> Why God's Book Cannot Contain Error

[salman]

^your post only shows that you got a long way to go

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

1. With regard to the oldest copy being 200 years after Prophet. Two ancient copies of Koran are the Samarqand MSS is in Tashkent, and the MSS housed in the Topkapi Museum in Istanbul. These were written in a script style called "Kufic", practising Muslim scholars generally date these manuscripts no earlier than 200 years after Muhammad died. John Gilchrist, in his book, "Jam' Al-Qur'an" came to this same conclusion. (John Gilchrist, Jam' Al-Qur'an, Jesus to the Muslims, 1989)

let's not repeat same thing again and again: the Qur'aan was written down during the life of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) and it was compiled into a mushaf right after his death. This has been historically reported and passed down. Do not pick and choose! Now as far concerning the oldest copies we have today, you should pay more attention to who you are (a professor) instead of randomly copying and pasting: On The Origins Of The Kufic Script

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

2. You have a very peculiar way of assessing the Bible. The Bible as we know it was compiled over about 1600 years and long before the Quran existed.

so what if it existed before Qur'aan? your point is? Bible was originally written by unknown authors as you admitted

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

It has many books and many authors and often we do not know who the author was. You presumable would make the absolutely un-testable claim that Allah wrote the Quran.

how can you trust these unknow authors? how do you know what they wrote is correct and they were trustworthy? oh let me guess because you've so many manuscripts dating back but these manuscripts also come from same kinds of authors. Don't assert straw man when we never claimed that Allah compiled the Qur'aan into a mushaf. Qur'aan is the Kalam (Speech) of Allah, His words; it refers to the actual text not the mushaf or paper/copy itself. Muslims also use the word "Kitaab Allah" to refer to the Qur'aan. Here's more from one of the sisters on the forum:

Originally Posted by Umm Abdullah

Kitab in Arabic means collected or grouped writing, it refers to the written words and not the paper it is collected in.
The paper it is written in is called sahifa\suhuf , which the word mushaf was derived from.

Ahl bidah confuse the words with the ink and paper, if one erased the ink that the words were written with, do the words cease to exist?
No, they still exist in the hearts of men.


Words are memorized, spoken and written.
And kitab points to the words being written, in a group or collection (not sure of the correct translation for كُتِبَ مجموعاً)

i hope this helps

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

a. I have no idea where you get this notion of the Bible 'being changed from time to time' - who changed it? when did they do it? We know of about 6,000 biblical manuscripts so how would anyone get all those so as to alter them - it's an absurd notion? The cannon that we have now has been fixed for almost 2,000 years. It is true in those 6,000 manuscript there are differences but none are of significance. It is also true that as new manuscripts are found (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) then small updates/corrections might be made to this or that verse. Indeed almost any Bible you buy will indicate where there are variant readings so nothing is secret and these variants are almost never of great significance to doctrine. Go an look at say the Amplified Bible which is at pains to show everything that a student would want

i'll let bro acid deal with this topic as i'm short on time now days

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

b. My Bible or one you have is a close to the original as you can get it. YOU can go for example to the British Museum and see the Codex Sinaiticus (there are many others) which contains the whole of the NT and a large part of the OT and its is dated 270 years before Hijrah. Thus we KNOW what the text of the Bible in the hands of Christians said at the time of Mohammed and its the same as we have today.

thank you for contradicting yourself in the same paragraph, i've bold them for you. How does being close to original is same as being original? What if the "minor" changes are not actually minor? There's no way to find out now, is it?

[SilverLJ]

Ahmed

Ahmen - I accept your Challenge

God Revealed it - Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):
Those who disbelieve in the Reminder when it comes onto them (are guilty), for indeed it is an unassailable Scripture. Falsehood cannot come at it from before it or behind it. (It is) a revelation from the Wise, the Owner of Praise (Qur'an 41:41-42).

Praise be to Allah Who has revealed the Scripture unto His slave, and has not placed therein any crookedness (but has made it) straight (Qur'an 18:1-2).

