Evidence and Clear Examples of Factual errors & historical inaccuracies in the Quran.

[RCNicholas]

[QUOTE=barnasha;2380926]

I interpret scriptures the same way I interpret anything, as a scientist and a thinker, as a historian.

I do so without preconceived conclusions, judgements, etc.

This is something C R I T I C A L to a proper analysis of ANYTHING, especially the exegesis of a theological text.

And I know very little about Baha'ullah.

I'm sorry, are you not Baha'i? I was under the impression you were, perhaps I confused you with someone else.

Moreover, I applaud your attempt to be objective, but my adherence to the teachings of a given Church does not mean right out of the gate that I cannot be or am not objective. Nor does the fact that you adhere to no particular church's teachings make you objective right out of the gate. So again, pointing to membership in a church says nothing about an individual person's objectivity. I could argue that being a member of my Church and in line with its interpretations makes me far MORE objective than you, who apparently answers to no authority at all when interpreting a religious text. However, that would take us on a huge tangent and it has nothing really to do with the fact that the New Testament undeniably commands us to believe in Jesus.

How does any of this make me wrong?

You said that Paul and Jesus never command us to "believe in Jesus." Unfortunately all the above verses contradict you there.

right.

so in greek, and in the context of Paul's writings and the gospels, "believe" means have faith in -- not the dogmatic proclamation that "I believe in Jesus"

You have to have faith in SOMETHING. The word "faith" has no meaning unless attached to some object. The object of faith in the New Testament is undeniably Christ.

such dogmatism would have fit in better with the mainstream Judaism of which Jesus and Paul were heretics.

Again, your objection to "dogma" (which simply means, "a belief one holds to be absolutely true") has nothing to do with the conversation. You seem to have a problem with my phraseology here, but I've just demonstrated that it's thoroughly Biblical.

[barnasha]

[quote=RCNicholas;2380942]

I'm sorry, are you not Baha'i? I was under the impression you were, perhaps I confused you with someone else.

Moreover, I applaud your attempt to be objective, but my adherence to the teachings of a given Church does not mean right out of the gate that I cannot be or am not objective.

not at all

Nor does the fact that you adhere to no particular church's teachings make you objective right out of the gate.

if that were true, not at all.

if it were not, not at all.

So again, pointing to membership in a church says nothing about an individual person's objectivity.

whether or not you are the member of an organization, and interpreting a text in a way that aligns with that particular institution's party line, is a subtly, yet totally different matter.

I could argue that being a member of my Church and in line with its interpretations makes me far MORE objective than you, who apparently answers to no authority at all when interpreting a religious text. However, that would take us on a huge tangent and it has nothing really to do with the fact that the New Testament undeniably commands us to believe in Jesus.

who is the authority to which one should answer of the texts in the new testament?

the only authority I know of is the truth.

You said that Paul and Jesus never command us to "believe in Jesus." Unfortunately all the above verses contradict you there.

I did not, I clarified the difference between dogmatic, socio-political belief, and faith, the latter is that of which the prophets and authors of the biblical scriptures speak

You have to have faith in SOMETHING. The word "faith" has no meaning unless attached to some object. The object of faith in the New Testament is undeniably Christ.

that seems to be an overgeneralization - or at least an imprecise wording.

When Jesus said

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not."

this is also translated as:

"Then if any man says to you, See, here is the Christ, or, Here; do not put faith in him;"

this goes back to the point that faith/belief is just what you agree to as true, or invest into spiritually and intellectually,in a sense.

We could pull out more examples of this but i think the point is sufficiently made with the above example.Perhaps you can clarify your statement, above...

"faith" is a concept which does not only have a theological meaning. And we cannot assume Jesus was telling us to worship him as a god when he said to have faith in him, or that Paul worshipped him as a god.

For either of them to do that would earn them ridicule because it is not anything like Hebrew custom... Nobody would have believed Jesus was the messiah if he said he was God. That is not how the prophecy works. The messiah ("Christ") is not supposed to be worshipped as a god.

Again, your objection to "dogma" (which simply means, "a belief one holds to be absolutely true") has nothing to do with the conversation. You seem to have a problem with my phraseology here, but I've just demonstrated that it's thoroughly Biblical.

Worshipping Paul as a god is "Biblical", if Biblical means i derived it from the bible somehow.

