+- Forums (https://bb.islamsms.com)
+-- Forum: ENGLISH (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Forum: Discussion of Beliefs (https://bb.islamsms.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: 101 Contradictions in the Bible: (/showthread.php?tid=6790)
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Teh_Curious - 01-03-2007
Quote:Peace to all my brothers & sisters form the lineage of Adam :peace:
I'm eager to have my say on this thread, but for the life of me I can't figure out what the discussion's about - LOL!
Shall I start by proving that there are no contradictions in the Holy Bible or have we moved way past Shaunee's first post?
Is it even appropriate to be discussing non-Islamic topics on an Islamic forum?
I almost fell off my chair when I read your posts. We have Muslims claiming to be biblical scholars & non-Muslims claiming to be historians when it comes to the Koran. The irony!
I'm off to pray now. Hopefully, I'll be back later to share some words of wisdom.
You kids behave yourselves, please ;)
<i>Faith Hope Charity Openness Tolerance Equality</i>
hmmm long answer - pointing out of inconsistancies in one yet ignoring them in another
short answer - is the koran perfect?
oh yea just call me Tacitus :P
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Faith Hope Charity - 01-04-2007
May the peace of Christ be with you all.
Quote:hmmm long answer - pointing out of inconsistancies in one yet ignoring them in another
Standard answer - there are no inconsistencies in the authentic Bible that the Catholic Church has preserved in its entirety. The (true Gospel) manuscripts found in the Dead Sea Scrolls can vouch.
Quote:short answer - is the koran perfect?
Will the Muslims please contribute to our education? What's the difference between Ib'n Massuds codex & Uthmans recension? No joke, I heard that there are 150 variations in Sura 2 alone!!! I'm more inclined to believe you guys rather than the non-Muslim who stated this fact/claim. Please shed some light :)
Quote:oh yea just call me Tacitus :P
Hahaha! Aussies have the best sense of humour :lol:
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Ruggedtouch - 01-05-2007
Quote:Will the Muslims please contribute to our education? What's the difference between Ib'n Massuds codex & Uthmans recension? No joke, I heard that there are 150 variations in Sura 2 alone!!! I'm more inclined to believe you guys rather than the non-Muslim who stated this fact/claim. Please shed some light :)
That’s actually a good point. In fact (and this is one of the most amusing examples of the Muslim ability to ignore Islam’s internal contradictions) the history of the compilation of the Qur’an after Muhammad’s death as recorded by the ahadith and Muslim historians is inexplicable were such perfect “memories” real.
Rather than “numerous” sahabahs with perfect recollections of the Qur’an, there is compelling evidence that these earliest sahabahs had different and differentially complete memories. How else is one to make sense of the ahadith (repeated in one form or another at least seven times) concerning the last verse being found in the memory of only a single man; Abi Khuzaima Al-Ansari? Doesn’t that require the understanding that every other sahabah had an incomplete memory?
How does one further account for the conflicts among those sahabahs that required the Uthmanic rescension?
In fact, how does one account for Uthman’s rescension at all?
Given the fact we have a historical record of the event during which the Qur’an was standardized and competing versions burned, the maintenance of a standard since that time hardly qualifies as “miraculous.” The completely human engine for that standard is evident and obvious. We have in our possession, at best, the musshaf of Uthman. We really do not know what the musshaf of Muhammad contained, and how different the two might be.
Further, the Qur’an is not the oldest religious (or secular, for that matter) document that has been preserved unchanged for centuries. Do they all qualify for miraculous status? If not, why not? Are the older ones MORE miraculous than the Qur’an?
Muslims must not mistake their own allegiance to Muslim orthodoxy as a good reason for anyone else to credulously accept Islamic dogma as true. Historians and scholars have a higher intellectual standard than that.
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - NewBeginning - 01-05-2007
All the information needed is here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
There are exactly <b>71</b> links to cover the whole topic of the Quran's authenticity.... and covering <b>your question specifically</b> in several pages.
There is even a nice section at the bottom of the page about the Bible.
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Faith Hope Charity - 01-05-2007
Peace be with you, Shaunee!
