Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Debate how Islam compares to other faiths and religions.
User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by KhaliL »

abdal wrote:Sir KhaliL FarieL , first of all Prophet Muhammed (p b u h) never said to abuse anyone and as you put some comments saying that prophet said hasan to abuse with poems and gabirel is with you..
But it is a Sahih Bukhari hadith, and you must be aware of the fact that I did not insert any hadith in Sahih Bukhari.

abdal wrote:khalil sir half knowledge is always dangerous ...
You got it right now.

abdal wrote: now here how i can prove you wrong is,if we consider prophet said to abuse hassan with poems then prophet himself would have done this with people and after doing then he will say others to do it
Who said your prophet did not abuse anyone? On the same day (of Banu Qurayza siege) he addressed Jews as “brothers of monkeys”. Go check Ibn Ishaq 684]
abdal wrote: and your second line proofs that this is all false story as the prophet said gabriel is with you.
"Gabriel is with you" means "Gabriel supports you". It is given in that hadith in barackets. Gabriel and angels used to support Muslims in the times of war. How many angels were sent down by your Allah on the day of Badr to help Muslims?
abdal wrote: prophet neither in his childhood nor till he closed his eyes said that as gabriel himself dont have any powers to help or do something for anyone. if gabriel was that powerfull then prophet would never have said to working allah infact he will say seek help from gabriel ,why didnt prophet took the help from gabriel ? Prophet Muhhammed (p b u h) said Allah when he was in pains and he said allah when he was in joy and when he was closing his eyes he still said Allah and will be saying even after doomsday.
This is your Qur’an:

3:123 (Y. Ali) Allah had helped you at Badr, when ye were a contemptible little force; then fear Allah. thus May ye show your gratitude.
3:124 (Y. Ali) Remember thou saidst to the Faithful: "Is it not enough for you that Allah should help you with three thousand angels (Specially) sent down?
3:125 (Y. Ali) "Yea, - if ye remain firm, and act aright, even if the enemy should rush here on you in hot haste, your Lord would help you with five thousand angels Making a terrific onslaught.


If angels can help Muslims to fight wars, why can’t Gabriel the chief of angels support Hassan bin Tabith to abuse some people?

Go back to your playschool. This is not your forte kid,

With love to my kid,
KF

User avatar
ygalg
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:51 am
Location: israel
Contact:

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by ygalg »

joseph wrote:Bible has been altered by men over a long period of time.
and yet no bible manuscripts exist displaying differences. :thinking:
which bible have we missed to take in to account for your assertion?
“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it” Eric Hoffer

User avatar
Ani
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by Ani »

crazymonkie_ wrote:I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss Khalil, Ani.

Given enough time (he's got a busy schedule) he could take each of your points and dismantle them one by one.
OOoooOo! What do we have here? A big fan of Kalil Fariel? Yeah,that seems the case! Believe me, I pity both of you. Kalil Fariel, being himself misguided is leading you astray too. :cool:

Ofcourse evil don't subside that easily. Let Kalil Fariel have all the time in the world, let him raise as many allegations against Islam as he can but at the end, he sure will be among the loosers. Because no one can stop the truth to prevail. ISLAM, the true religion of God is BOUND to prevail!(SUBHANALLAH!) Thats a fact whether you accept it or not.

Kalil Fariel is not the only busy guy here. I bet he is not as much busy as I am. Along with my studies, I have to try to spread the truth too. Not even a single HOUR do I spend free. Plus, the condition of my country is also hopeless. 4 to 5 hours loadshedding every day is a headache! But still with all these difficulties, I strive and struggle, do JIHAD (wooooo scared? :lol: ) to spread the truth of Allah. If I was given enough free time, I would have spent each and every moment of my life trying to spread the truth. Then I too could have taken his each and every point and dismantled them just in one stroke!

Not because I am a scholar of Islam. I am just an ordinary Muslim. A Muslim who knows the truth, only that much simple. But still I would have been able to crush your Kalil Fariel and your Satanic leader Ali Sina completely. My Allah is enough a HELP for me. Only with the help of Allah I would have overtaken both of your Satans, and I WILL! (INSHALLAH!) My ALLAH is with me. (Allah-o-Akbar!)
crazymonkie_ wrote: It is not, and Jewish commentators (those we find in the Talmud and Mishnah) consistently point out that humans, as imperfect vessels, cannot receive ANY message from god perfectly- let alone translate it without error across generations.


That might be the case with Jews but not with the Muslims. I already know how imperfect Jews are! :roflmao:
crazymonkie_ wrote: ... and second, to say that it's probably better to use your energy on something that concerns more than a relatively small group of Christians.
Ofcourse it is better to talk about sth which concerns the WHOLE World (Islam is for all of the world).(I thought to do it one by one that first call to common terms the Christian brothers and sisters and then Jews, Hindus, atheists etc.) But it just started all at once so now I answer Christians as well as people related to other religions. Not only Christians argue with us, Muslims, but also the people of other religions. And I always try my best to answer them all. Here is a suggestion, why don't YOU too use your energy in sth that is usefull than simply maligning Islam? Even if you try to malign Islam using all of your sources, you will still fail. INSHALLAH!
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah:and who can baptize better than Allah?And it is He whom we worship." (2:138)
"Keh do k Allah aik hai,Wo Mabood Barhaq bay niaz hai,Na kisi Ka baap hai na kisi Ka beta,Aur koi uska humsar nahi." (112:1-4)

User avatar
KhaliL
Posts: 1052
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 10:12 am

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by KhaliL »

^^^^^
:lol: :lol: Is it thus how you do your Jihad? Pathetic Muslim, :lol:
Ani wrote:But still I would have been able to crush your Kalil Fariel and your Satanic leader Ali Sina completely.
Just wait and your Allah's help will come in time. "Ala inna Nasra Allahi Qareeb" (Lo! Allah’s help is very near) is what your Qur'an says. So, I am also waiting for the time your Allah, the savage deity helps you to crush Ali Sina.

PS: Do not quote my name along with Ali Sina. While Sina is the owner of this site and the bugbear of you Muslims, I am only a little guy of this court. But you can have your training by trying me at first.

When are you going to do it? When is that time your savage deity’s help comes to you?

Waiting,
KF

User avatar
HomerJay
Posts: 371
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 12:24 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by HomerJay »

"If I was given enough free time, I would have spent each and every moment of my life trying to spread the truth" ( By words and deeds if possible, by Boeing 757 if necessary).

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by crazymonkie_ »