[smaneck]

This 'explanation' does not help you explain away the fact that Muslims in that time (Sura al-baqara) bowed towards and worshiped towards a pagan temple FIILLED with 300-plus IDOLS - AT THE INSTRUCTION OF MUHAMMAD himself, who at the same time preached a one-god only story to them.

Dan.

Perhaps to illustrate this principle:

Righteousness is not that ye turn your faces towards the east or the west, but righteousness is, one who believes in God, and the last day, and the angels, and the Book, and the prophets, and who gives wealth for His love to kindred, and orphans, and the poor, and the son of the road, beggars, and those in captivity; and who is steadfast in prayer, and gives alms; and those who are sure of their covenant when they make a covenant; and the patient in poverty, and distress, and in time of violence; these are they who are true, and these are those who fear.

(The Qur'an (E.H. Palmer tr), Sura 2 - The Heifer)

[smaneck]

You interpret Scripture in keeping with the teachings of Baha'i and the interpretations of Baha'u'llah.

I'm the Baha'i, not Barmasha but admittedly he sounds like one much of the time.

[RCNicholas]

whether or not you are the member of an organization, and interpreting a text in a way that aligns with that particular institution's party line, is a subtly, yet totally different matter.

who is the authority to which one should answer of the texts in the new testament?

Anyone outside yourself might be a start...unless you claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

the only authority I know of is the truth.

The truth as defined by whom? All religions, heck, virtually all people claim to know the truth. You must have some starting point, some building block upon which you determine what the truth is.

I did not, I clarified the difference between dogmatic, socio-political belief, and faith, the latter is that of which the prophets and authors of the biblical scriptures speak

You have unfortunately not defined what "dogmatic, socio-political belief" is or how it contradicts your definition of "faith." You inveighed against "dogma" without explaining what you think "dogma" is, which "dogmas" you're talking about, or why they're wrong, other than the fact that you said so. As for it being "socio-political," I didn't bring up anything of the sort, so I haven't a clue what you're arguing against in my statement. I simply said that both Paul and Jesus command us to believe in Him. You said they didn't, and thus a contradicted you with the plain words of the Bible.

that seems to be an overgeneralization - or at least an imprecise wording.

When Jesus said

"Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not."

this is also translated as:

"Then if any man says to you, See, here is the Christ, or, Here; do not put faith in him;"

this goes back to the point that faith/belief is just what you agree to as true, or invest into spiritually and intellectually,in a sense.

Your quote is from Matthew 24, regarding the end times and the appearance of FALSE Christs:

"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." Matthew 24:5

I hope you're not suggesting that this means that Jesus didn't claim to be the TRUE Christ, or that men shouldn't believe in Him. The verses calling Jesus the Christ are too numerous to quote.

We could pull out more examples of this but i think the point is sufficiently made with the above example.Perhaps you can clarify your statement, above...

I don't know what I need to clarify. Jesus told us to believe in Him, as the quotes I provided state plainly. The verse you quoted shows that we shouldn't put faith in false Christs; that has nothing to do with putting faith in the true Christ, Jesus of Nazareth.

"faith" is a concept which does not only have a theological meaning. And we cannot assume Jesus was telling us to worship him as a god when he said to have faith in him, or that Paul worshipped him as a god.

There's no need to assume. Just read.

"that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:23

"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13

The deity of Christ is a whole 'nother thread, but suffice it to say, once again, that your interpretations are far-fetched at best.

For either of them to do that would earn them ridicule because it is not anything like Hebrew custom... Nobody would have believed Jesus was the messiah if he said he was God.

LOL....I'm sorry to be sarcastic, but newsflash: no one DID believe Him. He was tortured and executed as a heretic. Oh, and so was Paul.

That is not how the prophecy works. The messiah ("Christ") is not supposed to be worshipped as a god.

A perusal of Isaiah 9 would do you good, I think.

Worshipping Paul as a god is "Biblical", if Biblical means i derived it from the bible somehow

You objected to the phraseology "believe in Christ." It's directly found in Scripture. You later backpedaled and tried to explain away your objection being against some "socio-political" concept which isn't in anything I said. It's your assumption about something I believe, at best.

[smaneck]

A perusal of Isaiah 9 would do you good, I think.

Originally Isaiah 9 was a reference to Hezekiah.

[barnasha]

Anyone outside yourself might be a start...unless you claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture?

I never relied on an authority of something which did not write the texts, did you?

You seem to imply that I am an authority on those texts, but I am not.

The texts themselves and their authors are the authorities.

