Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Magnus Armstrong · 03-27-2006, 03:47 PM

I got these responses when I asked some Xians why they believe in Christianity instead of Islam:

Quote:

...they (the Muslims) came along and edited the orignal manuscripts. The first part of the Christian Bible is an edit from the Jewish tradition, the second half is used by Islamic tradition.

Quote:

The muslim writings are all Muhhamed and later.
The claim is that they are a restoration - but nothing prior to the Jewish and Christian canons has either been found - or even referenced by older (than Muhhamed) works.

Quote:

The Prophet Daniel gave accurate detailed specific prophecy that was fulfilled just as he said it would be. Islam has no such prophet, no religion does.

What the heck are they talking about?

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 04:43 PM

Muslims claim that Jews and Christians tampered with the text and thus corrupted it, while the original text is the Quran. This is so extremely absurd, it's not even worth bothering with. However, it is entirely meaningless as an argument.

And regarding Daniel, ask them to show in detail the prophecies. Make sure they remain explicit, and not vague. You'll find that a load of BS as well.

Magnus Armstrong · 03-27-2006, 05:43 PM

Oh, lordy, this guy is king of assert-n-run. You should have seen us trying to get him to produce a list of "the many" scientists who study and/or support ID.

However, he is much more of a bible scholar than I am and it would have been nice to find out something about the Daniel assertion. The Muslim claim was brought up by him in order to show that the bible is the truth, not the koran.

Chris Weimer · 03-27-2006, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Magnus Armstrong

However, he is much more of a bible scholar than I am and it would have been nice to find out something about the Daniel assertion.

I seriously doubt the guy new anything about bible scholastics.

Quote:

The Muslim claim was brought up by him in order to show that the bible is the truth, not the koran.

Well, it was a red herring then.

Joan of Bark · 03-28-2006, 04:03 AM

Incidentally, Muslims assert that the Qu'ran is only true in its original, Arabic version. Any translated version must be false, since translations are never perfect. A valid argument, I believe.

His Noodly Appendage · 03-28-2006, 04:25 AM

Well, no, actually.

Language and culture change every second. If the words stay fixed, they just end up creating meanings that were never intended. For that matter, the layers of metaphor and cultural reference embedded in justy about *any* speech mean that even keeping the referents updated is going to fail.

Translations may be 'incorrect', but I don't see that you can prove that they're any less correct a reproduction of the originally-recorded thoughts than even the original manuscript.

post tenebras lux · 03-28-2006, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joan of Bark

Incidentally, Muslims assert that the Qu'ran is only true in its original, Arabic version. Any translated version must be false, since translations are never perfect. A valid argument, I believe.

This world is exactly how allah wants this world to be. If allah wanted this world to be different than it currently is, then it would be different. Allah can do all, he is all knowing and all wise, etc.

Given that, under islamic logic, the translations would be perfect if allah wanted them to be perfect. But he didn't/doesn't.

Just don't ask me why, cos I don't know. However, Allah is all wise and all knowing, etc., so we have to assume he has a reason.

Magnus Armstrong · 03-28-2006, 10:06 AM

Ok, un-asked, he has chosen to elaborate about the Daniel prophesy that was fufilled:

Quote:

There always have been and always will be anti-christs.
But there will be one who is worse than all the others - modeled after Antiochus IV Epiphanes.

Paul talks specifically about him - saying that he will proclaim himself to be God in the Temple.

Jesus alludes to him when he talks about the sacrilege in the Temple -

Mathew 24:15 NASB wrote:

"Therefore when you see the abomination of desolation which was spoken of through Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place (let the reader understand),
Jesus is referring to Daniel -

Daniel 9:27 wrote:

"And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offering; and on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate, even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate."
That is the Anti-christ - described in the seventieth week of Daniel.
The Prince who is to come (Daniel prophecies that the people of the prince who is to come will destroy Jerusalem - which Jesus talks about in Matthew 24 further tying it in)

Daniel 11:31 wrote:

"Forces from him will arise, desecrate the sanctuary fortress, and do away with the regular sacrifice And they will set up the abomination of desolation.
That passage is part of a prophecy about Antiochus IV Epiphanes.
A prophecy that had been fulfilled several hundred years before Jesus.
Notice the words "abomination of desolation" - I'd have to check, but I believe Jesus is using the exact same phrase as the LXX translation of Daniel 11 - Jesus is noting that Antiochus IV Epiphanes is a model of the Anti-christ - who will make an abomination of desolation in the Temple - as Paul indicates that the anti-christ will declare himself to be God in the Temple - this is what causes sacrifice to cease during the 70th week of Daniel.