Ani wrote:OOoooOo! What do we have here? A big fan of Kalil Fariel? Yeah,that seems the case! Believe me, I pity both of you. Kalil Fariel, being himself misguided is leading you astray too. :cool:
Since the "path" you two are talking about was one I've never been on, it's impossible that he could "lead me astray." At least from your religion.
Ofcourse evil don't subside that easily. Let Kalil Fariel have all the time in the world, let him raise as many allegations against Islam as he can but at the end, he sure will be among the loosers. Because no one can stop the truth to prevail. ISLAM, the true religion of God is BOUND to prevail!(SUBHANALLAH!) Thats a fact whether you accept it or not.
Since your book sets it up so that by definition it's IMPOSSIBLE for 'god' to fail, of course. At least from your perspective. From people who are actually allowed to use logic and intellect to question these things, however, your religion fails miserably and your book is nothing but a pathetic collection of threats and insults, peppered with barbaric, crude and ancient ideas of justice.
Kalil Fariel is not the only busy guy here. I bet he is not as much busy as I am. Along with my studies, I have to try to spread the truth too. Not even a single HOUR do I spend free.
Your religion is so simple that you could "spread the truth" each day for about 15 minutes and be done with it. As to your studies, again, you're not the only one here with a busy schedule.
Plus, the condition of my country is also hopeless. 4 to 5 hours loadshedding every day is a headache! But still with all these difficulties, I strive and struggle, do JIHAD (wooooo scared? :lol: ) to spread the truth of Allah. If I was given enough free time, I would have spent each and every moment of my life trying to spread the truth. Then I too could have taken his each and every point and dismantled them just in one stroke!
No, you really couldn't have. You have no idea how much information Khalil's put up on this site or the old one, nor how much information he has at hand, nor how many absolutely sure-of-themselves Muslims just like yourself he's faced. Anyone not presupposing the correctness of the Quran would be able to see the errors in it — not the errors of the translators, because most of them generally followed other translators or commentators fluent in Arabic, creating a continuity between times and places. Thus the errors in embryology, the fact in the Quran of a flat Earth, the moon AND the sun 'in their orbits', and even bigger problems of human origins and the story of the worldwide flood. Errors, plain and simple, that you will deny, up and down and sideways, as a Muslim because you MUST. Because your book must be literal and absolutely correct.
Not because I am a scholar of Islam. I am just an ordinary Muslim. A Muslim who knows the truth, only that much simple.
Yeah, yeah, I've heard this before. At some point you're going to do one of two things: 1) Rely (whether you know it or not) on Muslim scholars and theologians, or 2) Deny that their interpretations are correct and make yourself look like a fool to your fellow Muslims. Despite claims to the contrary, your book is NOT clear and easy to understand. Without Tafsirs or Ahadith, it lacks context and is confusing. You wouldn't notice because whatever religious instruction you've had growing up (or just whatever popular Islam you've been around) packages Tafsir or Ahadith to the ayahs without saying they are interpretations.

You probably already know about which verses speak about the Battle of Badr, for instance, where a person like myself, having read of your "holy books" only the Quran, and hearing about the Battle of Badr first at this site, then checking it out elsewhere, wouldn't know about it. What sort of book relies on other books to talk about events? What other book requires other books, and then depreciates them for not saying exactly what it says, even though the first book was written centuries later?
But still I would have been able to crush your Kalil Fariel and your Satanic leader Ali Sina completely. My Allah is enough a HELP for me. Only with the help of Allah I would have overtaken both of your Satans, and I WILL! (INSHALLAH!) My ALLAH is with me. (Allah-o-Akbar!)
Two things: First, Khalil already swatted you around a bit. Second, they're not my leaders. I like Khalil because he's proven worthy of respect. Ali Sina I don't know, and I don't really care about him. I like this site because of the people on it, not because of who runs it or why. Neither are my leader.
crazymonkie_ wrote: It is not, and Jewish commentators (those we find in the Talmud and Mishnah) consistently point out that humans, as imperfect vessels, cannot receive ANY message from god perfectly- let alone translate it without error across generations.


That might be the case with Jews but not with the Muslims. I already know how imperfect Jews are! :roflmao:
Ah and the expected anti-Semitism comes out!

Face it Muslim: The Jews were extraordinarily careful, especially after the destruction of the Second Temple, of keeping their Laws and stories intact. That's how the two Talmuds, even though separated by hundreds of miles and years, came out almost the same. That's why the Mishnah, written centuries earlier and again, further apart from the Talmuds, also agrees (in the main) with the Talmuds. The Hebrew Bible has been basically unchanged since the 2nd century; they never believed in a Satan who was anything more or less than an oppositional advocate — and that only because god made him that way; being an angel, he could do nothing else; and they only started believing in a hell-like place (or even an afterlife, really) until contact with the Hellenistic culture that the Maccabees rebelled against.

Your book contradicts a carefully kept and meticulously commented-upon tradition that predates your religion by hundreds of years and which, moreover, directly contradicts some of your theology. That you don't see where your religion borrowed from Christianity and Judaism in more or less equal parts, only to subsume them in Mohammad's vision of monotheism (or perhaps, as some more radical scholars are coming to believe, in the Abbasid's vision of monotheism; the Sanaa Qurans seem to be rather different from today's, and not just in terms of being a different dialect) is... well, sad.

Yet you'll still claim that it's all the same god, that it's all the same religion. This is untrue, and obviously so.
crazymonkie_ wrote: ... and second, to say that it's probably better to use your energy on something that concerns more than a relatively small group of Christians.
Ofcourse it is better to talk about sth which concerns the WHOLE World (Islam is for all of the world).(I thought to do it one by one that first call to common terms the Christian brothers and sisters and then Jews, Hindus, atheists etc.) But it just started all at once so now I answer Christians as well as people related to other religions. Not only Christians argue with us, Muslims, but also the people of other religions. And I always try my best to answer them all. Here is a suggestion, why don't YOU too use your energy in sth that is usefull than simply maligning Islam? Even if you try to malign Islam using all of your sources, you will still fail. INSHALLAH!
I'm not maligning Islam, I'm showing what it is. There are clear errors in its theology — a big one being that it depends upon Christianity and Judaism for a great deal of its stories and purpose for existence, yet denigrates them and their scriptures when it suits Islam's purpose.

How one cannot see that this is a problem, I don't know.

Anyway, your reply here didn't have anything to do with my first message. I said that you're working from an incorrect stance of what inspired scriptures are, and that you'll only be debunking a small percentage of Christianity. You then try to deflect by saying that you were really talking about Islam. But you weren't. Not really. You were talking about Biblical literalism (hence the title "Scientific mistakes in the Bible). Thus, your points are really moot except against Biblical literalists. You want to debunk them? It's too easy. You want to debunk Christianity? You'll have to figure out a way to show that Jesus wasn't god in the flesh. And try to avoid that "1=1=3, therefore the Trinity is wrong" argument.

And you still haven't talked about how the Quran makes exactly the same errors as the Bible does with regard to science.

star
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by star »

Bible Contradictions
Bible difficulties, or apparent Bible contradictions, exist. The opponents of Christianity often use them in their attempts to discredit Christianity. Sometimes these attacks undermine the faith of Christians who either don't understand the issues or don't have the resources to deal with them.

A Definition of Revelation:


This is a mistake which many of us fall into; measuring that which is unfamiliar to us by a standard which is more familiar; in this case measuring the Bible with the standard which they have borrowed from the Qur'an. Their book, the Qur'an, is believed to have been 'sent down' (Nazil or Tanzil), from heaven unfettered by the hands of men. It is this belief in scripture as a revelation which has been 'sent down' which they then impose upon the Bible as well. But it is wrong for Muslims to assume that the Bible can be measured using the same criteria as that imposed on the Qur'an.
The Bible is not simply one book compiled by one man as the Muslims claim for their Qur'an, but a compilation of 66 books, written by more than 40 authors, over a period of 1500 years! For that reason Christians have always maintained that the entire Bible shows the imprint of human hands. Evidence of this can be found in the variety of human languages used, the varying styles of writing, the differences in the author's intellects and temperaments, as well as the apparent allusions to the author's contemporary concepts of scientific knowledge, without which the scriptures would not have been understood by the people of that time. That does not mean, however, that the Bible is not authoritative, for each of the writers received their revelation by means of inspiration
A Definition of Inspiration:
In 2 Timothy 3:16, we are told that all Scripture is inspired. The word used for inspiration is theopneustos which means "God-breathed," implying that what was written had its origin in God Himself. In 2 Peter 1:21 we read that the writers were "carried along" by God. Thus, God used each writer, including his personality to accomplish a divinely authoritative work, for God cannot inspire error.
The Bible speaks many times of its inspiration: In Luke 24:27,44; John 5:39; and Hebrews 10:7, Jesus says that what was written about him in the Old Testament would come to pass. Romans 3:2 and Hebrews 5:12 refer to the Old Testament as the Word of God. We read in 1 Corinthians 2:13, "This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit." This is corroborated in 2 Timothy 3:16, as we saw above. In 1 Thessalonians 2:13, Paul when referring to that which he had written says, "...you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God..." Peter speaks of the inspiration of Paul's writings in 2 Peter 3:15-16, where he maintains that, "...Paul also wrote to you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters..." Earlier, in 2 Peter 1:21 Peter writes, "For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along [moved] by the Holy Spirit." And then finally in Revelation 22:18,19 the writer John, referring to the book of Revelation states, "...if anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life...

