> Why God's Book Cannot Contain Error

[SilverLJ]

Might I use a logical and incontestable argument (first presented by Thomas Paine) and use it to show that the supposed revelation as recorded in the Qu'ran cannot be regarded as anything more than hearsay.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person (Prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

In contrast the Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus and logically is therefore less likely to be hearsay since the message is consistent and therefore far more believable than that of the Qu'ran.

[Assad]

^^

I dont know how this is linked to the topic " Why Gods books cannot contain error". So If you want to talk about this then please open a new thread so that we can discuss it there and make it easy for us and others to follow.

[salman]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Might I use a logical and incontestable argument (first presented by Thomas Paine) and use it to show that the supposed revelation as recorded in the Qu'ran cannot be regarded as anything more than hearsay.

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person (Prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

In contrast the Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus and logically is therefore less likely to be hearsay since the message is consistent and therefore far more believable than that of the Qu'ran.

right and you think this is a great logical argument in your favour not realizing that it is a straw man. It is straw man because we believe that Islam is only religion from God, which was revealed to mankind from Adam to Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon them), and we believe in the books revealed to other Prophets, obviously in the original form. All the Prophets preached the same message except that Shar'eeh runlings differed. Unlike the bible, the Qur'an is consistent with what the Prophets (peace be upon them) before the Messenger of Allah (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam) preached. If a certain Shar'eeh ruling is found in the Qur'an but not in the books before it, it doesn't mean it is hearsay or inconsistent because we find the similar pattern in other books before the Qur'an.

So tell me, which Prophet before Prophet Jesus ('alayhi as-salam - peace be upon him) preached that God has a son, God is 3 in one and He will die for mankinds' sins? Why were the ten commandments revealed to Moses ('alayhi as-salam) if they were already preached by other prophets before him?

[Assad]

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person (Prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

This is infact very funny. That means according to your logic. Moses got revelations from God and so therefore it is only for him and Jews arent supposed to follow him because Ten commandments were not revealed to the Jews, It was revealed to Prophet Moses. And Jesus supposed death in Christianity and resurrection has got nothing to do with Christians sin. And the bible was only supposedly inspired to Mark , Matthew, Luke and John and therefore no one is obliged to believe in it.

Originally Posted by SilverLJ

In contrast the Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus and logically is therefore less likely to be hearsay since the message is consistent and therefore far more believable than that of the Qu'ran.

Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus, eh? . The book called and named Bible which was a collection of different historical account which was not written until 60-100 years after Jesus was revelaed to Prophets before Jesus..?

I hope that Chris Angel was not one of the inspired writer of Bible.

[salman]

never mind...

[Assad]

1. The Qu’ran one supposes was revealed in sections over 23 years so one might argue with certainty that it was incomplete for most of the time these recitations went on.

You can argue on this If you want only to argue and not to come up to any conclusion.

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

You can argue on this If you want only to argue and not to come up to any conclusion.

I think if you look at my post I did come to a conclusion, that the arguments for completeness of the Qu'ran are weak but if you wish to believe them that is a matter for you as I don't think its a condition for being a Muslim

[SilverLJ]

Originally Posted by Acid

This is infact very funny. That means according to your logic. Moses got revelations from God and so therefore it is only for him and Jews arent supposed to follow him because Ten commandments were not revealed to the Jews, It was revealed to Prophet Moses. And Jesus supposed death in Christianity and resurrection has got nothing to do with Christians sin. And the bible was only supposedly inspired to Mark , Matthew, Luke and John and therefore no one is obliged to believe in it.

I cannot follow your argument. The argument I offered was that logically we can only take Prophet Mohammed's revelation as hearsay because it was only given to him and he then gave it to others - that is incontestable.

I followed that by saying that the Bible was revealed through many prophets and is therefore a more reliable witness to God teaching. Your argument such as it is seems to say God gave the revelation to Moses but not to the Jews so who did he give it to as now we have to assume that those who came out of Egypt with Moses where not Jews? It does not make much sense does it?

Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus, eh? . The book called and named Bible which was a collection of different historical account which was not written until 60-100 years after Jesus was revealed to Prophets before Jesus..?

This is simply nonsense, the Old Testament was available 100s of years before Jesus was even born. There is ZERO doubt about this as there are many many manuscripts of it for all to see that have been dated precisely.