Allah has (now) revealed the fairest of the statements, a Scripture consistent (Qur'an 39:28).

God Preserves it - God has promised to always preserve His book.
He says (interpretation of the meaning): Surely We, even We, revealed the Reminder (the Quraan), and We verily are it's Guardian (Qur'an 15:9)

The Quraan contains no additions.
It remains today letter for letter as it was revealed over 1400 years ago. Nothing added, nothing taken away. Two of the original manuscripts of the Quraan prepared 1400 years ago still exist today. One is in the Topkapi Saray Museum in Istambul, Turkey, and the other in Tashkent, Russia. Both of these are identical in content with the Qur'an available all over the world today.

You Can Examine it
God says: Will they not then consider the Qur'an with care? If it had been from other than Allah they would have found therein much discrepancy (Qur'an 4:82)

Comments: that’s why we give open challenge to non-Muslims.

One cannot use as a form of proof that the thing (the Qu’ran) you are trying to verify as authentic, perfect, error free says it is. On that basis I could take any book that says there are fairies at the bottom of my garden and I can prove it because the book says so.

Scientifically, it has been understood that if you cannot figure out how to falsify a claim then it can never be more than belief. In simple terms you must be able to tell me (or anyone anywhere) how I can test for myself your various claims. As far as I can see you make several claims so please give me the test in each case and for such a test to be valid it must at least hold out the possibility that it can be falsified.

Claim 1 - the Qu’ran remains today exactly as given verbally to Prophet Mohammed, down the smallest full stop or diacritical mark.
Claim 2 – the Qu’ran was revealed by God
Claim 3 – that it contains no errors, additions or omissions
Claim 4 – that it is perfect

I might add that:

1. No one as far as I know considers either of the two manuscripts you mentioned as going back as far as the time of the prophet although as no doubt you know there is a difference of opinion on dating based on the type of script used.

2. If we take the Taskent manuscript it does not look like the Arabic we see in a Qu’ran today and without going into details it is possible to get different readings as you must know.

3. With regard to the Tashkent manuscript being identical to the one in Istanbul I am unable to verify that because as far as I know the Istanbul manuscript has never been published. If it has please let me know where it can be seen.

4. Even if these two manuscripts were identical it would perhaps give you some assurance that it had not been tampered with but that of itself could never verify that it was as given by God through Gabriel.

5. Finally, with regard to you saying the Qu’ran is perfect we have a meaningless statement as I have no idea what that might mean? So can you give me at least a definition of perfection by which I can gauge it myself?

[Assad]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

a. I have no idea where you get this notion of the Bible 'being changed from time to time' - who changed it? when did they do it? We know of about 6,000 biblical manuscripts so how would anyone get all those so as to alter them - it's an absurd notion? The cannon that we have now has been fixed for almost 2,000 years. It is true in those 6,000 manuscript there are differences but none are of significance. It is also true that as new manuscripts are found (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) then small updates/corrections might be made to this or that verse. Indeed almost any Bible you buy will indicate where there are variant readings so nothing is secret and these variants are almost never of great significance to doctrine. Go an look at say the Amplified Bible which is at pains to show everything that a student would want

I dont know where you get this notion that that the Bible is NOT changed from time to time. There are various motives of people and various personal or political factors which are at work when a text is corrupted. Just like there are various East Pagan religious books, for example, Geeta and Vedas in Hinduism, they are not divine book but they were written by men and included the concept of Caste system which bought the richs all the power and only misery to the power. So that was the motive. Same is with the Bible, In Concil of Nicea, Emprorer Constantine ordered a unified version of bible to made due to vast differences in the Jesus religion and his divinity. So the majority voted on the trinitarian version of Jesus as that was more acceptable to the Pagans of the time and less threatening to the Kingdom of Constantine.

And cut out the 6000 Bible crap, I have already responsed it before. There are massive errors and differing accounts which cant be reconciled. Have a look at your own self as you will not find this information on the websites from where you copy/paste your articles. We are not talking about the same bible's various copies but various historical accounts, gospels, whichare NOT included in the Bible.