The Qur'an gives authority to the Bible:


The Qur'an, itself, the highest authority for all Muslims, gives authority to the Bible, assuming its authenticity at least up to the seventh-ninth Centuries. Consider the following Suras:
Sura Baqara 2:136 points out that there is no difference between the scriptures which preceded and those of the Qur'an, saying, "...the revelation given to us...and Jesus...we make no difference between one and another of them." Sura Al-I-Imran 3:2-3 continues, "Allah...He sent down the Law (of Moses) and the Gospel (of Jesus)...as a guide to mankind." Sura Nisaa 4:136 carries this farther by admonishing the Muslims to, "...Believe...and the scripture which He sent before him." In Sura Ma-ida 5:47,49,50,52 we find a direct call to Christians to believe in their scriptures: "...We sent Jesus, the son of Mary, confirming the Law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel... Let the people of the Gospel judge by what Allah hath revealed therein, if any do fail to judge by the light of what Allah hath revealed, they are (no better than) those who rebel..." Again, in Sura Ma-ida 5:68 we find a similar call: "People of the Book!...Stand fast by the law, the Gospel, and all revelation that hath come to you from YOUR LORD. It is the revelation that has come to thee from THY LORD."
To embolden this idea of the New and Old Testament's authority we find in Sura 10:94 that Muslims are advised to confer with these scriptures if in doubt about their own, saying: "If thou wert in doubt as to what We have revealed unto thee, then ask those who have been reading the Book from before thee. The truth had indeed come to thee from thy Lord." And as if to emphasize this point the advice is repeated in Sura 21:7, stating, "...the apostles We sent were but men, to whom We granted inspiration. If ye realize this not, Ask of those who possess the message."
Finally, in Sura Ankabut 29:46 Muslims are asked not to question the authority of the scriptures of the Christians, saying, "And dispute ye not with the people of the book but say: We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and that which came down to you."
If there is anything in these Suras which is clear, it is that the Qur'an emphatically endorses the Torah and the Gospel as authentic and authoritative revelations from God. This coincides with what Christians believe, as well.
In fact, nowhere is there any warning in the Qur'an that the former scriptures had been corrupted, nor that they were contradictory. If the Qur'an was indeed the final and complete revelation, if it was the seal of all former revelations the Muslims claim, than certainly the author of the Qur'an would have included a warning against that which had been corrupted in the earlier scriptures. But nowhere do we find even a hint that the Bible was contradictory, or indeed that it was corrupted.
There are some Muslims, however, who contend that according to sura 2:140 the Jews and Christians had corrupted their scriptures. This aya says (referring to the Jews), "...who is more unjust than those who conceal the testimony they have from Allah...?" Yet, nowhere does this aya state that the Jews and Christians corrupted their scriptures. It merely mentions that certain Jews have concealed "the testimony they have from Allah." In other words the testimony is still there (thus the reason the afore-mentioned suras admonish Muslims to respect the former scriptures), though the adherents of that testimony have chosen to conceal it. If anything this aya is a ringing endorsement to the credibility of those former scriptures, as it assumes a testimony from Allah does exist amongst the Jewish community.




About The Bible


It has been reported for about 50 years that the Bible has been the largest seller of all books published in the history of the world.
The Bible was written by about 40 men in about 1600 years, dating from 1500 B.C. to about 100 A.D. These men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (2 Pet. 1:21). They wrote not in words of human wisdom but in words taught by the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:13).
Is the Bible inspired?
The doctrine of the inspiration of the Bible means that the Bible in the original documents is God-breathed.
2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17 that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Paul who wrote this epistle was obviously referring to the entirety of the Old Testament as being inspired. The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God. Likewise, Peter says in 2 Pet. 1:21, "for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." Notice that Peter is stating that prophecy is not the product of human will. Instead, prophecy occurs by those moved by the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, we can easily see that the Old Testament Scriptures are full of statements and phrases claiming to be the Word of God.1. "Thus says the Lord" occurs 418 times in the NASB, 413 in the KJV


1. Exodus 4:22, "Then you shall say to Pharaoh, Thus says the Lord, 'Israel is My son, My first-born.'"
2. 1 Kings 11:31, "And he said to Jeroboam, 'Take for yourself ten pieces; for thus says the Lord, the God of Israel, Behold, I will tear the kingdom out of the hand of Solomon and give you ten tribes.'"
3. Isaiah 7:7, "thus says the Lord God, 'It shall not stand nor shall it come to pass.'"
2. "God said" occurs 46 times in both the NASB and the KJV
1. Genesis 1:3, "Then God said, 'Let there be light'; and there was light."
2. Exodus 3:14, "And God said to Moses, 'I AM WHO I AM'; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, I AM has sent me to you."
3. Exodus 6:2-3, "God spoke further to Moses and said to him, 'I am the Lord; and I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as God Almighty, but by My name, Lord, I did not make Myself known to them.'"
3. God spoke through prophets
1. 1 Kings 14:18, "And all Israel buried him and mourned for him, according to the word of the Lord which He spoke through His servant Ahijah the prophet."
2. 2 Sam. 24:11-12, "When David arose in the morning, the word of the Lord came to the prophet Gad, David's seer, saying, 12 'Go and speak to David, Thus the Lord says, "I am offering you three things; choose for yourself one of them, which I may do to you."'"
3. Zech. 7:7, "Are not these the words which the Lord proclaimed by the former prophets, when Jerusalem was inhabited and prosperous with its cities around it, and the Negev and the foothills were inhabited?"
4. The Spirit of the Lord spoke through people
1. 2 Sam. 23:2, "The Spirit of the Lord spoke by me, and His word was on my tongue."
2. 1 Kings 22:24, "Then Zedekiah the son of Chenaanah came near and struck Micaiah on the cheek and said, 'How did the Spirit of the Lord pass from me to speak to you?'"
3. 2 Chron. 20:14, "Then in the midst of the assembly the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jahaziel the son of Zechariah, the son of Benaiah, the son of Jeiel, the son of Mattaniah, the Levite of the sons of Asaph; 15 and he said, 'Listen, all Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem and King Jehoshaphat: thus says the Lord to you, Do not fear or be dismayed because of this great multitude, for the battle is not yours but God's.'"
As you can see, the Old Testament Scriptures are clearly full of statements showing the inspiration of God through the writers. The Old Testament assumes and speaks from the perspective of divine inspiration. Should we do any less?
What about the New Testament?
We see that the Old Testament is repeatedly spoken of as being inspired via the numerous references cited above, but what about the New Testament? Are the New Testament books inspired as well?
The Christian church has always considered the New Testament documents to be inspired. Though in the early church there were some debates on which New Testament books to include in the Bible, God worked through the Christian church to recognize those inspired works. Therefore we now have 27 inspired books for the New Testament.
In 1 Cor. 14:37 Paul said, "If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment." In 2 Pet. 3:16 Peter said, "as also in all [Paul's] letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction." Also, Jesus said in John 14:26, "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." This means that the Lord has commissioned the apostles to accurately record what Jesus had said because the Holy Spirit would be working in them.
So, we can see that Jesus promised direction from the Holy Spirit, that Paul considered what he wrote to be the commands of God, and that Peter recognized Paul's writings as Scripture. In addition, since the Christian Church recognizes the 27 books of the New Testament are inspired, and since we see internal claims of inspiration in the New Testament, we conclude that inspiration applies to the New Testament documents as well




Hasn't the Bible been rewritten so many times that we can't trust it anymore?



