River

Perhaps you are right. However, I do not present the "scientific verses" to say that the Qur'an is a science textbook. I present it as a way of illustrating that there are certain things that exist in the Qur'an centuries before it became mainstream. I could try to present the Qur'an as a linguistic masterpiece, but this is difficult to do with an audience that isn't so well versed with the Qur'an.

Doctor X

Excellent, when I hit "reply" I can actually see all of the replies.

First things first . . . the easier one. . . .

EsterRose:

Your response does not answer the question. I could arbitrarily apply it to many texts I am certain you would not wish to regard.

I am asking by what criteria you consider a text valid--particularly given what is known about it--contradictions, anachronisms, factual errors, mythmaking, polemic, et cetera.

This is important. When you quote many texts that do not support one another as an authority it undercuts your argument. When the "authority" of your text is suspect, it utterly ruins your arguments.

River:

First, thank you for responding. Please do not take my rhetoric--which can tend "a trifle on the harsh side of strict"--personally.

Contradictions and Textual Variantion:

It is important that you denied the existence of something that existed. This changes the information you base your conclusions on, and your conclusions should account for the new information.

I am afraid your story, without any independent verification--and some would say rather significant falsification given the elements . . . an messenger passing the most important text in history sort of wandering in and out only once a year to check . . . what? He has more important things to do?--does not explain the variant readings.

Variant readings make believers uncomfortable. An example from the NT: Resolved: the Virgin Mary is/was/forever will be a virgin!

Versions of the Synoptics that indicate brothers and sisters rather overturns that resolution. A scholar cannot simply dismiss them because he does not "like" it that the Synoptic authors had a different opinion than he had.

Thus, returning to the Koran, a development--and argument--in the religion removes the certainty proponents wish it to have.

Now this:

Unfortunately this is a rhetorical device rather than an argument. What I "think" you know or not is irrelevent--what I currently know is that you have not established a basis for your opinions stronger than your belief.

At this point what you "know" is merely what you "believe."

This is fine, you just have to understand why others will not believe as you do.

To Take a Place:

Unfortunately a rather common tactic in the history of religion. It drives syncretism.

He ate bees? Seriously, this is your belief and since "prophets" has rather different lifestyles, not sustainable. It also does not address the point: that religions claim the renown of another belief by trying to reinterpret the belief.

[Various confessions of faith follow.--Ed]

If Abraham and Ishamael--who in earliest traditions actually gets sacrificed!--NEVER EXISTED as scholarship indicates, then that ends the relevance of the "Cube" right there.

Maybe it is the Time Cube!!

[Stop that!--Ed.]

Right, sorry . . . just trying to add some levity . . . DO NOT click on that link if you are sober or have recently been abducted by aliens.

Incidentally, you demonstrate the point--you recapitulate why we have genaologies--they "establish" a connection to a mythic past. Hence the Synoptics have genaologies for Junior . . . that . . . do not . . . match . . . oops!

On the contrary, that is exactly what the author intended.

Argumentum ad ignorantium I gather . . . I rather prefer the version of the fallacy: "If our gospel is veiled it is veiled only to those who are perishing."

On the contrary, you have provided rather strong evidence for an attempt at syncretism.

Another Fine Myth:

Your response does not address the point. A myth is, by definition "false"--it does not reflect actual history . . . even if it contains elements of historical accuracy. The bottom line is since the Koran propagates a myth it no longer serves as an accurate description of history . . . period.

To which you may ask "so what?" The problem is that since it is not Truth [Tm.--Ed.] you cannot expect others to believe in it . . . just as believers in the NT cannot expect you to swallow it either.

Regarding your discussion of the "speciality" of the Koran, I merely need to demonstrate that it propagates myths and errors to undercut its "speciality" that MUST be recognized as others.

You make claims of value . . . to you . . . and to other followers of course. They do not apply to others.

--J.D.

Doctor X

Damn . . . forgot one of the more important questions. . . .

Criteria in Judging a Text:

Depends on what one wants the text to "do." I asked this question of you and Ester because you both quote scriptures as if they are "true" as in historically factual and relevant now.

Well . . . we can study the history of the period--particularly the social and political history--to gain some indication as to how reliable a presentation of history the text is.

If one wants a representation of a religion, one goes through the same process. Here, one is not so much concerned with whether or not Lazarus actually rose from the dead, sobered up . . . saw his wife . . . fainted, or even existed, one is concerned with what Jn and his community thought of the story.

That Mt and Lk rewrite Mk undercuts their historical credibility, but it indicates a great deal about how their beliefs differed from their version of Mk.