Quote:All the information needed is here:
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/
There are exactly <b>71</b> links to cover the whole topic of the Quran's authenticity.... and covering <b>your question specifically</b> in several pages.
There is even a nice section at the bottom of the page about the Bible.
Thanks for the link. In all honesty, I was expecting that site to blow me away but it failed miserably! All I got was about 70 pages of objections to the Quran & about 1 page of criticism towards the Christian authors who posed the objections.
I hardly learnt anything! Some answers were good but not convincing enough.
The rebuttles were flimsy! It's obvious the intention was to discredit the authors rather than prove the Quran's authenticity. I've pasted the main highlights below.
Maybe it's just me! In any case, I'd appreciate it if you'd suggest another website or alternatively answer the original question yourself (just briefly). Thanks Matey!
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/hajjaj.html
The bottomline here is that `Abbad Ibn Suhayb has been abandoned and his reports are rejected. The terms used to describe `Abbad Ibn Suhayb are the most severe possible [matruk al-hadith]. It is not correct to describe his narrations as 'weak', which is an understatement. Rather, his narrations are fabricated, pure and simple. He has reached the lowest levels of Jarh in the sciences dealing with al-Jarh wa 'l-Ta`dil ("The disparaging and declaring trustworthy") of the narrators.
Even if we assume that this incident is authentic, the question that arises is: so what? Al-Hajjaj supposedly made changes in 11 places, and even these places are documented to the last detail. Orientalists and missionaries, as usual, take some trivial piece of information (forgetting the fact that it is fabricated!) and make, not just a mountain, but an entire planet, out of an anthole.
From a historical point of view, al-Kindi's claim is based upon conjecture rather than "Muslim authorities" and smacks of delirium. For al-Hajjaj was merely one of the generals in the Ummayad regime, with little influence and almost no ability to do the Qur'an any harm. In fact, he was utterly incapable of effecting any change in the most elementary laws of Islam, not to speak of the Qur'an, which is the foundation of Islamic faith, and pillar of Islamic laws.
To conclude the issue of al-Hajjaj and the changes he made in the Qur'an, it has been shown that the report in Kitab al-Masahif of Ibn Abi Dawud is false. This is because the reporter `Abbad Ibn Suhayb is the isnad has been declared abandoned in hadith and all his hadith are rejected. Analysis of matn of the hadith shows that the alleged changes that were made related to the Qira'at that are mutawatir. Muslims have accepted various Qira'at as authentic provided they satisfy certain conditions. Furthermore, the hadith in Kitab al-Masahif is only known to us through one chain. There exists no parallel chains to authenticate the matn or text of the report.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/Qiraat/hafs.html
Therefore, it comes as no surprise that Christian missionaries like Jochen Katz find themselves "refleshing" a dead skeleton in order to comply with their missionary program of outright deception. Of course, regular participants in the newsgroups have time and again witnessed Jochen's tiring displays of dialectical acrobatics - the misquoting of references and the juggling of facts. Surprisingly enough, missionary Katz cannot even support his point of view using the reference, which undermines his missionary agenda of twisting the facts. The reference has firmly established that:
* There is only one Qur'an,
* The differences in recitation are divinely revealed, not invented by humans
* The indisputable conclusion that the Qur'an was not tampered with.
It will be good to study the variant readings (they are truly variant!) in the New Testamant, their origins and impact in the next section. It will be clear who exactly should be worried about the variant readings and why should the Bible be considered as the last candidate to be the 'inerrant' word of God.
It is to be made clear that the Arabic script before and during the time of cUthmân was written without vowel and diacritical marks. To say that the vowels and diacritical marks were not included in the cUthmânic Qur'an actually shows the ignorance of the Christian missionary Samuel Green concerning the evolution of Arabic script. The need for vowel and diacritical marks arose only after the time of cUthmân to prevent the wrong recitation of the Qur'an by ignorant Arabs and non-Arabs.
