the Bahai Faith is not the Mormon equivalent of Islam. It is not Islam at all.
It is a new religion that was revealed by a new prophet/messenger of God.
The following short video provides a brief overview of the Baha'i Faith.

 

[Dimi95]

That was a response to, "You have no evidence of resurrection of any kind apart from hearsay reported by anonymous sources"

Disagree. The original language is irrelevant. Any translation will suffice.

Agreed.

One more thing.

There is no difference in your disagreement and that of cladking about Evolution.

He rejects Darwin by misunderstanding what he said from later interpretations.

Neither of the many translations is evidence of face value when you discuss the reliability of the NT.

 

[GoodAttention]

No, the Bahai Faith is not the Mormon equivalent of Islam. It is not Islam at all.
It is a new religion that was revealed by a new prophet/messenger of God.
The following short video provides a brief overview of the Baha'i Faith.

You say this is a new religion?

I would call Scientology a new religion.

Yours derives as a non-Islamic Quranist yes?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Many words cannot be propertly translated into English.

No words are evidence of resurrection. There are no words anybody can write in any language that can confirm that a resurrection occurred.

That you are interested in translations that came into existence much , much later and not with the original writings tells that you have no interest in finding out the reliability of the NT.

I don't agree with that, but let's stipulate to it: If I can't read and understand koine Greek, I cannot know the reliability of the Bible. That makes the Bible unreliable to anybody who can't read that.

But it also unreliable as evidence for resurrection even to those who can read and understand it.

Why? Because no words in scripture (or in another other text) written in any language make it reliable. Reliable means trustworthy, and trustworthiness is established through experience, not by reading or by being told that something or someone is reliable or trustworthy.

This is not under your terms.

I disagree. I set my standards for belief. Nobody else does.

You've seen some of what those standards are regarding resurrection. Words, no matter the language, don't make resurrection more likely, and reliability is determined experientially, not because somebody declares something reliable.

There is no difference in your disagreement and that of cladking about Evolution.

Disagree again.

The basis of his disagreement is a misunderstanding of the science.

The basis of my disagreement regarding claims of resurrection is based in a proper understanding of biology (resurrection is impossible unless magic can occur) and an unwillingness to believe whoever wrote that they heard that several somebodies claimed to see a resurrection based on those words alone.

Most likely, nobody claimed to see a resurrected Jesus when that would have been possible had it occurred. Most likely, that claim along with the virgin birth and the miracles attributed to Jesus (raising Lazarus, walking on water, and converting food and drink into other food and drink) were invented much later and added to help promote the religion by depicting Jesus as more than human.

People who believe such things do so because they want to or because they have uncritically believed some trusted source like a parent, pastor, or the Bible - not because of compelling physical evidence. I'm not among them.

 

[BrokenBread]

He didn’t seem emotionally damaged over the threat of the temple’s destruction.

At that point He pronounced the Temple to be "desolate" .
So why would He ?

Mat 23:38
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.