This is a common misconception. Some people think that the Bible was written in one language, translated to another language, then translated into yet another and so on until it was finally translated into the English. The fact is that the Bible has not been rewritten. Take the New Testament, for example. The disciples of Jesus wrote the New Testament in Greek and though we do not have the original documents, we do have around 6,000 copies of the Greek manuscripts that were made very close to the time of the originals. These various manuscripts, or copies, agree with each other to almost 100 percent accuracy. Statistically, the New Testament is 99.5% textually pure. That means that there is only 1/2 of 1% of of all the copies that do not agree with each other perfectly. But, if you take that 1/2 of 1% and examine it, you find that the majority of the "problems" are nothing more than spelling errors and very minor word alterations. For example, instead of saying Jesus, a variation might be "Jesus Christ." So the actual amount of textual variation of any concern is extremely low. Therefore, we can say that we have a remarkably accurate compilation of the original documents.
So when we translate the Bible, we do not translate from a translation of a translation of a translation. We translate from the original language into our language. It is a one-step process and not a series of steps that can lead to corruption. It is one translation step from the original to the English or to whatever language in which a person needs to read. So we translate into Spanish from the same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. Likewise we translate into the German from those same Greek and Hebrew manuscripts as well. This is how it is done for each and every language into which we translate the Bible. We do not translate from the original languages to the English, to the Spanish, and then to the German. It is from the original languages to the English, or into the Spanish, or into the German. Therefore, the translations are very accurate and trustworthy in regards to what the Bible originally said.

Comparison Chart

The following chart represents a compilation of various ancient manuscripts, their original date of writing, the earliest copy, the number of copies in existence, and the time span between the originals and the copies. If the Bible is singled out to be criticized as unreliable then all the other writings listed below must also be discarded.1
Author DateWritten Earliest Copy Approximate Time Span between original & copy Number of Copies Accuracy of Copies
Lucretius died 55 or 53 B.C. 1100 yrs 2 ----
Pliny 61-113 A.D. 850 A.D. 750 yrs 7 ----
Plato 427-347 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 yrs 7 ----
Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C. 1100 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Herodotus 480-425 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Suetonius 75-160 A.D. 950 A.D. 800 yrs 8 ----
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. 900 A.D. 1300 yrs 8 ----
Euripides 480-406 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1300 yrs 9 ----
Aristophanes 450-385 B.C. 900 A.D. 1200 10 ----
Caesar 100-44 B.C. 900 A.D. 1000 10 ----
Livy 59 BC-AD 17 ---- ??? 20 ----
Tacitus circa 100 A.D. 1100 A.D. 1000 yrs 20 ----
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. 1100 A.D. 1400 49 ----
Sophocles 496-406 B.C. 1000 A.D 1400 yrs 193 ----
Homer (Iliad) 900 B.C. 400 B.C. 500 yrs 643 95%
NewTestament 1st Cent. A.D. (50-100 A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.(c. 130 A.D. f.) less than 100 years 5600 99.5%
As you can see, the New Testament documents are very accurate. Therefore, when the scholars translate from the Greek into the English (or into any other language), we can trust that what is translated is accurate and reliable.

How to Interpret the Bible?


We need, as best as can be had, the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting God’s Word.
Because we are sinners, we are incapable of interpreting God’s word perfectly all of the time. The body, mind, will, and emotions are affected by sin and make 100% interpretive accuracy impossible.
I offer the following principles as guidelines for examining a passage. They are not exhaustive, nor are they set in concrete.
1. Who wrote/spoke the passage and to whom was it addressed?
2. What does the passage say?
3. Are there any words or phrases in the passage that need to be examined?
4. What is the immediate context?
5. What is the broader context in the chapter and book?
6. What are the related verses to the passage’s subject and how do they affect the understanding of this passage?
7. What is the historical and cultural background?
8. What do I conclude about the passage?
9. Do my conclusions agree or disagree with related areas of Scripture and others who have studied the passage?
10. What have I learned and what must I apply to my life?


CONCLUSION



THE BIBLE AND THE QUR'AN




Now that we have carried out a cursory study of the historicity for both the Qur'an and the Bible, it is important that we make so

me conclusions. What can we say concerning the veracity of these two scriptures in light of the evidence produced by the manuscript, document and archeological data at our disposal?
Starting with the Qur'an, it is reasonable to conclude that these findings indeed give us reason for pause concerning its reliability. Manuscript, as well as documentary and archaeological evidence indicates that much of what the Qur'an maintains does not coincide with the historical data at our disposal which comes from that period. From the material amassed from external sources in the7th-8th centuries, we now know:
1) that the Jews still retained a relationship with the Arabs until at least 640 A.D.;
2) that Jerusalem and not Mecca was more-than-likely the city which contained the original sanctuary for Islam, as Mecca was not only unknown as a viable city until the end of the seventh century, but it was not even on the international trade route;
3) that the Qibla (direction of prayer) was not fixed towards Mecca until the eighth century, but to an area much further north, possibly Jerusalem;
4) that the Dome of the Rock situated in Jerusalem was possibly the original sanctuary;
5) that Muhammad was not known as the seal of prophets until the late seventh century;
6) that the earliest we even hear of any Qur'an is not until the mid-eighth century;
7) and that the earliest Qur'anic writings do not coincide with the current Qur'anic text. All of this data contradicts the Qur'an which is in our possession, and adds to the suspicion that the Qur'an which we now read is NOT the same as that which was supposedly collated and canonized in 650 A.D. under Uthman, as Muslims contend (if indeed it even existed at that time). One can only assume that there must have been an evolution in the Qur'anic text. Consequently, the sole thing we can say with a certainty is that only the documents which we now possess (from 790 A.D. onwards) are the same as that which is in our hands today, written not 16 years after Muhammad's death but 160 years later, and thus not 1,400 years ago, but only 1,200 years ago.




As for the Bible,



with the abundance of existing manuscripts (handwritten copies) of the New Testament (more than 24,000), we know little has been lost through the transmission of the text. In fact there is more evidence for the reliability of the text of the New Testament than there is for any ten pieces of classical literature put together. It is in better textual shape than the 37 plays of William Shakespeare which were written a mere 300 years ago, after the invention of the printing press! This is indeed surprising, considering the early period in which the manuscripts were compiled, as well as the flimsy material on which they were written. The fact that we have such an abundance of manuscripts still in our possession points to the importance the scriptures have held for the church over the centuries. As far as we can know, the names, places, and events mentioned in the Bible have been recorded accurately so that what we have is the representation of what God said and did. Besides the massive numbers of early New Testament documents, the Old Testament can also be substantiated by the Jewish community who continue to corroborate the proof for its accuracy, as well as documents such as the Septuagint and the Dead Sea Scrolls which give added weight to the claim that it has never been changed.
Even the Qur'an, possibly written during the 7th-8th centuries recognized the authority of our scriptures (see suras 2:136; 3:2-3; 4:136; 5:47-52,68; 10:95; 21:7; and 29:46). We also know that, outside of the few scribal errors, the historical events and personages are adequately correct, as they do not confuse names, dates and events, and in fact, surprisingly, continue to coincide with current archaeological findings. This is indeed significant, since with each successive year, ongoing documental and archaeological discoveries fail to divulge any historical contradictions. Instead they continue to corroborate what the Bible has been saying for 2,000-3,000 years (examples such as the Ebla tablets, or the newly discovered tomb of the priest Caiaphus give continuing credibility to the scriptures historical trustworthiness).
Therefore, the testimony of the historical evidence is that the Bible and not the Qur'an can be trusted as an accurate and reliable historical document. While we continue to unearth data which substantiates the Bible's accuracy, we likewise unearth further data which erradicates the validity for the Qur'anic account. If a scripture claims to be a revelation from God, it must prove its claim by establishing its historical credentials, to the extent that even a third party can agree upon the evidence provided. This the Bible and not the Qur'an does adequately.
We must also know that the Bible is unique? Consider: Here is a book written over a 1,500 year span (about 40 generations), by more than 40 authors, among whose number were found: kings, peasants, philosophers, fishermen, poets, statesmen, scholars, a herdsman, a general, a cupbearer, a doctor, a tax collector, and a rabbi. It was written on three continents: Asia, Africa, and Europe, and in three languages: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Its subject matter includes hundreds of controversial topics, yet from Genesis right on through to Revelation the authors all spoke with harmony and continuity on the theme of the unfolding story of "God's redemption of humanity."
If God truly created the world for His pleasure, He would have created it to work to a pattern. This pattern we would expect to find revealed in His Word; as indeed we do, not only in the life of Jesus, the incarnate Word, who came and dwelt among us, but in the truth of the Gospel which was found in His teaching and later written down by His apostles. It is therefore not surprising that many cultures and governments even today continue to follow its precepts, laws and institutions, even though they do not necessarily adhere to its authorship.
It should not surprise us then that the Bible continues to be the source of God's revelation to His creation, for families and communities around the world, and that, according to the latest statistics, the Bible and not the Qu'ran is uncontested as the most popular book ever written. The statistics prove that it is read by more people and published in more languages than any other book in the history of humanity, so that even now "one copy of the Bible is published every three seconds day and night; or 22 copies every minute day and night; or 1,369 copies every hour day and night; and 32,876 copies every day in the year, and so on...".
It is logical, then, that Christianity, because it holds the repository of Biblical principles and thinking, is the fastest conversion-growing religion in the world today. What better testimony could one ask to demonstrate the Bible's claim to be the truly revealed and inspired Word of God.