Understandably there was some opposition at first to adding anything to the way the Qur'an was written. Ibn cUmar (73/692) disliked the dotting; others welcomed it, clearly because it was, in fact, doing no more than ensuring proper reading of the Qur'an as received from the Prophet(P), and this view was accepted by the majority of Muslims throughout the different parts of the Muslims world, from the time of the tâbicûn. The people of Madinah were reported to have used red dots for vowels - tanwîn, tashdîd, takhfîf, sukûn, wasl and madd and yellow dots for the hamzas in particular. Naqt (placing dots on words in the mushaf), became a separate subject of study with many books written on it.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Tex...al/scribal.html
In principle, the cUthmânic script bears more significance than what we may imagine. In fact, not only is it the script in which the first copies of the Holy Qur'ân were written but it bears many references to the Science of Qirâ'ât (Science of Readings) as well. Shifting to the modern script would make the Qirâ'ât aspect a specialist's affair and would deprive "normal" Muslims from even noticing it. The next step would be that the Muslims who are not familiar with Qirâ'ât will become easy prey for anti-Islamic propaganda, the kind of groundless criticism we are rebutting right now. For a short introduction about Qirâ'ât, the readers may insha'allah, refer here.
The script of any language (not only Arabic) is subject to many changes and amendments agreed upon by the users of that language throughout history. Writing being a communication tool, the script must be devoid of ambiguity so that the information carried gets from the sender to the recepient without ambiguity. Once in a while, linguists decide to change certain scribal rules in order to simplify the script.
In short, the claim of so-called scribal errors in the Qur'ân is not only ridiculous but also a fanciful imagination of an extremely ignorant person.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Tex.../GilHajjaj.html
It is very obvious that there was no new recension after cUthmân united Muslims on the basis of single text. Muslims have agreed on this. al-Hajjâj's role is rather well documented in the literature concerning cUlum al-Qur'ân (Sciences of the Qur'ân). It has been shown above that the readings which he changed are mutawatir. There is only the difference in the Qirâ'ât. Muslims have accepted various Qirâ'ât as authentic provided they satisfy some conditions.
As pointed out earlier, how could al-Hajjâj, who was governor of Iraq, a small part of Muslim land, able to change the Qur'ânic text completely. The only changes he made was in cUthmân's mushâf not in any other text as far as the report mentioned above suggests. The complete change of Qur'ân is not documented in the Islamic history at all. And above all how could he change what was commited in the memory of Muslims in the Islamic empire.
John Gilchrist, a Christian Missionary, who quotes both the references Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period and The Qur'ân As Scripture as "Contemporary Books on the Qur'ân" does not even tell the whole story. In his book Jamc al-Qur'ân: The Codification Of The Qur'ân Text, Jeffery's skepticism "he seems" or "al-Hajjâj seems" is quoted as reality.
And obviously, there is no mention of the Christian polemic concerning al-Hajjâj. It is a frequent method employed by Christian Missionaries to supress the information which goes against their viewpoint.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Tex...GilJeffery.html
Jeffery does not know that he is contradicting his own stance. On one hand, he is willing to believe whatever Ibn Mascud has to say concerning the variant readings. On the other hand he is rejecting Ibn Mascud's own testimony that the Qur'ân was revealed in seven ahruf! It is also interesting to see the traditional sources which Jeffery uses to gather the variant readings and they themselves say that the Qur'ân was revealed in seven ahruf (for the full bibliography of the sources which Jeffery uses, please see the next section).
In other words, the use of evidence by him is extremely selective, i.e., negate the evidence which does not suit the hypothesis.
It is to be noted that Jeffery's list of variant readings are surprisingly devoid of proper isnâd or chain of transmission. So, it is very difficult task to determine from where the variant readings were taken.
Orientalism and juggling of words are synonymous. Jeffery is no exception to this. The evidence that we have concerning the first collection of the Qur'ân by Abû Bakr is authentic and strongly supported by the Islamic history. In spite of this evidence, the image of the Christian ecclesiastical history, with which the Christian missionaries are much more familiar, seems to have obsessed Jeffery to such a degree that he has, in his book, transposed it almost entirely to the Islamic terrain. In fact, he has tried to show that in the Qur'ânic text there is a certain evolution resembling in many ways the evolution in the text of the Gospels.