The truth as defined by whom? All religions, heck, virtually all people claim to know the truth. You must have some starting point, some building block upon which you determine what the truth is.

truth is not defined, it defines itself.

reality, the universe, the sunshine, does not stop and wait for you to define it.

You have unfortunately not defined what "dogmatic, socio-political belief" is or how it contradicts your definition of "faith."

The definitions themselves, being merely definitions, do not contradict.

Ideological belief systems and personal, spiritual, faith may overlap but they are not the same thing.

If they are not different - when your mom sent you off to school and had faith in her heart you will do well - what belief system is that faith from?

You inveighed against "dogma" without explaining what you think "dogma" is, which "dogmas" you're talking about, or why they're wrong, other than the fact that you said so.

What exactly is unclear to you?

As for it being "socio-political," I didn't bring up anything of the sort, so I haven't a clue what you're arguing against in my statement. I simply said that both Paul and Jesus command us to believe in Him. You said they didn't, and thus a contradicted you with the plain words of the Bible.

I see no reason why we should not believe in both Jesus and Paul.

They taught with sincerity and have shown us great wisdom.

Your quote is from Matthew 24, regarding the end times and the appearance of FALSE Christs:

"For many will come in My name, saying, 'I am the Christ,' and will deceive many." Matthew 24:5

I hope you're not suggesting that this means that Jesus didn't claim to be the TRUE Christ, or that men shouldn't believe in Him. The verses calling Jesus the Christ are too numerous to quote.

no, it was a demonstration of the equality of 'belief in' and 'have faith' in

a linguistic point, not a theological one.

I don't know what I need to clarify. Jesus told us to believe in Him, as the quotes I provided state plainly. The verse you quoted shows that we shouldn't put faith in false Christs; that has nothing to do with putting faith in the true Christ, Jesus of Nazareth.

My argument was that Jesus and Paul did not teach some sort of cheap "shallow" faith, a truism.

Neither Jesus nor Paul taught a shallow, dogmatic "belief in Jesus", they taught faith.

More to the point, you're demonstrably incorrect:

"And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form. But you do not have His word abiding in you, because whom He sent, Him you do not believe." John 5:37-38

"Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live.' " John 11:25

"Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me." John 14:1

"but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name." John 20:31

"that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the Scripture says, 'Whoever believes on Him will not be put to shame.' " Romans 10:9-11

You said I was "incorrect".

I asked you why you thought so .............

There's no need to assume. Just read.

"that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him." John 5:23

If I sent my son on a long journey to see you, and you dishonored him, you would be dishonoring me.

(In Jesus's language, did he say the equivalent of those capital letters there? Or were those added by Roman-Christian English interpretations of the Greek language?)

"looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ," Titus 2:13

Incidentally, I'd ask: does the Greek in this passage refer to Jesus as "God and Savior", or does it refer to (1) our great God and (2) our Savior Jesus Christ ?

King James Bible
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
American King James Version
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
American Standard Version
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;




There is a passage or two from Paul, and some from John, that seem to clearly refer to Jesus as a God.



But mostly, Paul, a Jew, distinguishes between (1) the man Jesus, (2) the Messiah ("Christ" , " Anointed One") - a role Jesus fulfilled, and (3) God Almighty, the god of Abraham and Moses, the uncreated, which Jesus refers to as "Our Father".


As did anyone else from their time and culture...

The deity of Christ is a whole 'nother thread, but suffice it to say, once again, that your interpretations are far-fetched at best.


LOL....I'm sorry to be sarcastic, but newsflash: no one DID believe Him. He was tortured and executed as a heretic. Oh, and so was Paul.

No one believed he was the Messiah - something he actually did not seem to directly claim.

If he said he was God Himself, I'd think he would have been sent to a nuthouse, not a courtroom. If anyone had taken him seriously enough to have gotten so famous.

Ask a mideastern scholar......

(Of course, there are hundreds of teachings of Jesus we see in the gospels which directly contradict the idea that he claimed to be God, i.e. "do not call me good, only one is good..." etc.)

A perusal of Isaiah 9 would do you good, I think.

thanks for the advice

You objected to the phraseology "believe in Christ." It's directly found in Scripture. You later backpedaled and tried to explain away your objection being against some "socio-political" concept which isn't in anything I said. It's your assumption about something I believe, at best.

I'm not sure I have done any backpedaling, so far. I am only explaining to you what I've said. I invite you to do the same.