Now bring in Mohammed . . . what version of Christianity and Judaism did he, his followers, later redactors, know? Since he/they based the work on unreliable--historically speaking--texts--see Abraham above--then that rather brings the text's use as "history" into question. As a portrayal of a point in the development of religions--it may have much to say . . . some sects believed "such and such."

As a way to live one's life . . . that becomes problematic, because how one wishes to "live his life" may very well conflict with the intentions of the various authors. So . . . one may be "born again" but if Jn intended "born from above" to create a distinction between the "saved"--"from above"--and the not saved--"from below" then one has a problem. Similar too, the Koran.

Now, one can "get out" of these moral problems by hollowing "some" of the message and discarding the "icky bits."

Fine, but the criteria for that is very shakey, and one cannot expect others to follow it.

--J.D.

Soul Invictus

Not that familiar with Apocryphal texts, and texts that failed to make entry into the Bible. Would you have any info on the forgery issue?

Jeremy Pallant

Funny. Christians say something similar about their book of myths.

River

ya...very funny. I guess experience should be dismissed altogether.

Peter Kirby

Na, just vague and contradictory mystical experience.

best,
Peter Kirby

bagong

Actually, this is a Eurocentric inaccuracy; mass printing was well established in Tang dynast China and Nara period Japan, i.e. the 8th century. For instance, the Empress Shôtoku of Japan had one million copies of dhâranîs (Buddhist prayers) printed and distributed between 764 and 770 CE.

River

Lack of witness, does not imply lack of existence. Prophet Abraham lived about 4,000 years ago. How can you say with absolute certainty that he did not exist? What if he did exist....but not the way the Bible portrayed him. Recently, Scientist such as Ryatt and also Humphrey said we were looking for exodus evidence in the wrong location. They said Mt. Sinai is not located in Sinai but in Saudi Arabia ! This was an intellectual deduction based on Biblical markers found in Saudi Arabia and not in Sinai. The Qur'an portrays the nomadic Abraham (pbuh) as travelling and settling in Mecca , quite frequently. Perhaps modern scholarship has also been searching too hard in the wrong location.

Secondly, you would be surprised to know how many secrets the Muslim world holds and keeps to themselves. Prophet John the Baptist's head is kept in the Omayyid mosque in Damascus, Syria. 90% of Biblical items are situated in Islamic lands where archaelogy and excavation has been strictly monitored or limited. Abrahams fossilized foot print is found right next to the Kaaba. However, do you think Muslims will allow " nonmuslims" to go there with there instruments and causing havoc. You must keep an open mind. You can not just say something doesnt exist , simply because you dont "see" it.


Thirdly, You will never find physical evidence of Jesus Christ if Islamic theory is correct. Prophet Jesus Christ was an ascetic wanderer that did not believe in material possessions. Plus, he ascended to heaven in Islam. Thus, he left behind no physical remains...or even a burial.

-River

Doctor X

River:

You missed the point. Please do not take this wrong, but you must familiarize yourself with the archaeology, independent sources, and even the painful review of the use of names in the Patriarchal narratives. Your claim:

is contradicted by this work. I had previously posted a number of rather excessible references, and, with all due respect, I think you should avail yourself of them. If you wish, I can re-post them.

Responsible scholarship is not trying to find what you are looking for which leads to such ridiculousness as:

Right . . . so . . . they left Egypt and . . . made their way to Saudi Arabia--without anyone noticing--without leaving any trace . . . or did they teleport from Egypt to Saudi Arabia? Worse remains lack of evidence for a significant Hebrew slave population in Egypt as portrayed in the Biblical texts.

I had previously posted a summary of the evidence against the Exodus-Conquest, and this claim does not at all address it.

Argumentum ad ignorantium. You would indeed be surprised to know how many secrets I hold . . . but if you act now, you too can share in the success of many people in my "No Down Bible Success Plan" with seven times seven easy payments of. . . .

This is not argument, particularly when it leads to claims such as:

. . . and the Arc of the Covenant is located in Ethiopia . . . or is it in Washington, D.C.? I can never remember. Funny what one can do with UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIMS [No shouting!--Ed.]

Seriously, if THIS is your level of scholarship and critical thinking, with all due respect River I can take none of your arguments seriously, particularly your appeals to authority.

Frankly, you cannot expect others to take you seriously either.

I hate to put it this bluntly, because I do not like to engage in "flames" with a poster who has not engaged in it against me, thus apologies for the "severity" of this prose. Sincerely.

However, I strongly suggest you take some time and avail yourself of the scholarly works rather than unvetted webpages created to advance a dogma. You can find "evidence" the Holocaust never happened is you look for it on the web--though it conveniently never addresses the evidence we have.

--J.D.