the stagyrite
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by the stagyrite »

Dear Ani,

Here is my diagnosis, after wading through most (but not all) of this interminable thread, so full of gushing zealotry and so short on genuine understanding of either Christianity or Islam:

You are a young person, devout and zealous, weaned on the milk of Islam from childhood, and so accustomed to its bitter taste that, at present, no-one will succeed in convincing you that it is actually bitter (in this way, Islam is actually a bit like camel's urine for you: and we all look on appalled, wishing we could help you see how toxic is the poison you are so eagerly drinking).
You are intelligent enough to be fired with desire to perform "intellectual jihad" in the best tradition of Badawi, Naik and company; but you are not mature enough yet to use your intelligence to engage in the painful process of self-criticism, a process we Westerners went through more than 300 years ago. So you share in the stupid, boyish triumphalism of the islamic heartlands - even as they languish in poverty, depravation and tyranny.

I don't consider debate with you a fruitful, propitious prospect. We must wait until you grow older, wiser, less hasty, (hopefully) more capable of self-critique. When that day comes, I hope you will revisit the question of Islam's veracity, not with the unbridled ardour of a fired-up adolescent, but with the measured and mature gravity of an intelligent and humane man.

User avatar
Ani
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by Ani »

the stagyrite wrote: Here is my diagnosis, after wading through most (but not all) of this interminable thread, so full of gushing zealotry and so short on genuine understanding of either Christianity or Islam:
Read the thread's name again, "Scientific mistakes in the Bible". So I was only planning to discuss here about Bible and the errors it contain. But as you would have noticed that people started asking lots of questions and so I tried to answer them all. The Christians started bringing Islam in this topic. They found it hard to defend the bible and to hide its exact and clear contradictions, they turned on Islam that if you say bible has this then Quran too makes these mistakes etc.
the stagyrite wrote:You are a young person, devout and zealous, weaned on the milk of Islam from childhood, and so accustomed to its bitter taste that, at present, no-one will succeed in convincing you that it is actually bitter (in this way, Islam is actually a bit like camel's urine for you: and we all look on appalled, wishing we could help you see how toxic is the poison you are so eagerly drinking).

Actually it seems more suitable on you. Christianity is a bit like camel's urine for you and so obviously all of my reasoning won't affect the ignorant minds. And I already knew that! No matter how much logic and reasoning I give, many people will not accept it or understand it. Maybe you are convinced about your religion to be perfect and so don't see the clear faults in it but i didn't take Islam as my religion unless I was fully convinced of its authenticity and True origin.
the stagyrite wrote:You are intelligent enough to be fired with desire to perform "intellectual jihad" in the best tradition of Badawi, Naik and company; but you are not mature enough yet to use your intelligence to engage in the painful process of self-criticism,
And you are simply wrong here. Even if I am not mature enough, it doesn't mean that I am blind or stupid as to not see the clear truth in Islam! Allhamdulillah! Allah showed me the right way. Here is a tip for you to realise the truth too. No matter of what age you are, just keep your eyes and ears open and your heart neutral. Thats all what I had to do for realising the truth!
the stagyrite wrote:So you share in the stupid, boyish triumphalism of the islamic heartlands - even as they languish in poverty, depravation and tyranny.
This shows now YOUR ignorance of the religion Islam. You blame Islam because of the people you think as are Muslims. Islam is not what the namesake Muslims practice! But I am not going into any detail here. What you can do is to read the other posts which you have missed in this thread.

And this Ends our discussion!
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah:and who can baptize better than Allah?And it is He whom we worship." (2:138)
"Keh do k Allah aik hai,Wo Mabood Barhaq bay niaz hai,Na kisi Ka baap hai na kisi Ka beta,Aur koi uska humsar nahi." (112:1-4)

User avatar
ygalg
Posts: 5427
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2009 11:51 am
Location: israel
Contact:

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by ygalg »

Ani wrote: Read the thread's name again, "Scientific mistakes in the Bible". So I was only planning to discuss here about Bible and the errors it contain. But as you would have noticed that people started asking lots of questions and so I tried to answer them all. The Christians started bringing Islam in this topic.
most of the members of the forum are not religious.
the bible is not scientific book. nor historical. it's mythological.

psalms is a book of hymn.
“a true believer as a person so fanatically committed to a cause that no amount of reality can make him abandon it” Eric Hoffer

the stagyrite
Posts: 61
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:51 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by the stagyrite »

Well, that was about exactly what I thought you would say, Ani!

Just a word of encouragement, if I may. You say: "No matter of what age you are, just keep your eyes and ears open and your heart neutral. Thats all what I had to do for realising the truth!"

That's good, commendable. Stick with that attitude, and you will leave Islam. Guaranteed.

(however, I have my doubts about the neutrality of anyone who can listen to the sheer brazen nonsense of Dr Naik without experiencing a wholesale revolt of all his rational faculties...)

User avatar
Ani
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Re: Reply to crazymonkie

Post by Ani »

Bismillah Hir Rahman Nir Rahim! (In the name of Allah, the most gracious and the most merciful!)

:hello:

M back! :musilmah: Was very busy and soon will again be but I thought to submit this very important post first!

This post is regarding a challenge given in the Quran where Allah challenges those who are in doubt about the authenticity of the Quran that let them then produce a surah like it. Obviously, foolish tries like this show that the desperate people can never stand a chance against the powerful and awesome words of Allah. Tries like these are a clear failure!
Btw, even before "trying", one must understand what Quran means when it says to produce a surah like it. Here it is for those who are interested.

What Is The Challenge Of The Qur'an With Respect To Arabic Prose & Poetry?

The Qur'an in many places challenges the people to produce a surah like it. It appears that some people who call the challenge irrelevent or an utterly subjective criterion are pretty much unaware of how the Arabic poetry and prose compares with the Qur'an. This article is devoted to deal with one aspect of the Qur'anic challenge of produce a surah like it. What is meant by surah like it with respect to the Arabic prose and poetry?