The temple will be rebuilt (The Sanhedrin is already planning it - and interestingly enough, there is quite a bit of evidence that the real Temple location is not at the Dome of the Rock but next to it - and that the western wall isn't the temple wall at all, it was identified as such by someone who mis-identified many other sites) and there will be sacrifices made in it again - the Anti-christ will cause them to cease.

This is a thread about the "End Times", which is one of his pet notions....

Julian · 03-28-2006, 10:25 AM

The main problem is that Daniel is not writing prophecy, he is writing history. The book of Daniel is written around 165BCE and not in the sixth century BCE. And the gospel writers were certainly familiar with the book and would have no problems 'fulfilling' any prophecies from that book, should they so choose. A hardcore christian is not likely to accept a 2nd century date, however, but they will be unable to overcome the evidence in favor of such a date.

BTW, where is this forum?

Julian

Magnus Armstrong · 03-28-2006, 10:43 AM

http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/80275

Another forum of folks with something in common, yet wildly differing views on everything else.

Now you'll see where I screwed up and attributed the quotes of two different folks to the same person. I left it alone because I didn't think it mattered.

The Daniel question was particularly interesting because resedit posts stuff like this frequently and I don't have much ammo beyond, yeah, sez YOU!

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-27-2006, 04:43 PM	#2
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Muslims claim that Jews and Christians tampered with the text and thus corrupted it, while the original text is the Quran. This is so extremely absurd, it's not even worth bothering with. However, it is entirely meaningless as an argument. And regarding Daniel, ask them to show in detail the prophecies. Make sure they remain explicit, and not vague. You'll find that a load of BS as well.

03-27-2006, 05:43 PM	#3
Magnus Armstrong Moderator - WE&GP Join Date: May 2005 Location: Winston-Salem, NC Posts: 1,479	Oh, lordy, this guy is king of assert-n-run. You should have seen us trying to get him to produce a list of "the many" scientists who study and/or support ID. However, he is much more of a bible scholar than I am and it would have been nice to find out something about the Daniel assertion. The Muslim claim was brought up by him in order to show that the bible is the truth, not the koran.

03-28-2006, 04:03 AM	#5
Joan of Bark Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Pua, in northern Thailand Posts: 2,823	Incidentally, Muslims assert that the Qu'ran is only true in its original, Arabic version. Any translated version must be false, since translations are never perfect. A valid argument, I believe.

03-28-2006, 04:25 AM	#6
His Noodly Appendage Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 6,513	Well, no, actually. Language and culture change every second. If the words stay fixed, they just end up creating meanings that were never intended. For that matter, the layers of metaphor and cultural reference embedded in justy about any speech mean that even keeping the referents updated is going to fail. Translations may be 'incorrect', but I don't see that you can prove that they're any less correct a reproduction of the originally-recorded thoughts than even the original manuscript.

03-28-2006, 10:25 AM	#9
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	The main problem is that Daniel is not writing prophecy, he is writing history. The book of Daniel is written around 165BCE and not in the sixth century BCE. And the gospel writers were certainly familiar with the book and would have no problems 'fulfilling' any prophecies from that book, should they so choose. A hardcore christian is not likely to accept a 2nd century date, however, but they will be unable to overcome the evidence in favor of such a date. BTW, where is this forum? Julian

03-28-2006, 10:43 AM	#10
Magnus Armstrong Moderator - WE&GP Join Date: May 2005 Location: Winston-Salem, NC Posts: 1,479	http://www.macaddict.com/forums/topic/80275 Another forum of folks with something in common, yet wildly differing views on everything else. Now you'll see where I screwed up and attributed the quotes of two different folks to the same person. I left it alone because I didn't think it mattered. The Daniel question was particularly interesting because resedit posts stuff like this frequently and I don't have much ammo beyond, yeah, sez YOU!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.