[Dan Zebiri]

HI Nicholas,

Folks like Barnasha, sue and other islamophiles like them do not understand the meaning nor significance of 'apostolic teachings' or even 'apostolic succession' in Christianity, they -especially Sue, prefers to call that 'hearsay', in deference to islamic and/ or Bahai teachings.

So, when we try to point out something historically relevant to them, like the apostolic teachings, kerygma etc, they would just try to pound that down to 'hearsay' & nothing more.

They don't realize that the Quran and the ahadith has a much worse history in terms of historical corroboration of facts, and one that even contradicts factual historical realities! Or even if they do realise that, they would pretend that it does not matter and/or is irrelevant.

Regards, Dan.

It also teaches people to believe solely in Jesus Christ for salvation and to obey apostolic teaching, but you don't seem particularly keen on those commands...

[Dan Zebiri]

Another couple of factual errors and inconsistencies internal to the Quran is found here:

1) Does Allah's day equal to 1,000 human years (Sura 22:47, 32:5) or 50,000 human years (Sura 70:4)?

suras 22 and 32 state that 'one day equals 1,000 human years' BUT IS FLATLY CONTRADICTED BY: Sura 70 which states otherwise - that 1 day equals 50,000 years!

2) Was there really six or eight days of creation? Sura 7:54, 10:3, 11:7, and 25:59 clearly state that God created "the heavens and the earth" in SIX days. But in 41:9-12 the detailed description of the creation procedure adds up to EIGHT DAYS!

Muslims love to point out so-called 'contradictions in the Bible'
but are glibly and shamelessly unaware - or pretend to be unaware, of contradictions within the Quran itself TOO!

What do we call that? - Hypocrisy I believe is the honest word.

Dan.

[Ibn Abu Talib]

You need to lay off the crack, Dan!

Surah 22:47 and 32:5 say that a 24 hour period is equal to 1000 years in Allah's sight whereas Surah 70:4 states that the time taken for the Spirit and Angels to ascend to their Creator is equivalent to 50,000 years.

As for the second contradiction, you double counted the days mentioned in 41:9-12. Consequently, there is no genuine discrepancy.

Muslims love to point out so-called 'contradictions in the Bible'

Only Muslims?

[barnasha]

a day is like a thousand days has a metaphorical meaning.

God, being eternal and without the contraints of something bound by the laws of the universe, is not bound by linear time.

Allah is spoken of as having a day "LIKE" 1000 years (from a human's point of view, of course!), in a much earlier text than the Quran...


"Lord, you have been our dwelling place throughout all generations...You turn men back to dust, saying, "Return to dust, O sons of men." For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night." (Psalm 90:1,3,4)

[smaneck]

HI Nicholas,

Folks like Barnasha, sue and other islamophiles like them do not understand the meaning nor significance of 'apostolic teachings' or even 'apostolic succession' in Christianity, they -especially Sue, prefers to call that 'hearsay', in deference to islamic and/ or Bahai teachings.

It has nothing to do with deference to Islamic or Baha'i Teachings, really. I was simply challenging your reference to eyewitness testimony which in most cases you don't have. There is a clear legal meaning to what constitutes an eyewitness which you are choosing to ignore.

[So, when we try to point out something historically relevant to them, like the apostolic teachings, kerygma etc, they would just try to pound that down to 'hearsay' & nothin more. [

I don't have any problem whatsoever with apostolic teachings or kergyma so long as you identify it as such I don't call it 'eyewitness.'

[They don't realize that the Quran and the ahadith has a much worse history in terms of historical corroboration of facts, and one that even contradicts factual historical realities! Or even if they do realise that, they would pretend that it does not matter and/or is irrelevant.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention or you would have seen me draw attention to the unreliability of hadiths. As for the Qur'an, it depends on what we are talking about. If we are talking about events that happened a thousand years before either the biblical or Qur'anic accounts were written, there is not much corroboration for either account. If we are talking events associated with the life of Muhammad Himself, then the Qur'an *is* primary source evidence and much *more* reliable than the Gospel accounts.

Regards, Dan. [/QUOTE]

[RCNicholas]

I never relied on an authority of something which did not write the texts, did you?

You seem to imply that I am an authority on those texts, but I am not.

The texts themselves and their authors are the authorities.

So wait, you've spoken to Jesus and Paul in person about what they meant?

If not, then you have quite obviously relied on something outside the authors to interpret their words.

truth is not defined, it defines itself.

You'll have to explain how so. "Truth" is a concept. It is not alive. We may say things are "true" or that someone speaks "the truth," but there always has to be that intermediate agency offering us the definition.

reality, the universe, the sunshine, does not stop and wait for you to define it.