A simple reminder here would be that Abû Bakr was a Caliph at the time he ordered the first collection after the loss of reciters on the day of Yamamah. As was the case with his predecessor Richard Bell, Jeffery failed to camouflage his prejudiced against Qur'ân when dealing with its compilation. Like Bell, he declares that the recension of Abû Bakr was his own purely private affair.
It is interesting to note that he accepts all the variants indicated in Kitâb al-Masâhif as valid but ignores (without explaining why!) these same sources assertion about Abû Bakr's official collection of the Qur'ân!
It is not clear from anything that Jeffery has said in his specialist work on the Qur'ân why anyone should feel this degree of confidence. According to Jeffery, Islamic scholars have considered that isnâd of reports in Kitâb al-Masâhif weak, yet he wants to push it because it is 'extremely unorthodox'. Neither he has bothered to check the isnâd of the hadîths nor has he commented on any of the hadîth probably assuming that the hadîths were forgeries.
It is interesting to note that Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the rival Codices attributed to Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'b when compared to cUthmânic 'text'. This basically means that the assumption of rival Codices itself was wrong to start with. Further he went on to 'explain' the variants found in the uncanonical Codices as being 'improvements' on the cUthmânic text. Jeffery further 'suggests' that these Companions may have suggested such variants out of piety.
Summary
Summarizing the views on the book Materials For The History Of The Text Of The Qur'ân we can say that lack of verification of isnâd can result in the following problems which Arthur Jeffery has already mention:
Some of the isnâd of the hadîths in Kitâb al-Masâhif of Ibn Abi Dâwûd are considered to be weak. Jeffery himself admits that. It is therefore not advisable to take any material for quotation unless the isnâd is verified. The authenticity of the readings in the Old Codices are, therefore, questionable.
It is unclear what Jeffery means by variants. Does he mean the seven Qirâ'ât in which the Qur'ân can be read or ahruf in which the Qur'ân was revealed or variants which are not approved by the Prophet(P) or his Companions?
The problem of falsification of readings of the Qur'ân can not be addressed unless the hadîths are meticuluously verified.
The question of defective transmission of the readings in Old Codices is very crucial. This has lead to linguistically impossible variants. This again takes us back to the problem of isnâd.
While creating doubts and making insinuations about the cUthmânic recension and despite his acceptance that the transmission of variants is through weak chains of transmission, Jeffery is nevertheless hesistant to admit the reality of the Muslim world consensus ('Ijma) on it.
Jeffery has utterly failed to produce any statement from Ibn Mascud (or Ubayy Ibn Ka'b) implying that what was in the cUthmânic recension was not from the Prophet(P). After Ibn Mascud, Ubayy Ibn Ka'b is the second companion to whom a bulk of variant readings have been ascribed.
From the manuscript evidence shown by his collegue Bergstrasser, Jeffery concedes the lack of textual differences in the 'texts' attributed to Ibn Mascud and Ubayy Ibn Ka'ab when compared to cUthmânic 'text'.
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Quran/Text/forgery.html
Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are considered forgeries by both Shi'ite and Western scholars. This is further confirmed by their absence in Jeffery's studies on "variants" attributed to `Ali as well as Zaid bin `Ali. The stylistic features of Surah al-Walayah and Surah al-Nurayn are a poor imitation of the Qur'an and riddled with grammatical errors. Contrary to the expectation that they are a Shi'ite forgery, modern research has shown that the composer of the two forged surahs is a Parsi.
And Allah knows best!
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - NewBeginning - 01-05-2007
This is the problem with christian missionaries that come to Islamic forums. In less than two hours it is physically impossible for you to have went through 71 links, and in each link there are about 30 more. No one will learn anything through selective reading. I'd rather interact with someone more honest. My time is too precious to waste on people who are not willing to cooperate.
I have put several members on the ignore list. If I don't answer you, well then a good guess is that you are one of those people. I need to move on. I was here before you got here, and I'll be here after you leave.
See ya!
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Faith Hope Charity - 01-05-2007
Oh gimme a break, Shaunee!
