Actually, not quite diana. Baalthazaq took a great deal of time debunking each of the idiotic assertions about his holy book by know nothing atheists. And he didn't even win a single convert.

On the other hand, he is a very good chap, and WAY more patient with this kind of foolishness than I am.

Thanks for the softball question diana.

I don't worship a book, or claim that it was written directly by God. Personally, my problems with the Qur'an are theologically based, but contradictions between the Bible and the Qur'an are not Baalthazaq's concern, and he and I have never bothered to get into it.

If, on the other hand, you are interested in some of the discussions that he has had I can give you some threads from the archives that are a very good read. And if you want to challenge him to a debate on the Qur'an, I'll let him know.

Like I said, he is much more polite and patient than I could ever be. I'm sure he would be happy to explain his faith and holy books to you.

Nomad

?

Oh...whatever.

Where the hell do you get this stuff? Did I even imply you "worship a book"? Jeez.

On the other hand, you follow a book which claims to be inspired of god, which is the next best thing to him sitting down and penning it hisself [sic]. The idea that the men who wrote the books were merely vessels through which the word of god passed is one of those time-honored traditions you respect so much.

Did I say anything about contradictions between the Bible and the Koran? Who gives a shit? My point was that you appeared to be quite impressed with Baal's defense of his beliefs, and I was wondering why you're still convinced that you're right and he's wrong.

Beauty (or "very good") is in the eye of the beholder, said the man who kissed the cow.

I'm not interested in debating the Koran, or reading about why Baal is convinced it's the word of Allah (or whatever), but thank you for offering.

I renew my offer to explain why I attack Xty so much, if only you explain why you're convinced your religion is superior to Baal's.

diana

p.s...And please be just a bit more condescending this post. You're slacking off. You have an image to maintain.

The Koran was written by one guy: Mohammed. The Bible is actually a library of 66 books by x number of authors written over a period of 1600 years(again, something that people may want to debate)
Writing a book on your own that is self-consistent is not a proof of the miraculous- any good journalist should at least do as much. Now if this library of books written by so many people, only God kn ow all of them, is proven to be completely consistent with itself, that might be a great miracle indeed. Most of the charges made against the Bible are from taking passages out of context, misunderstanding the cultural use of language at the time, twisting things, etc. etc. After all those are taken away, there are not that many problems... I admit that I have not resolved or seen resolved every possible Biblical difficulty, but most have been dealt with well. I am not worried about every single possible "contradiction"- I still believe and hope to see these explained some day.
So proving the Koran does not contradict itself would not prove it's divine origin. Any good historical book by an author should not contradict itself, if edited properly or written carefully. A claim for the "inerrency" of the Bible is really a huge claim- like having a 20 000 point thesis- that you say is perfect. But then again that would not take into account "who is speaking". A person claiming something in the Bible proves nothing because this "individual" could just be wrong- the fact we see is that they simply "said it."
Taken out of context, the Bible says "there is no God"(Psalm 14) likewise the confession of Islam would also teach the same taken wrong("There is no God

but 'Allah'...")
So what does that prove? Nothing.
Has anyone mentioned that the genealogy in Luke is about Mary and the genealogy in Matthew is about Joseph? There is a passage in the Talmud where someone sees "Mary the daughter of Heli" in something like the depths of "Sheol" or the like. If Heli had no sons Joseph would continue his line as well as the son-in-law/son. Also Luke focusses a lot more on Mary than any of the other gospel writers(giving us many of the favored Catholic sayings about Mary) In this case we can see God restraining Joseph from passing on the curse of Jeconiah to the Christ, and yet Jesus is still a true offspring of David, and not Jeconiah, and more importantly, the Son of God.

I had assumed that you knew that the Muslims consider the Qur’an to have been written by God Himself, and therefore treat it very differently than Christians (or Jews) treat the Bible. My apologies Diana.

In direct answer to your question, I believe that the Qur’an may, in fact, be entirely consistent. But it contradicts the Bible, and therefore I do not believe that it is from God. This is the same test that has been applied to all of the Canon, OT and NT, so I see no reason to change the rules for judging the writings of Mohammed.

Why don't you, personally, attack the Qur'an?

Inspired is a very different concept from the idea (as reflected in Muslim beliefs in the Qur’an) that the Bible was somehow dictated by God. Human beings wrote the Bible, and each used his own language and level of inspiration and style. The theological truths taught by all of these books is entirely consistent, but there is no claim within the Bible (as there is in the Qur’an) that it is 100% perfect. This need to believe that the Bible is perfect in all of its details is very puzzling to me, but it is a commonly held assertion amongst the dogmatic atheist and fundamentalist Christian alike.

Bottom line, the men that wrote the Bible were not mere vessels. They were men writing to tell us about God, and His relationship to us, His creatures. If, in the process, they showed that they didn’t know everything there is to know about science or whatever, well, it just isn’t that big of a deal to Christians. Why is it a big deal to you?

Hmm… this is what passes for respectful dialogue for you I assume.

To answer your question, a book of the Bible is rejected if it contradicts any of the theological principles of any of the other books of the Bible. You may think that all Jews and Christians are twits for accepting that the Canons may contain contradictions on mundane matters, but I don’t think Jews or the Church are overly concerned with what you think about such matters.

Quick question: if the Church EVER taught that the Bible never contained a contradiction, why do you think that they would accept 73 books that do, in fact, have contradictions that even a non-believer that barely reads the Bible can see, how did the Church ever miss these contradictions?

You are welcome Diana. If you ever change your mind please let me know.

I have a number of reasons that I think Christianity is more true than Islam. As for the Qur’an not being the word of God, I view it as contradicting the Bible on key theological questions, and on that basis, reject it as being from God.

Nomad

I'd like to do some attention-drawing here. I'm a little stunned that nobody picked up on this.
__________________________
Not so. Not so at ALL. When David was repentant for what he did to Uriah the Hittite and he tore his clothes, that didn't stop Yhwh from killing David's baby. Nathan goes as far as to say "Yhwh has taken away your sin..." (2 Sam. 12:13). As a matter of fact, David explicitly says that he was looking for mercy, but he did not get it (2 Sam 12:22). And when God told Moses he would not enter the promised land--God kept his word, even though Moses was repentant about that too.
_____________________

You see, according to this passage, god DID
keep his promise to David. He didn't punish David. He punished the kid by killing him. Of course, that does contradict his promise not to visit the sins of fathers upon their children (Dt 24:16, Ezk. 18:20). This is a famous contradiction, Nomad, so maybe it will fit your demand for a serious one. I seem to recall discussions of it in _Biblical Errancy_ and _The Skeptical Review_. What I like about this contradiction is that it is a really serious one, not one of those "400 or 4000 horses in the stables?" things.

Michael Turton
turton@ev1.net