I hope to hear something better from you next time.

[SilverLJ]

:Originally Posted by SilverLJ. I have no idea where you get this notion of the Bible 'being changed from time to time' - who changed it? when did they do it? We know of about 6,000 biblical manuscripts so how would anyone get all those so as to alter them - it's an absurd notion? The cannon that we have now has been fixed for almost 2,000 years. It is true in those 6,000 manuscript there are differences but none are of significance. It is also true that as new manuscripts are found (such as the Dead Sea Scrolls) then small updates/corrections might be made to this or that verse. Indeed almost any Bible you buy will indicate where there are variant readings so nothing is secret and these variants are almost never of great significance to doctrine. Go an look at say the Amplified Bible which is at pains to show everything that a student would want

By Acid. I don’t know where you get this notion that that the Bible is NOT changed from time to time. There are various motives of people and various personal or political factors which are at work when a text is corrupted. Just like there are various East Pagan religious books, for example, Geeta and Vedas in Hinduism, they are not divine book but they were written by men and included the concept of Caste system which bought the richs all the power and only misery to the power. So that was the motive. Same is with the Bible, In Council of Nicaea, Emprorer Constantine ordered a unified version of bible to made due to vast differences in the Jesus religion and his divinity. So the majority voted on the trinitarian version of Jesus as that was more acceptable to the Pagans of the time and less threatening to the Kingdom of Constantine.

And cut out the 6000 Bible crap, I have already responsed it before. There are massive errors and differing accounts which cant be reconciled. Have a look at your own self as you will not find this information on the websites from where you copy/paste your articles. We are not talking about the same bible's various copies but various historical accounts, gospels, whichare NOT included in the Bible.

I hope to hear something better from you next time.

I had rather hoped to hear something better from you but you resort now to insult and what possible value can it be to bring into the discussion the Gita (written at least 1,000 years before the Qu’ran). The points you REFUSE to deal with are:

1. The Bible I have in my hand today is virtually identical to the copies we have which are 2,000 years old.

2. If there are massive errors in the accepted cannon tell me where they are?

3. If this corruption to the accepted cannon was deliberate as you assert how was it done – how could 1,000s of manuscripts be brought together and altered, new ones issued etc? Some manuscripts go back 400 years BC so this idea of yours that there we deep motives for alteration to the bible would have had to have lasted almost 1,000 years. It is not credible is it?

4. The cannon of the Bible we have today have been accepted for almost 2,000 years. Of course there are other writing not included and for good reasons just like 1,000s of hadith are not regarded authentic. It’s time you were honest.

5. I cannot claim to be an expert on The Council of Nicaea but it resulted in the formulation of the Nicene Creed, the earliest dogmatic statement of Christian orthodoxy. It is probably true that it agreed the Biblical cannon but that cannon was not new and existed long before the Council met. However, it did not as you seem to imply issues an official Bible – we know this to be true because large numbers of manuscripts pre-date it.

[Umm Marwa Mustafa]

Silver

Ah! I lost my reply to this. (!!!£%%$£%£$)

Scientifically, it has been understood that if you cannot figure out how to falsify a claim then it can never be more than belief. In simple terms you must be able to tell me (or anyone anywhere) how I can test for myself your various claims. As far as I can see you make several claims so please give me the test in each case and for such a test to be valid it must at least hold out the possibility that it can be falsified.

Karl Popper has been refuted on more than one occasion and it just happens that I'm currently writing about his falsification argument. He believed (presumingly like you do to0) that Science starts with conjecture and the demarcation between science and non-science is the falsifiability of a theory. However we know that Karl Popper’s theory is far from how science is practiced! Karl Popper (in a attempt to deal with the problem of induction) has only provided a argument. Scientists don’t start with conjecture. Falsificationism = refutation of problem of induction is a philosophical problem not a scientific one. It is one that the “great” philosophers need to deal with and not scientists. Therefore just like the bible makes unverifiable claims ( i.e. claims that can’t be verified in this world) likewise the Quran makes certain claims such as: Existence of Angels and jinn.) that can’t be verified in this life but in the hereafter. What kind of “test” do you presume we need to create in order to prove the validity of the Quran. Remember, any standard which we can agree on rationally must be also applied to the bible.