The verses of the Qur'an dealing with the challenge are given below (Hilali and Muhsin Khan's Translation):

Say: "If the mankind and the jinns were together to produce the like of this Qur'an, they could not produce the like thereof, even if they helped one another." [Qur'an 17:88]

And if you (Arab pagans, Jews, and Christians) are in doubt concerning that which We have sent down (i.e. the Qur'an) to Our slave (Muhammad Peace be upon him ), then produce a surah (chapter) of the like thereof and call your witnesses (supporters and helpers) besides Allah, if you are truthful. [Qur'an 2:23]

And this Qur'an is not such as could ever be produced by other than Allah (Lord of the heavens and the earth), but it is a confirmation of (the revelation) which was before it [i.e. the Taurat (Torah), and the Injeel (Gospel), etc.], and a full explanation of the Book (i.e. laws and orders, etc, decreed for mankind) - wherein there is no doubt from the the Lord of the 'Alamin (mankind, jinns,and all that exists).

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it?" Say: "Bring then a surah (chapter) like unto it, and call upon whomsoever you can, besides Allah, if you are truthful!" [Qur'an 10:37-38]

Or they say, "He (Prophet Muhammad(P)) forged it (the Qur'an)." Say: "Bring you then ten forged surah (chapters) like unto it, and call whomsoever you can, other than Allah (to your help), if you speak the truth!" [Qur'an 11:13]

Or do they say: "He (Muhammad(P)) has forged it (this Qur'an)?" Nay! They believe not! Let them then produce a recital like unto it (the Qur'an) if they are truthful. [Qur'an 52:33-34]

Abdur Rahim Green mentions that:


These are the sixteen al-Bihar (literally "The Seas", so called because of the way the poem moves, according to its rhythmic patterns): at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. So the challenge is to produce in Arabic, three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Now I think at least the Christian's "Holy spirit" that makes you talk in tongues, part of your "Tri-Unity" of God should be able to inspire one of you with that!

To begin with; the Arabic language and Arab speech are divided into two branches. One of them is rhymed poetry. It is a speech with metre and rhyme, which means every line of it ends upon a definite letter, which is called the 'rhyme'. This rhymed poetry is again divided into metres or what is called as al-Bihar, literally meaning 'The Seas'. This is so called because of the way the poetry moves according to the rhythmic patterns. There are sixteen al-Bihar viz; at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Wafir, al-Kamil, ar-Rajs, al-Khafif, al-Hazaj, al-Muttakarib, al-Munsarih, al-Muktatab, al-Muktadarak, al-Madid, al-Mujtath, al-Ramel, al-Khabab and as-Saria'. Each one rhymes differently. For metres of Arabic poetry please see please see Lyall's book Translations Of Ancient Arabian Poetry, Chiefly Pre-Islamic.[1] He discusses al-Kamil, al-Wafir, al-Hajaz, at-Tawil, al-Bassit, al-Khafif and al-Madid briefly.[2]

The other branch of Arabic speech is prose, that is non-metrical speech. The prose may be a rhymed prose. Rhymed prose consists of cola ending on the same rhyme throughout, or of sentences rhymed in pairs. This is called "rhymed prose" or sajc. Prose may also be straight prose (mursal). In straight prose, the speech goes on and is not divided in cola, but is continued straight through without any divisions, either of rhyme or of anything else. Prose is employed in sermons and prayers and in speeches intended to encourage or frighten the masses.[3] One of the most famous speeches involving sajc is that of Hajjaj bin Yusuf in his first deputation in Iraq in post-Islamic and Quss bin Sa'idah in pre-Islamic times.

So, the challenge, as Abdur Rahim Green mentions, is to produce in Arabic , three lines, that do not fall into one of these sixteen al-Bihar, that is not rhyming prose, nor like the speech of soothsayers, and not normal speech, that it should contain at least a comprehensible meaning and rhetoric, i.e. not gobbledygook. Indeed

The Qur'an is not verse, but it is rhythmic. The rhythm of some verses resemble the regularity of sajc, and both are rhymed, while some verses have a similarity to Rajaz in its vigour and rapidity. But it was recognized by Quraysh critics to belong to neither one nor the other category.[4]

It is interesting to know that all the pre-Islam and post-Islamic poetry collected by Louis Cheikho falls in the above sixteen metres or al-Bihar.[5] Indeed the pagans of Mecca repeated accuse Prophet Muhammad(P) for being a forger, a soothsayer etc. The Arabs who were at the pinnacle of their poetry and prose during the time of revelation of the Qur'an could not even produce the smallest surah of its like. The Qur'an's form did not fit into any of the above mentioned categories. It was this that made the Qur'an inimitable, and left the pagan Arabs at a loss as to how they might combat it as Alqama bin Abd al-Manaf confirmed when he addressed their leaders, the Quraysh:

Oh Quraish, a new calamity has befallen you. Mohammed was a young man the most liked among you, most truthful in speech, and most trustworthy, until, when you saw gray hairs on his temple, and he brought you his message, you said that he was a sorcerer, but he is not, for we seen such people and their spitting and their knots; you said, a diviner, but we have seen such people and their behavior, and we have heard their rhymes; you said a soothsayer, but he is not a soothsayer, for we have heard their rhymes; and you said a poet, but he is not a poet, for we have heard all kinds of poetry; you said he was possessed, but he is not for we have seen the possessed, and he shows no signs of their gasping and whispering and delirium. Oh men of Quraish, look to your affairs, for by Allah a serious thing has befallen you.

It is a well known fact that the Qur'an was revealed in seven ahruf (or seven forms) to facilitate greater understanding of it among the Arabs who had different dialects. This was also to challenge them on their own grounds to produce a surah like that of the Qur'an. The challenge became more obvious when none of the seven major tribes could imitate it even in their own dialects as no one could claim that it was difficult to imitate due to it not being in their own dialect.[6]

What Do The Orientalists Say About The Inimitability Of The Qur'an?

E H Palmer, as early as 1880, recognized the unique style of the Qur'an. But he seem to have been wavering between two thoughts. He writes in the Introduction to his translation of the Qur'an:

That the best of Arab writers has never succeeded in producing anything equal in merit to the Qur'an itself is not surprising. In the first place, they have agreed before-hand that it is unapproachable, and they have adopted its style as the perfect standard; any deviation from it therefore must of necessity be a defect. Again, with them this style is not spontaneous as with Muhammad and his contemporaries, but is as artificial as though Englishmen should still continue to follow Chaucer as their model, in spite of the changes which their language has undergone. With the Prophet, the style was natural, and the words were those in every-day ordinary life, while with the later Arabic authors the style is imitative and the ancient words are introduced as a literary embellishment. The natural consequence is that their attempts look laboured and unreal by the side of his impromptu and forcible eloquence.[7]


The famous Arabist from University of Oxford, Hamilton Gibb was open upon about the style of the Qur'an. In his words:

...the Meccans still demanded of him a miracle, and with remarkable boldness and self confidence Mohammad appealed as a supreme confirmation of his mission to the Koran itself. Like all Arabs they were the connoisseurs of language and rhetoric. Well, then if the Koran were his own composition other men could rival it. Let them produce ten verses like it. If they could not (and it is obvious that they could not), then let them accept the Koran as an outstanding evident miracle.[8]

And in some other place, talking about the Prophet(P) and the Qur'an, he states:

Though, to be sure, the question of the literary merit is one not to be judged on a priori grounds but in relation to the genius of Arabic language; and no man in fifteen hundred years has ever played on that deep-toned instrument with such power, such boldness, and such range of emotional effect as Mohammad did.[9]

As a literary monument the Koran thus stands by itself, a production unique to the Arabic literature, having neither forerunners nor successors in its own idiom. Muslims of all ages are united in proclaiming the inimitability not only of its contents but also of its style..... and in forcing the High Arabic idiom into the expression of new ranges of thought the Koran develops a bold and strikingly effective rhetorical prose in which all the resources of syntactical modulation are exploited with great freedom and originality.[10]