That site was hopeless & you know it! It does the Quran no favours whatsoever. Lucky I stopped reading when I did otherwise I would've given up on the Quran altogether. It was extremely discouraging.
I'm not saying there isn't an answer to my question. I'm simply telling you that Islam Awareness failed to deliver.
In defence of that webpage it quite clearly states that its whole purpose is to refute the authors' arguments:
<i>"The primary source of the missionaries' argument is at Answering Islam.We have also retained their pattern so as to facilitate the identification of rebuttals."</i>
That's not what I'm after, dude!
To tell you the truth, the only useful link was the one containing the missionaries argument. Not because of its content but rather its simplicity, clarity & integrity.
I don't wish to take up your time, Shaunee. Perhaps another Muslim could jump in & offer assistance ???
The main reason I asked about those two particular versions (Uthman & Ibn Masud) is because I was told they are the rival texts between Shiites & Sunnis.
An incomplex & straightforward answer will do.
Shukran & Salam!
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - unit - 01-06-2007
friendly greetings all,
i cut and pasted that 101 list, will pass along to some jehovah's witness friends for them to peruse.. will let u know what happens :)
hmm.. if these texts are supposed to be divinely inspired (ok, so we've agreed that humans wrote them but they are supposedly inspired from on high) why do they have so many inconsistancies? -- do Gods make mistakes?
are they even important? one of the contradictions is something like
a) one says 1280
B) another says 128
(is it just me or do you see a potential failure to carry a zero? is something like that a contradiction or simple error?) where definate contradictory answers are supplied ie: yes vs no or before vs after i can appreciate your inference.. (as for 1280 vs 128 this could be a simple error?) however when error upon error is encountered, we should ask questions..
in regards to quran and muslim people.. i met a muslim guy at an I.T. course.. one of the nicest people i ever met and even gave me literature to study, brought from his own money... who does things like this these days? a very nice person.. I don't believe this cr*p about all muslims being terrorists (btw - just look at who pushes this, aren't THEY the terrorists?)
i would consider that the bible and quran come from similar areas and similar times (quran came after supposedly, but there is an esoteric tradition behind each faction which sheds more light on the situation) -- it is possible the quran was made to combat the bible (as somebody seems to mention earlier)
the bible seems to be a hodgepodge of various world mythologies, religions.. i always liken it to a corporate takeover.. you keep what works and trash what doesn't and you can see all of it in the bible (just do some searching)
if i was a muslim trashing the bible.. i would pay attention to how both books use the same characters and start asking a lot of questions.. belief shaped reality.. but sometimes trying to get people to consider this is a bit :banghead:
i DO hope there is indeed a great day of judgement.. we need it..
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - Ruggedtouch - 01-06-2007
Quote:if i was a muslim trashing the bible.. i would pay attention to how both books use the same characters and start asking a lot of questions.. belief shaped reality.. but sometimes trying to get people to consider this is a bit :banghead:
i DO hope there is indeed a great day of judgement.. we need it..
Why do we need a day of judgement? From where I sit, it's an evolutionary pattern of self-interest that makes people act in ways that are not wholly altruistic. There are clear examples of this in nature, and we can test for it. We can build a case that supports the materialistic view that human beings are a mixture of instinct, self-awareness / self-interest, and sentience which leads to behaviors that can be defined as both "good" and "evil", but only as to how they relate to what interests human beings. If an alien race were to discover us, and they had no vested interest in our survival or demise as a species, they would not assess our actions as either good or evil just like we don't shake our heads at ant colonies and think, "How evil that those red ants have enslaved those black ants". We dismiss ants as irrelevant to any meaningful importance to human interests, and thus we don't codify their behavior in any ethical or moral manner.
Meanwhile, the theist insists on a morality and "good and evil" duality that comes from a specific being-- God -- who at the same time is ONLY goodness, and who is ONLY fair; and to rationalize the obvious self-conflicting nature of this belief they exempt God from the very moral criteria they insist we all must live by. Which makes God's moral criteria completely meaningless to us. If by mercy you mean God can do whatever he wants and torture us for eternity, one fails to see how or why one should implement a word like "mercy" or "all good" in the first place. since God is outside of these standards, good and evil are interchangeable according to his standards.