Even if these two manuscripts were identical it would perhaps give you some assurance that it had not been tampered with but that of itself could never verify that it was as given by God through Gabriel.

According to Christian scholars the opposite is true. In fact the opposite argument has been applied to the Qumran Scrolls when they were tested. When the results came back as similar or identical the case of its date proved to be more credible.

My challenge to you is, let’s come to a common standard which we both agree is imperative if either the Quran or Bible is the unaltered and unchanged word of God and set out to prove it. If you accept this task I request that we open a new thread where we can both engage in a discussion. But i want you to apply the same standard to both Quran and Bible.

The Rules will be:

1. You Quote reliable sources and likewise i will too.
2. No Repitition of points ( I have done this in the past.. but i'm teaching myself to refrain, I expect the same from you)
3. Make Relevant points
4. In the End come to a conclusion and NOT make the same posts again.

I know you believe in your faith strongly but it gets tiring when i read the same posts from you in every thread making similiar points.

- Regards RM.

[SilverLJ]

[QUOTE=Ruwayda Mustafah]Silver

Karl Popper has been refuted on more than one occasion and it just happens that I'm currently writing about his falsification argument.

Silver Comment - If this is so do me the courtesy of pointing me to at least one of these so called refutations also if you can let me have a copy of your essay.

He believed (presumably like you do) that Science starts with conjecture and the demarcation between science and non-science is the falsifiability of a theory. However we know that Karl Popper’s theory is far from how science is practiced! Karl Popper (in a attempt to deal with the problem of induction) has only provided a argument.

Silver Comment - Who exactly is ‘we’ here?

I don’t know where you practice science but it has always been relevant as far as I can see. I don’t know for sure of course but my feeling is you do not really understand what induction or deduction is and because of that you do not appreciate what it means for the data one chooses to collect and use. Let me show that:

Scientists don’t start with conjecture.

Silver Comment - They way a scientist starts depends on the way they think about a problem so they may very well start with a conjecture and then test it so your statement is untrue and shows a lack of a deep understanding of the ways it is possible to think.

Falsificationism = refutation of problem of induction is a philosophical problem not a scientific one.

Silver Comment - I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I guess Popper agrees with you that induction (other than Mathematical Induction) is not possible – I suggest you go and look at David Hume’s argument against induction if you want to follow this up. The point is I suppose, that induction is a matter of weighing evidence and judging probability, not proof. I suggest you read Lipton’s book “inference to the best explanation” before you go much further.

Therefore just like the bible makes unverifiable claims (i.e. claims that can’t be verified in this world) likewise the Quran makes certain claims such as: Existence of Angels and jinn.) that can’t be verified in this life but in the hereafter. What kind of “test” do you presume we need to create in order to prove the validity of the Quran. Remember, any standard which we can agree on rationally must be also applied to the bible.

Let us be clear here, how do we know a claim cannot be verified. Well the only way I know to decide that is to see if I can I think of a test that I (or anyone) can apply that at least holds out the possibility that it can be falsified. And as Popper suggests, we must be almost brutal in our attempts not to show a proposition is true but to show it is false. Let us take the conjecture that the Bible is God word or the Qu’ran is God’s word. Now, firstly, we know they both cannot be true because they contradict each other. However, I cannot think of any rational means that anyone can apply anywhere any time that can be used to test the above claim.

By this I don’t mean we cannot assemble evidence but it can never be conclusive and that is why it is a matter of personal faith, that is I personally am convinced. If you do know of such a test please outline it to me and I or anyone can use it. I have been in Christian circles (and Islamic ones) for more years than I care to remember but I cannot recall a single event where Christians wanted proof of Biblical authenticity because their assurance comes from knowing and accepting the teachings and working them out in everyday living not wasting energy on often fatuous proofs as Muslims do. But recall that proof means it is true for you, for me, for anyone and forever and it cannot be avoided (ignored if you like, for example Gravity).