On the influence of the Qur'an on Arabic literature Gibb says:

The influence of the Koran on the development of Arabic Literature has been incalculable, and exerted in many directions. Its ideas, its language, its rhymes pervade all subsequent literary works in greater or lesser measure. Its specific linguistic features were not emulated, either in the chancery prose of the next century or in the later prose writings, but it was at least partly due to the flexibility imparted by the Koran to the High Arabic idiom that the former could be so rapidly developed and adjusted to the new needs of the imperial government and an expanding society.[11]

As the Qur'an itself says:

And if ye are in doubt as to what We have revealed from time to time to Our servant, then produce a Sura like thereunto; and call your witnesses or helpers (If there are any) besides Allah, if your (doubts) are true. But if ye cannot- and of a surety ye cannot- then fear the Fire whose fuel is men and stones,- which is prepared for those who reject Faith. (Qur'an 2:23-24)

Lastly, the beautiful style of the Qur'an is admired even by the Arab Christians:

The Quran is one of the world's classics which cannot be translated without grave loss. It has a rhythm of peculiar beauty and a cadence that charms the ear. Many Christian Arabs speak of its style with warm admiration, and most Arabists acknowledge its excellence. When it is read aloud or recited it has an almost hypnotic effect that makes the listener indifferent to its sometimes strange syntax and its sometimes, to us, repellent content. It is this quality it possesses of silencing criticism by the sweet music of its language that has given birth to the dogma of its inimitability; indeed it may be affirmed that within the literature of the Arabs, wide and fecund as it is both in poetry and in elevated prose, there is nothing to compare with it.[12]

The above sentences speak of themselves. Summing up: Within the Arabic literature, either poetry or prose, there is nothing comparable to the Qur'an. Muslims throughout the centuries are united upon the its inimitability.

There is also a talk by some people that there are grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an. In retort, it can be mentioned that the Arab contemporaries of Muhammad(P) were most erudite and proficient in the idiosyncrasies of Arabic speech; and hence, if they had found any grammatical 'errors' in the Qur'an, they would have revealed it when Muhammad(P) challenged them with to do so. Therefore, since they did not take up his challenge on this issue, we can be rest assured that no such grammatical 'errors' exist in the Qur'an.

Indeed the grammatical errors claimed by some people have been already discussed and refuted in a reputed journal.[13] It turns out that lack of knowledge of intricate constructions in classical Arabic by some people gave rise to so-called grammatical 'errors'.

And Allah knows best! ;)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References


[1] C J Lyall, Translations Of Ancient Arabian Poetry, Chiefly Pre-Islamic, Williams & Norgate Ltd., London, 1930.

[2] Ibid., pp. xlv-lii.

[3] Ibn Khaldun, The Muqaddimah, Franz Rosenthal (Translator), Volume III, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1958, p. 368.

[4] A F L Beeston, T M Johnstone, R B Serjeant and G R Smith (Editors), Arabic Literature To The End Of The Ummayad Period, 1983, Cambridge University Press, p. 34.

[5] Louis Cheikho, Shucara' 'al-Nasraniyah, 1890-1891, Beirut.

[6] Abu Ameenah Bilal Philips, Tafseer Soorah al-Hujuraat, 1988, Tawheed Publications, Riyadh (Saudi Arabia), p. 28.

[7] E H Palmer (Tr.), The Qur'an, 1900, Part I, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. lv.

[8] H A R Gibb, Islam - A Historical Survey, 1980, Oxford University Press, p. 28.

[9] Ibid., p. 25.

[10] H A R Gibb, Arabic Literature - An Introduction, 1963, Oxford at Clarendon Press, p. 36.

[11] Ibid., p. 37.

[12] Alfred Guillaume, Islam, 1990 (Reprinted), Penguin Books, pp. 73-74.

[13] M A S Abdel Haleem, Grammatical Shift For The Rhetorical Purposes: Iltifat & Related Features In The Qur'an, Bulletin of School of Oriental and African Studies, Volume LV, Part 3, 1992. (Now online)

[14] Mircea Eliade (Editor in Chief), The Encyclopedia Of Religion, Volume 7, Macmillam Publishing Company, New York, p. 87, Under I'jaz by Issa J Boullata.

Source:http://www.theholybook.org/content/view/9239/14/

crazymonkie_ wrote:So tired of this....
So unnecessary to show me this! I don't know Arabic. Take these lame attempts to an Arabic scholar and he would point out thousands of mistakes in them!

And bwahahaha! :lotpot: Funny surahs! So clearly proven pathetic and inferior! :harhar:
Those surahs are not even somewhat closer to Allah's words! Allah-o-Akbar!

Attempting to produce a surah like Quran's is not a human thing to do. These forged surahs also can never have effect of the writing on people. Do many people find them impressive and convert? Do they memorize the writing like the Quran has been memorized (because they want to, not because it's a challenge.) Do they recite it over and over again? (again not because it's a challenge but because they want to.) Do they get tranquility by reciting it and listening to its recitation?

Answer is simply "NO!"

Also, are these suras as comprehensive as the Quran? Do they contain applicable laws for society? Do they contain scientific miracles that haven't been discovered?

Again answer is a big "NO!"

ALso if someone looks at the way the Quran is written and then tries to come up with piece like it, it only shows the uniqueness of the Quraan. they would only be copying the Quran style which shows that nothing like it (an original) can be produced!

Therefore the challenge of producing a surah somewhat similar to Quran will always remain unmet! Allah-o-Akbar!
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah:and who can baptize better than Allah?And it is He whom we worship." (2:138)
"Keh do k Allah aik hai,Wo Mabood Barhaq bay niaz hai,Na kisi Ka baap hai na kisi Ka beta,Aur koi uska humsar nahi." (112:1-4)

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by debunker »

@ Ani
Attempting to produce a surah like Quran's is not a human thing to do.
But you said you don't even speak Arabic, so you must be completely blind to the beauty of the language.

I am pretty myopic myself, despite my very good knowledge of classical/official Arabic. True, I do see a great deal of beauty in the language, but frankly I'm too myopic to see the *miracle*.

So let's not claim seeing things we can't actually see.
account suspended for inappropriate language

User avatar
Ani
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by Ani »

debunker wrote: But you said you don't even speak Arabic, so you must be completely blind to the beauty of the language.
Yup! As I don't know Arabic, m unable to see its beauty. But the TRANSLATION of the SURAHS show how comprehensive the surahs are in their nature. When you read the translation of suras, you find clear meanings quickly but that there are also many hidden meanings there at the same time. Therefore, the Surahs by their very nature SHOW that they are Divine, as the forged suras fail to have comprehensive meanings etc.
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah:and who can baptize better than Allah?And it is He whom we worship." (2:138)
"Keh do k Allah aik hai,Wo Mabood Barhaq bay niaz hai,Na kisi Ka baap hai na kisi Ka beta,Aur koi uska humsar nahi." (112:1-4)

crazymonkie_
Posts: 1899
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:01 am

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by crazymonkie_ »

That doesn't necessarily show divine origins. It just shows that human beings look for positive patterns. These "hidden meanings" (particularly in translations, which themselves are a very complicated issue as it is) may simply not be there. One can find patterns or meaning in just about anything. People have done some pretty strange things with Moby-Dick, for instance; and there's a LONG tradition of numerology in just about every spiritual system on the planet (easier for those languages where numbers and letters are the same).

Should we necessarily discount the "hidden meanings" of these just because it's not already presupposed that these are *not* divine and that *yours* (at least for your religion) *is* divine? If so, why?