Which means you can "choose right" but still go to hell because God being untrustworthy is no different from him being trustworthy, and God being evil is the same as him being good, and God giving you a choice is no different from him denying you a choice, etc.
In other words, all Abrahamic theism has done, is succeeded in painting a nonsensical being that they subsequently fall down to worship.
101 Contradictions in the Bible: - unit - 01-06-2007
hello rugged.. (might i ask if you're ribbed or plain?) heh.. thnx for contributing to the discussion.. i have read your post several times, it seems quite multi-layered and i enjoy this kind of talk..
Quote:Why do we need a day of judgement? From where I sit, it's an evolutionary pattern of self-interest that makes people act in ways that are not wholly altruistic.
well that's probably the crux of the matter right there.. you do not believe there is a higher power? (i hesitate to say God) -- i say it is needed because the humans are getting out of hand.. able to destroy the planet also.. (i'd rather be smashed by something interesting)
Quote:There are clear examples of this in nature, and we can test for it.
well.. i'd agree.. we see evolution for example.. untill we can all agree what set this sh*t in motion, we speculate & ponder.. some of us study but in the end info is info truth is truth wether you've got a PHD or not?
Quote:We can build a case that supports the materialistic view that human beings are a mixture of instinct, self-awareness / self-interest, and sentience which leads to behaviors that can be defined as both "good" and "evil", but only as to how they relate to what interests human beings.
great.. and you're about to do this in the next paragraph right? :)
Quote:If an alien race were to discover us, and they had no vested interest in our survival or demise as a species, they would not assess our actions as either good or evil just like we don't shake our heads at ant colonies and think, "How evil that those red ants have enslaved those black ants".
hmm.. it's a metaphor/parable.. it hinges on where you say "NO VESTED INTEREST" -- it equates out to EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT? do u suggest if they DID have a vested interest (emotional involvement of sorts) then they WOULD take that particular view? because i know from personal experience that some people have ascribed evil and good triats to the exact behaviour you have said of ants (colony raids on pupa etc ~ slavery) seems to me i might agree with you by saying those people are a bit soft in the head...
Quote:We dismiss ants as irrelevant to any meaningful importance to human interests, and thus we don't codify their behavior in any ethical or moral manner.
speak for yourself, dear sir :) personally, have been fascinated with ants all my life. can't speak for everyone else but people who do not like ants should be shot and flogged.. i guess there are different levels of human awareness.. even for laypeople who do not like ants scientists are now studying them to learn about how they produce natural antiobotics (they live in dirt for cryin' out loud!)
Quote:Meanwhile, the theist insists on a morality and "good and evil" duality that comes from a specific being-- God -- who at the same time is ONLY goodness, and who is ONLY fair;
hmm.. these ant-hating puny minded people..
Quote:and to rationalize the obvious self-conflicting nature of this belief they exempt God from the very moral criteria they insist we all must live by.
to be fair, i would expect anything calling itself a God to be beyond all this cr*p anyway..? (the problem is, the very texts themselves indicate the God to be flawed by saying things such as "I am a jealous God"..) /shrugs
Quote:Which makes God's moral criteria completely meaningless to us.
exactly..
Quote:If by mercy you mean God can do whatever he wants and torture us for eternity, one fails to see how or why one should implement a word like "mercy" or "all good" in the first place. since God is outside of these standards, good and evil are interchangeable according to his standards.
exactly..
:)
Quote:Which means you can "choose right" but still go to hell because God being untrustworthy is no different from him being trustworthy, and God being evil is the same as him being good, and God giving you a choice is no different from him denying you a choice, etc.
they're clever these lot, aren't they..? see how you are damned if you do and damned if you don't? ;)
Quote:In other words, all Abrahamic theism has done, is succeeded in painting a nonsensical being that they subsequently fall down to worship
yes, i see how you can say that because it definantly comes across this way..
good read, rugged.. i bet deep down inside you'd like a God if it was cool :) nice typing to you..