My advice is to take seriously what Popper said:

We may all finally be hailed before God's judgement seat. But it remains unjustifiable, not to say immoral, to impose unproved truths and their social consequences - in terms of class or exclusion, on humanity now, on the grounds that they may be proved valid in some inaccessible future. Since what will be known then cannot logically be known now. Those who affect to pierce the veils of time and report what the future must hold are charlatans today. (The Open Society and its Enemies V1)

Finally with regard to you Rules but they are not useful unless you for example can define what ‘reliable’ sources mean although I would happily assume you mean the normal scholarly conventions. You might like to test you view by considering authors such as Ibn Warraq or Bernard Lewis or Ziauddin Sardar?. Also how will I know my point is ‘relevant’ and it is not always possible to come to a conclusion is it?

But let me conclude this post. I think you do not really understand what you are saying and so far you have not shown any of the scholarly features you demand from me and I think your knowledge is superficial and although you don't like the idea of doubt and chasing after truth your posts are full of questions so whether you admit it or not you are just are vulnerable to doubt as the rest of us.

[Umm Marwa Mustafa]

[quote=SilverLJ;6719]

Originally Posted by Ruwayda Mustafah

Silver



Silver Comment - If this is so do me the courtesy of pointing me to at least one of these so called refutations also if you can let me have a copy of your essay.



Silver Comment - Who exactly is ‘we’ here?

I don’t know where you practice science but it has always been relevant as far as I can see. I don’t know for sure of course but my feeling is you do not really understand what induction or deduction is and because of that you do not appreciate what it means for the data one chooses to collect and use. Let me show that:



Silver Comment - They way a scientist starts depends on the way they think about a problem so they may very well start with a conjecture and then test it so your statement is untrue and shows a lack of a deep understanding of the ways it is possible to think.



Silver Comment - I am not sure what you are trying to say here, but I guess Popper agrees with you that induction (other than Mathematical Induction) is not possible – I suggest you go and look at David Hume’s argument against induction if you want to follow this up. The point is I suppose, that induction is a matter of weighing evidence and judging probability, not proof. I suggest you read Lipton’s book “inference to the best explanation” before you go much further.



Let us be clear here, how do we know a claim cannot be verified. Well the only way I know to decide that is to see if I can I think of a test that I (or anyone) can apply that at least holds out the possibility that it can be falsified. And as Popper suggests, we must be almost brutal in our attempts not to show a proposition is true but to show it is false. Let us take the conjecture that the Bible is God word or the Qu’ran is God’s word. Now, firstly, we know they both cannot be true because they contradict each other. However, I cannot think of any rational means that anyone can apply anywhere any time that can be used to test the above claim.

By this I don’t mean we cannot assemble evidence but it can never be conclusive and that is why it is a matter of personal faith, that is I personally am convinced. If you do know of such a test please outline it to me and I or anyone can use it. I have been in Christian circles (and Islamic ones) for more years than I care to remember but I cannot recall a single event where Christians wanted proof of Biblical authenticity because their assurance comes from knowing and accepting the teachings and working them out in everyday living not wasting energy on often fatuous proofs as Muslims do. But recall that proof means it is true for you, for me, for anyone and forever and it cannot be avoided (ignored if you like, for example Gravity).

My advice is to take seriously what Popper said:

We may all finally be hailed before God's judgement seat. But it remains unjustifiable, not to say immoral, to impose unproved truths and their social consequences - in terms of class or exclusion, on humanity now, on the grounds that they may be proved valid in some inaccessible future. Since what will be known then cannot logically be known now. Those who affect to pierce the veils of time and report what the future must hold are charlatans today. (The Open Society and its Enemies V1)

Finally with regard to you Rules but they are not useful unless you for example can define what ‘reliable’ sources mean although I would happily assume you mean the normal scholarly conventions. You might like to test you view by considering authors such as Ibn Warraq or Bernard Lewis or Ziauddin Sardar?. Also how will I know my point is ‘relevant’ and it is not always possible to come to a conclusion is it?