User avatar
debunker
banned
Posts: 2616
Joined: Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:09 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by debunker »

@ Ani
Yup! As I don't know Arabic, m unable to see its beauty. But the TRANSLATION of the SURAHS show how comprehensive the surahs are in their nature. When you read the translation of suras, you find clear meanings quickly but that there are also many hidden meanings there at the same time. Therefore, the Surahs by their very nature SHOW that they are Divine, as the forged suras fail to have comprehensive meanings etc.
The translations are painfully boring! And by the way, the repitition issue (which is a measure of the importance of the message conveyed) is a real problem in translations. There are no two verses in the Arabic Quran using the same exact wording... for example, a certain important message might be repeated a 100 times in the Quran, but each time it's repeated the words are different, sound different, etc so as not to bore you, unlike the frigging translations!

In any case, my point still stands. It's really meaningless when a blind man starts praising a beautiful picture to another blind man. The beauty of the language should not be a subject of discussion with non Arab speakers... in fact, even uneducated Arabs are blind to it.
account suspended for inappropriate language

star
Posts: 49
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 3:56 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by star »

ANI WROTE:The Christians started bringing Islam in this topic. They found it hard to defend the bible and to hide its exact and clear contradictions, they turned on Islam that if you say bible has this then Quran too makes these mistakes etc.

1.FIRST it is not hard to defence the Bible ,but it is hard to make Muslims see the true , they were told so many lies about Christianity , Bible ect . that only prayers can help.
2.This forum is about Islam , and firts post was witten by Ani who is Muslim- with lots of energy :)by the way ,who claim that Bible is corrupted and Quran is true word of God ,so of course topic will turn on Islam , I dont think that on atheist forum such topic can turn about Islam :) .More or less post was about Bible is not true and Quran is true.How enyone can exspect that topic wont jump on Islam in such case ? is totaly out of my reach.
3.Muslim wants to see mistake in the Bible , becouse this is only way to defence Islam ,becouse Quran claims that Bible is word of God , Mohamed couldn read , so he didnt realise that Jesus teaching is contradictionary to Quran teaching and in his area were circuleting heretic Christian teaching ,anyone who knows a liitle histry knows about it.The only way to escape from such trap is to claim that Bible has been corupted , and before existed not corrupted Bible ,which agree with Qurans teaching which is totaly ridicules from historical point of viev.

People who are interestiong in is Quran such miracle this is some interesting links:

:http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/ ... rvation%29- Was Quran very well preser ved?

Scientific Flaws in the Quran:
Shooting Stars at Demons -

http://www.answeringmuslims.com/search/ ... 20Qur%27an


4.Obviously Quran is not word of God if Mohamed wasnt a prophet here very interesting debate

:http://www.answeringmuslims.com/2008/09 ... d-was.html

5. I have another opinion I think that Muslims scholars bring up "mistakes " in the Bible to make draw out attension from moral teaching of Islam ,who doesnt much with basic human rights , basic justice , womens rights ect. for examle in Islam you cannot adopt child , if you want to hear why ,here you have explantions form Muslim scholar

:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2oQhS59 ... r_embedded who claim that is immoral to allow adopted child inherit .Of course it is fabules news to every women who cannot have children , dont wory your husband can take another wife , and she will give him beautiful and healfy children :wink:
6.On this forum ale mostly not Christian .
7.The purpuse of this topic is to show that we cannot trust the Bible , but we can trust Quran , so automaticly and naurally it will be about Islam also.
8.If I claim that Bible is corrupted and I take passage abusing avery ,logical , historical , gramatical rules I can proof that Barac Obama is last prophet and Big Mac was alredy mention in the Bible for example 2500 years ago
:) that why I think that debating with Muslims is a bit frustraiting. :wink:
9.Abot camels urine I dont trust scholars who want to use science to support ideology.Any unbiase person see in which country and by who are made this urine-experiments .What harm it can couse we could see during second worl war when Nazist used to claim that science proof that German people are better race.

here more : ON SCIENC Medicine and Murderin the Third Reich-http://www.adl.org/braun/dim_medicine_murder.asp
here more about what is pseudoscience : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoscience
There is no scientific evidence of a therapeutic use for urine.
The most obvious physiological effect of drinking urine, at least when it is taken on an empty stomach, is bowel movement (sometimes in the form of diarrhea) due to the laxative action of hypertonic solution of urea.
^ a b Christopher Middleton (2003-02-24). "A wee drop of amber nectar". The Daily Telegraph. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/main. ... hhel24.xml" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
^ a b Gardner, Martin (2001). Did Adam and Eve Have Navels?: Debunking Pseudoscience. New York: W.W. Norton & Company. pp. 92-101. ISBN 0-393-32238-6.
^ a b "Taking The Piss: Is urine drinking a good idea?". Correx archives. http://www.abc.net.au/science/correx/archives/piss.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
^ a b c d Robert Todd Carroll (2003). The skeptic's dictionary: a collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions, and dangerous delusions (illustrated ed.). John Wiley and Sons. pp. 391-394. ISBN 0471272426, 9780471272427. http://books.google.com/books?id=6FPqDF ... herapeutic" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
^ a b c Urine Therapy, Jeff Lowe

paarsurrey
Posts: 812
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 3:12 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by paarsurrey »

Hi friends

I think Quran , Bible and/or any Revealed Book of any other Revealed Religion does not claim to be a text book of science, in my opinion. Am I right?

Anyone who does not agree with me; may please quote from any such book of the Theists in this connection.

I am sorry for the Athiests Agnostics; they don't claim to have any Revelation from the Creator-God Allah YHWH, in my opinion.

I love Jesus and Mary as mentioned in Quran.

Thanks
I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim;bridging gaps between faiths/denominations/sects/religions Atheists/Agnostics/Humanists and working for their unity and brotherhood.

http://paarsurrey.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
Ani
Posts: 83
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2009 9:18 pm

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by Ani »

Peace be on you!
star wrote:2.This forum is about Islam

But was the topic about Islam? :wink: "Scientific Mistakes in the Bible" Well I don't see any Islam here! :*)
star wrote:who claim that Bible is corrupted and Quran is true word of God
Don't misquote me star! Did I write this in my very first post??? Of course not! And here it is for you to read again, the exact words I said in my very first post.
Ani wrote:It is only to show you that with all these mistakes in the Bible,how can you still argue that it is the word of God?


I only started defending Islam later, when other people brought it in. The first reply of Chiclets is an enough proof that they compelled me to talk about Islam.

And this is not even necessary to argue on such points! When people here brought Islam in between the discussion, I still replied to many of them. So, no need to argue! :)
star wrote:3.Muslim wants to see mistake in the Bible , becouse this is only way to defence Islam
No dear star. We don't use this non-Muslim technique! Muslims have enough proofs of Quran to be the true word of God. Finding contradictions in Bible is not a way to prove Quran's authenticity. It is only a way to show Bible's corruption. Nothing else. So simple! :*)

The site links you gave are once again anti-Islamic, presenting only falsehood and nothing else. I am also very tired of advising you again and again to visit Islamic sites where you can truly know what Islam is! But of course your choice. If you only desire to keep your knowledge one-sided, only prayers can then help you. :*)
"(Our religion is) the Baptism of Allah:and who can baptize better than Allah?And it is He whom we worship." (2:138)
"Keh do k Allah aik hai,Wo Mabood Barhaq bay niaz hai,Na kisi Ka baap hai na kisi Ka beta,Aur koi uska humsar nahi." (112:1-4)

User avatar
byteresistor
Posts: 1514
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 1:41 am

Re: Scientific mistakes in the Bible

Post by byteresistor »

Ani wrote:The site links you gave are once again anti-Islamic, presenting only falsehood and nothing else. I am also very tired of advising you again and again to visit Islamic sites where you can truly know what Islam is!
Let's say just for the sake of argument that there are contradictions and falsehood in Islam. Now, why would these pro-Islamic sites show that inconvinient truth? How do you know those sites aren't propaganda? Like you claim with much conviction about anti-Islam sites.

Post Reply