Of course, I never suggested such a thing. However, we cannot understand the universe or the sunshine until we stop, define them, and study them. We can either define and study them ourselves based on what we personally feel is best, or we can rely on an outside source who we feel is more knowledgeable, wise, etc to teach us about those things.

Ideological belief systems and personal, spiritual, faith may overlap but they are not the same thing.

You'll have to explain the difference, and how you think "believing in Jesus" is ideological rather than personal and/or spiritual.

If they are not different - when your mom sent you off to school and had faith in her heart you will do well - what belief system is that faith from?

If my mom had faith that I would do well in school, she had to have faith IN something. She either had to have faith in me as a person (i.e. that I am a responsible, intelligent, generally good boy), or perhaps in God to whom she might pray that I will do well (because she believes He will hear her prayers and answer them, because He is omniscient, omnipotent, etc). So you see, in any example you offer, the faith has to be in something. If you simply say "I have faith" without defining what your faith is IN, then at best your faith is useless and at worst it's completely meaningless.

What exactly is unclear to you?

What is unclear is what specific "dogma" you think is so undesirable, and why? Please, be specific.

no, it was a demonstration of the equality of 'belief in' and 'have faith' in

a linguistic point, not a theological one.

So when Jesus told us to believe in Him, what is it you think He meant?

My argument was that Jesus and Paul did not teach some sort of cheap "shallow" faith, a truism.

What confuses me is where you think I DID advocate a cheap shallow faith. No where did I do so.

If I sent my son on a long journey to see you, and you dishonored him, you would be dishonoring me.

(In Jesus's language, did he say the equivalent of those capital letters there? Or were those added by Roman-Christian English interpretations of the Greek language?)

I don't know...you have thus far capitalized both "God" and "Jesus" in this dialogue, have you not? Have you been influenced by the Roman-Christian English interpretations of the Greek language?

However, Jesus does not merely talk there in terms of the negative ("dishonor") but the positive ("honor"). He claims that the same honor that is due to the Father is due to Him. Those He was speaking to honored the Father at the level of worship as God. Thus, He was asking for that same level of worship.

Incidentally, I'd ask: does the Greek in this passage refer to Jesus as "God and Savior", or does it refer to (1) our great God and (2) our Savior Jesus Christ ?

King James Bible
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
American King James Version
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ;
American Standard Version
looking for the blessed hope and appearing of the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

It's really a moot point because the Bible repeatedly refers to God as the Savior. Unless we have two Saviors, then the obvious conclusion must be drawn.

There is a passage or two from Paul, and some from John, that seem to clearly refer to Jesus as a God.

"A God?" Meaning there is more than one?

But mostly, Paul, a Jew, distinguishes between (1) the man Jesus, (2) the Messiah ("Christ" , " Anointed One") - a role Jesus fulfilled, and (3) God Almighty, the god of Abraham and Moses, the uncreated, which Jesus refers to as "Our Father".

Sure, I basically agree with you there. I don't think Jesus and the Father are the same Person.

No one believed he was the Messiah - something he actually did not seem to directly claim.

Do you believe that "Messiah" and "Christ" are the same thing (one Hebrew, one Greek)? John 1:41

If he said he was God Himself, I'd think he would have been sent to a nuthouse, not a courtroom.

I don't know if they had "nuthouses" in ancient Israel, my friend. Generally people considered heretics were executed...which is exactly what happened to Jesus. If anyone doubts what His "heresy" was, John 10:33 makes it pretty clear.

Ask a mideastern scholar......

(Of course, there are hundreds of teachings of Jesus we see in the gospels which directly contradict the idea that he claimed to be God, i.e. "do not call me good, only one is good..." etc.)

I'd love to go through them with you, though that would send us on a very huge tangent. Just so you know, He did not say "Do not call Me good," He asked "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God" Matthew 19:17
Yet oddly, Jesus calls Himself "good" in John 10:11...hmmm....

[Narnian]

No one believed he was the Messiah

Barnasha, the Quran calls Jesus "The Messiah". see Suras 4:157,171; 3:45 and here is a discussion on it;

http://www.debate.org.uk/topics/theo/messiah.htm

[barnasha]

Barnasha, the Quran calls Jesus "The Messiah".]

Yes, it does, but I was talking about the acceptance of Jesus as the Moshiach (Messiah) by the Jewish religious community at his time.