But let me conclude this post. I think you do not really understand what you are saying and so far you have not shown any of the scholarly features you demand from me and I think your knowledge is superficial and although you don't like the idea of doubt and chasing after truth your posts are full of questions so whether you admit it or not you are just are vulnerable to doubt as the rest of us.

When my assessment of falsificationism is finished, I will send you a copy of it inshAllah. When I make reference to certain refutations I say “we” and here I'm making reference to those who agree with me.

It is possible that my understanding of science is as you say “superficial”. However it is also possible that it is not superficial. You began by claiming that you are uncertain about my understanding of induction and deduction yet ironically enough concluded that it is “superficial”.

Just like Karl Popper set Falsificationism as a demarcation of science and non science likewise I do not believe that it is necessary for a scientist to follow this method. The “Popperian school of thought” is not necessary when it comes to the practice of science. Again you may well disagree this is fine.

You suggested I read David Hume’s argument against induction, I'm aware that he brings up this problem indirectly in “An enquiry into the Human understanding”. And I have read that extensively. My disagreement with Karl Poppers theory is on the basis that science did not initially begin as conjecture. The likes of Ibn Al Haitham [Still researching on him] did not start with conjecture. (You may better understand my position when you read my essay).

To clearify the Rules:

1. You Quote reliable sources and likewise i will too. (For example I will not quote a Muslim Scholar’s analysis of the bible but instead a Christian historian who is credible if I were to make a certain historical point about the bible and I expect the same from you when it comes to the Quran.)

2. No Repitition of points ( I have done this in the past.. but i'm teaching myself to refrain, I expect the same from you) This is clear enough.

3. Make Relevant points ( Making points about things that are irrelevant to the discussion for example in this case we are discussing the preservation of the bible and Quran, it would be irrelevant of me to quote Sam Harris opinion on Christianity and you Pat Condell’s on Islam.)

4. In the End come to a conclusion and NOT make the same posts again. (There are certain things you and I will never agree with. We have to agree to disagree on certain points and move on.)

Are you ready?

[SilverLJ]

[QUOTE=Ruwayda Mustafah;6720]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

It is possible that my understanding of science is as you say “superficial”. However it is also possible that it is not superficial. You began by claiming that you are uncertain about my understanding of induction and deduction yet ironically enough concluded that it is “superficial”.

Silver Comment - There is a simple test to see if you understand induction and deduction and that is to explain in each case with an example how those two lines of thinking for a particular problem differ in the way you would then choose data in an attempt at finding a solution. If you can explain this then in my view you know and if you cannot then you don't know. (Incidentally, there is a third way called abduction.)


Just like Karl Popper set Falsificationism as a demarcation of science and non science likewise I do not believe that it is necessary for a scientist to follow this method. The “Popperian school of thought” is not necessary when it comes to the practice of science. Again you may well disagree this is fine.

Silver - The answer to whether it is necessary is the same as answering the question I posed above.

You suggested I read David Hume’s argument against induction, I'm aware that he brings up this problem indirectly in “An enquiry into the Human understanding”. And I have read that extensively. My disagreement with Karl Poppers theory is on the basis that science did not initially begin as conjecture. The likes of Ibn Al Haitham [Still researching on him] did not start with conjecture. (You may better understand my position when you read my essay).

Silver Comment - I know I keep saying this, but I think you misunderstand the two positions. For example, if I have a conjecture is that being deductive or inductive or that one cannot know?

The rules are fine although it is not necessary to be so restrictive in choice of sources. If they are scholarly and honest that is enough for me no matter who the authors are. But we must be mindful of what Bacon said:

"The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true."

Let us begin. Suppose we start with the conjecture that the Bible is the final revealed word of God. Now I begin by saying that I can offer no proof because I cannot figure out a way to test such a conjecture. Neither do I offer any sources to support this as it is regarded as common knowledge in Christian circles but as I think I have said before few if any Christians would worry about proof positive knowing that is impossible but their assurance is based on a personal belief in the redeeming work of Jesus. Therefore, all I can do is offer evidence or we might more technically call them indicators that it is true. I might therefore cite just two pointers.