The New Testament is dated approximately as you say but it could hardly be otherwise as Jesus died and was resurrected in AD 35 so nothing about the NT could rationally pre-date that. There is a small fragment of Matthew's Gospel in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, known as the Jesus Papyrus which has been reliably dated as AD35 an indication that the NT was completed at an early date.

I hope that Chris Angel was not one of the inspired writer of Bible.

This last line make no sense to me so I cannot comment on it.

[Assad]

I cannot follow your argument. The argument I offered was that logically we can only take Prophet Mohammed's revelation as hearsay because it was only given to him and he then gave it to others - that is incontestable.

That argument was logically illogical. When I applied your argument than you are unable to follow my argument. You said:

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that something has been revealed to a certain person (Prophet Mohammed), and not revealed to any other person, so it is a revelation only to that person. It follows it is hearsay to every other person, and consequently they are not obliged to believe it.

So similarly no prophet bought ten commandments and according to your logic Moses bought heretical doctrines and Jews arent supposed to follow it. As for Christianity, Jesus never taught original sign but later people did like St.Paul who also injected and introduced Trinity and no prophet ever bought trinity so that means its a well heresy.

I followed that by saying that the Bible was revealed through many prophets and is therefore a more reliable witness to God teaching. Your argument such as it is seems to say God gave the revelation to Moses but not to the Jews so who did he give it to as now we have to assume that those who came out of Egypt with Moses where not Jews? It does not make much sense does it?

I did not ask you who gave to us Bible and If Jews gave it to us or not. I only said that according to your logic as Torah was revealed to Moses and so , as said above, Jews are not obliged to follow it. And for your information the NT was written by "inspired authors" and hence to say that Bible was revelaed through many prophets is self contradictory. And again no Prophet bought the teachings which are commonly found in Christian dcotrines and hence all your arguement is baseless.

This is simply nonsense, the Old Testament was available 100s of years before Jesus was even born. There is ZERO doubt about this as there are many many manuscripts of it for all to see that have been dated precisely.

I did not ask you neither said anything about OT. I was talking about the bible when you said:

In contrast the Bible was revealed through a large number of prophets from Adam to Jesus and logically is therefore less likely to be hearsay since the message is consistent and therefore far more believable than that of the Qu'ran.

Tell me where are those teachings and doctrines and manuscripts of prophet Adam and of Noah and of Abraham.. They are no where in bible. As far as the teachings of Bibles are concerned, we need not to look beyond Torah and NT. Torah is 100% more monothestic than NT which has incorporated polytheistic beliefs.

The New Testament is dated approximately as you say but it could hardly be otherwise as Jesus died and was resurrected in AD 35 so nothing about the <acronym title="New Testament">NT</acronym> could rationally pre-date that. There is a small fragment of Matthew's Gospel in the Bodleian Library in Oxford, known as the Jesus Papyrus which has been reliably dated as AD35 an indication that the <acronym title="New Testament">NT</acronym> was completed at an early date.

Very well, you have a peice of papyrus which was written years after Jesus Death and which you belief to be the teaching of bible.

Regards

[SilverLJ]

Silver:
I cannot follow your argument. The argument I offered was that logically we can only take Prophet Mohammed's revelation as hearsay because it was only given to him and he then gave it to others - that is incontestable.

Acid's Response - That argument was logically illogical. When I applied your argument than you are unable to follow my argument. You said:

Silver - One CANNOT be logically illogical as far as I can see and it looks like you cannot follow a simple argument. I will try once more.

What my argument is saying is that because Prophet Mohammed's revelation was a private one it MUST be hearsay to everyone else. The argument is NOT saying he did not receive a recitation only that no one is obliged to take any notice of it because it is hearsay.

Acid's Response - So similarly no prophet bought ten commandments and according to your logic Moses bought heretical doctrines and Jews arent supposed to follow it. As for Christianity, Jesus never taught original sign but later people did like St.Paul who also injected and introduced Trinity and no prophet ever bought trinity so that means its a well heresy.

How you can arrive at the above I cannot work out. Moses had a revelation and brought us the Law (including the 10 commandments) and what kind of logic brought you to the contention that it was therefore heretical I cannot say but it certainly cannot be derived from what I said. How you then jump from that to original sin is totally beyond me.

The focus of the argument is that Prophet Mohammed's revelation is hearsay because it was a private one. That is the argument you are supposed to be addressing not going off on some tangent of your own.