1. It has 66 books and about 40 authors, written over perhaps 1,600 years and yet it has a unity about it that is unmistakable.

2. It has an unsurpassed content in terms of its teaching and its simple beauty of expression. I might just by way of illustrations

a. Psalm 23 as a picture of Godliness
b. The book of Job as the finest example of a discussion of suffering as one can find anywhere
c. The sermon on the Mount as found in Matthew Chapter 5 a mind blowing expression about what it means to be blessed
d. 1 Corithians 13 as an unsurpassed treaties on the nature of love.

My conclusion, since you demand one, is that I am persuaded that the Bible is the revealed word of God in its final and complete form


You might like to comment, but remember I am not claiming this as proof but only as an argument. So now perhaps you will deal with the conjecture that the Qu'ran is the final word of God.

[Umm Marwa Mustafa]

There is a simple test to see if you understand induction and deduction and that is to explain in each case with an example how those two lines of thinking for a particular problem differ in the way you would then choose data in an attempt at finding a solution.

From my notes:

Induction is the process of deciding on the basis of various observations/expeirments that some theory is true. E.g. A chemist may say that on a number of occasions samples of sodium heated on a bunsen burner have glowed bright orange, and on this basis conclude that in General all heated sodioum will glow bright orange.

Deduction - The premise guarantees the conclusion. For example if you know either this substance is sodium or it is potassium, and then learn further that it is not sodioum, you can conclude it is potassium.

I no longer see the relevance of continuing this... let's not be diverted and concentrate on one thing!

[Umm Marwa Mustafa]

"The human understanding is not composed of dry light, but it is subject to influence from the will and the emotions, a fact that creates fanciful knowledge; man prefers to believe what he wants to be true."

The format of your argument/thesis is unclear to me. In response to the above Quote, we can easily accept that everything but the Godly is subject to all forms of influence. However when it comes to God and his divine revelation we can't use this as argument against the capability of arriving at the truth, since if there is truth it has to be objective/ultimate. Therefore [as you have continued] restricting the truth of the bible to what one is influenced by, by default means that it is not available for everyone. Because if it is available for everyone then our past experiences and the influences [of philosophy, fashion, economy, what be it etc] should not matter.

Let us begin. Suppose we start with the conjecture that the Bible is the final revealed word of God. Now I begin by saying that I can offer no proof because I cannot figure out a way to test such a conjecture. Neither do I offer any sources to support this as it is regarded as common knowledge in Christian circles but as I think I have said before few if any Christians would worry about proof positive knowing that is impossible but their assurance is based on a personal belief in the redeeming work of Jesus. Therefore, all I can do is offer evidence or we might more technically call them indicators that it is true. I might therefore cite just two pointers.

Then such system of belief is based on ...? How then do you suppose that we [or me] believe in your books without Positive affirmation of it's truth? You have said that you can't offer proof but you can offer evidence. [What is the difference?]

You seem to have lowered your hyper-sceptical bar of authenticity and evidence when it comes to the Bible.

1. It has 66 books and about 40 authors, written over perhaps 1,600 years and yet it has a unity about it that is unmistakable.

No sir, you are mistaken. I shall throw in a conjecture that it has 72 books. I can offer no proof because I cannot figure out a way to test such a conjecture.

2. It has an unsurpassed content in terms of its teaching and its simple beauty of expression. I might just by way of illustrations

Which part are you making reference to? Since when is simplicity a criterion of truth.

My conclusion, since you demand one, is that I am persuaded that the Bible is the revealed word of God in its final and complete form

My conclusion, since I myself Ruwaya Mustafah demand one, is that i am not persuaded that the bible is the Final and complete word of god.

Anyway, I'm suprised by your approach of proving the validity to say the least of the bible. I thought you'd mix a bit of a criterion as to what God's book should ultimately have! Interestingly enough you did the opposite of what I thought you would do. (I'm not benefiting from it much though.)